Formulario que el jurado del juicio de Apple vs Samsung debía llenar y muestra la complejidad del juicio

1. Case5:11-cv-01846-LHK Document1890 Filed08/21/12 Page1 of 20
1
2
3
4
5
6
7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
8 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
9 SAN JOSE DIVISION
10 APPLE INC., a California corporation, ) Case No.: 11-CV-01846-LHK
)
For the Northern District of California
11 Plaintiff, ) VERDICT FORM
v. )
United States District Court
12 )
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., )
13 a Korean corporation; )
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC., )
14 a New York corporation; )
SAMSUNG TELECOMMUNICATIONS )
15 AMERICA, LLC, )
a Delaware limited liability company, )
16 )
Defendants. )
17 )
)
18 SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., )
a Korean corporation; )
19 SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC., )
a New York corporation; )
20 SAMSUNG TELECOMMUNICATIONS )
AMERICA, LLC, )
21 a Delaware limited liability company, )
)
22 Counterclaim-Plaintiffs, )
v. )
23 )
APPLE INC., a California corporation, )
24 )
Counterclaim-Defendant. )
25 )
26
We, the jury, unanimously agree to the answers to the following questions and return them
27 under the instructions of this Court as our verdict in this case.
28
1
Case No.: 11-CV-01846-LHK
VERDICT FORM

2. Case5:11-cv-01846-LHK Document1890 Filed08/21/12 Page2 of 20
FINDINGS ON APPLE’S CLAIMS
1
APPLE’S UTILITY AND DESIGN PATENT CLAIMS AGAINST SAMSUNG
2
1. For each of the following products, has Apple proven by a preponderance of the evidence
3 that Samsung Electronics Co. (SEC), Samsung Electronics America (SEA), and/or
Samsung Telecommunications America (STA) has infringed Claim 19 of the ’381
4 Patent?
5 (Please answer in each cell with a “Y” for “yes” (for Apple), or with an “N” for “no” (for
Samsung). Do not provide an answer for any cell that is blacked out.)
6
Samsung Samsung Samsung
7 Accused Samsung Product Electronics Electronics Telecommunications
Co., Ltd. America, Inc. America, LLC
8
Captivate (JX 1011)
9 Continuum (JX 1016)
Droid Charge (JX 1025)
10
Epic 4G (JX 1012)
For the Northern District of California
11 Exhibit 4G (JX 1028)
United States District Court
12 Fascinate (JX 1013)
Galaxy Ace (JX 1030)
13 Galaxy Prevail (JX 1022)
14 Galaxy S (i9000) (JX 1007)
Galaxy S 4G (JX 1019)
15 Galaxy S II (AT&T) (JX 1031)
16 Galaxy S II (i9100) (JX 1032)
Galaxy Tab (JX 1036)
17
Galaxy Tab 10.1 (WiFi) (JX 1037)
18 Gem (JX 1020)
Indulge (JX 1026)
19
Infuse 4G (JX 1027)
20 Mesmerize (JX 1015)
21 Nexus S 4G (JX 1023)
Replenish (JX 1024)
22 Vibrant (JX 1010)
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
Case No.: 11-CV-01846-LHK
VERDICT FORM

3. Case5:11-cv-01846-LHK Document1890 Filed08/21/12 Page3 of 20
1 2. For each of the following products, has Apple proven by a preponderance of the evidence
that Samsung Electronics Co. (SEC), Samsung Electronics America (SEA), and/or
2 Samsung Telecommunications America (STA) has infringed Claim 8 of the ’915 Patent?
3 (Please answer in each cell with a “Y” for “yes” (for Apple), or with an “N” for “no” (for
Samsung). Do not provide an answer for any cell that is blacked out.)
4
Samsung Samsung Samsung
5 Accused Samsung Product Electronics Electronics Telecommunications
Co., Ltd. America, Inc. America, LLC
6
Captivate (JX 1011)
7 Continuum (JX 1016)
Droid Charge (JX 1025)
8
Epic 4G (JX 1012)
9 Exhibit 4G (JX 1028)
10 Fascinate (JX 1013)
Galaxy Ace (JX 1030)
For the Northern District of California
11 Galaxy Prevail (JX 1022)
United States District Court
12 Galaxy S (i9000) (JX 1007)
Galaxy S 4G (JX 1019)
13 Galaxy S II (AT&T) (JX 1031)
14 Galaxy S II (i9100) (JX 1032)
Galaxy S II (T-Mobile) (JX 1033)
15
Galaxy Tab (JX 1036)
16 Galaxy Tab 10.1 (WiFi) (JX 1037)
Gem (JX 1020)
17
Indulge (JX 1026)
18 Infuse 4G (JX 1027)
19 Intercept (JX 1009)
Mesmerize (JX 1015)
20 Nexus S 4G (JX 1023)
21 Replenish (JX 1024)
Transform (JX 1014)
22 Vibrant (JX 1010)
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
Case No.: 11-CV-01846-LHK
VERDICT FORM

