Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_00-cv-04524/USCOURTS-cand-3_00-cv-04524-8/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO, LTD,

Plaintiff,

v

QUANTA COMPUTER, INC et al,

Defendants. /

No C-00-4524 VRW

ORDER

Following review of the parties’ submissions, the court

hereby proposes the following preliminary and final jury

instructions and special verdict form. These proposed instructions

are served on the parties in advance of trial in order to assist

them in their trial preparation and to prompt such valid objections

as they may have to present. Additionally, the court proposes that

the preliminary instructions be distributed to the jurors for

reference during the trial. 

//

Case 3:00-cv-04524-VRW Document 522 Filed 10/11/06 Page 1 of 96
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

If necessary, the court will entertain objections to the

proposed preliminary jury instructions at a conference in person or

via telephone with Mr Anthony and Mr Fowler, and them alone, to

take place during the week of October 23, 2006.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

 

VAUGHN R WALKER

United States District Chief Judge

Case 3:00-cv-04524-VRW Document 522 Filed 10/11/06 Page 2 of 96
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3

PRELIMINARY INSTRUCTION - DUTY OF JURY

Ladies and gentlemen: You are now the jury in this case,

and I want to take a few minutes to tell you something about your

duties as jurors and to give you some instructions. At the end of the

trial, I will give you more detailed instructions. Those instructions

will control your deliberations. Should there be any differences

between these preliminary instructions and the final instructions, the

final instructions should govern your consideration of the evidence

and deliberations. 

You should not take anything I may say or do during the

trial as indicating what I think of the evidence or what your verdict

should be.

Case 3:00-cv-04524-VRW Document 522 Filed 10/11/06 Page 3 of 96
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

4

PRELIMINARY INSTRUCTION – BACKGROUND OF PATENT SYSTEM

This case involves a dispute relating to a United States

patent. Before summarizing the positions of the parties and the legal

issues involved in the dispute, let me take a moment to explain what

a patent is and how one is obtained. 

Patents are granted by the United States Patent and

Trademark Office (sometimes called “the PTO”). The process of

obtaining a patent is called patent prosecution. A valid United

States patent gives the patent owner the right for up to 20 years from

the date the patent application was filed to prevent others from

making, using, offering to sell or selling the patented invention

within the United States or from importing it into the United States

without the patent holder’s permission. A violation of the patent

owner’s rights is called infringement. The patent owner may try to

enforce a patent against persons believed to be infringers by a

lawsuit filed in federal court.

To obtain a patent, one must file an application with the

PTO. The PTO is an agency of the federal government and employs

trained examiners who review applications for patents. The

application includes what is called a “specification,” which must

contain a written description of the claimed invention telling what

the invention is, how it works, how to make it and how to use it so

others skilled in the field will know how to make or use it. The

specification concludes with one or more numbered sentences. These

are the patent “claims.” When the patent is eventually granted by the

PTO, the claims define the boundaries of its protection and give

Case 3:00-cv-04524-VRW Document 522 Filed 10/11/06 Page 4 of 96
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

5

notice to the public of those boundaries.

After the applicant files the application, a PTO patent

examiner reviews the patent application to determine whether the

claims are patentable and whether the specification adequately

describes the invention claimed. In examining a patent application,

the patent examiner reviews records available to the PTO for what is

referred to as “prior art.” The examiner also will review prior art

if it is submitted to the PTO by the applicant. Prior art is defined

by law, and I will give you at a later time specific instructions as

to what constitutes prior art. In general, prior art includes things

that existed before the claimed invention, that were publicly known,

or used in a publicly accessible way in this country, or that were

patented or described in a publication in any country. The examiner

considers, among other things, whether each claim defines an invention

that is new, useful, and not obvious in view of the prior art. A

patent lists the prior art that the examiner considered; this list is

called the “cited references.” 

After the prior art search and examination of the

application, the patent examiner then informs the applicant in writing

what the examiner has found and whether any claim is patentable, and

thus would be “allowed.” This writing from the patent examiner is

called an “office action.” If the examiner rejects the claims, the

applicant then responds and sometimes changes the claims or submits

new claims. This process, which is confidential between the examiner

and the patent applicant, may go back and forth for some time until

the examiner is satisfied that the application and claims meet the

requirements for a patent. The papers generated during this time of

Case 3:00-cv-04524-VRW Document 522 Filed 10/11/06 Page 5 of 96
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

6

communicating back and forth between the patent examiner and the

applicant make up what is called the “prosecution history.” All of

this material is kept secret between the applicant and the PTO for

some time, often until the patent is issued, when it becomes available

to the public. 

The fact that the PTO grants a patent does not necessarily

mean that any invention claimed in the patent deserves the protection

of a patent. For example, the PTO may not have had available to it

all other prior art that will be presented to you. A person accused

of infringement has the right to argue here in federal court that a

claimed invention in the patent is invalid because it does not meet

the requirements for a patent. 

Case 3:00-cv-04524-VRW Document 522 Filed 10/11/06 Page 6 of 96
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

7

PRELIMINARY INSTRUCTION – SUMMARY OF CONTENTIONS

To help you follow the evidence, I will now give you a

summary of the positions of the parties. The parties in this case are

Samsung and Compal. 

This case involves one patent, US patent no 5,333,273. For

convenience, the parties and I will often refer to this patent by its

last three numbers — the ‘273 patent. The patent is entitled

“Protected Hot Key Function for Microprocessor Based Component

System.” The ‘273 patent was obtained by inventors Michael Goodman

and Charles Raasch, and was assigned to AST Research. On April 21,

1999, AST Research assigned the patent to Samsung. 

Samsung filed suit in this court seeking money damages from

Compal for allegedly infringing the ’273 patent by making, importing,

using, selling, and offering for sale products that Samsung argues are

covered by claims 1 and 3 through 7 of the ‘273 patent. Samsung also

argues that Compal has actively induced infringement of these claims

of the ‘273 patent by others and contributed to the infringement of

these claims of the ‘273 patent by others. The products that are

alleged to infringe are partially and fully assembled notebook

computers made by Compal. 

Compal denies that it has infringed claims 1 and 3 through

7 of the ‘273 patent and argues that, in addition, the claims are

invalid. 

Your job will be to decide whether claims 1 and 3 through

7 of the ‘273 patent have been infringed and whether those claims are

invalid. If you decide that any claim of the ‘273 patent has been

Case 3:00-cv-04524-VRW Document 522 Filed 10/11/06 Page 7 of 96
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

8

infringed and is not invalid, you will then need to decide any money

damages to be awarded to Samsung to compensate it for the

infringement. You will also need to make a finding whether the

infringement was willful. If you decide that any infringement was

willful, that decision should not affect any damage award you give.

I will take willfulness into account later.

Because the definition or meaning of claims is a matter of

law, it is my job as judge to determine the meaning of any claim

language that needs interpretation. You must accept the meanings I

give you and use them to decide whether any claim of the patent has

been infringed and whether any claim is invalid.

Case 3:00-cv-04524-VRW Document 522 Filed 10/11/06 Page 8 of 96
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

9

INFRINGEMENT – BURDEN OF PROOF

I will now summarize the patent law applicable to the

specific issues in the case. Samsung alleges that Compal has

infringed claims 1 and 3 through 7 of the ‘273 patent. To prove

infringement of any claim, Samsung must persuade you that it is more

likely than not that Compal has infringed that claim. 

Case 3:00-cv-04524-VRW Document 522 Filed 10/11/06 Page 9 of 96
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

10

DIRECT INFRINGEMENT

A patent’s claims define what is covered by the patent. A

product directly infringes a patent if it is covered by at least one

claim of the patent.

Deciding whether a claim has been directly infringed is a

two-step process. The first step is to decide the meaning of the

patent claim. I have already made this decision, and I will instruct

you as to the meaning of the asserted patent claims after the evidence

has been presented. The second step is to decide whether Compal has

made, used, sold, offered for sale or imported within the United

States a product covered by a claim of the ‘273 patent. You, the

jury, make this decision.

With one exception, you must consider each of the asserted

claims of the patent individually, and decide whether any of Compal’s

products infringe that claim. The one exception to considering claims

individually concerns dependent claims. A dependent claim includes

all of the requirements of a particular independent claim, plus

additional requirements of its own. As a result, if you find that an

independent claim is not infringed, you must find that its dependent

claims are also not infringed. On the other hand, if you find that

an independent claim has been infringed, you must still separately

decide whether the additional requirements of its asserted dependent

claims have also been infringed. 

There are two ways in which a patent claim may be directly

infringed. A claim may be “literally” infringed, or it may be

infringed under the “doctrine of equivalents.” The following

Case 3:00-cv-04524-VRW Document 522 Filed 10/11/06 Page 10 of 96
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

11

instructions will provide more detail on these two types of direct

infringement.

Case 3:00-cv-04524-VRW Document 522 Filed 10/11/06 Page 11 of 96
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

12

LITERAL INFRINGEMENT

To decide whether any of Compal’s products literally

infringe a claim of the ‘273 patent, you must compare that product

with the patent claim and determine whether every requirement of the

claim is included in that product. If so, the product literally

infringes that claim. If, however, Compal’s product does not have

every requirement in the patent claim, that product does not literally

infringe that claim. You must decide literal infringement for each

asserted claim separately. 

