Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_15-cv-05008/USCOURTS-cand-5_15-cv-05008-16/pdf.json

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

---

Case No. 15-cv-05008 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-05008 NC 

FINAL JURY INSTRUCTIONS

I. Introduction

Members of the Jury: Now that you have heard all of the evidence, it is my duty to 

instruct you as to the law of the case. 

Each of you has received a copy of these instructions that you may take with you to 

the jury room to consult during your deliberations.

You must not infer from these instructions or from anything I may say or do as 

indicating that I have an opinion regarding the evidence or what your verdict should be. 

It is your duty to find the facts from all the evidence in the case. To those facts you 

will apply the law as I give it to you. You must follow the law as I give it to you 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 to do so. 

Case 5:15-cv-05008-NC Document 446 Filed 12/11/16 Page 1 of 22
Case No. 15-cv-05008 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

In following my instructions, you must follow all of them and not single out some 

and ignore others; they are all important.

II. Burden of Proof

There are two standards of proof that you will apply to the evidence, depending on 

the issue you are deciding. When a party has the burden of proving any claim by a 

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

claim is more probably true than not. When a party has the burden of proving any claim or 

defense by clear and convincing evidence, it means that you must be persuaded by the 

evidence that it is highly probable that the claim or defense is true. This is a higher 

standard of proof than proof by a preponderance of the evidence, but it does not require 

proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

You should base your decision on all of the evidence, regardless of which party 

presented it. 

III. Evidence

A. Evidence You May Consider

The evidence you are to consider in deciding what the facts are consists of: 

(1) the sworn testimony of any witness; 

(2) the exhibits which are received into evidence; and

(3) any facts to which the lawyers have agreed (stipulated facts).

In reaching your verdict, you may consider only the testimony, exhibits, and 

stipulations of fact received into evidence. 

There is no distinction for testimony and exhibits that were presented confidentially 

under seal, such as the Qualcomm code. All admitted evidence should be considered, 

whether or not it was submitted to the court in a confidential manner.

B. Things You May Not Consider

Certain things are not evidence, and you may not consider them in deciding what 

the facts are. I will list them for you:

Case 5:15-cv-05008-NC Document 446 Filed 12/11/16 Page 2 of 22
Case No. 15-cv-05008 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

(1) Arguments and statements by lawyers are not evidence. The lawyers are not 

witnesses. What they say 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.

(2) 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. 

(3) 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 sometimes testimony 

and exhibits are received only for a limited purpose; when I give a limiting instruction, you 

must follow it.

(4) 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.

C. Taking Notes

You may have taken notes during the trial. Whether or not you took notes, you 

should rely on your own memory of the evidence. Notes are only to assist your memory. 

You should not be overly influenced by your notes or those of your fellow jurors.

D. Stipulations of Fact

The parties have agreed to certain facts that have provided for you as Appendix A 

to the preliminary jury instructions. You should therefore treat these facts as having been 

proved.

E. Charts and Summaries Not Received in Evidence

Certain charts and summaries not received in evidence may be shown to you in 

order to help explain the contents of books, records, documents, or other evidence in the 

case. You may hear these charts and summaries referred to as “demonstratives” or 

“demonstrative evidence.” 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 

Case 5:15-cv-05008-NC Document 446 Filed 12/11/16 Page 3 of 22
Case No. 15-cv-05008 NC 4

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

disregard these charts and summaries and determine the facts from the underlying 

evidence.

F. Types of 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. For 

example, direct evidence that it was raining would be a photo showing that it was raining 

on a given day. Circumstantial evidence is proof of one or more facts from which you 

could find another fact. For example, circumstantial evidence that it was raining would be 

testimony of a witness who said they believed it was raining, not because they saw the 

rain, but because they saw a person entering the building with a wet umbrella. 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, if any, to any evidence.

G. Use of Interrogatories of a Party

Evidence may be presented to you in the form of answers of one of the parties to 

written interrogatories submitted by the other side. These answers were given in writing 

and under oath, before the actual trial, in response to questions that were submitted in 

writing under established court procedures. You should consider the answers, insofar as 

possible, in the same way as if they were made from the witness stand.

