Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_15-cv-05008/USCOURTS-cand-5_15-cv-05008-17/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 35:145 Patent Infringement

---

Case No. 15-cv-5008 NC

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

CORE WIRELESS LICENSING 

S.A.R.L.,

Plaintiff,

v.

APPLE INC.,

Defendant.

Case No. 15-cv-5008 NC 

VERDICT FORM

When answering the following questions and filling out this Verdict Form, please 

follow the directions provided throughout the form. Your answer to each question must be 

unanimous. Some of the questions contain legal terms that are explained in the Jury

Instructions. Please refer to the Jury Instructions if you are unsure about the meaning of 

any legal term that appears in the questions below.

We, the jury, unanimously agree to the answers to the following questions:

Case 5:15-cv-05008-NC Document 447 Filed 12/11/16 Page 1 of 3
Case No. 15-cv-5008 NC 2

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

1. Has Core Wireless proven by a preponderance of the evidence that Apple 

infringes the ’151 patent? 

Yes _______ No _______

2. Has Apple proven by clear and convincing evidence that the ’151 patent is 

invalid?

Yes as anticipated _______ 

Yes as obvious _______

No _______

3. If you found that the ’151 patent is infringed and not invalid, what amount 

do you find is a reasonable royalty for the ’151 patent? 

$ __________

Is the amount of money you awarded a one-time lump sum for past and future sales, or 

a royalty for past sales only (check one)? 

One-time lump sum ☐ OR Royalty for past sales ☐ 

Case 5:15-cv-05008-NC Document 447 Filed 12/11/16 Page 2 of 3
Case No. 15-cv-5008 NC 3

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. Has Core Wireless proven by a preponderance of the evidence that Apple 

infringes the ’536 patent? 

Yes _______ No _______

5. Has Apple proven by clear and convincing evidence that the ’536 patent is 

invalid?

Yes as anticipated _______ 

No _______

6. If you found that the ’536 patent is infringed and not invalid, what amount 

do you find is a reasonable royalty? 

$ __________

Is the amount of money you awarded a one-time lump sum for past and future sales, or 

a royalty for past sales only (check one)? 

One-time lump sum ☐ OR Royalty for past sales ☐ 

You have now reached the end of the verdict form and should review it to ensure it 

accurately reflects your unanimous determinations. The Presiding Juror should then sign 

and date the verdict form in the spaces below and notify the Courtroom Deputy that you 

have reached a verdict. 

 

Date: December ______, 2016 Signature: _____________________________

Presiding Juror

Case 5:15-cv-05008-NC Document 447 Filed 12/11/16 Page 3 of 3