Case 3:00-cv-04524-VRW Document 522 Filed 10/11/06 Page 12 of 96
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

13

INFRINGEMENT UNDER THE DOCTRINE OF EQUIVALENTS

If you decide that Compal’s products do not literally

infringe an asserted patent claim, you must then decide whether that

product infringes the asserted claim under what is called the

“doctrine of equivalents.” 

Under the doctrine of equivalents, a product can infringe

an asserted patent claim if the product includes parts that are

identical or equivalent to the requirements of the claim. If the

product is missing an identical or equivalent part to even one

requirement of the asserted patent claim, the product cannot infringe

the claim under the doctrine of equivalents. Therefore, in making

your decision under the doctrine of equivalents, you must look at each

individual requirement of the asserted patent claim and decide whether

the product has an identical or equivalent part to that individual

claim requirement.

A part of a product is equivalent to a requirement of an

asserted claim if a person of ordinary skill in the field would think

that the differences between the part and the requirement were not

substantial as of the time of the alleged infringement. 

One way to decide whether any difference between a

requirement of an asserted claim and a part of the product is not

substantial is to consider whether, as of the time of the alleged

infringement, the part of the product performed substantially the same

function, in substantially the same way, to achieve substantially the

same result as the requirement in the claim.

Case 3:00-cv-04524-VRW Document 522 Filed 10/11/06 Page 13 of 96
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

14

INDIRECT INFRINGEMENT – GENERALLY

Samsung also argues that Compal contributed to infringement

by another and induced another to infringe claims 1 and 3 through 7

of the ‘273 patent. Compal cannot contributorily infringe or induce

infringement unless Samsung proves that someone other than Compal

directly infringes the patent claim by making, using, selling,

offering for sale or importing a product that includes all of the

requirements of the asserted claims. If there is no direct

infringement, Compal cannot have contributed to infringement or

induced infringement.

Case 3:00-cv-04524-VRW Document 522 Filed 10/11/06 Page 14 of 96
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

15

CONTRIBUTORY INFRINGEMENT

Samsung argues that Compal has contributed to infringement

by another. Contributory infringement may arise when someone supplies

something that is used to infringe one or more of the patent claims.

 

In order for there to be contributory infringement by

Compal, someone other than Compal must directly infringe a claim of

the ‘273 patent; if there is no direct infringement by anyone, there

can be no contributory infringement. 

If you find someone has directly infringed the ‘273 patent,

then contributory infringement exists if:

(1) Compal supplied an important component of the

infringing part of the product;

(2) the component is not a common component suitable for

non-infringing use; and 

(3) Compal supplied the component with the knowledge of

the ‘273 patent and knowledge that the component was

especially made or adapted for use in an infringing

manner.

Case 3:00-cv-04524-VRW Document 522 Filed 10/11/06 Page 15 of 96
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

16

INDUCING PATENT INFRINGEMENT

Samsung argues that Compal has actively induced another to

infringe the ‘273 patent. In order for there to be inducement of

infringement by Compal, someone else must directly infringe a claim

of the ‘273 patent; if there is no direct infringement by anyone,

there can be no inducement of infringement. 

Active inducement exists if Compal took action that actually

induced direct infringement by another, and Compal knew or should have

known that taking such action would induce direct infringement. It

is not enough that the Compal knew only of the acts alleged to

constitute infringement; Compal must have known that those acts

actually constituted infringement. Compal cannot be liable for

inducing infringement if it was not aware of the existence of the ‘273

patent.

Case 3:00-cv-04524-VRW Document 522 Filed 10/11/06 Page 16 of 96
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

17

WILLFUL INFRINGEMENT

In this case, Samsung argues both that Compal infringed and

that Compal infringed willfully. To prove willful infringement,

Samsung must persuade you that it is “highly probable” that Compal

willfully infringed.

Specifically, Samsung must demonstrate that it is highly

probable that:

(A) Compal had actual knowledge of the ‘273 patent; and

(B) Compal had no reasonable basis for believing (1) that

Compal’s product did not infringe the ‘273 patent or

(2) that the ‘273 patent was invalid.

In deciding whether Compal committed willful infringement,

you must consider all of the facts, which include but are not limited

to: 

(A) whether Compal intentionally copied a product of

Samsung covered by the ‘273 patent;

(B) whether Compal, when it learned of Samsung’s patent

protection, investigated the scope of the patent and

formed a good-faith belief that the patent was invalid

or that it was not infringed;

(C) whether Compal had a substantial defense to

infringement and reasonably believed that the defense

would be successful if litigated;

(D) whether Compal made a good faith effort to avoid

infringing the patent; and

(E) whether Compal relied on a legal opinion that appeared

Case 3:00-cv-04524-VRW Document 522 Filed 10/11/06 Page 17 of 96
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

18

to it to be well-supported and believable and that

advised Compal (1) that the product did not infringe

the ‘273 patent or (2) that the ‘273 patent was

invalid.

Case 3:00-cv-04524-VRW Document 522 Filed 10/11/06 Page 18 of 96
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

19

INVALIDITY – BURDEN OF PROOF

I will now discuss the rules regarding whether claims 1 and

3 through 7 of the ‘273 patent are invalid. To prove invalidity of

any patent claim, Compal must persuade you that it is highly probable

that the claim is invalid. 

Case 3:00-cv-04524-VRW Document 522 Filed 10/11/06 Page 19 of 96
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

20

ANTICIPATION

A patent claim is invalid if the claimed invention is not

new. For the claim to be invalid because it is not new, all of its

requirements must be in a single previous device or method, or

described in a single previous publication or patent. We call these

things “prior art references.” The description in a reference does

not have to be in the same words as the claim, but all the

requirements must be there, either stated or necessarily implied, so

that someone of ordinary skill in the field of microprocessor-based

computer systems looking at that one reference would be able to make

and use the claimed invention. 

Case 3:00-cv-04524-VRW Document 522 Filed 10/11/06 Page 20 of 96
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

21

OBVIOUSNESS

A patent claim is invalid if the claimed invention would

have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the field at the

time the application was filed. This means that even if all of the

requirements of the claim cannot be found in a single prior art

reference that would anticipate the claim or constitute a statutory

bar to that claim, a person of ordinary skill in the field of

microprocessor-based computer systems who knew about all this prior

art would have come up with the claimed invention. 

The claimed invention is not obvious unless there was

something in the prior art or within the understanding of a person of

ordinary skill in the field that would suggest the claimed invention.

You must be careful not to determine obviousness using the benefit of

hindsight. You should put yourself in the position of a person of

ordinary skill in the field at the time the invention was made and you

should not consider what is known today or what is learned from the

teaching of the patent. 

Your conclusion about the question whether a claim is

obvious must be based on several factual decisions that you must make.

First, you must decide the scope and content of the prior art.

Second, you must decide what difference, if any, exists between the

claim and the prior art. Third, you must decide the level of ordinary

skill in the field that someone would have had at the time the claimed

invention was made. Finally, you must consider any evidence with

respect to the following: 

(1) commercial success due to the merits of the claimed

Case 3:00-cv-04524-VRW Document 522 Filed 10/11/06 Page 21 of 96
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

22

invention;

(2) a long felt need for the solution provided by the

claimed invention;

(3) unsuccessful attempts by others to find the solution

provided by the claimed invention;

(4) copying of the claimed invention by others;

(5) unexpected superior results from the claimed

invention;

(6) acceptance by others of the claimed invention as shown

by praise from others in the field or from the

licensing of the claimed invention; and

(7) independent invention of the claimed invention by

others before or at about the same time as the named

inventor thought of it.

The presence of the first six considerations may be an

indication that a claimed invention would not have been obvious at the

time this invention was made; the presence of the final consideration

may be an indication that the claimed invention would have been

obvious at such time. Although you must consider any evidence of

these considerations, the importance of any of them to your decision

on whether the claimed invention would have been obvious is up to you.

Case 3:00-cv-04524-VRW Document 522 Filed 10/11/06 Page 22 of 96
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

23

PRELIMINARY INSTRUCTION - WHAT IS EVIDENCE

The evidence you are to consider in deciding what the facts

are consists of: 

(1) the sworn testimony of any witness, including

depositions and declarations; 

(2) the exhibits which are received into evidence and

(3) any facts to which the lawyers stipulate.

Case 3:00-cv-04524-VRW Document 522 Filed 10/11/06 Page 23 of 96
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

24

PRELIMINARY INSTRUCTION - WHAT IS NOT EVIDENCE

The following things are not evidence, and you must not

consider them as evidence in deciding the facts of this case:

(1) statements and arguments of the attorneys;

(2) questions and objections of the attorneys;

(3) testimony that I instruct you to disregard and

(4) anything you may see or hear when the court is not in

session even if what you see or hear is done or said

by one of the parties or by one of the witnesses.

Case 3:00-cv-04524-VRW Document 522 Filed 10/11/06 Page 24 of 96
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

25

PRELIMINARY INSTRUCTION - EVIDENCE FOR LIMITED PURPOSE

Some evidence may be admitted for a limited purpose only.

When I instruct you that an item of evidence has been admitted for a

limited purpose, you must consider it only for that limited purpose

and for no other.

