Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_12-cv-05826/USCOURTS-cand-5_12-cv-05826-37/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 35:271 Patent Infringement

---

1 

Case No. 5:12-cv-05826-PSG

AMENDED FINAL JURY INSTRUCTIONS

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

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SAN JOSE DIVISION

GOOD TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION AND 

GOOD TECHNOLOGY SOFTWARE, INC., 

 Plaintiffs,

 v. 

MOBILEIRON, INC.,

 Defendant.

)

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

)

Case No. 5:12-cv-05826-PSG

AMENDED FINAL JURY 

INSTRUCTIONS

Case 5:12-cv-05826-PSG Document 533 Filed 07/31/15 Page 1 of 39
2 

Case No. 5:12-cv-05826-PSG

AMENDED FINAL JURY INSTRUCTIONS

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

For the Northern District of California

1. BURDEN OF PROOF—PREPONDERANCE OF THE EVIDENCE

When a party has the burden of proof on any claim or affirmative defense by a preponderance of 

the evidence, it means you must be persuaded by the evidence that the claim or affirmative defense 

is more probably true than not true. 

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

Case 5:12-cv-05826-PSG Document 533 Filed 07/31/15 Page 2 of 39
3 

Case No. 5:12-cv-05826-PSG

AMENDED FINAL JURY INSTRUCTIONS

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

For the Northern District of California

2. BURDEN OF PROOF—CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE

When a party has the burden of proof on any claim or affirmative defense by clear and convincing 

evidence, it means you must be persuaded by the evidence that the claim or affirmative defense is 

highly probable. This is a higher standard of proof than proof by a preponderance of the evidence. 

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

Case 5:12-cv-05826-PSG Document 533 Filed 07/31/15 Page 3 of 39
4 

Case No. 5:12-cv-05826-PSG

AMENDED FINAL JURY INSTRUCTIONS

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

For the Northern District of California

3. EXPERT OPINION

Some witnesses, because of education or experience, were permitted to state opinions and the 

reasons for those opinions. 

Opinion testimony should be judged just like any other testimony. You may accept it or reject it, 

and give it as much weight as you think it deserves, considering the witness’s education and 

experience, the reason given for the opinion, and all the other evidence in the case. 

Case 5:12-cv-05826-PSG Document 533 Filed 07/31/15 Page 4 of 39
5 

Case No. 5:12-cv-05826-PSG

AMENDED FINAL JURY INSTRUCTIONS

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

For the Northern District of California

4. DEPOSITION IN LIEU OF LIVE TESTIMONY

As I have previously explained, 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. When a person is unavailable to testify at trial, or because the 

parties have agreed not to call an individual live, the deposition of that person may be used at the 

trial.

You should consider deposition testimony, presented to you in court by videotape or read to you 

from a deposition transcript in lieu of live testimony, insofar as possible, in the same way as if the 

witness had been present to testify.

Case 5:12-cv-05826-PSG Document 533 Filed 07/31/15 Page 5 of 39
6 

Case No. 5:12-cv-05826-PSG

AMENDED FINAL JURY INSTRUCTIONS

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

For the Northern District of California

5. IMPEACHMENT EVIDENCE—WITNESS

The evidence that a witness testified differently on a prior occasion may be considered, along with 

all other evidence, in deciding whether or not to believe the witness and how much weight to give 

to the testimony of the witness and for no other purpose. 

Case 5:12-cv-05826-PSG Document 533 Filed 07/31/15 Page 6 of 39
7 

Case No. 5:12-cv-05826-PSG

AMENDED FINAL JURY INSTRUCTIONS

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

For the Northern District of California

6. DEMONSTRATIVE EVIDENCE

During the trial, materials have been shown to you to help explain testimony or other evidence in 

the case. Other materials have also been shown to you during the trial, but they have not been 

admitted into evidence. You will not be able to review them during your deliberations because they 

are not themselves evidence or proof of any facts. You may, however, consider the testimony given 

in connection with those materials.