H. Evidence for a 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.

I. The Court’s 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 

overruled the objection, the question was answered or the exhibit received. If I sustained

Case 5:15-cv-05008-NC Document 446 Filed 12/11/16 Page 4 of 22
Case No. 15-cv-05008 NC 5

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

the objection, the question was not answered, and the exhibit was not received. Whenever 

I sustained an objection to a question, you must ignore the question and must not guess 

what the answer might have been or what the document might have said. My rulings are 

not intended to influence your decision. Your decisions must be based entirely on the 

testimony and documents received into evidence.

Sometimes I may have ordered 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. 

J. Recesses

From time to time during the trial, it may have been necessary for me to talk with 

the attorneys out of the hearing of the jury by calling a recess. The purpose of these 

conferences was 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.

I may not have always granted an attorney’s request for a recess. Do not consider 

my granting or denying a request for a recess as any indication of my opinion of the case 

or of what your verdict should be.

IV. Witnesses

A. Evaluation of Witness Testimony

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’s memory;

(3) the witness’s manner while testifying;

(4) the witness’s interest in the outcome of the case and any bias or prejudice;

(5) whether other evidence contradicted the witness’s testimony;

Case 5:15-cv-05008-NC Document 446 Filed 12/11/16 Page 5 of 22
Case No. 15-cv-05008 NC 6

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

(6) the reasonableness of the witness’s 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 about it.

B. Impeachment Evidence

The evidence that a witness lied under oath or gave different or inconsistent 

testimony on a prior occasion may be considered, along with all other evidence, in 

deciding whether or not to believe the witness and how much, if any, weight to give to that 

witness’s testimony.

C. Expert Witnesses

Some witnesses, because of education or experience, are permitted to state opinions 

and the reasons for those opinions. The expert witnesses in this case were: Richard Wesel, 

Stephen Dell, Edward Knightly, Michael Buehrer, and Paul Meyer.

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’s 

education and experience, the reasons given for the opinion, and all the other evidence in 

the case. 

D. Deposition Testimony

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 by written transcript and sometimes video recording. 

When a person is unavailable to testify at trial, the deposition of that person may be used at 

the trial.

You should consider deposition testimony, presented to you in court in lieu of live 

testimony, in the same way as if the witness had been present to testify.

If testimony was read, rather than played back from a recording, do not place any 

significance on the behavior or tone of voice of any person reading the questions or 

answers.

Case 5:15-cv-05008-NC Document 446 Filed 12/11/16 Page 6 of 22
Case No. 15-cv-05008 NC 7

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

You heard or viewed only a portion, or series of portions, of the depositions taken 

by the parties in this case. Do not make any inferences about the fact that you did not hear

or see the deposition in its entirety or that what you heard or saw has been edited.

V. 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.

In this case, Core Wireless asserts United States Patent Numbers 6,477,151 and 

6,633,536. As the parties and I have been doing throughout this trial, in these final 

instructions I will refer to these patents as the ’151 and ’536 patents. 

Core Wireless asserts the following claims from the ’151 and ’536 patents, which I 

will refer to as “the asserted claims”: 

Claim 14 of the ’151 patent; and 

Claim 19 of the ’536 patent.

As I previously told you, Core Wireless seeks money damages from Apple for 

allegedly infringing the asserted claims by making, using, selling, and offering for sale 

products that Core Wireless argues are covered by the asserted claims. The products that 

are alleged to infringe claim 14 of the ’151 patent are the 4S, 5, 5S, 5C, 6, 6 Plus, 6S, 6S 

Plus, and SE models of Apple’s iPhone and the iPad3, iPad 4, iPad Mini, iPad Air, iPad 

Air 2, and iPad Pro models of Apple’s iPad products. The products that are alleged to 

infringe Claim 19 of the ’536 patent are the above listed iPhone products only, and not the 

iPad products. 

For each asserted patent, Apple denies that it has infringed the asserted claim of the 

patent and argues that, in addition, the asserted claim is invalid. 

Your job is to decide whether the asserted claims have been infringed and whether 

any of the asserted claims are invalid. If you decide that any claim of either patent has 

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

awarded to Core Wireless to compensate it for the infringement. 

Case 5:15-cv-05008-NC Document 446 Filed 12/11/16 Page 7 of 22
Case No. 15-cv-05008 NC 8

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

VI. Interpretation of Claims

Before you decide whether Apple has infringed the claims of the ’536 or ’151

patents or whether the claims are invalid, you will need to understand the patent claims. 

As I mentioned, the patent claims are numbered sentences at the end of the patent that 

describes the boundaries of the patent’s protection. It is my job as judge to explain to you 

the meaning of any language in the claims that needs interpretation. 