4. Case5:11-cv-01846-LHK Document1890 Filed08/21/12 Page4 of 20
1 3. For each of the following products, has Apple proven by a preponderance of the evidence
that Samsung Electronics Co. (SEC), Samsung Electronics America (SEA), and/or
2 Samsung Telecommunications America (STA) has infringed Claim 50 of the ’163
Patent?
3
(Please answer in each cell with a “Y” for “yes” (for Apple), or with an “N” for “no” (for
4 Samsung). Do not provide an answer for any cell that is blacked out.)
5 Samsung Samsung Samsung
Accused Samsung Product Electronics Electronics Telecommunications
6 Co., Ltd. America, Inc. America, LLC
7 Captivate (JX 1011)
Continuum (JX 1016)
8 Droid Charge (JX 1025)
9 Epic 4G (JX 1012)
Exhibit 4G (JX 1028)
10
Fascinate (JX 1013)
For the Northern District of California
11 Galaxy Ace (JX 1030)
Galaxy Prevail (JX 1022)
United States District Court
12
Galaxy S (i9000) (JX 1007)
13 Galaxy S 4G (JX 1019)
Galaxy S II (AT&T) (JX 1031)
14
Galaxy S II (i9100) (JX 1032)
15 Galaxy S II (T-Mobile) (JX 1033)
16 Galaxy Tab (JX 1036)
Galaxy Tab 10.1 (WiFi) (JX 1037)
17
Gem (JX 1020)
18 Indulge (JX 1026)
Infuse 4G (JX 1027)
19
Intercept (JX 1009)
20 Mesmerize (JX 1015)
Nexus S 4G (JX 1023)
21
Replenish (JX 1024)
22 Transform (JX 1014)
23 Vibrant (JX 1010)
24
25
26
27
28
4
Case No.: 11-CV-01846-LHK
VERDICT FORM

5. Case5:11-cv-01846-LHK Document1890 Filed08/21/12 Page5 of 20
4. For each of the following products, has Apple proven by a preponderance of the evidence
1 that Samsung Electronics Co. (SEC) took action that it knew or should have known
would induce STA or SEA to infringe the ’381, ’915, or ’163 Patents?
2
(Please answer in each cell with a “Y” for “yes” (for Apple), or with an “N” for “no” (for
3 Samsung). Do not provide an answer for any cell that is blacked out.)
4 ‘381 Patent ‘915 Patent ‘163 Patent
Accused Samsung Product (Claim 19) (Claim 8) (Claim 50)
5
Captivate (JX 1011)
6 Continuum (JX 1016)
Droid Charge (JX 1025)
7
Epic 4G (JX 1012)
8 Exhibit 4G (JX 1028)
Fascinate (JX 1013)
9
Galaxy Prevail (JX 1022)
10 Galaxy S 4G (JX 1019)
For the Northern District of California
11 Galaxy S II (AT&T) (JX 1031)
Galaxy S II (T-Mobile) (JX 1033)
United States District Court
12 Galaxy Tab (JX 1036)
13 Galaxy Tab 10.1 (WiFi) (JX 1037)
Gem (JX 1020)
14 Indulge (JX 1026)
15 Infuse 4G (JX 1027)
Intercept (JX 1009)
16
Mesmerize (JX 1015)
17 Nexus S 4G (JX 1023)
Replenish (JX 1024)
18
Transform (JX 1014)
19 Vibrant (JX 1010)
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5
Case No.: 11-CV-01846-LHK
VERDICT FORM

