Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_13-cv-01081/USCOURTS-cand-5_13-cv-01081-49/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Other Contract

---

1

Case No. 5:13-cv-01081-PSG

JURY VERDICT FORM

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GSI TECHNOLOGY, INC.,

Plaintiff,

v.

UNITED MEMORIES, INC., et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 5:13-cv-01081-PSG

JURY VERDICT FORM

Case 5:13-cv-01081-PSG Document 1044 Filed 11/22/15 Page 1 of 35
2

Case No. 5:13-cv-01081-PSG

JURY VERDICT FORM

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

Table of Contents

I. Trade Secret Claims................................................................................................................... 4

A. GSI’s Misappropriation of Trade Secrets Claims: Preliminary Questions ........................ 4

B. GSI’s Misappropriation of Trade Secrets Claims Against UMI........................................ 6

C. UMI’s Affirmative Defense: Unclean Hands..................................................................... 7

D. UMI’s Affirmative Defense: Ready Ascertainability ........................................................ 7

E. UMI’s Affirmative Defense: Estoppel ............................................................................... 8

F. UMI’s Affirmative Defense: Statute of Limitations .......................................................... 8

G. GSI’s Misappropriation of Trade Secrets Claims Against ISSI....................................... 10

H. ISSI’s Affirmative Defense: Unclean Hands ................................................................... 11

I. ISSI’s Affirmative Defense: Ready Ascertainability ....................................................... 11

J. ISSI’s Affirmative Defense: Estoppel.............................................................................. 12

K. ISSI’s Affirmative Defense: Mitigation........................................................................... 12

L. Misappropriation of Trade Secrets: Damages.................................................................. 13

M. Contention of Bad Faith Assertion of a Trade Secret Claim............................................ 14

II. Intentional Interference with Prospective Economic Relations Claim.................................... 15

A. GSI’s Intentional Interference with Prospective Economic Relations Claim: 

Preliminary Question........................................................................................................ 15

B. GSI’s Intentional Interference with Prospective Economic Relations Claim 

Against UMI..................................................................................................................... 15

C. UMI’s Affirmative Defense: Unclean Hands................................................................... 16

D. UMI’s Affirmative Defense: Estoppel ............................................................................. 17

E. Damages as to UMI.......................................................................................................... 18

F. GSI’s Intentional Interference with Prospective Economic Relations Against ISSI ....... 18

G. ISSI Affirmative Defense: Unclean Hands...................................................................... 19

H. ISSI’s Affirmative Defense: Estoppel.............................................................................. 20

I. ISSI’s Affirmative Defense: Mitigation........................................................................... 21

J. Damages as to ISSI .......................................................................................................... 21

III. Breach of Contract................................................................................................................... 23

A. GSI’s Breach of Contract Claim Against UMI ................................................................ 23

B. UMI’s Affirmative Defense: Unclean Hands................................................................... 23

C. UMI’s Affirmative Defense: Estoppel ............................................................................. 24

D. UMI’s Affirmative Defense: Waiver ............................................................................... 25

E. UMI’s Affirmative Defense: Statute of Limitations ........................................................ 25

Case 5:13-cv-01081-PSG Document 1044 Filed 11/22/15 Page 2 of 35
3

Case No. 5:13-cv-01081-PSG

JURY VERDICT FORM

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

F. UMI’s Affirmative Defense: Mitigation .......................................................................... 26

G. Damages........................................................................................................................... 26

IV. Fraud ........................................................................................................................................ 27

A. GSI’s Claim of Fraud against UMI.................................................................................. 27

B. UMI’s Affirmative Defense: Unclean Hands................................................................... 28

C. UMI’s Affirmative Defense: Estoppel ............................................................................. 28

D. UMI’s Affirmative Defense: Waiver ............................................................................... 29

E. UMI’s Affirmative Defense: Statute of Limitations ........................................................ 29

F. Damages........................................................................................................................... 30

V. False Promise........................................................................................................................... 31

A. GSI’s Claim of False Promise Against UMI.................................................................... 31

B. UMI’s Affirmative Defense: Unclean Hands................................................................... 32

C. UMI’s Affirmative Defense: Estoppel ............................................................................. 33

D. Damages........................................................................................................................... 34

Case 5:13-cv-01081-PSG Document 1044 Filed 11/22/15 Page 3 of 35
4

Case No. 5:13-cv-01081-PSG

JURY VERDICT FORM

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

I. Trade Secret Claims

A. GSI’s Misappropriation of Trade Secrets Claims: Preliminary Questions

1. Do you find by a preponderance of the evidence that GSI owned the information in any of 

the following 25 circuit schematics?