Case 3:00-cv-04524-VRW Document 522 Filed 10/11/06 Page 25 of 96
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

26

PRELIMINARY INSTRUCTION - DIRECT AND CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE

Evidence may be direct or circumstantial. Direct

evidence is direct proof of a fact, such as testimony by a witness

about what that witness personally saw or heard or did. 

Circumstantial evidence is proof of one or more facts from which

you could find another fact. You should consider both kinds of

evidence. The law makes no distinction between the weight to be

given to either direct or circumstantial evidence. It is for you

to decide how much weight to give to any evidence.

Case 3:00-cv-04524-VRW Document 522 Filed 10/11/06 Page 26 of 96
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

27

PRELIMINARY INSTRUCTION - RULING ON OBJECTIONS

There are rules of evidence that control what can be

received into evidence. When a lawyer asks a question or offers an

exhibit into evidence and a lawyer on the other side thinks that it

is not permitted by the rules of evidence, that lawyer may object. 

If I overrule the objection, the question may be answered or the

exhibit received. If I sustain the objection, the question cannot

be answered, and the exhibit cannot be received. Whenever I

sustain an objection to a question, you must ignore the question

and must not guess what the answer might have been.

Sometimes I may order that evidence be stricken from the

record and that you disregard or ignore the evidence. That means

that when you are deciding the case, you must not consider the

evidence that I told you to disregard.

Case 3:00-cv-04524-VRW Document 522 Filed 10/11/06 Page 27 of 96
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

28

PRELIMINARY INSTRUCTION - CREDIBILITY OF WITNESSES

In deciding the facts in this case, you may have to

decide which testimony to believe and which testimony not to

believe. You may believe everything a witness says, or part of it,

or none of it.

In considering the testimony of any witness, you may take

into account:

(1) the opportunity and ability of the witness to see or

hear or know the things testified to;

(2) the witness' memory;

(3) the witness' manner while testifying;

(4) the witness' interest in the outcome of the case and

any bias or prejudice;

(5) whether other evidence contradicted the witness'

testimony;

(6) the reasonableness of the witness' testimony in

light of all the evidence and

(7) any other factors that bear on believability.

The weight of the evidence as to a fact does not

necessarily depend on the number of witnesses who testify.

Case 3:00-cv-04524-VRW Document 522 Filed 10/11/06 Page 28 of 96
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

PRELIMINARY INSTRUCTION - BURDEN OF PROOF

In any legal action, facts must be proved by a required

standard of evidence, known as the “burden of proof.” There will

be two burdens of proof in this case: preponderance of the

evidence and clear and convincing evidence. 

When a party has the burden of proof on any claim by a

preponderance of the evidence, it means you must be persuaded by

the evidence that the claim is more likely true than not true. Put

another way, “preponderance of the evidence” means evidence that

has more convincing force than that opposed to it. If the evidence

is so evenly balanced that you are unable to say that the evidence

on either side of an issue predominates, your finding on that issue

must be against the party who had the burden of proving it.

Clear and convincing evidence is a higher burden of

proof. It requires that you be persuaded that it is highly

probable that what the party seeks to prove is true. 

You may have heard of a burden of proof that is used in

criminal cases called “beyond a reasonable doubt.” That

requirement is the highest burden of proof and does not apply to a

patent case; hence, you should completely ignore it. 

Case 3:00-cv-04524-VRW Document 522 Filed 10/11/06 Page 29 of 96
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

30

PRELIMINARY INSTRUCTION - CONDUCT OF THE JURY

I will now say a few words about your conduct as jurors.

First, you are not to discuss this case with anyone,

including your fellow jurors, members of your family, people

involved in the trial, or anyone else. Nor are you allowed to

permit others to discuss the case with you. If anyone approaches

you and tries to talk to you about the case please let me know

about it immediately; 

Second, do not read any news stories or articles or

listen to any radio or television reports about the case or about

anyone who has anything to do with it;

Third, do not do any research, such as consulting

dictionaries, searching the Internet or using other reference

materials, and do not make any investigation about the case on your

own;

Fourth, if you need to communicate with me simply give a

signed note to the clerk to give to me; and

Fifth, do not make up your mind about what the verdict

should be until after you have gone to the jury room to decide that

case and you and your fellow jurors have discussed the evidence. 

Keep an open mind until then.

Case 3:00-cv-04524-VRW Document 522 Filed 10/11/06 Page 30 of 96
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

31

PRELIMINARY INSTRUCTION - NO TRANSCRIPT AVAILABLE TO JURY

At the end of the trial, you will have to make your

decision based on what you recall of the evidence. You will not

have a transcript of the trial. I urge you to pay close attention

to the testimony as it is given.

Case 3:00-cv-04524-VRW Document 522 Filed 10/11/06 Page 31 of 96
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

32

PRELIMINARY JURY INSTRUCTION - TAKING NOTES

If you wish, you may take notes to help you remember what

witnesses said. If you do take notes, please keep them to yourself

until you and your fellow jurors go to the jury room to decide the

case. Do not let note-taking distract you so that you do not hear

other answers by witnesses. When you leave, your notes should be

left in the jury room.

Whether or not you take notes, you should rely on your

own memory of what was said. Notes are only to assist your memory. 

You should not be overly influenced by the notes.

Case 3:00-cv-04524-VRW Document 522 Filed 10/11/06 Page 32 of 96
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

33

PRELIMINARY INSTRUCTION - OUTLINE OF TRIAL

The trial will now begin. First, each side may make an

opening statement. An opening statement is not evidence. It is

simply an outline to help you understand what that party expects

the evidence will show. 

Samsung will then present its evidence on its contention

that some claims of the ‘273 patent have been and continue to be

infringed by Compal and that the infringement has been and

continues to be willful. To prove infringement of any claim,

Samsung must persuade you that it is more likely than not that

Compal has infringed that claim. To persuade you that any

infringement was willful, Samsung must prove that it is highly

probable that the infringement was willful.

Compal will go next and present its evidence that the

claims of the ‘273 patent are invalid. To prove invalidity of any

claim, Compal must persuade you that it is highly probable that the

claim is invalid. In addition to presenting its evidence of

invalidity, Compal will put on evidence responding to Samsung’s

infringement and willfulness contentions. 

Samsung will then return and will put on evidence

responding to Compal’s contention that the claims of the ‘273

patent are invalid. Samsung will also have the option to put on

what is referred to as “rebuttal” evidence to any evidence offered

by Compal of non-infringement or lack of willfulness. 

Finally, Compal will have the option to put on “rebuttal”

evidence to any evidence offered by Samsung on the validity of the

Case 3:00-cv-04524-VRW Document 522 Filed 10/11/06 Page 33 of 96
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

34

claims of the ‘273 patent.

During the presentation of the evidence, the attorneys

will be allowed brief opportunities to explain what they believe

the evidence has shown or what they believe upcoming evidence will

show. Such comments are not evidence and are being allowed solely

for the purpose of helping you understand the evidence.

After the evidence has been presented, I will give you

final instructions on the law that applies to the case and the

attorneys will make closing arguments. Closing arguments are not

evidence. After the instructions and closing arguments, you will

then decide the case.

Case 3:00-cv-04524-VRW Document 522 Filed 10/11/06 Page 34 of 96
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

35

PRELIMINARY INSTRUCTIONS – GLOSSARY

Some of the terms in this glossary will be defined in

more detail in the legal instructions you are given. The

definitions in the instructions must be followed and must control

your deliberations.

Abstract: A brief summary of the technical disclosure in

a patent to enable the US Patent and Trademark Office and the

public to determine quickly the nature and gist of the technical

disclosure in the patent. 

Amendment: A patent applicant’s change to one or more

claims or to the specification either in response to an office

action taken by a patent examiner or independently by the patent

applicant during the patent application examination process.

Anticipation: A situation in which a claimed invention

describes an earlier invention and, therefore, is not considered

new and is not entitled to be patented.

Assignment: A transfer of patent rights to another

called an “assignee” who upon transfer becomes the owner of the

rights assigned.

Claim: Each claim of a patent is a concise, formal

definition of an invention and appears at the end of the

specification in a separately numbered paragraph. In concept, a

patent claim marks the boundaries of the patent in the same way

that a legal description in a deed specifies the boundaries of

land, i e, similar to a land owner who can prevent others from

trespassing on the bounded property, the inventor can prevent

Case 3:00-cv-04524-VRW Document 522 Filed 10/11/06 Page 35 of 96
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

36

others from using what is claimed. Claims may be independent or

dependent. An independent claim stands alone. A dependent claim

does not stand alone and refers to one or more other claims. A

dependent claim incorporates whatever the other referenced claim or

claims say.

Conception: The complete mental part of the inventive

act which must be capable of proof, as by drawings, disclosure to

another, etc.

Drawings: The drawings are visual representations of the

claimed invention contained in a patent application and issued

patent, and usually include several figures illustrating various

aspects of the claimed invention. 

Elements: The required parts of a device or the required

steps of a method. A device or method infringes a patent if it

contains each and every requirement of a patent claim.

Embodiment: A product or method that contains the

claimed invention. 

Enablement: A description of the invention that is

sufficient to enable persons skilled in the field of the invention

to make and use the invention. The specification of the patent

must contain such an enabling description.

Examination: Procedure before the U.S. Patent and

Trademark Office whereby a patent examiner reviews the filed patent

application to determine if the claimed invention is patentable.