Case 5:12-cv-05826-PSG Document 533 Filed 07/31/15 Page 7 of 39
8 

Case No. 5:12-cv-05826-PSG

AMENDED FINAL JURY INSTRUCTIONS

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

For the Northern District of California

7. CONFIDENTIALITY

During this trial, the attorneys have presented confidential information belonging to one of the 

parties as evidence. You are not to discuss or communicate any confidential evidence presented 

during this trial to anyone aside from the other jurors during deliberations, either during the trial or 

after the trial.

Case 5:12-cv-05826-PSG Document 533 Filed 07/31/15 Page 8 of 39
9 

Case No. 5:12-cv-05826-PSG

AMENDED FINAL JURY INSTRUCTIONS

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

For the Northern District of California

8. FALSE ADVERTISING—ELEMENTS OF CLAIM

Good Technology contends that MobileIron engaged in false advertising. To succeed on this claim, 

Good Technology must prove five things by a preponderance of the evidence: 

1. MobileIron made a false or misleading statement of fact in an advertisement or 

promotion about Good Technology’s products. 

• A statement is false if it is literally untrue. 

• A statement is misleading if it can be shown that the statement has misled, confused 

or deceived the consuming public. 

• MobileIron’s representations constitute an advertisement or promotion if they are: 

(1) commercial speech; (2) by MobileIron and MobileIron is in commercial 

competition with Good Technology; (3) for the purpose of influencing consumers to 

buy MobileIron’s goods or services; and (4) sufficiently disseminated to the relevant 

purchasing public to constitute “advertising” or “promotion” within the Mobile 

Device Management or Enterprise Mobile Management industry. 

2. The statement actually deceived or had the tendency to deceive a substantial segment of 

its audience.

3. The deception was material, in that it was likely to influence the purchasing decisions of 

MobileIron’s or Good Technology’s consumers. 

4. MobileIron caused its statement to enter interstate commerce. A statement enters 

interstate commerce if it is made across state lines.

5. Good Technology is likely to be injured as the result of the false statement either by 

direct diversion of sales from itself to MobileIron, or by lessening of the goodwill which its 

products or business enjoy with its customers. 

If you find that Good Technology has proved that MobileIron made a deliberately false or 

misleading statement of fact in an advertisement or promotion about Good Technology’s products, 

then you may presume that points 2 and 3 above are met unless MobileIron has rebutted that 

presumption. MobileIron will have rebutted such a presumption if it has shown there is evidence 

that the statement did not cause actual deception or that the statement was not likely to influence 

the purchasing decisions of MobileIron’s or Good Technology’s consumers. 

If you find that Good has proved all five elements listed above, then you must find for Good 

Technology. If you find that Good Technology has not proved all five elements listed above, then 

you must find for MobileIron. 

Case 5:12-cv-05826-PSG Document 533 Filed 07/31/15 Page 9 of 39
10 

Case No. 5:12-cv-05826-PSG

AMENDED FINAL JURY INSTRUCTIONS

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

For the Northern District of California

9. INTERPRETATION OF CLAIMS

Before you decide whether or not there has been infringement of any of Good Technology’s or 

MobileIron’s patent claims and whether or not the patent claims are valid, you will need to 

understand the patent claims. As I mentioned, the patent claims are numbered sentences at the end 

of each patent that describe 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. 

The parties have agreed on the meaning of some of the language in the claims at issue. The parties 

have agreed that:

1. In MobileIron’s ’016 patent, the term “mobile device profile” means “information that is 

specific to a particular mobile device.”

2. In MobileIron’s ’016 patent, the term “user profile” means “information that provides 

characteristics of a particular user (such as name, email address, organizational information, 

etc.).”

3. In MobileIron’s ’016 patent, the accessing, filtering, and returning steps are performed 

in the recited order.

In addition, 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. 

I have interpreted the following terms in the claims at issue as follows:

4. In MobileIron’s ’016 patent, the term “to provide the ability for the user to select, via the 

application management interface, one or more of the displayed applications for installation 

on the mobile device” means “to allow the user to select for installation one or more 

applications using the application management interface.” 