6. Case5:11-cv-01846-LHK Document1890 Filed08/21/12 Page6 of 20
5. For each of the following products, has Apple proven by a preponderance of the evidence
1 that Samsung Electronics Co. (SEC) and/or Samsung Telecommunications America
(STA) has infringed the D’677 Patent?
2
(Please answer in each cell with a “Y” for “yes” (for Apple), or with an “N” for “no” (for
3 Samsung). Do not provide an answer for any cell that is blacked out.)
4 Samsung Samsung
Electronics Co., Telecommunica
5 Accused Samsung Product Ltd. tions America,
LLC
6
Fascinate (JX 1013)
7 Galaxy Ace (JX 1030)
Galaxy S (i9000) (JX 1007)
8
Galaxy S 4G (JX 1019)
9 Galaxy S II (AT&T) (JX 1031)
10 Galaxy S II (i9100) (JX 1032)
Galaxy S II (T-Mobile) (JX 1033)
For the Northern District of California
11 Galaxy S II (Epic 4G Touch) (JX 1034)
United States District Court
12 Galaxy S II (Skyrocket) (JX 1035)
Galaxy S Showcase (i500) (JX 1017)
13 Infuse 4G (JX 1027)
14 Mesmerize (JX 1015)
Vibrant (JX 1010)
15
16
6. For each of the following products, has Apple proven by a preponderance of the evidence
17 that Samsung Electronics Co. (SEC) and/or Samsung Telecommunications America
(STA) has infringed the D’087 Patent?
18
(Please answer in each cell with a “Y” for “yes” (for Apple), or with an “N” for “no” (for
19 Samsung). Do not provide an answer for any cell that is blacked out.)
20 Samsung Samsung
Electronics Co., Telecommunica
Accused Samsung Product
21 Ltd. tions America,
LLC
22 Galaxy S (i9000) (JX 1007)
Galaxy S 4G (JX 1019)
23
Galaxy S II (AT&T) (JX 1031)
24 Galaxy S II (i9100) (JX 1032)
Galaxy S II (Epic 4G Touch) (JX 1034)
25
Galaxy S II (Skyrocket) (JX 1035)
26 Infuse 4G (JX 1027)
27 Vibrant (JX 1010)
28
6
Case No.: 11-CV-01846-LHK
VERDICT FORM

7. Case5:11-cv-01846-LHK Document1890 Filed08/21/12 Page7 of 20
7. For each of the following products, has Apple proven by a preponderance of the evidence
1 that Samsung Electronics Co. (SEC) and/or Samsung Telecommunications America
(STA) has infringed the D’305 Patent?
2
(Please answer in each cell with a “Y” for “yes” (for Apple), or with an “N” for “no” (for
3 Samsung). Do not provide an answer for any cell that is blacked out.)
4 Samsung Samsung
Accused Samsung Product Electronics Co., Telecommunications
5 Ltd. America, LLC
6 Captivate (JX 1011)
Continuum (JX 1016)
7 Droid Charge (JX 1025)
8 Epic 4G (JX 1012)
Fascinate (JX 1013)
9 Galaxy S (i9000) (JX 1007)
10 Galaxy S 4G (JX 1019)
Galaxy S Showcase (i500) (JX 1017)
For the Northern District of California
11
Gem (JX 1020)
United States District Court
12 Indulge (JX 1026)
Infuse 4G (JX 1027)
13
Mesmerize (JX 1015)
14 Vibrant (JX 1010)
15
16 8. For each of the following products, has Apple proven by a preponderance of the evidence
that Samsung Electronics Co. (SEC), Samsung Electronics America (SEA), and/or
17 Samsung Telecommunications America (STA) has infringed the D’889 Patent?
18 (Please answer in each cell with a “Y” for “yes” (for Apple), or with an “N” for “no” (for
Samsung). Do not provide an answer for any cell that is blacked out.)
19
Samsung Samsung Samsung
20 Accused Samsung Product Electronics Electronics Telecommunications
Co., Ltd. America, Inc. America, LLC
21
Galaxy Tab 10.1 (WiFi) (JX 1037)
22
Galaxy Tab 10.1 (4G LTE)
23 (JX 1038)
24
25
26
27
28
7
Case No.: 11-CV-01846-LHK
VERDICT FORM