Yes No

1 chcon

2 rclk

3 rclk_match

4 dmmatch

5 wclk

6 rcbufwrc

7 wbkcom

8 qcalblk

9 qcal

10 qcaladj

11 qcals

12 pcalreg

13 ncalreg

14 fidec

15 gclk

16 yclkmix

17 r13buf

18 rbuf

19 bnkcon

20 yclkclk

21 lwrite

22 pretimer

23 bab_s80

24 lread

25 rcbuf

If you answered “No” for the information in all of the schematics, proceed to section 

I.M. If you answered “Yes” for the information in any of the schematics, then answer 

the next question.

Case 5:13-cv-01081-PSG Document 1044 Filed 11/22/15 Page 4 of 35
5

Case No. 5:13-cv-01081-PSG

JURY VERDICT FORM

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

2. Do you find by a preponderance of the evidence that the information in any of the 

following 25 circuit schematics was a trade secret at the time of the claimed 

misappropriation?

Yes No

1 chcon

2 rclk

3 rclk_match

4 dmmatch

5 wclk

6 rcbufwrc

7 wbkcom

8 qcalblk

9 qcal

10 qcaladj

11 qcals

12 pcalreg

13 ncalreg

14 fidec

15 gclk

16 yclkmix

17 r13buf

18 rbuf

19 bnkcon

20 yclkclk

21 lwrite

22 pretimer

23 bab_s80

24 lread

25 rcbuf

If you answered “No” for the information in all of the schematics, proceed to section 

I.M. If you answered “Yes” for the information in any of the schematics, then answer 

the next question.

Case 5:13-cv-01081-PSG Document 1044 Filed 11/22/15 Page 5 of 35
6

Case No. 5:13-cv-01081-PSG

JURY VERDICT FORM

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

B. GSI’s Misappropriation of Trade Secrets Claims Against UMI

3. Do you find by a preponderance of the evidence that UMI improperly used or disclosed the 

trade secret information in any of the following 25 circuit schematics?

Yes No

1 chcon

2 rclk

3 rclk_match

4 dmmatch

5 wclk

6 rcbufwrc

7 wbkcom

8 qcalblk

9 qcal

10 qcaladj

11 qcals

12 pcalreg

13 ncalreg

14 fidec

15 gclk

16 yclkmix

17 r13buf

18 rbuf

19 bnkcon

20 yclkclk

21 lwrite

22 pretimer

23 bab_s80

24 lread

25 rcbuf

If you answered “No” for the information in all of the schematics, proceed to section 

I.M. If you answered “Yes” for the information in any of the schematics, then answer 

the next question.

Case 5:13-cv-01081-PSG Document 1044 Filed 11/22/15 Page 6 of 35
7

Case No. 5:13-cv-01081-PSG

JURY VERDICT FORM

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

4. Do you find by a preponderance of the evidence that UMI’s misappropriation was a 

substantial factor in causing GSI to suffer harm?

Yes No

If you answered “Yes,” then proceed to the next question. If you answered “No,” 

proceed to Section I.M.

C. UMI’s Affirmative Defense: Unclean Hands

5. Did UMI prove by a preponderance of the evidence that GSI committed misconduct that 

was unconscionable?

Yes No

If you answered “Yes,” then answer the next question. If you answered “No,” then 

proceed to Section I.D.

6. Did UMI prove by a preponderance of the evidence that GSI’s misconduct was directly 

related to its claim of misappropriation of trade secrets against UMI and resulted in 

prejudice to UMI?

Yes No

Proceed to the next question.

D. UMI’s Affirmative Defense: Ready Ascertainability

7. Did UMI prove by a preponderance of the evidence that GSI’s alleged trade secrets were 

readily ascertainable by proper means at the time of the alleged acquisition, use, or 

disclosure?

Yes No

Proceed to the next question.

Case 5:13-cv-01081-PSG Document 1044 Filed 11/22/15 Page 7 of 35
8

Case No. 5:13-cv-01081-PSG

JURY VERDICT FORM

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

E. UMI’s Affirmative Defense: Estoppel

8. Do you find by a preponderance of the evidence that GSI made a representation of fact 

relating to its misappropriation of trade secrets claim intending that UMI rely on it, or 

remained silent where GSI had a duty to speak and the circumstances required it to speak?

Yes No

If you answered “Yes,” then answer the next question. If you answered “No,” then 

proceed to Section I.F.

9. Do you find by a preponderance of the evidence that GSI knew the true state of the facts?

Yes No

If you answered “Yes,” then answer the next question. If you answered “No,” then 

proceed to Section I.F.

10. Do you find by a preponderance of the evidence that UMI was ignorant of the true state of 

the facts?

Yes No

If you answered “Yes,” then answer the next question. If you answered “No,” then 

proceed to Section I.F.

11. Do you find by a preponderance of the evidence that UMI reasonably relied upon GSI’s 

conduct to UMI’s injury?

Yes No

Proceed to the next question.