Filing Date: Date a patent application, with all the

required sections, has been submitted to the US Patent and

Trademark Office.

Case 3:00-cv-04524-VRW Document 522 Filed 10/11/06 Page 36 of 96
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

37

Infringement: Violation of a patent occurring when

someone makes, uses or sells a patented invention, without

permission of the patent holder, within the United States during

the term of the patent. Infringement may be direct, by inducement,

or contributory. Direct infringement is making, using or selling

the patented invention without permission. Inducing infringement

is intentionally causing another to directly infringe a patent. 

Contributory infringement is offering to sell or selling an item

that is a significant part of the invention, so that the buyer

directly infringes the patent. To be a contributory infringer one

must know that the part being offered or sold is designed

specifically for infringing the patented invention and is not a

common object suitable for non-infringing uses.

Limitation: A required part of an invention set forth in

a patent claim. A limitation is a requirement of the invention. 

The word “limitation” is often used interchangeably with the word

“requirement.”

Nonobviousness: One of the requirements for securing a

patent. To be valid, the subject matter of the invention must not

have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the field of the

invention at the time of the earlier of the filing date of the

patent application or the date of invention.

Office Action: A written communication from the patent

examiner to the patent applicant in the course of the application

examination process.

Patent: A patent is an exclusive right granted by the US

Patent and Trademark Office to an inventor to prevent others from

Case 3:00-cv-04524-VRW Document 522 Filed 10/11/06 Page 37 of 96
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

38

making, using or selling an invention for a term of 20 years from

the date the patent application was filed (or 17 years from the

date the patent issued). When the patent expires, the right to

make, use or sell the invention is dedicated to the public. The

patent has three parts, which are a specification, drawings and

claims. The patent is granted after examination by the US Patent

and Trademark Office of a patent application filed by the inventor

which has these parts, and this examination is called the

prosecution history.

Patent and Trademark Office (PTO): An administrative

branch of the US Department of Commerce that is charged with

overseeing and implementing the federal laws of patents and

trademarks. It is responsible for examining all patent

applications and issuing all patents in the United States. 

Prior Art: Previously known subject matter in the field

of a claimed invention for which a patent is being sought. It

includes issued patents, publications, and knowledge deemed to be

publicly available such as trade skills, trade practices and the

like.

Prosecution History: The prosecution history is the

complete written record of the proceedings in the PTO from the

initial application to the issued patent. The prosecution history

includes the office actions taken by the PTO and the amendments to

the patent application filed by the applicant during the

examination process.

Reads On: A patent claim “reads on” a device or method

when each required part (requirement) of the claim is found in the

Case 3:00-cv-04524-VRW Document 522 Filed 10/11/06 Page 38 of 96
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

39

device or method.

Reduction to Practice: The invention is “reduced to

practice” when it is sufficiently developed to show that it would

work for its intended purpose.

Requirement: A required part or step of an invention set

forth in a patent claim. The word “requirement” is often used

interchangeably with the word “limitation.”

Royalty: A royalty is a payment made to the owner of a

patent by a non-owner in exchange for rights to make, use or sell

the claimed invention.

Specification: The specification is a required part of a

patent application and an issued patent. It is a written

description of the invention and of the manner and process of

making and using the claimed invention.

Case 3:00-cv-04524-VRW Document 522 Filed 10/11/06 Page 39 of 96
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

40

JURY INSTRUCTION DURING TRIAL 

Case 3:00-cv-04524-VRW Document 522 Filed 10/11/06 Page 40 of 96
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

41

BENCH CONFERENCES AND RECESSES

From time to time during the trial, it may become

necessary for me to talk with the attorneys out of the hearing of

the jury, either by having a conference at the bench when the jury

is present in the courtroom, or by calling a recess. Please

understand that while you are waiting, we are working. The purpose

of these conferences is not to keep relevant information from you,

but to decide how certain evidence is to be treated under the rules

of evidence and to avoid confusion and error.

We will, of course, do what we can to keep the number and

length of these conferences to a minimum. I may not always grant

an attorney's request for a conference. Do not consider my

granting or denying a request for a conference as any indication of

my opinion of the case or of what your verdict should be.

Case 3:00-cv-04524-VRW Document 522 Filed 10/11/06 Page 41 of 96
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

42

JURY INSTRUCTION DURING TRIAL - 

CAUTIONARY INSTRUCTION - FIRST RECESS

We are about to take our first break during the trial,

and I want to remind you of the instruction I gave you earlier. 

Until the trial is over, you are not to discuss this case with

anyone, including your fellow jurors, members of your family,

people involved in the trial, or anyone else, nor are you allowed

to permit others to discuss the case with you. If anyone

approaches you and tries to talk to you about this case, please let

me know about it immediately. Do not read or listen to any news

reports of the trial. Finally, you are reminded to keep an open

mind until all the evidence has been received and you have heard

the arguments of counsel, the instructions of the court and the

views of your fellow jurors.

If you need to speak with me about anything, simply give

a signed note to the clerk to give to me.

I will not repeat these admonitions each time we recess

or adjourn, but you will be reminded of them on such occasions.

Case 3:00-cv-04524-VRW Document 522 Filed 10/11/06 Page 42 of 96
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

43

JURY INSTRUCTION DURING TRIAL - 

DEPOSITION AS SUBSTANTIVE EVIDENCE

When a person is unavailable to testify at trial, the

deposition of that person may be used at the trial. A deposition

is the sworn testimony of a witness taken before trial. The

witness is placed under oath to tell the truth and lawyers for each

party may ask questions. The questions and answers are recorded.

The deposition of ____________, which was taken on

______, is about to be presented to you. Deposition testimony is

entitled to the same consideration and is to be judged, insofar as

possible, in the same way as if the witness had been present to

testify.

Case 3:00-cv-04524-VRW Document 522 Filed 10/11/06 Page 43 of 96
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

44

JURY INSTRUCTION DURING TRIAL - 

USE OF INTERROGATORIES OF A PARTY

Evidence is now to be presented to you in the form of

answers of one of the parties to written interrogatories submitted

by the other side. These answers have been given in writing and

under oath, before the actual trial, in response to questions which

were submitted in writing under established court procedures. The

answers are entitled to the same consideration and are to be judged

as to credibility and weight, and otherwise considered by you

insofar as possible, as if the answers were made from the witness

stand.

Case 3:00-cv-04524-VRW Document 522 Filed 10/11/06 Page 44 of 96
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

45

FINAL JURY INSTRUCTIONS

Case 3:00-cv-04524-VRW Document 522 Filed 10/11/06 Page 45 of 96
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

46

DUTIES OF JURY TO FIND FACTS AND FOLLOW LAW

Members of the jury, now that you have heard all the

evidence and the arguments of the attorneys, it is my duty to

instruct you on the law which applies to this case. A copy of

these instructions will be available in the jury room for you to

consult if you find it necessary.

It is your duty to find the facts from all the evidence

in the case. To those facts you must apply the law as I give it to

you. You must follow the law as I give it to you in these

instructions whether you agree with it or not. And you must not be

influenced by any personal likes or dislikes, opinions, prejudices,

or sympathy. That means that you must decide the case solely on

the evidence before you. You will recall that you took an oath

promising to do so at the beginning of the case.

In following these instructions, you must follow all of

them and not single out some and ignore others; they are all

equally important. You must not read into these instructions or

into anything I may have said or done during the trial any

suggestion as to what verdict you should return--that is a matter

entirely up to you.

Case 3:00-cv-04524-VRW Document 522 Filed 10/11/06 Page 46 of 96
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

47

SUMMARY OF CONTENTIONS

I will first give you a summary of each side’s

contentions in this case. I will then tell you what each side must

prove to win on each of its contentions. As I previously told you,

Samsung seeks money damages from Compal for allegedly infringing

the ‘273 patent by making, importing, using, selling and offering

for sale products that Samsung argues are covered by claims 1 and 3

through 7 of the ‘273 patent. 

Samsung also argues that Compal has actively induced

infringement of these claims of the ‘273 patent by others and

contributed to the infringement of these claims of the ‘273 patent

by others. The products that are alleged to infringe are partially

and fully assembled notebook computers with various model numbers. 

Compal denies that it has infringed the asserted claims

of the patent and argues that, in addition, claims 1 and 3 through

7 are invalid. 

Your job is to decide whether the asserted claims of the

‘273 patent have been infringed and whether any of the asserted

claims of the ‘273 patent are invalid. If you decide that any

claim of the patent has been infringed and is not invalid, you will

then need to decide any money damages to be awarded to Samsung to

compensate it for the infringement. You will also need to make a

finding whether the infringement was willful. If you decide that

any infringement was willful, that decision should not affect any

damage award you make. I will take willfulness into account later. 

Case 3:00-cv-04524-VRW Document 522 Filed 10/11/06 Page 47 of 96
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

48

INTERPRETATION OF CLAIMS

I have interpreted the meaning of some of the language in

the patent claims involved in this case. You must accept those

interpretations as correct. My interpretation of the language

should not be taken as an indication that I have a view regarding

the issues of infringement and invalidity. The decisions regarding

infringement and invalidity are yours to make.

(1) “ISA-compatible computer”: a computer that can handle

ISA standard defined interrupts. An ISA-compatible

computer must be physically capable of handling all ISA

standard defined interrupts.