5. In MobileIron’s ’016 patent, the term “mobile device application management interface” 

means “a user interface that allows a user to manage the applications for a mobile device, 

which includes an interface to an enterprise application store.” 

6. In MobileIron’s ’016 patent, the term “identify[ing] required applications” means 

“identify[ing] which applications have been designated by an administrator as ‘required’ for 

a user or set of users.”

7. In Good Technology’s ’322 patent, the term “searching a compatibility matrix [to 

identify/for] rules associated with each update” means “for each update, searching rules that 

indicate whether an update is compatible with a particular wireless device.”

Case 5:12-cv-05826-PSG Document 533 Filed 07/31/15 Page 10 of 39
11 

Case No. 5:12-cv-05826-PSG

AMENDED FINAL JURY INSTRUCTIONS

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

For the Northern District of California

8. In Good Technology’s ’322 patent, the term “rules uniquely identifying the updates for 

the wireless device” means “rules used to identify updates available for a particular wireless 

device.”

9. In Good Technology’s ’322 patent, the term “message indicating one or more files 

within the updates to [download/upload]” means “message indicating at least one file 

within the updates to [download/upload].” 

10. In Good Technology’s ’386 patent, the term “rule” means “condition and an action to 

be taken if that condition is met.”

11. In Good Technology’s ’386 patent, the term “rules engine” means “component on the 

wireless device that, without further communication with a server, evaluates the 

condition(s) specified in one or more rules received from the server and takes any action 

indicated by the rule.”

12. In Good Technology’s ’386 patent, the term “monitoring time interval” means “an 

interval of time between instances of the rules engine gathering information on the device.”

Case 5:12-cv-05826-PSG Document 533 Filed 07/31/15 Page 11 of 39
12 

Case No. 5:12-cv-05826-PSG

AMENDED FINAL JURY INSTRUCTIONS

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

For the Northern District of California

10. HOW A CLAIM DEFINES WHAT IT COVERS

I will now explain how a claim defines what it covers.

A claim sets forth, in words, a set of requirements. Each claim sets forth its requirements in a 

single sentence. If a device, system, or method satisfies each of these requirements, then it is 

covered by the claim.

There can be several claims in a patent. Each claim may be narrower or broader than another claim 

by setting forth more or fewer requirements. The coverage of a patent is assessed claim-by-claim. 

In patent law, the requirements of a claim are often referred to as “claim elements” or “claim 

limitations.” When a thing (such as a product or method) meets all of the requirements of a claim, 

the claim is said to “cover” that thing, and that thing is said to “fall” within the scope of that claim. 

In other words, a claim covers a product or method where each of the claim elements or limitations 

is present in that product or method. 

As I just instructed you, there are certain specific terms that I have defined or that the parties have 

agreed upon and you are to apply the definitions that I provide to you. By understanding the 

meaning of the words in a claim and by understanding that the words in a claim set forth the 

requirements that a product or method must meet in order to be covered by that claim, you will be 

able to understand the scope of coverage for each claim. Once you understand what each claim 

covers, then you are prepared to decide the issues that you will be asked to decide, such as 

infringement and invalidity. 

Case 5:12-cv-05826-PSG Document 533 Filed 07/31/15 Page 12 of 39
13 

Case No. 5:12-cv-05826-PSG

AMENDED FINAL JURY INSTRUCTIONS

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

For the Northern District of California

11. INFRINGEMENT—BURDEN OF PROOF

I will now instruct you on the rules you must follow in deciding whether infringement of one or 

more of the asserted claims of the patents in this case has been shown. To prove infringement of 

any claim of any of the patents in this case, the patent holder must persuade you that it is more 

likely than not that the alleged infringer has infringed that claim. 

Case 5:12-cv-05826-PSG Document 533 Filed 07/31/15 Page 13 of 39
14 

Case No. 5:12-cv-05826-PSG

AMENDED FINAL JURY INSTRUCTIONS

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

For the Northern District of California

12. DIRECT INFRINGEMENT

A patent’s claims define what is covered by the patent. A product directly infringes a patent if it is 

covered by at least one claim of the patent. A method directly infringes a patent if it is covered by 

at least one claim of the patent and is actually performed.