F. UMI’s Affirmative Defense: Statute of Limitations

12. Did UMI prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the misappropriation occurred on 

or before March 8, 2010?

Yes No

Case 5:13-cv-01081-PSG Document 1044 Filed 11/22/15 Page 8 of 35
9

Case No. 5:13-cv-01081-PSG

JURY VERDICT FORM

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

If you answered “Yes,” proceed to the next question. If you answered “No,” proceed 

to Section I.G.

13. Did UMI prove that GSI knew or should have known, with the exercise of reasonable 

diligence, of the existence of the misappropriation on or before March 8, 2010?

Yes No

Proceed to the next question.

Case 5:13-cv-01081-PSG Document 1044 Filed 11/22/15 Page 9 of 35
10

Case No. 5:13-cv-01081-PSG

JURY VERDICT FORM

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

G. GSI’s Misappropriation of Trade Secrets Claims Against ISSI

14. Do you find by a preponderance of the evidence that ISSI improperly acquired or used the 

trade secret information in any of the following 25 circuit schematics?

Yes No

1 chcon

2 rclk

3 rclk_match

4 dmmatch

5 wclk

6 rcbufwrc

7 wbkcom

8 qcalblk

9 qcal

10 qcaladj

11 qcals

12 pcalreg

13 ncalreg

14 fidec

15 gclk

16 yclkmix

17 r13buf

18 rbuf

19 bnkcon

20 yclkclk

21 lwrite

22 pretimer

23 bab_s80

24 lread

25 rcbuf

If you answered “No” for the information in all of the schematics, proceed to section 

I.L. If you answered “Yes” for the information in any of the schematics, then answer 

the next question.

Case 5:13-cv-01081-PSG Document 1044 Filed 11/22/15 Page 10 of 35
11

Case No. 5:13-cv-01081-PSG

JURY VERDICT FORM

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

15. Do you find by a preponderance of the evidence that ISSI’s misappropriation was a 

substantial factor in causing GSI to suffer harm?

Yes No

If you answered “Yes,” proceed to the next question. If you answered “No,” then 

proceed to Section I.L.

H. ISSI’s Affirmative Defense: Unclean Hands

16. Did ISSI prove by a preponderance of the evidence that GSI committed misconduct that 

was unconscionable?

Yes No

If you answered “Yes,” then answer the next question. If you answered “No,” then 

proceed to Section I.I.

17. Did ISSI prove by a preponderance of the evidence that GSI’s misconduct was directly 

related to its claim of misappropriation of trade secrets against ISSI and resulted in 

prejudice to ISSI?

Yes No

Proceed to the next question.

I. ISSI’s Affirmative Defense: Ready Ascertainability

18. Did ISSI prove by a preponderance of the evidence that GSI’s alleged trade secrets were 

readily ascertainable by proper means at the time of the alleged acquisition, use, or 

disclosure?

Yes No

Proceed to the next question.

Case 5:13-cv-01081-PSG Document 1044 Filed 11/22/15 Page 11 of 35
12

Case No. 5:13-cv-01081-PSG

JURY VERDICT FORM

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

J. ISSI’s Affirmative Defense: Estoppel

19. Do you find by a preponderance of the evidence that GSI made a representation of fact 

relating to its misappropriation of trade secrets claim intending that ISSI rely on it, or 

remained silent where GSI had a duty to speak and the circumstances required it to speak?

Yes No

If you answered “Yes,” then answer the next question. If you answered “No,” then 

proceed to Section I.K.

20. Do you find by a preponderance of the evidence that GSI knew the true state of the facts?

Yes No

If you answered “Yes,” then answer the next question. If you answered “No,” then 

proceed to Section I.K.

21. Do you find by a preponderance of the evidence that ISSI was ignorant of the true state of 

the facts?

Yes No

If you answered “Yes,” then answer the next question. If you answered “No,” then 

proceed to Section I.K.

22. Do you find by a preponderance of the evidence that ISSI reasonably relied upon GSI’s 

conduct to ISSI’s injury?

Yes No

Proceed to the next question.

K. ISSI’s Affirmative Defense: Mitigation

23. Do you find by a preponderance of the evidence that GSI could have avoided its losses 

through reasonable efforts or expenditures?

Yes No

Case 5:13-cv-01081-PSG Document 1044 Filed 11/22/15 Page 12 of 35
13

Case No. 5:13-cv-01081-PSG

JURY VERDICT FORM

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

If you answered “Yes,” then answer the next question. If you answered “No,” then 

proceed to Section I.L.

24. Do you find by a preponderance of the evidence that GSI failed to make such reasonable 

efforts or expenditures?

Yes No

Proceed to the next question. 

L. Misappropriation of Trade Secrets: Damages

25. What was the amount of GSI’s general damages?

$__________

Proceed to the next question.