(2) “conventional alphanumeric keys”: keys that correspond

to the letters of an alphabet, the decimal digits and

punctuation symbols.

(3) “conventional function keys”: the function keys

identified as F1 through F12.

(4) “conventional symbol keys”: keys that correspond to

conventional symbols, such as @, $, %, ^, &, *.

(5) “conventional cursor control keys (claims : Keys

identified as the ‘Home’ key, the ‘End’ key and the ‘left

and right arrow’ keys.

(6) “data scan code” and “scan code”: a code number that the

keyboard generates whenever a key is depressed or

released, said scan code number created by converting a

pairing of a row signal and a column signal in the

Case 3:00-cv-04524-VRW Document 522 Filed 10/11/06 Page 48 of 96
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

49

keyboard matrix.

(7) “keyboard controller”: a component, electronically or

functionally distinct from the keyboard, that activates

interrupts signals in response to receipt of data scan

codes from the keyboard and, upon request, transmits the

data scan code to the computer.

(8) “keyboard”: an input apparatus containing internal

circuitry to output or generate data scan codes.

(9) “coupled to”: joining or fastening one electronically or

functionally discrete thing to another.

(10) “first interrupt signal”: the ISA standard IRQ1

interrupt signal which is activated by the keyboard

controller in response to the activation of any of the

conventional keys.

(11) “second interrupt signal”: any interrupt other than

IRQ1.

(12) “first interrupt signal line”: a signal line from the

keyboard controller connected to the ISA-compatible

computer for transmitting the first interrupt signal.

(13) “second interrupt signal line”: a second, separate

signal line from the keyboard controller connected to the

ISA-compatible computer for transmitting the second

interrupt signal.

(14) “first conventional interrupt handling routine”: a first

interrupt handling routine that responds to the first

interrupt signal from the keyboard controller by

inputting data scan codes originating at the keyboard.

Case 3:00-cv-04524-VRW Document 522 Filed 10/11/06 Page 49 of 96
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

50

(15) “second non-conventional interrupt handling routine”: a

second interrupt handling routine, which, in response to

the second interrupt signal inputs an identification of

said activated alphanumeric key, and performs a

predetermined function selected by the alphanumeric key. 

(16) “indexes or indexing”: selects or accesses.

(17) “program”: a handling routine that causes the computer

to receive keyboard scan codes from the keyboard

controller.

(18) “special routine”: a routine that is executed upon

receipt of the second interrupt signal.

(19) “interrupt controller”: a device coupled to the keyboard

controller that generates one of a number of interrupt

vectors depending on the interrupt signal received.

(20) “interrupt vector”: identifies a particular interrupt

signal and also corresponds to an interrupt handling

routine.

(21) “indexing one of a plurality of memory locations”: to

utilize an interrupt vector to access a memory location

corresponding to an interrupt vector.

(22) “indexes a first memory location pointer”: selects or

accesses an identifier that corresponds to the start of

the first conventional interrupt handling routine.

(23) “indexing a second memory location”: selects or accesses

an identifier that corresponds to the start of the second

non-conventional interrupt handling routine. 

Case 3:00-cv-04524-VRW Document 522 Filed 10/11/06 Page 50 of 96
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

51

INFRINGEMENT – BURDEN OF PROOF

I will now instruct you on the rules you must follow in

deciding whether Samsung has proven that Compal has infringed one

or more of the asserted claims of the ‘273 patent. To prove

infringement of any claim, Samsung must persuade you that it is

more likely than not that Compal has infringed that claim. 

Case 3:00-cv-04524-VRW Document 522 Filed 10/11/06 Page 51 of 96
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

52

DIRECT INFRINGEMENT

A patent’s claims define what is covered by the patent. 

A product directly infringes a patent if it is covered by at least

one claim of the patent.

Deciding whether a claim has been directly infringed is a

two-step process. The first step is to decide the meaning of the

patent claim. I have already made this decision, and I have

already instructed you as to the meaning of the asserted patent

claims. The second step is to decide whether Compal has made,

used, sold, offered for sale or imported within the United States a

product covered by a claim of the ‘273 patent. You, the jury, make

this decision.

With one exception, you must consider each of the

asserted claims of the patent individually, and decide whether any

of Compal’s products infringe that claim. The one exception to

considering claims individually concerns dependent claims. A

dependent claim includes all of the requirements of a particular

independent claim, plus additional requirements of its own. As a

result, if you find that an independent claim is not infringed, you

must find that its dependent claims are also not infringed. On the

other hand, if you find that an independent claim has been

infringed, you must still separately decide whether the additional

requirements of its asserted dependent claims have also been

infringed. 

There are two ways in which a patent claim may be

directly infringed. A claim may be “literally” infringed, or it

Case 3:00-cv-04524-VRW Document 522 Filed 10/11/06 Page 52 of 96
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

53

may be infringed under the “doctrine of equivalents.” The

following instructions will provide more detail on these two types

of direct infringement.

Case 3:00-cv-04524-VRW Document 522 Filed 10/11/06 Page 53 of 96
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

54

LITERAL INFRINGEMENT

To decide whether any of Compal’s products literally

infringe a claim of the ‘273 patent, you must compare that product

with the patent claim and determine whether every requirement of

the claim is included in that product. If so, the product

literally infringes that claim. If, however, Compal’s product does

not have every requirement in the patent claim, that product does

not literally infringe that claim. You must decide literal

infringement for each asserted claim separately. 

Case 3:00-cv-04524-VRW Document 522 Filed 10/11/06 Page 54 of 96
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

55

INFRINGEMENT UNDER THE DOCTRINE OF EQUIVALENTS

If you decide that Compal’s products do not literally

infringe an asserted patent claim, you must then decide whether

that product infringes the asserted claim under what is called the

“doctrine of equivalents.” 

Under the doctrine of equivalents, a product can infringe

an asserted patent claim if the product includes parts that are

identical or equivalent to the requirements of the claim. If the

product is missing an identical or equivalent part to even one

requirement of the asserted patent claim, the product cannot

infringe the claim under the doctrine of equivalents. Therefore,

in making your decision under the doctrine of equivalents, you must

look at each individual requirement of the asserted patent claim

and decide whether the product has an identical or equivalent part

to that individual claim requirement.

A part of a product is equivalent to a requirement of an

asserted claim if a person of ordinary skill in the field would

think that the differences between the part and the requirement

were not substantial as of the time of the alleged infringement. 

One way to decide whether any difference between a

requirement of an asserted claim and a part of the product is not

substantial is to consider whether, as of the time of the alleged

infringement, the part of the product performed substantially the

same function, in substantially the same way, to achieve

substantially the same result as the requirement in the patent

claim.

Case 3:00-cv-04524-VRW Document 522 Filed 10/11/06 Page 55 of 96
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

56

In deciding whether any difference between a claim

requirement and the product is not substantial, you may consider

whether, at the time of the alleged infringement, persons of

ordinary skill in the field would have known of the

interchangeability of the part with the claimed requirement. The

known interchangeability between the claim requirement and the part

of the product is not necessary to find infringement under the

doctrine of equivalents. Yet, known interchangeability may support

a conclusion that the difference between the part in the product

and the claim requirement is not substantial. That a part of the

product performs the same function as the claim requirement is not,

by itself, sufficient to show known interchangeability.

You may not use the doctrine of equivalents to find

infringement if you find that Compal’s products are the same as

what was in the prior art before the application for the ‘273

patent or what would have been obvious to persons of ordinary skill

in the field in light of what was in the prior art. A patent

holder may not obtain, under the doctrine of equivalents,

protection that it could not have lawfully obtained from the Patent

and Trademark Office.

Case 3:00-cv-04524-VRW Document 522 Filed 10/11/06 Page 56 of 96
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

57

LIMITATIONS ON THE DOCTRINE OF EQUIVALENTS

Because Samsung made certain claim limitations during the

patent application process for the ‘273 patent, the doctrine of

equivalents analysis cannot be applied to the following

requirements of the asserted claims:

The second limitation of claim 1 requires that “said

keyboard controller responsive to an activation of said additional

function key in combination with at least one of said conventional

alphanumeric keys to generate a second interrupt signal.” I have

determined that Samsung is not entitled to assert that a nonalphanumeric key is equivalent to an alphanumeric key.

Case 3:00-cv-04524-VRW Document 522 Filed 10/11/06 Page 57 of 96
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

58

DETERMINATION OF INFRINGEMENT

Taking each claim of the ‘273 patent separately, if you

find that Samsung has proved that it is more likely than not that

each and every limitation is present, either literally or under the

doctrine of equivalents, in any of Compal’s accused products, then

you must find that Compal’s product infringes that claim. 

INDIRECT INFRINGEMENT – GENERALLY

Case 3:00-cv-04524-VRW Document 522 Filed 10/11/06 Page 58 of 96
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

59

Samsung also argues that Compal contributed to

infringement by another of and induced another to infringe claims 1

and 3 through 7 of the ‘273 patent. Compal cannot contributorily

infringe or induce infringement unless Samsung proves that someone

other than Compal directly infringes the patent claim by making,

using, selling, offering for sale or importing a product that

includes all of the requirements of the asserted claims. If there

is no direct infringement, Compal cannot have contributed to

infringement or induced infringement.