8. Case5:11-cv-01846-LHK Document1890 Filed08/21/12 Page8 of 20
If you did not answer “Yes” to any of Questions 1 through 8, please skip to Question 11, and do
1 not answer Questions 9 and 10.
2 9. If you found that Samsung Electronics America (SEA) or Samsung Telecommunications
America (STA) infringed in any of Questions 1 through 8, has Apple proven by a
3 preponderance of the evidence that Samsung Electronics Co. (SEC) took action that it
knew or should have known would induce SEA or STA to infringe the D’677, D’087,
4 D’305, and/or D’889 Patents?
5 (Please answer in each cell with a “Y” for “yes” (for Apple), or with an “N” for “no” (for
Samsung). Do not provide an answer for any cell that is blacked out.)
6
D’677 Patent D’087 Patent D’305 Patent D’889
7 Accused Samsung Product Patent
8 Captivate (JX 1011)
Continuum (JX 1016)
9 Droid Charge (JX 1025)
10 Epic 4G (JX 1012)
Fascinate (JX 1013)
For the Northern District of California
11
Galaxy S 4G (JX 1019)
United States District Court
12 Galaxy S II (AT&T)
(JX 1031)
13 Galaxy S II (T-Mobile)
(JX 1033)
14 Galaxy S II (Epic 4G Touch)
(JX 1034)
15 Galaxy S II (Skyrocket)
(JX 1035)
16 Galaxy S Showcase (i500)
(JX 1017)
17 Galaxy Tab 10.1 (WiFi)
(JX 1037)
18
Galaxy Tab 10.1 (4G LTE)
19 (JX 1038)
Gem (JX 1020)
20 Indulge (JX 1026)
21 Infuse 4G (JX 1027)
Mesmerize (JX 1015)
22 Vibrant (JX 1010)
23
24
25
26
27
28
8
Case No.: 11-CV-01846-LHK
VERDICT FORM

9. Case5:11-cv-01846-LHK Document1890 Filed08/21/12 Page9 of 20
10. If you answered “Yes” to any of Questions 1 through 9, and thus found that any
1 Samsung entity has infringed any Apple patent(s), has Apple proven by clear and
convincing evidence that the Samsung entity’s infringement was willful?
2
(Please answer in each cell with a “Y” for “yes” (for Apple), or with an “N” for “no” (for
3 Samsung).)
4 Samsung Samsung Samsung
Apple Utility and Design Electronics Electronics Telecommunications
5 Patents Co., Ltd. America, Inc. America, LLC
6 ’381 Patent (Claim 19)
’915 Patent (Claim 8)
7 ’163 Patent (Claim 50)
8 D’677 Patent
D’087 Patent
9 D’305 Patent
10 D’889 Patent
For the Northern District of California
11
United States District Court
12 11. Has Samsung proven by clear and convincing evidence that Apple’s asserted utility
and/or design patent claims are invalid?
13
’381 Patent (Claim 19) Yes ______ (for Samsung) No ______ (for Apple)
14
’915 Patent (Claim 8) Yes ______ (for Samsung) No ______ (for Apple)
15
’163 Patent (Claim 50) Yes ______ (for Samsung) No ______ (for Apple)
16
D’677 Patent Yes ______ (for Samsung) No ______ (for Apple)
17
D’087 Patent Yes ______ (for Samsung) No ______ (for Apple)
18
D’305 Patent Yes ______ (for Samsung) No ______ (for Apple)
19
D’889 Patent Yes ______ (for Samsung) No ______ (for Apple)
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
9
Case No.: 11-CV-01846-LHK
VERDICT FORM

10. Case5:11-cv-01846-LHK Document1890 Filed08/21/12 Page10 of 20
APPLE’S TRADE DRESS CLAIMS AGAINST SAMSUNG
1
Protectability
2
12. Has Samsung proven by a preponderance of the evidence that Apple’s registered iPhone
3 trade dress ’983 is not protectable?
4 Yes (not protectable – for Samsung) _____ No (protectable – for Apple) _________
5
13. Has Apple proven by a preponderance of the evidence that Apple’s unregistered trade
6 dresses are protectable?
7 (Please answer with a “Y” for “yes” (for Apple), or with an “N” for “no” (for Samsung).)
8
Apple Trade Dresses Protectable
9 Unregistered iPhone 3G Trade Dress
Unregistered Combination iPhone Trade Dress
10
Unregistered iPad/iPad 2 Trade Dress
For the Northern District of California
11
United States District Court
12
Trade Dress Dilution
13
14. Has Apple proven by a preponderance of the evidence that Apple’s trade dresses are
14 famous?
15 (Please answer with a “Y” for “yes” (for Apple), or with an “N” for “no” (for Samsung).)
16
Apple Trade Dresses Famous
17 Registered iPhone Trade Dress
18 Unregistered iPhone 3G Trade Dress
Unregistered Combination iPhone Trade Dress
19 Unregistered iPad/iPad 2 Trade Dress
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
10
Case No.: 11-CV-01846-LHK
VERDICT FORM