26. Was ISSI unjustly enriched by the misappropriation of GSI’s trade secrets?

Yes No

If you answered “Yes,” proceed to the next question. If you answered “No,” proceed 

to question 28.

27. What was the amount of ISSI’s unjust enrichment?

$__________

Proceed to the next question.

28. Did UMI act willfully and maliciously when it misappropriated GSI’s trade secrets?

Yes No

Proceed to the next question.

Case 5:13-cv-01081-PSG Document 1044 Filed 11/22/15 Page 13 of 35
14

Case No. 5:13-cv-01081-PSG

JURY VERDICT FORM

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

29. Did ISSI act willfully and maliciously when it misappropriated GSI’s trade secrets?

Yes No

Proceed to the next question.

M. Contention of Bad Faith Assertion of a Trade Secret Claim

Answer this question if you answered “No” for every schematic in question 1, or if 

you answered “No” for every schematic in question 2, or if you answered “No” for 

every schematic in question 3, or if you answered “No” to question 4, or if you 

answered “No” for every schematic in question 14, or if you answered “No” to 

question 15, or if you answered “Yes” to questions 16 and 17, or if you answered 

“Yes” to question 18, or if you answered “Yes” to questions 19, 20, 21, and 22, or if 

you answered “Yes” to questions 23 and 24.

30. Did GSI initiate and/or maintain its claim of trade secret misappropriation against ISSI in 

bad faith?

Yes No

Proceed to the next question.

Case 5:13-cv-01081-PSG Document 1044 Filed 11/22/15 Page 14 of 35
15

Case No. 5:13-cv-01081-PSG

JURY VERDICT FORM

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

II. Intentional Interference with Prospective Economic Relations Claim

A. GSI’s Intentional Interference with Prospective Economic Relations Claim: Preliminary 

Question

31. Did GSI and Cisco have an economic relationship that probably would have resulted in an 

economic benefit to GSI?

Yes No

If you answered “Yes,” then proceed to the next question. If you answered “No,” 

proceed to Section III.

B. GSI’s Intentional Interference with Prospective Economic Relations Claim Against UMI

32. Did UMI know of the economic relationship between GSI and Cisco?

Yes No

If you answered “Yes,” then proceed to the next question. If you answered “No,” 

proceed to Section II.F.

33. Did UMI engage in unfair competition?

Yes No

If you answered “Yes,” then proceed to the next question. If you answered “No,” 

proceed to Section II.F.

34. By engaging in this conduct, did UMI intend to disrupt GSI’s relationship with Cisco or 

know that disruption of the relationship was certain or substantially certain to occur?

Yes No

If you answered “Yes,” then proceed to the next question. If you answered “No,” 

proceed to Section II.F.

Case 5:13-cv-01081-PSG Document 1044 Filed 11/22/15 Page 15 of 35
16

Case No. 5:13-cv-01081-PSG

JURY VERDICT FORM

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

35. Was the relationship disrupted?

Yes No

If you answered “Yes,” then proceed to the next question. If you answered “No,” 

proceed to Section II.F.

36. Was UMI’s conduct a substantial factor in causing harm to GSI?

Yes No

If you answered “Yes,” then proceed to the next question. If you answered “No,” 

proceed to Section II.F.

C. UMI’s Affirmative Defense: Unclean Hands

37. Did UMI prove by a preponderance of the evidence that GSI committed misconduct that 

was unconscionable?

Yes No

If you answered “Yes,” then answer the next question. If you answered “No,” then 

proceed to Section II.D.

38. Did UMI prove by a preponderance of the evidence that GSI’s misconduct was directly 

related to its claim of intentional interference with prospective economic relations and 

resulted in prejudice to UMI?

Yes No

Proceed to the next question.

Case 5:13-cv-01081-PSG Document 1044 Filed 11/22/15 Page 16 of 35
17

Case No. 5:13-cv-01081-PSG

JURY VERDICT FORM

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

D. UMI’s Affirmative Defense: Estoppel

39. Do you find by a preponderance of the evidence that GSI made a representation of fact 

relating to its intentional interference with prospective economic relations claim intending 

that UMI rely on it, or remained silent where GSI had a duty to speak and the 

circumstances required it to speak?

Yes No

If you answered “Yes,” then answer the next question. If you answered “No,” then 

proceed to Section II.E.

40. Do you find by a preponderance of the evidence that GSI knew the true state of the facts?

Yes No

If you answered “Yes,” then answer the next question. If you answered “No,” then 

proceed to Section II.E.

41. Do you find by a preponderance of the evidence that UMI was ignorant of the true state of 

the facts?

Yes No

If you answered “Yes,” then answer the next question. If you answered “No,” then 

proceed to Section II.E.

42. Do you find by a preponderance of the evidence that UMI reasonably relied upon GSI’s 

conduct to UMI’s injury?