Case 3:00-cv-04524-VRW Document 522 Filed 10/11/06 Page 59 of 96
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

60

CONTRIBUTORY INFRINGEMENT

Samsung argues that Compal has contributed to

infringement by another. Contributory infringement may arise when

someone supplies something that is used to infringe one or more of

the patent claims. 

In order for there to be contributory infringement by

Compal, someone other than Compal must directly infringe a claim of

the ‘273 patent; if there is no direct infringement by anyone,

there can be no contributory infringement. 

If you find someone has directly infringed the ‘273

patent, then contributory infringement exists if:

(1) Compal supplied an important component of the

infringing part of the product;

(2) the component is not a common component suitable for

non-infringing use; and 

(3) Compal supplied the component with the knowledge of

the ‘273 patent and knowledge that the component was

especially made or adapted for use in an infringing

manner.

Case 3:00-cv-04524-VRW Document 522 Filed 10/11/06 Page 60 of 96
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

61

INDUCING PATENT INFRINGEMENT

Samsung argues that Compal has actively induced another

to infringe the ‘273 patent. In order for there to be inducement

of infringement by Compal, someone else must directly infringe a

claim of the ‘273 patent; if there is no direct infringement by

anyone, there can be no inducement of infringement. 

Active inducement exists if Compal took action that

actually induced direct infringement by another, and Compal knew or

should have known that taking such action would induce direct

infringement. It is not enough that the Compal knew only of the

acts alleged to constitute infringement; Compal must have known

that those acts actually constituted infringement. Compal cannot

be liable for inducing infringement if it was not aware of the

existence of the ‘273 patent.

Case 3:00-cv-04524-VRW Document 522 Filed 10/11/06 Page 61 of 96
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

62

WILLFUL INFRINGEMENT

In this case, Samsung argues both that Compal infringed

and that Compal infringed willfully. To prove willful

infringement, Samsung must persuade you that it is “highly

probable” that Compal willfully infringed.

Specifically, Samsung must demonstrate that it is highly

probable that:

(A) Compal had actual knowledge of the ‘273 patent; and

(B) Compal had no reasonable basis for believing (1)

that Compal’s product did not infringe the ‘273

patent or (2) that the ‘273 patent was invalid.

In deciding whether Compal committed willful

infringement, you must consider all of the facts, which include but

are not limited to: 

(A) whether Compal intentionally copied a product of

Samsung covered by the ‘273 patent;

(B) whether Compal, when it learned of Samsung’s patent

protection, investigated the scope of the patent and

formed a good-faith belief that the patent was

invalid or that it was not infringed;

(C) whether Compal had a substantial defense to

infringement and reasonably believed that the

defense would be successful if litigated;

(D) whether Compal made a good faith effort to avoid

infringing the patent; and

(E) whether Compal relied on a legal opinion that

Case 3:00-cv-04524-VRW Document 522 Filed 10/11/06 Page 62 of 96
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

63

appeared to it to be well-supported and believable

and that advised Compal (1) that the product did not

infringe the ‘273 patent or (2) that the ‘273 patent

was invalid.

Case 3:00-cv-04524-VRW Document 522 Filed 10/11/06 Page 63 of 96
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

64

INVALIDITY – BURDEN OF PROOF

I will now instruct you on the rules you must follow in

deciding whether Compal has proven that claims 1 and 3 through 7 of

the ‘273 patent are invalid. To prove invalidity of any patent

claim, Compal must persuade you that it is highly probable that the

claim is invalid. I will now instruct you on the invalidity issues

that you will have to decide in this case.

Case 3:00-cv-04524-VRW Document 522 Filed 10/11/06 Page 64 of 96
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

65

ANTICIPATION

A patent claim is invalid if the claimed invention is not

new. For the claim to be invalid because it is not new, all of its

requirements must be in a single previous device or method, or

described in a single previous publication or patent. We call

these things “prior art references.” The description in a

reference does not have to be in the same words as the claim, but

all the requirements must be there, either stated or necessarily

implied, so that someone of ordinary skill in the field of

microprocessor-based computer systems looking at that one reference

would be able to make and use the claimed invention. 

Here is a list of the ways that Compal can show that a

patent claim was not new:

(1) If the claimed invention was already publicly known

or publicly used by others in the United States

before the date of conception by the inventors of

the ‘273 patent.

(2) If the claimed invention was already patented or

described in a printed publication anywhere in the

world before the date of conception by the inventors

of the ‘273 patent. A reference is a “printed

publication” if it is accessible to those interested

in the field, even if it is difficult to find.

(3) If the claimed invention was already described in

another issued US patent or published US patent

application that was based on a patent application

Case 3:00-cv-04524-VRW Document 522 Filed 10/11/06 Page 65 of 96
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

66

filed before November 9, 1990. 

(4) If Samsung and Compal dispute who is a first

inventor, the person who first conceived of the

claimed invention and first reduced it to practice

is the first inventor. If one person conceived of

the claimed invention first, but reduced to practice

second, that person is the first inventor only if

that person (a) began to reduce the claimed

invention to practice before the other party

conceived of it and (b) continued to work diligently

to reduce it to practice. A claimed invention is

“reduced to practice” when it has been tested

sufficiently to show that it will work for its

intended purpose or when it is fully described in a

filed patent application.

Since it is in dispute, you must determine a date of

conception for the claimed and allegedly prior inventions. 

Conception is the mental part of an inventive act and is proven

when the invention is shown in its complete form by drawings,

disclosure to another or other forms of evidence presented at

trial.

Case 3:00-cv-04524-VRW Document 522 Filed 10/11/06 Page 66 of 96
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

67

OBVIOUSNESS

A patent claim is invalid if the claimed invention would

have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the field at the

time the application was filed. This means that even if all of the

requirements of the claim cannot be found in a single prior art

reference that would anticipate the claim or constitute a statutory

bar to that claim, a person of ordinary skill in the field of

microprocessor-based computer systems who knew about all this prior

art would have come up with the claimed invention. 

The claimed invention is not obvious unless there was

something in the prior art or within the understanding of a person

of ordinary skill in the field that would suggest the claimed

invention. You must be careful not to determine obviousness using

the benefit of hindsight. You should put yourself in the position

of a person of ordinary skill in the field at the time the

invention was made and you should not consider what is known today

or what is learned from the teaching of the patent. 

Your conclusion about the question whether a claim is

obvious must be based on several factual decisions that you must

make. First, you must decide the scope and content of the prior

art. Second, you must decide what difference, if any, exists

between the claim and the prior art. Third, you must decide the

level of ordinary skill in the field that someone would have had at

the time the claimed invention was made. Finally, you must

consider any evidence that has been presented with respect to the

following: 

Case 3:00-cv-04524-VRW Document 522 Filed 10/11/06 Page 67 of 96
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

68

(1) commercial success due to the merits of the claimed

invention;

(2) a long felt need for the solution provided by the

claimed invention;

(3) unsuccessful attempts by others to find the solution

provided by the claimed invention;

(4) copying of the claimed invention by others;

(5) unexpected superior results from the claimed

invention;

(6) acceptance by others of the claimed invention as

shown by praise from others in the field or from the

licensing of the claimed invention; and

(7) independent invention of the claimed invention by

others before or at about the same time as the named

inventor thought of it.

The presence of any of these considerations may be an

indication that a claimed invention would not have been obvious at

the time this invention was made, and the presence of the final

consideration may be an indication that the claimed invention would

have been obvious at such time. Although you must consider any

evidence of these considerations, the importance of any of them to

your decision on whether the claimed invention would have been

obvious is up to you.

Case 3:00-cv-04524-VRW Document 522 Filed 10/11/06 Page 68 of 96
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

69

SCOPE AND CONTENT OF PRIOR ART

Samsung and Compal disagree whether any of the prior art

references should be included in the prior art you use to decide

the validity of claims 1 and 3 through 7 of the ‘273 patent. In

order to be considered as prior art to the ‘273 patent, these

references must be reasonably related to the claimed invention of

that patent. A reference is reasonably related if it is in the

same field as the claimed invention or is from another field that a

person of ordinary skill in the field would look to in trying to

solve the problem the named inventor was trying to solve. 

Case 3:00-cv-04524-VRW Document 522 Filed 10/11/06 Page 69 of 96
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

70

DIFFERENCES OVER THE PRIOR ART

In reaching your conclusion whether or not claims 1 and 3

through 7 would have been obvious at the time the claimed invention

was made, you should consider any difference or differences between

the prior art references and the claimed requirements.

Case 3:00-cv-04524-VRW Document 522 Filed 10/11/06 Page 70 of 96
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

71

LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL

Several times in these instructions I have referred to a

person of ordinary skill in the field of microprocessor-based

computer systems. It is up to you to decide the level of ordinary

skill in the field of microprocessor-based computer systems. You

should consider all the evidence introduced at trial in making this

decision, including:

(1) the levels of education and experience of persons

working in the field;

(2) the types of problems encountered in the field; and

(3) the sophistication of the technology.

Samsung contends that the level of ordinary skill in the

field was a bachelor of science degree in electrical engineering

with more than two years of experience in the field of computer

hardware or software design, or an engineer with a master of

science degree in electrical engineering or computer engineering

and one year in the field. 

Compal contends that the level of ordinary skill in the

field was a bachelor of science degree in electrical or computer

engineering with two or three years of experience. 