11. Case5:11-cv-01846-LHK Document1890 Filed08/21/12 Page11 of 20
If you did not find the registered iPhone trade dress protectable and famous, please skip to
1 Question 16, and do not answer Question 15.
2 15. If you found the registered iPhone trade dress protectable and famous, for each of the
following products, has Apple proven by a preponderance of the evidence that Samsung
3 Electronics Co. (SEC) and/or Samsung Telecommunications America (STA) has diluted
the registered iPhone trade dress?
4
(Please answer in each cell with a “Y” for “yes” (for Apple), or with an “N” for “no” (for
5 Samsung).)
6 Samsung Samsung
Electronics Co., Telecommunica
7 Accused Samsung Product Ltd. tions America,
LLC
8
Captivate (JX 1011)
9 Continuum (JX 1016)
Droid Charge (JX 1025)
10
Epic 4G (JX 1012)
For the Northern District of California
11 Fascinate (JX 1013)
United States District Court
12 Galaxy Prevail (JX 1022)
Galaxy S (i9000) (JX 1007)
13 Galaxy S 4G (JX 1019)
14 Galaxy S II (AT&T) (JX 1031)
Galaxy S II (i9100) (JX 1032)
15
Galaxy S II (T-Mobile) (JX 1033)
16 Galaxy S II (Epic 4G Touch) (JX 1034)
17 Galaxy S II (Skyrocket) (JX 1035)
Galaxy S II Showcase (i500) (JX 1017)
18
Infuse 4G (JX 1027)
19 Mesmerize (JX 1015)
Vibrant (JX 1010)
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
11
Case No.: 11-CV-01846-LHK
VERDICT FORM

12. Case5:11-cv-01846-LHK Document1890 Filed08/21/12 Page12 of 20
If you did not find the unregistered iPhone 3G trade dress protectable and famous, please skip to
1 Question 17, and do not answer Question 16.
2 16. If you found the unregistered iPhone 3G trade dress protectable and famous, for each of
the following products, has Apple proven by a preponderance of the evidence that
3 Samsung Electronics Co. (SEC) and/or Samsung Telecommunications America (STA)
has diluted the unregistered iPhone 3G trade dress?
4
(Please answer in each cell with a “Y” for “yes” (for Apple), or with an “N” for “no” (for
5 Samsung).)
6 Samsung Samsung
Electronics Co., Telecommunica
7 Accused Samsung Product Ltd. tions America,
LLC
8
Captivate (JX 1011)
9 Continuum (JX 1016)
Droid Charge (JX 1025)
10
Epic 4G (JX 1012)
For the Northern District of California
11 Fascinate (JX 1013)
United States District Court
12 Galaxy Prevail (JX 1022)
Galaxy S (i9000) (JX 1007)
13 Galaxy S 4G (JX 1019)
14 Galaxy S II (AT&T) (JX 1031)
Galaxy S II (i9100) (JX 1032)
15
Galaxy S II (T-Mobile) (JX 1033)
16 Galaxy S II (Epic 4G Touch) (JX 1034)
17 Galaxy S II (Skyrocket) (JX 1035)
Galaxy S II Showcase (i500) (JX 1017)
18
Infuse 4G (JX 1027)
19 Mesmerize (JX 1015)
Vibrant (JX 1010)
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
12
Case No.: 11-CV-01846-LHK
VERDICT FORM