Deciding whether a claim has been directly infringed is a two-step process. The first step is to 

decide the meaning of the patent claim. I have already made this decision, and I have already 

instructed you as to the meaning of the asserted patent claims. The second step is to decide 

whether the alleged infringer has made, used, sold, or offered for sale or imported within the 

United States a product or used within the United States a method covered by any claim of any of 

the patents in this case. If it has, it infringes. You, the jury, make this decision. 

With one exception, you must consider each of the asserted claims of the patent individually, and 

decide whether the alleged infringer’s product or method infringes that claim. The one exception 

to considering claims individually concerns dependent claims. A dependent claim includes all of 

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

result, if you find that an independent claim is not infringed, you must also find that its dependent 

claims are not infringed. On the other hand, if you find that an independent claim has been 

infringed, you must still separately decide whether the additional requirements of its dependent 

claims have also been infringed. 

You may have heard evidence about both the patent holder’s commercial product or method and 

the alleged infringer’s accused product or method. However, in deciding the issue of infringement 

you may not compare the alleged infringer’s accused product or method to the patent holder’s 

commercial product or method. Rather, you must compare the alleged infringer’s accused product 

or method to the claims of the asserted patent when making your decision regarding infringement. 

Whether or not the alleged infringer knew its product or method infringed or even knew of the 

patent does not matter in determining direct infringement.

There are two ways in which a patent claim may be directly infringed. A claim may be “literally” 

infringed, or it may be infringed under the “doctrine of equivalents.” The following instructions 

will provide more detail on these two types of direct infringement.

Case 5:12-cv-05826-PSG Document 533 Filed 07/31/15 Page 14 of 39
15 

Case No. 5:12-cv-05826-PSG

AMENDED FINAL JURY INSTRUCTIONS

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

For the Northern District of California

13. LITERAL INFRINGEMENT

To decide whether the accused products or methods literally infringe any claims of the patents in 

this case, you must compare each product or method with the patent claim and determine whether 

every requirement of the claim is included in that product or method. If so, the product or method 

literally infringes that claim. You must decide literal infringement for each asserted claim 

separately. 

If a 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 an accused 

product or method. The fact that an accused product also includes other parts or that an accused 

method includes additional steps will not avoid infringement, as long as the accused product or 

method has every requirement in the patent claim. 

If the alleged infringer’s product or method does not itself include every requirement in the patent 

claim, the alleged infringer cannot be liable for infringement merely because other parties supplied 

the missing elements, unless the accused infringer directed or controlled the acts by those parties. 

The alleged infringer does not direct or control someone else’s action merely because the alleged 

infringer entered into a business relationship with that person. Instead, the alleged infringer must 

specifically instruct or cause that other person to perform each step in an infringing manner, so that 

every step is attributable to the alleged infringer as controlling party.

If one party controls and makes use of a system that contains all the requirements of a claim, that 

party may be an infringer even though the parts of the system do not all operate in the same place 

or at the same time.

Case 5:12-cv-05826-PSG Document 533 Filed 07/31/15 Page 15 of 39
16 

Case No. 5:12-cv-05826-PSG

AMENDED FINAL JURY INSTRUCTIONS

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

For the Northern District of California

14. INFRINGEMENT UNDER THE DOCTRINE OF EQUIVALENTS

If you decide that an accused MobileIron product or method does not literally infringe an asserted 

patent claim, you must then decide whether that product or method infringes the asserted claim 

under what is called the “doctrine of equivalents.” 

Under the doctrine of equivalents, the product or method can infringe an asserted patent claim if it 

includes parts or steps that are identical or equivalent to the requirements of the claim. If the 

product or method is missing an identical or equivalent part or step to even one requirement of the 

asserted patent claim, the product or method cannot infringe the claim under the doctrine of 

equivalents. Thus, in making your decision under the doctrine of equivalents, you must look at 

each individual requirement of the asserted patent claim and decide whether the product or method 

has either an identical or equivalent part or step to that individual claim requirement.