Case 3:00-cv-04524-VRW Document 522 Filed 10/11/06 Page 71 of 96
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

72

DAMAGES – BURDEN OF PROOF

I will instruct you about the measure of damages. By

instructing you on damages, I am not suggesting which party should

win on any issue. If you find that Compal infringed any valid

claim of the ‘273 patent, you must then determine the amount of

money damages to be awarded to Samsung to compensate it for the

infringement. 

The amount of those damages must be adequate to

compensate Samsung for the infringement. A damages award should

put the patent holder in approximately the financial position it

would have been in had the infringement not occurred, but in no

event may the damages award be less than a reasonable royalty. You

should keep in mind that the damages you award are meant to

compensate the patent holder and not to punish an infringer. 

Samsung has the burden to persuade you of the amount of

its damages. You should award only those damages that Samsung more

likely than not suffered. While Samsung is not required to prove

its damages with mathematical precision, it must prove them with

reasonable certainty. Samsung is not entitled to damages that are

remote or speculative.

Case 3:00-cv-04524-VRW Document 522 Filed 10/11/06 Page 72 of 96
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

73

REASONABLE ROYALTY – DEFINITION

A royalty is a payment made to a patent holder in

exchange for rights to make, use or sell the claimed invention. A

reasonable royalty is the payment that would have resulted from a

negotiation between a patent holder and the infringer taking place

at the time when the infringing sales first began. In considering

the nature of this negotiation, the focus is on what the

expectations of the patent holder and infringer would have been had

they entered into an agreement at that time and acted reasonably in

their negotiations. Yet, you must assume that both parties

believed the patent was valid and infringed. In addition, you must

assume that patent holder and infringer were willing to enter into

an agreement; your role is to determine what that agreement would

have been. The test for damages is what royalty would have

resulted from the hypothetical negotiation and not simply what

either party would have preferred. 

Case 3:00-cv-04524-VRW Document 522 Filed 10/11/06 Page 73 of 96
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

74

DATE OF COMMENCEMENT– PRODUCTS

Damages that Samsung may be awarded by you commence on

February 5, 1999. 

Case 3:00-cv-04524-VRW Document 522 Filed 10/11/06 Page 74 of 96
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

75

WHAT IS EVIDENCE

The evidence from which you are to decide what the facts

are consists of:

(1) the sworn testimony of witnesses, on both direct and

cross-examination, regardless of who called the witness; 

(2) the exhibits which have been received into evidence and 

(3) any facts to which all the lawyers have agreed or

stipulated.

Case 3:00-cv-04524-VRW Document 522 Filed 10/11/06 Page 75 of 96
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

76

WHAT IS NOT EVIDENCE

In reaching your verdict, you may consider only the

testimony and exhibits received into evidence. Certain things are

not evidence, and you may not consider them in deciding what the

facts are. I will list them for you:

Arguments and statements by lawyers are not evidence. 

The lawyers are not witnesses. What they have said in their

opening statements, closing arguments, and at other times is

intended to help you interpret the evidence, but it is not

evidence. If the facts as you remember them differ from the way

the lawyers have stated them, your memory of them controls.

Questions and objections by lawyers are not evidence. 

Attorneys have a duty to their clients to object when they believe

a question is improper under the rules of evidence. You should not

be influenced by the objection or by the court's ruling on it.

Testimony that has been excluded or stricken, or that you

have been instructed to disregard, is not evidence and must not be

considered. In addition, some testimony and exhibits have been

received only for a limited purpose; where I have given a limiting

instruction, you must follow it.

Anything you may have seen or heard when the court was

not in session is not evidence. You are to decide the case solely

on the evidence received at the trial.

Case 3:00-cv-04524-VRW Document 522 Filed 10/11/06 Page 76 of 96
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

77

DIRECT AND CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE

Evidence may be direct or circumstantial. Direct

evidence is direct proof of a fact, such as testimony by a witness

about what that witness personally saw or heard or did. 

Circumstantial evidence is proof of one or more facts from which

you could find another fact. You should consider both kinds of

evidence. The law makes no distinction between the weight to be

given to either direct or circumstantial evidence. It is for you

to decide how much weight to give to any evidence.

Case 3:00-cv-04524-VRW Document 522 Filed 10/11/06 Page 77 of 96
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

78

CREDIBILITY OF WITNESSES

In deciding the facts in this case, you may have to

decide which testimony to believe and which testimony not to

believe. You may believe everything a witness says, or part of it,

or none of it.

In considering the testimony of any witness, you may take

into account:

(1) the opportunity and ability of the witness to see or hear

or know the things testified to;

(2) the witness’ memory;

(3) the witness’ manner while testifying;

(4) the witness’ interest in the outcome of the case and any

bias or prejudice;

(5) whether other evidence contradicted the witness’

testimony;

(6) the reasonableness of the witness’ testimony in light of

all the evidence and

(7) any other factors that bear on believability.

The weight of the evidence as to a fact does not

necessarily depend on the number of witnesses who testify.

DISCREPANCIES IN TESTIMONY

Case 3:00-cv-04524-VRW Document 522 Filed 10/11/06 Page 78 of 96
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

79

 Discrepancies in a witness’ testimony or between such

witness’ testimony and that of other witnesses, if there were any,

do not necessarily mean that any witness should be discredited. 

Failure of recollection is common. Innocent misrecollection is not

uncommon. Two persons witnessing an incident or a transaction

often will see or hear it differently. You should consider whether

a discrepancy pertains to an important matter or only to something

trivial.

Case 3:00-cv-04524-VRW Document 522 Filed 10/11/06 Page 79 of 96
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

80

OPINION EVIDENCE, EXPERT WITNESSES

You have heard testimony from persons who, because of

education or experience, are permitted to state opinions and the

reasons for those opinions.

Opinion testimony should be judged just like any other

testimony. You may accept it or reject it, and give it as much

weight as you think it deserves, considering the witness' education

and experience, the reasons given for the opinion and all the other

evidence in the case.

Case 3:00-cv-04524-VRW Document 522 Filed 10/11/06 Page 80 of 96
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

81

CHARTS AND SUMMARIES NOT RECEIVED IN EVIDENCE

Certain charts and summaries that have not been received

in evidence have been shown to you in order to help explain the

contents of books, records, documents or other evidence in the

case. They are not themselves evidence or proof of any facts. If

they do not correctly reflect the facts or figures shown by the

evidence in the case, you should disregard these charts and

summaries and determine the facts from the underlying evidence.

Case 3:00-cv-04524-VRW Document 522 Filed 10/11/06 Page 81 of 96
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

82

CHARTS AND SUMMARIES IN EVIDENCE

Certain charts and summaries have been received into

evidence to illustrate information brought out in the trial. 

Charts and summaries are only as good as the underlying evidence

that supports them. You should, therefore, give them only such

weight as you think the underlying evidence deserves.

Case 3:00-cv-04524-VRW Document 522 Filed 10/11/06 Page 82 of 96
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

83

DUTY TO DELIBERATE

When you begin your deliberations, you should elect one

member of the jury as your foreperson. That person will preside

over the deliberations and speak for you here in court.

You will then discuss the case with your fellow jurors to

reach agreement if you can do so. Your verdict must be unanimous.

Each of you must decide the case for yourself, but you

should do so only after you have considered all the evidence,

discussed it fully with the other jurors, and listened to the views

of your fellow jurors.

Do not be afraid to change your opinion if the discussion

persuades you that you should. But do not come to a decision

simply because other jurors think it is right.

It is important that you attempt to reach a unanimous

verdict but, of course, only if each of you can do so after having

made your own conscientious decision. Do not change an honest

belief about the weight and effect of the evidence simply to reach

a verdict.

Case 3:00-cv-04524-VRW Document 522 Filed 10/11/06 Page 83 of 96
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

84

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE

Your verdict must be based solely on the evidence and on

the law as I have given it to you in these instructions. Nothing

that I have said or done, however, is intended to suggest what your

verdict should be--that is entirely up to you to decide.

Case 3:00-cv-04524-VRW Document 522 Filed 10/11/06 Page 84 of 96
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

85

USE OF NOTES

Some of you have taken notes during the trial. Whether

or not you took notes, you should rely on your own memory of what

was said. Notes are only to assist your memory. You should not be

overly influenced by your notes.

Case 3:00-cv-04524-VRW Document 522 Filed 10/11/06 Page 85 of 96
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

86

COMMUNICATION WITH COURT

If it becomes necessary during your deliberations to

communicate with me, you may send a note through the clerk or court

security officer, signed by your foreperson or by one or more

members of the jury. No member of the jury should ever attempt to

communicate with me except by a signed writing; and I will

communicate with any member of the jury on anything concerning the

case only in writing or orally here in open court. If you send out

a question, I will consult with the parties before answering it,

which may take some time. You may continue your deliberations

while waiting for the answer to any question. Remember that you

are not to tell anyone--including me--how the jury stands,

numerically or otherwise, until after you have reached a unanimous

verdict or have been discharged. Do not disclose any vote count in

any note to the court.

Case 3:00-cv-04524-VRW Document 522 Filed 10/11/06 Page 86 of 96
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

87

RETURN OF VERDICT

A verdict form has been prepared for you. After you have

reached unanimous agreement on a verdict, your foreperson will fill

in the form that has been given to you, sign and date it and advise

the clerk or court security officer that you are ready to return to

the courtroom.