13. Case5:11-cv-01846-LHK Document1890 Filed08/21/12 Page13 of 20
If you did not find the unregistered Combination iPhone trade dress protectable and famous,
1 please skip to Question 18, and do not answer Question 17.
2 17. If you found the unregistered Combination iPhone trade dress protectable and famous,
for each of the following products, has Apple proven by a preponderance of the evidence
3 that Samsung Electronics Co. (SEC) and/or Samsung Telecommunications America
(STA) has diluted the unregistered Combination iPhone trade dress?
4
(Please answer in each cell with a “Y” for “yes” (for Apple), or with an “N” for “no” (for
5 Samsung).)
6 Samsung Samsung
Electronics Co., Telecommunica
7 Accused Samsung Product Ltd. tions America,
LLC
8
Captivate (JX 1011)
9 Continuum (JX 1016)
Droid Charge (JX 1025)
10
Epic 4G (JX 1012)
For the Northern District of California
11 Fascinate (JX 1013)
United States District Court
12 Galaxy Ace (JX 1030)
Galaxy Prevail (JX 1022)
13 Galaxy S (i9000) (JX 1007)
14 Galaxy S 4G (JX 1019)
Galaxy S II (AT&T) (JX 1031)
15
Galaxy S II (i9100) (JX 1032)
16 Galaxy S II (T-Mobile) (JX 1033)
17 Galaxy S II (Epic 4G Touch) (JX 1034)
Galaxy S II (Skyrocket) (JX 1035)
18 Galaxy S II Showcase (i500) (JX 1017)
19 Infuse 4G (JX 1027)
Mesmerize (JX 1015)
20
Vibrant (JX 1010)
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
13
Case No.: 11-CV-01846-LHK
VERDICT FORM

14. Case5:11-cv-01846-LHK Document1890 Filed08/21/12 Page14 of 20
If you did not find the unregistered iPad/iPad 2 trade dress protectable and famous, please skip
1 to Question 19, and do not answer Question 18.
2 18. If you found the unregistered iPad/iPad 2 trade dress protectable and famous, for each
of the following products, has Apple proven by a preponderance of the evidence that
3 Samsung Electronics Co. (SEC), Samsung Electronics America (SEA), and/or Samsung
Telecommunications America (STA) has diluted the unregistered iPad/iPad 2 trade
4 dress?
5 (Please answer in each cell with a “Y” for “yes” (for Apple), or with an “N” for “no” (for
Samsung).)
6
Samsung Samsung Samsung
7 Accused Samsung Electronics Co., Electronics Telecommunications
Product Ltd. America, Inc. America, LLC
8
Galaxy Tab 10.1 (WiFi)
9 (JX 1037)
Galaxy Tab 10.1
10 (4G LTE) (JX 1038)
For the Northern District of California
11
United States District Court
12 If you did not answer “Yes” to any of Questions 15 through 18, please skip to Question 20, and
do not answer Question 19.
13
19. If you answered “Yes” to any of Questions 15 through 18, and thus found that any
14 Samsung entity has diluted any Apple trade dress(es), has Apple proven by a
preponderance of the evidence that the Samsung entity’s dilution was willful?
15
(Please answer in each cell with a “Y” for “yes” (for Apple), or with an “N” for “no” (for
16 Samsung).)
17 Samsung Samsung Samsung
Asserted Trade Dress Electronics Co., Electronics Telecommunications
18 Ltd. America, Inc. America, LLC
Registered iPhone Trade
19 Dress
20 Unregistered iPhone 3
Trade Dress
21 Unregistered Combination
iPhone Trade Dress
22
Unregistered iPad/iPad 2
23 Trade Dress
24
Trade Dress Infringement
25
26 If you did not find the unregistered iPad/iPad 2 trade dress protectable, please skip to Question
22, and do not answer Questions 20 and 21.
27
20. If you found the unregistered iPad/iPad 2 trade dress protectable, for each of the
28 following products, has Apple proven by a preponderance of the evidence that Samsung
14
Case No.: 11-CV-01846-LHK
VERDICT FORM