Yes No

If you answered “Yes,” proceed to Section II.F. If you answered “No,” proceed to the 

next question.

Case 5:13-cv-01081-PSG Document 1044 Filed 11/22/15 Page 17 of 35
18

Case No. 5:13-cv-01081-PSG

JURY VERDICT FORM

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

E. Damages as to UMI

43. Has GSI proven that the conduct in question 33 caused damage to GSI?

Yes No

Proceed to the next question.

44. If so, how much?

$__________

Proceed to the next question.

45. Did UMI act willfully and maliciously when it intentionally interfered with GSI’s 

prospective economic relations?

Yes No

If you answered “Yes,” proceed to the next question. If you answered “No,” proceed 

to Section II.F.

46. What amount of punitive damages, if any, do you award GSI? 

$____________ 

Proceed to the next question.

F. GSI’s Intentional Interference with Prospective Economic Relations Against ISSI

47. Did ISSI know of the economic relationship between GSI and Cisco?

Yes No

If you answered “Yes,” then proceed to the next question. If you answered “No,” 

proceed to Section III.

Case 5:13-cv-01081-PSG Document 1044 Filed 11/22/15 Page 18 of 35
19

Case No. 5:13-cv-01081-PSG

JURY VERDICT FORM

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

48. Did ISSI engage in unfair competition?

Yes No

If you answered “Yes,” then proceed to the next question. If you answered “No,” 

proceed to Section III.

49. By engaging in this conduct, did ISSI intend to disrupt GSI’s relationship with Cisco or 

know that disruption of the relationship was certain or substantially certain to occur?

Yes No

If you answered “Yes,” then proceed to the next question. If you answered “No,” 

proceed to Section III.

50. Was the relationship disrupted?

Yes No

If you answered “Yes,” then proceed to the next question. If you answered “No,” 

proceed to Section III.

51. Was ISSI’s conduct a substantial factor in causing harm to GSI?

Yes No

If you answered “Yes,” proceed to the next question. If you answered “No,” proceed 

to Section III.

G. ISSI Affirmative Defense: Unclean Hands

52. Did ISSI prove by a preponderance of the evidence that GSI committed misconduct that 

was unconscionable?

Yes No

If you answered “Yes,” then answer the next question. If you answered “No,” then 

proceed to Section II.H.

Case 5:13-cv-01081-PSG Document 1044 Filed 11/22/15 Page 19 of 35
20

Case No. 5:13-cv-01081-PSG

JURY VERDICT FORM

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

53. Did ISSI prove by a preponderance of the evidence that GSI’s misconduct was directly 

related to its claim of intentional interference with prospective economic relations and 

resulted in prejudice to ISSI?

Yes No

Proceed to the next question.

H. ISSI’s Affirmative Defense: Estoppel

54. Do you find by a preponderance of the evidence that GSI made a representation of fact 

relating to its intentional interference with prospective economic relations claim intending 

that ISSI rely on it or remained silent where GSI had a duty to speak and the circumstances 

required it to speak?

Yes No

If you answered “Yes,” then answer the next question. If you answered “No,” then 

proceed to Section II.I.

55. Do you find by a preponderance of the evidence that GSI knew the true state of the facts?

Yes No

If you answered “Yes,” then answer the next question. If you answered “No,” then 

proceed to Section II.I.

56. Do you find by a preponderance of the evidence that ISSI was ignorant of the true state of 

the facts?

Yes No

If you answered “Yes,” then answer the next question. If you answered “No,” then 

proceed to Section II.I.

Case 5:13-cv-01081-PSG Document 1044 Filed 11/22/15 Page 20 of 35
21

Case No. 5:13-cv-01081-PSG

JURY VERDICT FORM

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

57. Do you find by a preponderance of the evidence that ISSI reasonably relied upon GSI’s 

conduct to ISSI’s injury?

Yes No

Proceed to the next question.

I. ISSI’s Affirmative Defense: Mitigation

58. Do you find by a preponderance of the evidence that GSI could have avoided its losses 

through reasonable efforts or expenditures?

Yes No

If you answered “Yes,” then answer the next question. If you answered “No,” then 

proceed to Section II.J.

59. Do you find by a preponderance of the evidence that GSI failed to make such reasonable 

efforts or expenditures?

Yes No

If you answered “Yes,” proceed to Section III. If you answered “No,” proceed to the 

next question.

J. Damages as to ISSI

60. Has GSI proven that the conduct in question 48 caused damage to GSI?

Yes No

Proceed to the next question.

61. If so, how much?

$__________

Proceed to the next question.

Case 5:13-cv-01081-PSG Document 1044 Filed 11/22/15 Page 21 of 35
22

Case No. 5:13-cv-01081-PSG

JURY VERDICT FORM

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

62. Did ISSI act willfully and maliciously when it intentionally interfered with GSI’s 

prospective economic relations?