Case 3:00-cv-04524-VRW Document 522 Filed 10/11/06 Page 87 of 96
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

88

GLOSSARY

Some of the terms in this glossary will be defined in

more detail in the legal instructions you are given. The

definitions in the instructions must be followed and must control

your deliberations.

Abstract: A brief summary of the technical disclosure in

a patent to enable the US Patent and Trademark Office and the

public to determine quickly the nature and gist of the technical

disclosure in the patent. 

Amendment: A patent applicant’s change to one or more

claims or to the specification either in response to an office

action taken by a patent examiner or independently by the patent

applicant during the patent application examination process.

Anticipation: A situation in which a claimed invention

describes an earlier invention and, therefore, is not considered

new and is not entitled to be patented.

Assignment: A transfer of patent rights to another

called an “assignee” who upon transfer becomes the owner of the

rights assigned.

Claim: Each claim of a patent is a concise, formal

definition of an invention and appears at the end of the

specification in a separately numbered paragraph. In concept, a

patent claim marks the boundaries of the patent in the same way

that a legal description in a deed specifies the boundaries of

land, i e, similar to a land owner who can prevent others from

trespassing on the bounded property, the inventor can prevent

Case 3:00-cv-04524-VRW Document 522 Filed 10/11/06 Page 88 of 96
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

89

others from using what is claimed. Claims may be independent or

dependent. An independent claim stands alone. A dependent claim

does not stand alone and refers to one or more other claims. A

dependent claim incorporates whatever the other referenced claim or

claims say.

Conception: The complete mental part of the inventive

act which must be capable of proof, as by drawings, disclosure to

another, etc.

Drawings: The drawings are visual representations of the

claimed invention contained in a patent application and issued

patent, and usually include several figures illustrating various

aspects of the claimed invention. 

Elements: The required parts of a device or the required

steps of a method. A device or method infringes a patent if it

contains each and every requirement of a patent claim.

Embodiment: A product or method that contains the

claimed invention. 

Enablement: A description of the invention that is

sufficient to enable persons skilled in the field of the invention

to make and use the invention. The specification of the patent

must contain such an enabling description.

Examination: Procedure before the U.S. Patent and

Trademark Office whereby a patent examiner reviews the filed patent

application to determine if the claimed invention is patentable.

Filing Date: Date a patent application, with all the

required sections, has been submitted to the US Patent and

Trademark Office.

Case 3:00-cv-04524-VRW Document 522 Filed 10/11/06 Page 89 of 96
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

90

Infringement: Violation of a patent occurring when

someone makes, uses or sells a patented invention, without

permission of the patent holder, within the United States during

the term of the patent. Infringement may be direct, by inducement,

or contributory. Direct infringement is making, using or selling

the patented invention without permission. Inducing infringement

is intentionally causing another to directly infringe a patent. 

Contributory infringement is offering to sell or selling an item

that is a significant part of the invention, so that the buyer

directly infringes the patent. To be a contributory infringer one

must know that the part being offered or sold is designed

specifically for infringing the patented invention and is not a

common object suitable for non-infringing uses.

Limitation: A required part of an invention set forth in

a patent claim. A limitation is a requirement of the invention. 

The word “limitation” is often used interchangeably with the word

“requirement.”

Nonobviousness: One of the requirements for securing a

patent. To be valid, the subject matter of the invention must not

have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the field of the

invention at the time of the earlier of the filing date of the

patent application or the date of invention.

Office Action: A written communication from the patent

examiner to the patent applicant in the course of the application

examination process.

Patent: A patent is an exclusive right granted by the US

Patent and Trademark Office to an inventor to prevent others from

Case 3:00-cv-04524-VRW Document 522 Filed 10/11/06 Page 90 of 96
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

91

making, using or selling an invention for a term of 20 years from

the date the patent application was filed (or 17 years from the

date the patent issued). When the patent expires, the right to

make, use or sell the invention is dedicated to the public. The

patent has three parts, which are a specification, drawings and

claims. The patent is granted after examination by the US Patent

and Trademark Office of a patent application filed by the inventor

which has these parts, and this examination is called the

prosecution history.

Patent and Trademark Office (PTO): An administrative

branch of the US Department of Commerce that is charged with

overseeing and implementing the federal laws of patents and

trademarks. It is responsible for examining all patent

applications and issuing all patents in the United States. 

Prior Art: Previously known subject matter in the field

of a claimed invention for which a patent is being sought. It

includes issued patents, publications, and knowledge deemed to be

publicly available such as trade skills, trade practices and the

like.

Prosecution History: The prosecution history is the

complete written record of the proceedings in the PTO from the

initial application to the issued patent. The prosecution history

includes the office actions taken by the PTO and the amendments to

the patent application filed by the applicant during the

examination process.

Reads On: A patent claim “reads on” a device or method

when each required part (requirement) of the claim is found in the

Case 3:00-cv-04524-VRW Document 522 Filed 10/11/06 Page 91 of 96
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

92

device or method.

Reduction to Practice: The invention is “reduced to

practice” when it is sufficiently developed to show that it would

work for its intended purpose.

Requirement: A required part or step of an invention set

forth in a patent claim. The word “requirement” is often used

interchangeably with the word “limitation.”

Royalty: A royalty is a payment made to the owner of a

patent by a non-owner in exchange for rights to make, use or sell

the claimed invention.

Specification: The specification is a required part of a

patent application and an issued patent. It is a written

description of the invention and of the manner and process of

making and using the claimed invention.

Case 3:00-cv-04524-VRW Document 522 Filed 10/11/06 Page 92 of 96
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

93

Proposed Special Verdict Form

Question 1

Has Samsung proven by a preponderance of the evidence

that Compal literally infringed any asserted claim of the ‘273

patent? (“yes” is a finding for Samsung; “no” is a finding for

Compal)

(i) claim 1 yes____ no____

(ii) claim 3 yes____ no____

(iii) claim 4 yes____ no____

(iv) claim 5 yes____ no____

(v) claim 6 yes____ no____

(vi) claim 7 yes____ no____

Question 2

Has Samsung proven by a preponderance of the evidence

that Compal infringed any asserted claim of the ‘273 patent under

the doctrine of equivalents? (“yes” is a finding for Samsung; “no”

is a finding for Compal)

(i) claim 1 yes____ no____

(ii) claim 3 yes____ no____

(iii) claim 4 yes____ no____

(iv) claim 5 yes____ no____

(v) claim 6 yes____ no____

(vi) claim 7 yes____ no____

Case 3:00-cv-04524-VRW Document 522 Filed 10/11/06 Page 93 of 96
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

94

Question 3

Has Samsung proven by a preponderance of the evidence

that Compal induced another to infringe any asserted claim of the

‘273? (“yes” is a finding for Samsung; “no” is a finding for

Compal)

(i) claim 1 yes____ no____

(ii) claim 3 yes____ no____

(iii) claim 4 yes____ no____

(iv) claim 5 yes____ no____

(v) claim 6 yes____ no____

(vi) claim 7 yes____ no____

Question 4

Has Samsung proven by a preponderance of the evidence

that Compal contributed to the infringement by another of any

asserted claim of the ‘273? (“yes” is a finding for Samsung; “no”

is a finding for Compal)

(i) claim 1 yes____ no____

(ii) claim 3 yes____ no____

(iii) claim 4 yes____ no____

(iv) claim 5 yes____ no____

(v) claim 6 yes____ no____

(vi) claim 7 yes____ no____

Case 3:00-cv-04524-VRW Document 522 Filed 10/11/06 Page 94 of 96
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

95

Question 5

Has Compal proven by clear and convincing evidence that

any of the following claims of the ‘273 patent are invalid on the

ground of anticipation? (“yes” is a finding for Compal; “no” is a

finding for Samsung)

(i) claim 1 yes____ no____

(ii) claim 3 yes____ no____

(iii) claim 4 yes____ no____

(iv) claim 5 yes____ no____

(v) claim 6 yes____ no____

(vi) claim 7 yes____ no____

Question 6

Has Compal proven by clear and convincing evidence that

any of the following claims of the ‘273 patent are invalid on the

ground of obviousness? (“yes” is a finding for Compal; “no” is a

finding for Samsung)

(i) claim 1 yes____ no____

(ii) claim 3 yes____ no____

(iii) claim 4 yes____ no____

(iv) claim 5 yes____ no____

(v) claim 6 yes____ no____

(vi) claim 7 yes____ no____

Case 3:00-cv-04524-VRW Document 522 Filed 10/11/06 Page 95 of 96
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

96

Only answer questions 7 and 8 if you found at least one

of the claims infringed and not invalid. 

Question 7

Has Samsung proven by clear and convincing evidence that

Compal’s infringement of the ‘273 patent was willful? (“yes” is a

finding for Samsung; “no” is a finding for Compal)

(i) yes____ no____

Question 8

What amount of damages should be awarded to Samsung for

infringement of the ‘273 patent by Compal?

$_____________________

We, the jury, have unanimously agreed to the answers to

the above questions, and return such answers in open court as our

verdict in this case.

Dated:_________ Foreperson:________________________________

Case 3:00-cv-04524-VRW Document 522 Filed 10/11/06 Page 96 of 96