15. Case5:11-cv-01846-LHK Document1890 Filed08/21/12 Page15 of 20
Electronics Co. (SEC), Samsung Electronics America (SEA), and/or Samsung
1 Telecommunications America (STA) has infringed the unregistered iPad/iPad 2 trade
dress?
2
(Please answer in each cell with a “Y” for “yes” (for Apple), or with an “N” for “no” (for
3 Samsung).)
4 Samsung Samsung Samsung
Asserted Trade Dress Electronics Co., Electronics Telecommunications
5 Ltd. America, Inc. America, LLC
6 Galaxy Tab 10.1 (WiFi)
(JX 1037)
7 Galaxy Tab 10.1
(4G LTE) (JX 1038)
8
9
If you did not answer “Yes” to any of Question 20, please skip to Question 22, and do not answer
10 Question 21.
21. If you answered “Yes” to any of Question 20, and thus found that any Samsung entity
For the Northern District of California
11
has infringed Apple’s unregistered iPad/iPad 2 trade dress, has Apple proven by a
United States District Court
12 preponderance of the evidence that the Samsung entity’s infringement was willful?
13 (Please answer in each cell with a “Y” for “yes” (for Apple), or with an “N” for “no” (for
Samsung).)
14
Samsung Samsung Samsung
15 Asserted Trade Dress Electronics Co., Electronics Telecommunications
Ltd. America, Inc. America, LLC
16 Unregistered iPad/iPad 2
Trade Dress
17
18 DAMAGES TO APPLE FROM SAMSUNG (IF APPLICABLE)
19
22. What is the total dollar amount that Apple is entitled to receive from Samsung on the
20 claims on which you have ruled in favor of Apple?
21
$______________________________________.
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
15
Case No.: 11-CV-01846-LHK
VERDICT FORM

16. Case5:11-cv-01846-LHK Document1890 Filed08/21/12 Page16 of 20
23. For the total dollar amount in your answer to Question 22, please provide the dollar
1 breakdown by product.
2
Accused Samsung Product Amount
3 Captivate (JX 1011)
Continuum (JX 1016)
4
Droid Charge (JX 1025)
5 Epic 4G (JX 1012)
Exhibit 4G (JX 1028)
6
Fascinate (JX 1013)
7 Galaxy Ace (JX 1030)
Galaxy Prevail (JX 1022)
8
Galaxy S (i9000) (JX 1007)
9 Galaxy S 4G (JX 1019)
10 Galaxy S II (AT&T) (JX 1031)
Galaxy S II (i9100) (JX 1032)
For the Northern District of California
11
Galaxy S II (T-Mobile) (JX 1033)
United States District Court
12 Galaxy S II (Epic 4G Touch) (JX 1034)
13 Galaxy S II (Skyrocket) (JX 1035)
Galaxy S Showcase (i500) (JX 1017)
14
Galaxy Tab (JX 1036)
15 Galaxy Tab 10.1 (WiFi) (JX 1037)
16 Galaxy Tab 10.1 (4G LTE) (JX 1038)
Gem (JX 1020)
17
Indulge (JX 1026)
18 Infuse 4G (JX 1027)
Intercept (JX 1009)
19
Mesmerize (JX 1015)
20 Nexus S 4G (JX 1023)
21 Replenish (JX 1024)
Transform (JX 1014)
22 Vibrant (JX 1010)
23
24
25
26
27
28
16
Case No.: 11-CV-01846-LHK
VERDICT FORM

17. Case5:11-cv-01846-LHK Document1890 Filed08/21/12 Page17 of 20
SAMSUNG’S UTILITY PATENT CLAIMS AGAINST APPLE
1
24. For each of the following products, has Samsung proven by a preponderance of the
2 evidence that Apple has infringed the indicated Samsung utility patent claims?
3 (Please answer in each cell with a “Y” for “yes” (for Samsung), or with an “N” for “no” (for
Apple). Do not provide an answer for any cell that is blacked out.)
4
Equivalents
5 ’460 Patent
Doctrine of
Claim 1
6
7
8 Infringement
‘460 Patent
Claim 1
Literal
9
10
For the Northern District of California
11
United States District Court
12
Patent
Claim
‘893
10
13
14
Claim 9
Patent
‘711
15
16
Claim
15
17
‘941 Patent
18
Claim
19
10
20
Claim
21
16
‘516 Patent
22
Claim
23
15
24
4th Gen. (JX
iPhone 3GS
iPod Touch
iPhone 3G
(JX 1053)
iPad 2 3G
JX 1077)
(JX 1054
(JX 1050
1057 and
Accused
iPhone 4
25
Product
(JX1055
and JX
and JX
and JX
Apple
1076)
1056)
1051)
26
27
28
17
Case No.: 11-CV-01846-LHK
VERDICT FORM