A part or step of a product or method is equivalent to a requirement of an asserted claim if a person 

of ordinary skill in the field would think that the differences between the part or step and the 

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

Changes in technique or improvements made possible by technology developed after the patent 

application is filed may still be equivalent for the purposes of the doctrine of equivalents if it still 

meets the other requirements of the doctrine of equivalents set forth in this instruction. 

One way to decide whether any difference between a requirement of an asserted claim and a part or 

step of the product or method is not substantial is to consider whether, as of the time of the alleged 

infringement, the part or step of the product or method performed substantially the same function, 

in substantially the same way, to achieve substantially the same result as the requirement in the 

patent claim.

You may not use the doctrine of equivalents to find infringement if you find that the alleged 

infringer’s product or method is the same as what was in the prior art before the application for the 

patent or what would have been obvious to persons of ordinary skill in the field in light of what 

was in the prior art. A patent holder may not obtain, under the doctrine of equivalents, protection 

that it could not have lawfully obtained from the Patent and Trademark Office. 

Case 5:12-cv-05826-PSG Document 533 Filed 07/31/15 Page 16 of 39
17 

Case No. 5:12-cv-05826-PSG

AMENDED FINAL JURY INSTRUCTIONS

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

For the Northern District of California

15. CONTRIBUTORY INFRINGEMENT 

Contributory infringement may arise when someone supplies something that is used to infringe one 

or more of the patent claims. 

In order for there to be contributory infringement, someone other than a party in this case must 

directly infringe a claim of a patent; if there is no direct infringement by anyone, there can be no 

contributory infringement. If you find someone other than Good Technology has directly infringed 

a claim of MobileIron’s ’016 patent, then Good Technology is liable for contributory infringement 

if it is more likely than not that:

1. The party sold, offered for sale, imported or otherwise supplied an important component 

of the infringing part of the product or method; 

2. The component is not suitable for substantial non-infringing use; and 

3. The party supplied the component with knowledge of the patent and knowledge that the 

component was especially made or adapted for use in an infringing manner.

A “component suitable for substantial non-infringing use” is a component that has uses other than 

as a component of the patented product or other than in the patented method, and those other uses 

are not occasional, farfetched, impractical, experimental, or hypothetical.

Case 5:12-cv-05826-PSG Document 533 Filed 07/31/15 Page 17 of 39
18 

Case No. 5:12-cv-05826-PSG

AMENDED FINAL JURY INSTRUCTIONS

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

For the Northern District of California

16. INDUCING PATENT INFRINGEMENT

MobileIron argues that Good Technology has actively induced another to infringe the ’016 patent. 

In order for Good Technology to induce infringement, Good Technology must have induced 

another to directly infringe a claim of the ’016 patent; if there is no direct infringement by anyone, 

there can be no induced infringement. In order to be liable for inducement of infringement, Good 

Technology must: 

1. have intentionally taken action that actually induced direct infringement;

2. have been aware of the ’016 patent; and

3. have known that the acts it was causing would infringe the patent. 

If the three requirements just stated are not met, Good Technology cannot be liable for inducement 

unless it actually believed that it was highly probably its actions would encourage infringement of 

a patent it believed to be valid and that it deliberately chose to avoid learning the truth. To prove 

inducement, it is not enough that Good Technology was merely indifferent to the possibility that its 

actions might encourage infringement of a valid patent. Nor is it enough that Good Technology 

took a risk that was substantial and unjustified. 

In decided whether Good Technology induced infringement, you may consider whether Good 

Technology actually believed that the acts it encouraged did not infringe the patent. 