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. 

You should apply the constructions to the claims of the patents that I have provided 

for you in Appendix B and Appendix D to the preliminary jury instructions. 

For claim language where I have not provided you with any meaning, the claim 

language’s plain and ordinary meaning to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of 

the invention applies. 

VII. Infringement

I will now instruct you on the rules you must follow in deciding whether Core 

Wireless has proven that Apple has infringed one or more of the asserted claims. 

A. Burden of Proof

To prove infringement of any claim, Core Wireless must persuade you that it is 

more likely than not that Apple has infringed that claim. 

B. Direct Infringement

A patent claim defines 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 

Case 5:15-cv-05008-NC Document 446 Filed 12/11/16 Page 8 of 22
Case No. 15-cv-05008 NC 9

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

second step is to decide whether Apple has made, used, sold, or offered for sale within the 

United States a product covered by one of the asserted claims. If it has, it infringes. You, 

the jury, make this decision.

You must consider each of the asserted claims of the patents individually, and 

decide whether Apple infringes that claim.

Whether or not Apple knew its product infringed or even knew of the patent does 

not matter in determining direct infringement. Also, you have heard evidence about 

Apple’s other licenses and other patents involved in the cellular standards at issue. In

deciding the issue of infringement you may not compare the accused products to the 

standard or other patents for which Apple has a license. Rather, you must compare the 

accused products to the claims of the patents-in-suit when making your decision.

C. Literal Infringement

To decide whether a direct infringer’s product literally infringes a claim of the ’151

or ’536 patents, you must compare that product with the patent claim and determine 

whether every requirement of the claim is included in that product. If so, Apple’s product 

literally infringes that claim. If, however, Apple’s product does not have every 

requirement in the patent claim, Apple’s product does not literally infringe that claim. You 

must decide literal infringement for each asserted claim separately. 

If the patent claim uses the term “comprising,” that patent claim is to be understood 

as an open claim. An open claim is infringed as long as every requirement in the claim is 

present in a direct infringer’s product or method. The fact that a direct infringer’s product 

also includes other parts or steps will not avoid infringement, as long as it has every 

requirement in the patent claim.

D. Means-Plus-Functions Claim

I will now describe the separate rules that apply to “means-plus-function” 

requirements that are used in one of the asserted claims. Claim 19 in the ’536 patent 

contains “means-plus-function” requirements. A means-plus-function requirement only 

covers the specific structure disclosed in a patent specification for performing the claimed 

Case 5:15-cv-05008-NC Document 446 Filed 12/11/16 Page 9 of 22
Case No. 15-cv-05008 NC 10

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

function and the equivalents of the specific structure that perform the claimed function. A 

means-plus-function requirement does not cover all possible structures that could be used 

to perform the claimed function.

As an example, the term “means for processing data” might be understood to 

encompass a variety of different ways of making a calculation, including not only a 

computer or calculator but a pencil and paper or even the human brain. But because the 

phrase is a means-plus-function requirement, we interpret that phrase not to cover every 

possible means for processing data, but instead to cover the actual means disclosed in the 

patent for processing data and other means that are equivalent to it.

For purposes of this trial, I have interpreted each means-plus-function requirement 

for you and identified the structure in the patent specification that corresponds to these 

means-plus-function requirements. Specifically, I have determined that:

• Receiving Means. An antenna on a mobile phone labeled “MS” in Figure 1 

and “RX” in Fig. 2 and Fig. 4, and as described in 2:7-8 and 8:43-45 of the 

’536 specification, and statutory equivalents thereof is the structure that 

performs the “receiving a signal via a transmission channel in frames” 

function identified in the means-plus-function requirement of claim 19 for a 

“receiving means.”

• Replacing Means. The “Bad parameter replacement” box 128 in Figure 4 as 

described in 9:20-24 of the ’536 specification, and statutory equivalents 

thereof is the structure that performs the “replacing a bad frame at least 

partly with a preceding good frame” function identified in the means-plusfunction requirement of claim 19 for a “replacing means.”

In deciding if Core Wireless has proven that Apple’s products include structure 

covered by a means-plus-function requirement, you must first decide whether the products 

have any structure that performs the function I just described to you. If not, the claim 

containing that means-plus-function requirement is not infringed.