Yes No

If you answered “Yes,” proceed to the next question. If you answered “No,” proceed 

to Section III.

63. What amount of punitive damages, if any, do you award GSI?

$

Proceed to the next question.

Case 5:13-cv-01081-PSG Document 1044 Filed 11/22/15 Page 22 of 35
23

Case No. 5:13-cv-01081-PSG

JURY VERDICT FORM

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

III. Breach of Contract

A. GSI’s Breach of Contract Claim Against UMI

64. Did GSI and United Memories enter into a contract?

Yes No

If you answered “Yes,” then answer the next question. If you answered “No,” then 

proceed to Section IV.

65. Did UMI fail to comply with its obligations under the contract?

Yes No

If you answered “Yes,” then answer the next question. If you answered “No,” then 

proceed to Section IV.

66. Did UMI’s failure to comply with the terms of the contract cause GSI damage?

Yes No

If you answered “Yes,” then answer the next question. If you answered “No,” then 

proceed to Section IV.

B. UMI’s Affirmative Defense: Unclean Hands

67. Did UMI prove by a preponderance of the evidence that GSI committed misconduct that 

was unconscionable?

Yes No

If you answered “Yes,” then answer the next question. If you answered “No,” then 

proceed to Section III.C.

Case 5:13-cv-01081-PSG Document 1044 Filed 11/22/15 Page 23 of 35
24

Case No. 5:13-cv-01081-PSG

JURY VERDICT FORM

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

68. Did UMI prove by a preponderance of the evidence that GSI’s misconduct was directly 

related to its claim of breach of contract and resulted in prejudice to UMI?

Yes No

Proceed to the next question.

C. UMI’s Affirmative Defense: Estoppel

69. Do you find by a preponderance of the evidence that GSI made a representation of fact 

relating to its breach of contract claim intending that UMI rely on it, or remained silent 

where GSI had a duty to speak and the circumstances required it to speak?

Yes No

If you answered “Yes,” then answer the next question. If you answered “No,” then 

proceed to Section III.D.

70. Do you find by a preponderance of the evidence that GSI knew the true state of the facts?

Yes No

If you answered “Yes,” then answer the next question. If you answered “No,” then 

proceed to Section III.D.

71. Do you find by a preponderance of the evidence that UMI was ignorant of the true state of 

the facts?

Yes No

If you answered “Yes,” then answer the next question. If you answered “No,” then 

proceed to Section III.D.

72. Do you find by a preponderance of the evidence that UMI reasonably relied upon GSI’s 

conduct to UMI’s injury?

Yes No

Proceed to the next question.

Case 5:13-cv-01081-PSG Document 1044 Filed 11/22/15 Page 24 of 35
25

Case No. 5:13-cv-01081-PSG

JURY VERDICT FORM

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

D. UMI’s Affirmative Defense: Waiver

73. Did UMI prove that GSI knew that UMI had not performed its contractual promise?

Yes No

If you answered “Yes,” proceed to the next question. If you answered “No,” proceed 

to Section III.E.

74. Did UMI prove that GSI knew that failure of UMI to perform these contractual promises 

gave GSI the right to sue UMI for damages?

Yes No

If you answered “Yes,” proceed to the next question. If you answered “No,” proceed 

to Section III.E.

75. Did UMI prove that GSI intended to give up this right?

Yes No

If you answered “Yes,” proceed to the next question. If you answered “No,” proceed 

to Section III.E.

76. Did UMI prove that GSI voluntarily gave up this right?

Yes No

Proceed to the next question.

E. UMI’s Affirmative Defense: Statute of Limitations

77. Did UMI prove that it breached the contract before March 8, 2010?

Yes No

If you answered “Yes,” proceed to the next question. If you answered “No,” proceed 

to Section III.F.

Case 5:13-cv-01081-PSG Document 1044 Filed 11/22/15 Page 25 of 35
26

Case No. 5:13-cv-01081-PSG

JURY VERDICT FORM

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

78. Did UMI prove that GSI knew or should have known, with the exercise of reasonable 

diligence, of the existence of the breach before March 8, 2010?

Yes No

Proceed to the next question.

F. UMI’s Affirmative Defense: Mitigation

79. Do you find by a preponderance of the evidence that GSI could have avoided its losses 

through reasonable efforts or expenditures?

Yes No

If you answered “Yes,” then answer the next question. If you answered “No,” then 

proceed to Section III.G.

80. Do you find by a preponderance of the evidence that GSI failed to make such reasonable 

efforts or expenditures?

Yes No

If you answered “Yes,” proceed to Section IV. If you answered “No,” proceed to the 

next question. 