Case 5:12-cv-05826-PSG Document 533 Filed 07/31/15 Page 18 of 39
19 

Case No. 5:12-cv-05826-PSG

AMENDED FINAL JURY INSTRUCTIONS

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

For the Northern District of California

17. INVALIDITY—BURDEN OF PROOF

I will now instruct you on the rules you must follow in deciding whether or not a patent claim is 

invalid. Before discussing the specific rules, I want to remind you about the standard of proof that 

applies to this defense. To prove that any claim of a patent is invalid, you must be persuaded by 

clear and convincing evidence, i.e., the evidence must produce in your minds a firm belief or 

conviction that the claim is invalid.

Case 5:12-cv-05826-PSG Document 533 Filed 07/31/15 Page 19 of 39
20 

Case No. 5:12-cv-05826-PSG

AMENDED FINAL JURY INSTRUCTIONS

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

For the Northern District of California

18. WRITTEN DESCRIPTION

The patent law contains certain requirements for the part of the patent called the specification. 

Patent claims may be invalid if the patent specification does not contain an adequate written 

description of the claimed invention. 

To show that a patent claim lacks an adequate written description, it must be shown by clear and 

convincing evidence that the specification fails to meet the law’s requirements for written 

description of the invention. In the patent application process, the applicant may keep the originally 

filed claims, or change the claims between the time the patent application is first filed and the time 

a patent is issued. An applicant may amend the claims or add new claims. These changes may 

narrow or broaden the scope of the claims. The written description requirement ensures that the 

issued claims correspond to the scope of the written description that was provided in the original 

application. 

In deciding whether the patent satisfies this written description requirement, you must consider the 

description from the viewpoint of a person having ordinary skill in the field of technology of the 

patent when the application was filed. The written description requirement is satisfied if a person 

having ordinary skill reading the original patent application would have recognized that it describes 

the full scope of the claimed invention as it is finally claimed in the issued patent, even though the 

description may not use the exact words found in the claim. 

The written description requirement may be satisfied by any combination of the words, structures, 

figures, diagrams, formulas, etc., contained in the patent application. The full scope of a claim or 

any particular requirement in a claim need not be expressly disclosed in the original patent 

application if a person having ordinary skill in the field of technology of the patent at the time of 

filing would have understood that the full scope or missing requirement is in the written description 

in the patent application. 

Case 5:12-cv-05826-PSG Document 533 Filed 07/31/15 Page 20 of 39
21 

Case No. 5:12-cv-05826-PSG

AMENDED FINAL JURY INSTRUCTIONS

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

For the Northern District of California

19. INVALIDITY—ANTICIPATION

A patent claim is invalid if the claimed invention is not new. For the claim to be invalid because it 

is not new, each and every element in the claim must have existed in a single device or method that 

predates the claimed invention, or must have been described in a single previous 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. You may not combine two or more items of prior art to find 

anticipation. Anticipation must be determined on a claim-by-claim basis.

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

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

someone of ordinary skill in the field of the patent looking at that one reference would be able to 

make and use the claimed invention. 

To succeed in showing that a patent claim is invalid as anticipated by alleged prior art, the party 

asserting invalidity must convince you of this by clear and convincing evidence, in other words, it 

must present evidence that highly probably demonstrates that the claims are invalid and produces 

in your minds a firm belief or conviction that the claims are invalid. 

Here is a list of the ways it can be shown 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 date of the invention; 

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

anywhere in the world before the date of the invention or more than a year before the 

effective filing date of the application for the patent. An invention was patented by another 

if the other patent describes the same invention claimed by the patent holder to a person 

having ordinary skill in the technology. 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 publicly used, sold, or offered for sale in the United States 

more than one year before the effective filing date of the application for the patent. An 

invention was publicly used when it was either accessible to the public or commercially 

exploited; 

– if the claimed invention was described in a published patent application filed by another 

in the United States before the date of the invention; 

– if the claimed invention was described in a patent granted on an application for patent by 

another filed in the United States and the application was filed before the date of the 

invention and the filing date of the application for the patent; 

– if the claimed invention was already made by someone else in the United States before 

the date of invention, if that other person had not abandoned the invention or kept it secret; 

The date of invention is either when the invention was reduced to practice or when conceived, 

provided the inventors were diligent in reducing the invention to practice. 