If you find that the Apple’s accused products do have structure that performs the 

Case 5:15-cv-05008-NC Document 446 Filed 12/11/16 Page 10 of 22
Case No. 15-cv-05008 NC 11

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

claimed function, you must then determine whether that structure is the same as or 

equivalent to the structure I have identified in the specification. If they are the same or 

equivalent, the means-plus-function requirement is satisfied by that structure of the 

accused products. If all the other requirements of the claim are satisfied, the accused 

products infringe the claim.

In order to prove that a structure in the accused products is equivalent to the 

structure in the ’536 patent, Core Wireless must show that a person of ordinary skill in the 

field would have considered that the differences between the structure described in the 

’536 patent and the structure in the accused product are not substantial. Core Wireless 

must also show that the structure was available on the date the ’536 patent was granted.

VIII. Invalidity

Apple contends that the asserted claims of the ’151 and ’536 patents are invalid. 

For the ’151 patent, Apple contends that claim 14 is invalid as anticipated and invalid as 

obvious by the 1997 GPRS Paper (DX-202). For the ’536 patent, Apple contends that 

claim 19 is invalid as anticipated by the IS-54 Publication (DX-102). Core Wireless 

denies that the asserted claims are invalid.

I will now instruct you on the rules you must follow in deciding whether Apple has 

proven the asserted claims are invalid. 

A. Burden of Proof

Before discussing the specific rules, I want to remind you about the standard of 

proof that applies to this defense. To prove invalidity of any patent claim, Apple must 

persuade you by clear and convincing evidence that the claim is invalid.

During this case, Apple has submitted prior art that was not considered by the 

United States Patent and Trademark Office (“PTO”) during the prosecution of the patentsin-suit. Apple contends that such prior art invalidates certain claims of the patents. In 

deciding the issue of invalidity, you may take into account the fact that the prior art was 

not considered by the PTO when it issued the patents-in-suit. Prior art that differs from the 

prior art considered by the PTO may carry more weight than the prior art that was 

Case 5:15-cv-05008-NC Document 446 Filed 12/11/16 Page 11 of 22
Case No. 15-cv-05008 NC 12

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

considered and may make Apple’s burden of showing by clear and convincing evidence 

that a patent claim is invalid easier to sustain. 

B. 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 have existed in a single device or 

method that predates the claimed invention, or must have been described in a single 

publication or patent that predates the claimed invention. In patent law, these previous 

devices, methods, publications or patents are called “prior art references.” If a patent 

claim is not new, we say it is “anticipated” by a prior art reference.

The description in the written reference does not have to be in the same words as 

the claim, but all of the requirements of the claim must be there, either stated or necessarily 

implied, so that someone of ordinary skill in the field of the invention looking at that one 

reference would be able to make and use the claimed invention. 

Here is a list of the ways that Apple can show that a patent claim was not new:

• if the claimed invention was already publicly known or publicly used by others in 

the United States before the conception date of the asserted claims;

• if the claimed invention was already patented or described in a printed publication

anywhere in the world before the conception date of the asserted claims. A 

reference is a “printed publication” if it is accessible to those interested in the field, 

even if it is difficult to find;

• if the claimed invention was already described in a printed publication anywhere in 

the world more than one year before the U.S. filing date of the patent application. 

Again, a reference is a “printed publication” if it is accessible to those interested in 

the field, even if it is difficult to find.

C. Obviousness

Not all innovations are patentable. A patent claim is invalid if the claimed 

invention would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the field as of the date 

the inventors of the asserted patents conceived their inventions. This means that even if all 

Case 5:15-cv-05008-NC Document 446 Filed 12/11/16 Page 12 of 22
Case No. 15-cv-05008 NC 13

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

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 the invention who knew about all this prior art would have come up with the 

claimed invention.

The ultimate conclusion of whether a claim is obvious should be based upon your 

determination of several factual decisions. First, you must decide the level of ordinary 

skill in the field that someone would have had as of the effective filing date of the claimed 

invention. Second, you must decide the scope and content of the prior art. Core 

Wireless and Apple disagree as to whether certain prior art references should be included

in the prior art you use to decide the validity of the asserted claims.

1. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art

First, you must consider the level of ordinary skill in the field that someone would 

have had as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention. In this case, the parties 

agree that the level of ordinary skill in the field of both the patents would be a person who 

has at least the equivalent of a bachelor’s degree in electric engineering, 

telecommunication, computer engineering, computer science, or a related technical degree, 

as well as at least one to two years of post-degree experience in communications, signal 

processing, or related fields. 