G. Damages

81. What are GSI’s damages?

a. General damages $__________ 

b. Special damages $ __________

TOTAL $__________ 

Case 5:13-cv-01081-PSG Document 1044 Filed 11/22/15 Page 26 of 35
27

Case No. 5:13-cv-01081-PSG

JURY VERDICT FORM

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

IV. Fraud

A. GSI’s Claim of Fraud against UMI

82. Did UMI make a false representation to GSI?

Yes No

If you answered “Yes,” then answer the next question. If you answered “No,” then 

proceed to Section V.

83. Did UMI know that the representation was false, or did it make the representation 

recklessly and without regard for its truth?

Yes No

If you answered “Yes,” then answer the next question. If you answered “No,” then 

proceed to Section V.

84. Did UMI intend that GSI rely on the representation?

Yes No

If you answered “Yes,” then answer the next question. If you answered “No,” then 

proceed to Section V.

85. Did GSI reasonably rely on the representation?

Yes No

If you answered “Yes,” then answer the next question. If you answered “No,” then 

proceed to Section V.

86. Was GSI’s reliance on UMI’s representation a substantial factor in causing harm to GSI?

Yes No

Case 5:13-cv-01081-PSG Document 1044 Filed 11/22/15 Page 27 of 35
28

Case No. 5:13-cv-01081-PSG

JURY VERDICT FORM

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

If you answered “Yes,” then answer the next question. If you answered “No,” then 

proceed to Section V.

B. UMI’s Affirmative Defense: Unclean Hands

87. Did UMI prove by a preponderance of the evidence that GSI committed misconduct that 

was unconscionable?

Yes No

If you answered “Yes,” then answer the next question. If you answered “No,” then 

proceed to Section IV.C.

88. Did UMI prove by a preponderance of the evidence that GSI’s misconduct was directly 

related to its claim of fraud and resulted in prejudice to UMI?

Yes No

Proceed to the next question.

C. UMI’s Affirmative Defense: Estoppel

89. Do you find by a preponderance of the evidence that GSI made a representation of fact 

relating to its fraud claim intending that UMI rely on it, or remained silent where GSI had 

a duty to speak and the circumstances required it to speak?

Yes No

If you answered “Yes,” then answer the next question. If you answered “No,” then 

proceed to Section IV.D.

90. Do you find by a preponderance of the evidence that GSI knew the true state of the facts?

Yes No

If you answered “Yes,” then answer the next question. If you answered “No,” then 

proceed to Section IV.D. 

91. Do you find by a preponderance of the evidence that UMI was ignorant of the true state of 

the facts?

Case 5:13-cv-01081-PSG Document 1044 Filed 11/22/15 Page 28 of 35
29

Case No. 5:13-cv-01081-PSG

JURY VERDICT FORM

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

Yes No

If you answered “Yes,” then answer the next question. If you answered “No,” then 

proceed to Section IV.D. 

92. Do you find by a preponderance of the evidence that UMI reasonably relied upon GSI’s 

conduct to UMI’s injury?

Yes No

Proceed to the next question.

D. UMI’s Affirmative Defense: Waiver

93. Did UMI prove that GSI knew that UMI’s work on Atris would not be for the benefit of 

GSI unless the parties entered into a separate contract for that work?

Yes No

If you answered “Yes,” proceed to the next question. If you answered “No,” proceed 

to Section IV.E.

94. Did UMI prove that GSI continued to permit United Memories to work on an Atris design 

during the course of its 2008 contract for a 576 Mb RLDRAM design, with full knowledge 

of that UMI’s work on Atris would not be for the benefit of GSI without a separate 

contract for that work, when a reasonable person under the same or similar circumstances 

would not have done so?

Yes No

Proceed to the next question.

E. UMI’s Affirmative Defense: Statute of Limitations

95. Did UMI prove by a preponderance of the evidence that UMI made a false representation 

that occurred on or before March 8, 2010?

Yes No

Case 5:13-cv-01081-PSG Document 1044 Filed 11/22/15 Page 29 of 35
30

Case No. 5:13-cv-01081-PSG

JURY VERDICT FORM

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

If you answered “Yes,” proceed to the next question. If you answered “No,” proceed 

to Section IV.F.

96. Did UMI prove that GSI knew or should have known, with the exercise of reasonable 

diligence, of UMI’s false representation on or before March 8, 2010?

Yes No

Proceed to the next question.

F. Damages

97. What are GSI’s damages?

a. Past economic loss

lost profits $ __________

other past economic loss $ __________

Total Past Economic Damages: $__________ 

b. Future economic loss

lost profits $ __________

TOTAL $__________

Proceed to the next question.

98. Did UMI act willfully and maliciously when it made the false representation?

Yes No

If you answered “Yes,” proceed to the next question. If you answered “No,” proceed 

to Section V.