Case 5:12-cv-05826-PSG Document 533 Filed 07/31/15 Page 21 of 39
22 

Case No. 5:12-cv-05826-PSG

AMENDED FINAL JURY INSTRUCTIONS

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

For the Northern District of California

Diligence means working continuously, though not necessarily every day. 

Conception is the mental part of an inventive act, i.e., the formation in the mind of the inventor of a 

definite and permanent idea of the complete and operative invention as it is thereafter to be applied 

in practice, even if the inventor did not know at the time that the invention would work. 

Conception of an invention is complete when the idea is so clearly defined in the inventor’s mind 

that, if the idea were communicated to a person having ordinary skill in the field of the technology, 

he or she would be able to reduce the invention to practice without undue research or 

experimentation. This requirement does not mean that the inventor has to have a prototype built, or 

actually explained her or his invention to another person. But, there must be some evidence beyond 

the inventor’s own testimony that confirms the date on which the inventor had the complete idea. 

Conception may be proven when the invention is shown in its complete form by drawings, 

disclosure to another person, or other forms of evidence presented at trial. 

A claimed invention is “reduced to practice” when it has been tested sufficiently to show that it 

will work for its intended purpose or when it is fully described in a patent application filed with the 

PTO. 

To be an inventor, one must make a significant contribution to the conception of at least one or 

more of the claims of the patent. Whether the contribution is significant is measured against the 

scope of the full invention. 

Case 5:12-cv-05826-PSG Document 533 Filed 07/31/15 Page 22 of 39
23 

Case No. 5:12-cv-05826-PSG

AMENDED FINAL JURY INSTRUCTIONS

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

For the Northern District of California

20. INVALIDITY—OBVIOUSNESS

Even though an invention may not have been identically disclosed or described before it was made 

by an inventor, in order to be patentable, the invention must also not have been obvious to a person 

of ordinary skill in the field of technology of the patent at the time the invention was made. 

It may be established that a patent claim is invalid by showing, by clear and convincing evidence, 

that the claimed invention would have been obvious to persons having ordinary skill in the art at 

the time the invention was made in the field of the patent.

In determining whether a claimed invention is obvious, you must consider the level of ordinary 

skill in the field of the patent that someone would have had at the time the invention was made, the 

scope and content of the prior art, and any differences between the prior art and the claimed 

invention. 

Keep in mind that the existence of each and every element of the claimed invention in the prior art 

does not necessarily prove obviousness. Most, if not all, inventions rely on building blocks of prior 

art.

In considering whether a claimed invention is obvious, you may but are not required to find 

obviousness if you find that at the time of the claimed invention there was a reason that would have 

prompted a person having ordinary skill in the field of the patent to combine the known elements in 

a way the claimed invention does, taking into account such factors as (1) whether the claimed 

invention was merely the predictable result of using prior art elements according to their known 

functions; (2) whether the claimed invention provides an obvious solution to a known problem in 

the relevant field; (3) whether the prior art teaches or suggests the desirability of combining 

elements claimed in the invention; (4) whether the prior art teaches away from combining elements 

in the claimed invention; (5) whether it would have been obvious to try the combinations of 

elements, such as when there is a design need or market pressure to solve a problem and there are a 

finite number of identified, predictable solutions and (6) whether the change resulted more from 

design incentives or other market forces. 

To find it rendered the invention obvious, you must also find that the prior art provided a 

reasonable expectation of success.

In determining whether the claimed invention was obvious, consider each claim separately. Do not 

use hindsight, i.e., consider only what was known at the time of the invention. 