2. Scope and Content of the Prior Art

Second, you must decide the scope and content of the prior art. In order to be 

considered as prior art 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 to which a person of ordinary skill in the field 

would look to solve a known problem.

3. Difference Between Claimed Invention and Prior Art

Third, you must decide what differences, if any, existed between the claimed 

invention and the prior art. 

Case 5:15-cv-05008-NC Document 446 Filed 12/11/16 Page 13 of 22
Case No. 15-cv-05008 NC 14

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. Secondary Considerations

Finally, you should consider any of the following factors that you find have been 

shown by the evidence:

1. commercial success of a product 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 and 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;

7. other evidence tending to show nonobviousness;

8. independent invention of the claimed invention by others before or at about 

the same time as the named inventor thought of it; and

9. other evidence tending to show obviousness.

The presence of any of these factors may be considered by you as an indication

that the claimed invention would not have been obvious as of the date the inventors of 

the asserted patents conceived their inventions, and the presence of these factors may be

considered by you as an indication that the claimed invention would have been obvious

at such time. Although you should consider any evidence of these factors, the relevance

and importance of any of them to your decision on whether the claimed invention

would have been obvious is up to you.

5. Obviousness Guidance

A patent claim composed of several elements is not proved obvious merely by 

demonstrating that each of its elements was independently known in the prior art. In 

evaluating whether such a claim would have been obvious, you may consider whether 

Core Wireless has identified a reason that would have prompted a person of ordinary skill 

in the field to combine the elements or concepts from the prior art in the same way as in 

Case 5:15-cv-05008-NC Document 446 Filed 12/11/16 Page 14 of 22
Case No. 15-cv-05008 NC 15

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

the claimed invention. There is no single way to define the line between true inventiveness 

on the one hand (which is patentable) and the application of common sense and ordinary 

skill to solve a problem on the other hand (which is not patentable). 

For example, market forces or other design incentives may be what produced a 

change, rather than true inventiveness. You may consider whether the change was merely 

the predictable result of using prior art elements according to their known functions, or 

whether it was the result of true inventiveness. You may also consider whether there is 

some teaching or suggestion in the prior art to make the modification or combination of 

elements claimed in the patent. Also, you may consider whether the innovation applies a 

known technique that had been used to improve a similar device or method in a similar 

way. You may also consider whether the claimed invention would have been obvious to 

try, meaning that the claimed innovation was one of a relatively small number of possible 

approaches to the problem with a reasonable expectation of success by those skilled in the 

art. 

However, you must be careful not to determine obviousness using the benefit of 

hindsight; many true inventions might seem obvious after the fact. You should put 

yourself in the position of a person of ordinary skill in the field as of the effective filing 

date of the claimed inventions and you should not consider what is known today or what is 

learned from the teaching of the patent.

IX. Damages

A. 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 Apple infringed

any valid claim of the asserted patents, you must then determine the amount of money

damages to be awarded to Core Wireless to compensate it for the infringement.

The amount of those damages must be adequate to compensate Core Wireless 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 

Case 5:15-cv-05008-NC Document 446 Filed 12/11/16 Page 15 of 22
Case No. 15-cv-05008 NC 16

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

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. 

Core Wireless has the burden to persuade you of the amount of its damages. You 

should award only those damages that Core Wireless more likely than not suffered. While 

Core Wireless is not required to prove its damages with mathematical precision, it must 

prove them with reasonable certainty. Core Wireless is not entitled to damages that are 

remote or speculative.

B. Reasonable Royalty- Definition

A royalty is a payment made to a patent holder in exchange for the right to make,

use or sell the claimed invention. This right is called a “license.” A reasonable royalty is

the payment for the license that would have resulted from a hypothetical negotiation

between the patent holder and the infringer taking place at the time when the infringing

activity first began. In considering the nature of this negotiation, you must assume that

the patent holder and the infringer would have acted reasonably and would have entered

into a license agreement. You must also assume that both parties believed the patent

was valid and infringed. Your role is to determine what the result of that negotiation

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.

A royalty can be calculated in several different ways and it is for you to determine

which way is the most appropriate based on the evidence you have heard. It is up to

you, based on the evidence, to decide what type of royalty is appropriate in this case for 

the life of the patent.