99. What amount of punitive damages, if any, do you award GSI?

$

Proceed to the next question.

Case 5:13-cv-01081-PSG Document 1044 Filed 11/22/15 Page 30 of 35
31

Case No. 5:13-cv-01081-PSG

JURY VERDICT FORM

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

V. False Promise

A. GSI’s Claim of False Promise Against UMI

100. Did UMI make a promise to GSI?

Yes No

If you answered “Yes,” then answer the next question. If you answered “No,” then 

stop here, answer no further questions, and have the presiding juror sign and date 

this form.

101. Did UMI intend to perform this promise when UMI made it?

Yes No

If you answered “Yes,” then stop here, answer no further questions, and have the 

presiding juror sign and date this form. If you answered “No,” then answer the next 

question.

102. Did UMI intend that GSI rely on this promise?

Yes No

If you answered “Yes,” then answer the next question. If you answered “No,” then 

stop here, answer no further questions, and have the presiding juror sign and date 

this form.

103. Did GSI reasonably rely on this promise?

Yes No

If you answered “Yes,” then answer the next question. If you answered “No,” then 

stop here, answer no further questions, and have the presiding juror sign and date 

this form.

Case 5:13-cv-01081-PSG Document 1044 Filed 11/22/15 Page 31 of 35
32

Case No. 5:13-cv-01081-PSG

JURY VERDICT FORM

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

104. Did UMI perform the promised act?

Yes No

If you answered “Yes,” then stop here, answer no further questions, and have the 

presiding juror sign and date this form. If you answered “No,” then answer the next 

question.

105. Was GSI’s reliance on UMI’s promise a substantial factor in causing harm to GSI?

Yes No

If you answered “Yes,” then answer the next question. If you answered “No,” then 

stop here, answer no further questions, and have the presiding juror sign and date 

this form.

B. UMI’s Affirmative Defense: Unclean Hands

106. Did UMI prove by a preponderance of the evidence that GSI committed 

misconduct that was unconscionable?

Yes No

If you answered “Yes,” then answer the next question. If you answered “No,” then 

proceed to Section V.C

107. Did UMI prove by a preponderance of the evidence that GSI’s misconduct was 

directly related to its claim of false promise and resulted in prejudice to UMI?

Yes No

Proceed to the next question.

Case 5:13-cv-01081-PSG Document 1044 Filed 11/22/15 Page 32 of 35
33

Case No. 5:13-cv-01081-PSG

JURY VERDICT FORM

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

C. UMI’s Affirmative Defense: Estoppel

108. Do you find by a preponderance of the evidence that GSI made a representation of 

fact relating to its false promise claim intending that UMI rely on it, or remained silent 

where GSI had a duty to speak and the circumstances required it to speak?

Yes No

If you answered “Yes,” then answer the next question. If you answered “No,” then 

proceed to Section V.D.

109. Do you find by a preponderance of the evidence that GSI knew the true state of the 

facts?

Yes No

If you answered “Yes,” then answer the next question. If you answered “No,” then 

proceed to Section V.D. 

110. Do you find by a preponderance of the evidence that UMI was ignorant of the true 

state of the facts?

Yes No

If you answered “Yes,” then answer the next question. If you answered “No,” then 

proceed to Section V.D. 

111. Do you find by a preponderance of the evidence that UMI reasonably relied upon 

GSI’s conduct to UMI’s injury?

Yes No

If you answered “Yes,” then stop here, answer no further questions, and have the 

presiding juror sign and date this form. If you answered “No,” proceed to the next 

question.

Case 5:13-cv-01081-PSG Document 1044 Filed 11/22/15 Page 33 of 35
34

Case No. 5:13-cv-01081-PSG

JURY VERDICT FORM

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

D. Damages

112. What are GSI’s damages?

a. Past economic loss

Lost profits $ __________

Other past economic loss $ __________

Total Past Economic Damages: $__________ 

b. Future economic loss

Lost profits $ __________

TOTAL $__________ 

Proceed to the next question.

113. Did UMI act willfully and maliciously when it made the false promise?

Yes No

If you answered “Yes,” proceed to the next question. If you answered “No,” stop 

here, answer no further questions, and have the presiding juror sign and date this 

form.

114. What amount of punitive damages, if any, do you award GSI?

$

Case 5:13-cv-01081-PSG Document 1044 Filed 11/22/15 Page 34 of 35
35

Case No. 5:13-cv-01081-PSG

JURY VERDICT FORM

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

Have the presiding juror sign and date this form. 

Signed:

Presiding Juror

Dated:

After all verdict forms have been signed, notify the courtroom deputy that you are ready to present 

your verdict in the courtroom.

SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 22, 2015

_________________________________

PAUL S. GREWAL

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 5:13-cv-01081-PSG Document 1044 Filed 11/22/15 Page 35 of 35