18. Case5:11-cv-01846-LHK Document1890 Filed08/21/12 Page18 of 20
25. If in response to Question 24 you found that Apple has infringed any Samsung patent(s),
1 has Samsung proven by clear and convincing evidence that Apple’s infringement was
willful?
2
’516 Patent
3
Claim 15: Yes ______ (for Samsung) No ______ (for Apple)
4 Claim 16: Yes ______ (for Samsung) No ______ (for Apple)
5 ’941 Patent
Claim 10: Yes ______ (for Samsung) No ______ (for Apple)
6 Claim 15: Yes ______ (for Samsung) No ______ (for Apple)
7
’711 Patent
8 Claim 9: Yes ______ (for Samsung) No ______ (for Apple)
9 ’893 Patent
Claim 10: Yes ______ (for Samsung) No ______ (for Apple)
10
’460 Patent
For the Northern District of California
11
Claim 1: Yes ______ (for Samsung) No ______ (for Apple)
United States District Court
12
13 26. Has Apple proven by clear and convincing evidence that Samsung’s asserted utility
patent claims are invalid?
14
’516 Patent
15 Claim 15: Yes ______ (for Apple) No ______ (for Samsung)
16 Claim 16: Yes ______ (for Apple) No ______ (for Samsung)
17 ’941 Patent
Claim 10: Yes ______ (for Apple) No ______ (for Samsung)
18 Claim 15: Yes ______ (for Apple) No ______ (for Samsung)
19 ’711 Patent
20 Claim 9: Yes ______ (for Apple) No ______ (for Samsung)
21 ’893 Patent
Claim 10: Yes ______ (for Apple) No ______ (for Samsung)
22
’460 Patent
23
Claim 1: Yes ______ (for Apple) No ______ (for Samsung)
24
25
26
27
28
18
Case No.: 11-CV-01846-LHK
VERDICT FORM

19. Case5:11-cv-01846-LHK Document1890 Filed08/21/12 Page19 of 20
DAMAGES TO SAMSUNG FROM APPLE (IF APPLICABLE)
1
27. What is the total dollar amount that Samsung is entitled to receive from Apple for
2 Samsung’s utility patent infringement claims on the ’516 and ’941 patents?
3
$______________________________________.
4
5 28. What is the total dollar amount that Samsung is entitled to receive from Apple for
Samsung’s utility patent infringement claims on the ’711, ’893, and ’460 patents?
6
$______________________________________.
7
8
29. For the total dollar amounts in your answers to Questions 27 and 28, please provide the
9 breakdown by product.
10 Accused Samsung Product Amount
iPhone 3G (JX 1053)
For the Northern District of California
11 iPhone 3GS (JX 1054 and JX 1076)
United States District Court
12 iPhone 4 (JX1055 and JX 1056)
iPad 2 3G (JX 1050 and JX 1051)
13 iPod Touch 4th Gen. (JX 1057 and JX 1077)
14
15 BREACH OF CONTRACT CLAIMS AND ANTITRUST
16 30. Has Apple proven by a preponderance of the evidence that Samsung breached its
contractual obligations by failing to timely disclose its intellectual property rights
17 (“IPR”) during the creation of the UMTS standard or by failing to license its “declared
essential” patents on fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory (“FRAND”) terms?
18
Yes ______ (for Apple) No ______ (for Samsung)
19
20
31. Has Apple proven by a preponderance of the evidence that Samsung has violated Section
21 2 of the Sherman Antitrust Act by monopolizing one or more technology markets related
to the UMTS standard?
22
Yes ______ (for Apple) No ______ (for Samsung)
23
24 32. If you answered “Yes” to Question 30 or Question 31, what is the dollar amount that
Apple is entitled to receive from Samsung for Samsung’s antitrust violation and/or
25 breach of contract?
26 $______________________________________.
27
28
19
Case No.: 11-CV-01846-LHK
VERDICT FORM

20. Case5:11-cv-01846-LHK Document1890 Filed08/21/12 Page20 of 20
PATENT EXHAUSTION
1
33. Has Apple proven by a preponderance of the evidence that Samsung is barred by patent
2 exhaustion from enforcing the following Samsung patents against Apple?
3 ’516 Patent Yes ______ (for Apple) No ______ (for Samsung)
4
’941 Patent Yes ______ (for Apple) No ______ (for Samsung)
5
6
7 Have the presiding juror sign and date this form.
8
9 Signed:_____________________________________ Date:_______________________________
10 PRESIDING JUROR
For the Northern District of California
11
United States District Court
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
20
Case No.: 11-CV-01846-LHK
VERDICT FORM