1. Ongoing Royalty

One way to calculate a royalty is to determine what is called an “ongoing royalty.” 

To calculate an ongoing royalty, you must first determine the “base,” that is, the product 

on which the infringer is to pay. You then need to multiply the revenue the defendant 

obtained from that base by the “rate” or percentage that you find would have resulted from 

Case 5:15-cv-05008-NC Document 446 Filed 12/11/16 Page 16 of 22
Case No. 15-cv-05008 NC 17

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

the hypothetical negotiation. For example, if the patent covers a nail, and the nail sells for 

$1, and the licensee sold 200 nails, the base revenue would be $200. If the rate you find 

would have resulted from the hypothetical negotiation is 1%, then the royalty would be $2, 

or the rate of 0.01 times the base revenue of $200. By contrast, if you find the rate to be 

5%, the royalty would be $10, or the rate of 0.05 times the base revenue of $200. These 

numbers are only examples, and are not intended to suggest the appropriate royalty rate.

If the patent covers only part of the product that the infringer sells, then the base 

would normally be only that feature or component. For example, if you find that for a 

$100 car, the patented feature is the tires which sell for $5, the base revenue would be $5.

2. Fixed Royalty

Instead of a percentage royalty, you may decide that the appropriate royalty that would 

have resulted from a hypothetical negotiation is a fixed number of dollars per unit sold. If 

you do, the royalty would be that fixed number of dollars times the number of units sold.

In this case, the parties have introduced evidence of licenses. The royalty rate in one or 

more of those licenses may be considered if it helps to establish the value that is 

attributable to the patented invention as distinct from the value of other features of Apple’s 

product.

The ultimate combination of royalty base and royalty rate must reflect the value 

attributable to the infringing features of the product, and no more. When the accused 

infringing products have both patented and unpatented features, measuring this value 

requires you to identify and award only the value of the patented features.

3. Lump Sum Royalty

Another way to calculate a royalty is to determine a one-time lump sum

payment that the infringer would have paid at the time of the hypothetical negotiation

for a license covering all sales of the licensed product, both past and future. This

differs from payment of an ongoing royalty because, with an ongoing royalty, the

licensee pays based on the volume of actual licensed products it sells. When a onetime lump sum is paid, the infringer pays a single price for a license covering both past 

Case 5:15-cv-05008-NC Document 446 Filed 12/11/16 Page 17 of 22
Case No. 15-cv-05008 NC 18

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

and future infringing sales.

C. Reasonable Royalty - Relevant Factors

In determining the reasonable royalty, you should consider all the facts known and 

available to the parties at the time the infringement began. Some of the kinds of factors 

that you may consider in making your determination are:

1. The royalties received by the patentee for the licensing of the patent-in-suit, 

proving or tending to prove an established royalty.

2. The rates paid by the licensee for the use of other patents comparable to the 

patent-in-suit.

3. The utility and advantages of the patented property over the old modes or 

devices, if any, that had been used for working out similar results.

4. The nature of the patented invention, the character of the commercial 

embodiment of it as owned and produced by the licensor, and the benefits to 

those who have used the invention. 

5. The extent to which the infringer has made use of the invention and any 

evidence probative of the value of that use.

6. The portion of the profit or of the selling price that may be customary in the 

particular business or in comparable business to allow for the use of the 

invention or analogous inventions.

7. The portion of the realizable profits that should be credited to the invention 

as distinguished from nonpatented elements, the manufacturing process, 

business risks, or significant features or improvements added by the 

infringer.

8. The opinion and testimony of qualified experts. 

9. The amount that a licensor (such as the patentee) and a licensee (such as the 

infringer) would have agreed upon (at the time the infringement began) if 

both had been reasonably and voluntarily trying to reach an agreement; that 

is, the amount which a prudent licensee—who desired, as a business 

Case 5:15-cv-05008-NC Document 446 Filed 12/11/16 Page 18 of 22
Case No. 15-cv-05008 NC 19

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

proposition, to obtain a license to manufacture and sell a particular article 

embodying the patented invention—would have been willing to pay as a 

royalty and yet be able to make a reasonable profit and which amount would 

have been acceptable by a prudent patentee who was willing to grant a 

license.

No one factor is dispositive and you can and should consider the evidence that has 

been presented to you in this case on each of these factors. You may also consider any 

other factors which in your mind would have increased or decreased the royalty the 

infringer would have been willing to pay and the patent holder would have been willing to 

accept, acting as normally prudent business people. The final factor establishes the 

framework which you should use in determining a reasonable royalty, that is, the payment 

that would have resulted from a negotiation between the patent holder and the infringer 

taking place at a time prior to when the infringement began.

D. Reasonable Royalty – Commitment to License on Reasonable and 

Nondiscriminatory Terms

In this case, by participating in a standard-setting organization, both Nokia (the 

prior owner of the patents) and Core Wireless promised to license its patents to all willing 

licensees on reasonable and nondiscriminatory terms. 

You must take that promise into account in determining the reasonable royalty. 

When a technology is incorporated into an industry standard, it is typically chosen 

from among different options. Once a standard is adopted, the technology is not 

necessarily used by other companies because it is the best option; the technology is used 

because its use is necessary to comply with the standard. The royalty you award should 

reflect the value of Core Wireless’ technological contribution, not the value of its 

widespread adoption due to standardization.

In addition, the value of the patented feature must be apportioned from the value of 

any unpatented features included in the standard. 

Case 5:15-cv-05008-NC Document 446 Filed 12/11/16 Page 19 of 22
Case No. 15-cv-05008 NC 20

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

X. Conduct of the Jury During Deliberations

A. Use of Electronic Technology To Conduct Research on or Communicate 

About A Case

During your deliberations, you must not communicate with or provide any 

information to anyone by any means about this case. You may not use any electronic 

device or media, such as the telephone, a cell phone, smart phone, iPhone, Blackberry or 

computer, the Internet, any Internet service, any text or instant messaging service, any 

Internet chat room, blog, or website such as Facebook, MySpace, LinkedIn, YouTube or 

Twitter, to communicate to anyone any information about this case or to conduct any 

research about this case until I accept your verdict. In other words, you cannot talk to 

anyone on the phone, correspond with anyone, or electronically communicate with anyone 

about this case. You can only discuss the case in the jury room with your fellow jurors 

during deliberations. I expect you will inform me as soon as you become aware of another 

juror’s violation of these instructions.

You may not use these electronic means to investigate or communicate about the 

case because it is important that you decide this case based solely on the evidence 

presented in this courtroom. Information on the internet or available through social media 

might be wrong, incomplete, or inaccurate. You are only permitted to discuss the case 

with your fellow jurors during deliberations because they have seen and heard the same 

evidence you have. In our judicial system, it is important that you are not influenced by 

anything or anyone outside of this courtroom. Otherwise, your decision may be based on 

information known only by you and not your fellow jurors or the parties in the case. This 

would unfairly and adversely impact the judicial process.

B. Duty To Deliberate

When you begin your deliberations, you should elect one member of the jury as 

your presiding juror. 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 

Case 5:15-cv-05008-NC Document 446 Filed 12/11/16 Page 20 of 22
Case No. 15-cv-05008 NC 21

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

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 of the evidence, discussed it fully with the other jurors, and listened to 

the views of your fellow jurors.

Do not hesitate to change your opinion if the discussion persuades you that you 

should. 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.

C. Conduct of the Jury

Because you must base your verdict only on the evidence received in the case and 

on these instructions, I remind you that you must not be exposed to any other information 

about the case or to the issues it involves. Except for discussing the case with your fellow 

jurors during your deliberations, do not communicate with anyone in any way and do not 

let anyone else communicate with you in any way about the merits of the case or anything 

to do with it. 

D. Communication with the Court

If it becomes necessary during your deliberations to communicate with me, you 

may send a note through the Courtroom Deputy, signed by your presiding juror 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; I will communicate with any member of the jury on 

anything concerning the case only in writing, or 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 are not to conclude from any time delays that the question is difficult to answer and 

you are not to speculate that the time delay gives any indication as to what the answer is.

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 

Case 5:15-cv-05008-NC Document 446 Filed 12/11/16 Page 21 of 22
Case No. 15-cv-05008 NC 22

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

discharged. Do not disclose any vote count in any note to the court.

E. Return of Verdict

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

agreement on a verdict, your presiding juror will fill in the form that has been given to you, 

sign and date it, and advise the court that you are ready to return to the courtroom.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 12, 2016 _____________________________________

NATHANAEL M. COUSINS

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 5:15-cv-05008-NC Document 446 Filed 12/11/16 Page 22 of 22