In making these assessments, you must also take into account any objective evidence (sometimes 

called “secondary considerations”) that may have existed at the time of the invention and 

afterwards that may shed light on whether or not the claimed invention would have been obvious, 

such as:

1. Whether the invention was commercially successful as a result of the merits of the 

claimed invention (rather than the result of design needs or market-pressure advertising or 

similar activities);

2. Whether the invention satisfied a long-felt need;

3. Whether others had tried and failed to make the invention; 

4. Whether others invented the invention at roughly the same time; 

Case 5:12-cv-05826-PSG Document 533 Filed 07/31/15 Page 23 of 39
24 

Case No. 5:12-cv-05826-PSG

AMENDED FINAL JURY INSTRUCTIONS

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

For the Northern District of California

5. Whether others copied the invention; 

6. Whether there were changes or related technologies or market needs contemporaneous 

with the invention; 

7. Whether the invention achieved unexpected results; 

8. Whether others in the field praised the invention; 

9. Whether persons having ordinary skill in the art of the invention expressed surprise or 

disbelief regarding the invention; 

10. Whether others sought or obtained rights to the patent from the patent holder; and 

11. Whether the inventor proceeded contrary to accepted wisdom in the field. 

Case 5:12-cv-05826-PSG Document 533 Filed 07/31/15 Page 24 of 39
25 

Case No. 5:12-cv-05826-PSG

AMENDED FINAL JURY INSTRUCTIONS

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

For the Northern District of California

21. INVALIDITY—LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL

In deciding what the level of ordinary skill in the field of the invention is, you should consider all 

the evidence introduced at trial, including but not limited to: (1) the levels of education and 

experience of the inventor and other persons actively working in the field; (2) the types of 

problems encountered in the field; (3) prior art solutions to those problems; (4) rapidity with which 

innovations are made; and (5) the sophistication of the technology. 

Case 5:12-cv-05826-PSG Document 533 Filed 07/31/15 Page 25 of 39
26 

Case No. 5:12-cv-05826-PSG

AMENDED FINAL JURY INSTRUCTIONS

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

For the Northern District of California

22. UNCLEAN HANDS

The owner of a patent may be barred from enforcing the patent against an infringer where the 

owner of the patent acts or acted inequitably, unfairly, or deceitfully towards the infringer or the 

Court in a way that has immediate and necessary relation to the relief that the patent holder seeks in 

a lawsuit. This is referred to as “unclean hands,” and it is a defense that MobileIron contends 

precludes any recovery by Good Technology in this lawsuit. 

Unclean hands is also a defense to Good Technology’s false advertising claim. In bringing a claim 

for false advertising, Good Technology should not be guilty of any false or misleading 

representation in its own advertisements. If MobileIron can demonstrate that Good Technology 

acted inequitably in a way that relates to the subject matter of Good Technology’s false advertising 

claim, Good Technology may be barred from seeking relief. 

You must consider and weigh all the facts and circumstances to determine whether you believe 

that, on balance, Good Technology acted in such an unfair way in the matters relating to the 

controversy between Good Technology and MobileIron that, in fairness, Good Technology should 

be denied the relief it seeks in this lawsuit. MobileIron must prove unclean hands by a 

preponderance of the evidence. 

Case 5:12-cv-05826-PSG Document 533 Filed 07/31/15 Page 26 of 39
27 

Case No. 5:12-cv-05826-PSG

AMENDED FINAL JURY INSTRUCTIONS

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

For the Northern District of California

23. FALSE ADVERTISING DAMAGES

If you find for Good Technology on its false advertising claim, you must determine the amount of 

MobileIron’s profits, if any, that Good is entitled to. This is known as “disgorgement” of 

MobileIron’s profits. Disgorgement is intended to award profits only on sales that are attributable 

to the false advertising. Once Good Technology has identified MobileIron’s gross profits resulting 

from the false advertising, the burden shifts to MobileIron to show any costs that should be 

deducted from that amount. 

Case 5:12-cv-05826-PSG Document 533 Filed 07/31/15 Page 27 of 39
28 

Case No. 5:12-cv-05826-PSG

AMENDED FINAL JURY INSTRUCTIONS

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

For the Northern District of California

24. PATENT DAMAGES

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 a valid claim of a patent has been 

infringed, you must determine the amount of money damages to be awarded to the patent holder to 

compensate it for the infringement.

The amount of those damages must be adequate to compensate the patent holder for the 

infringement. A damages award should put the patent holder in approximately the financial 

position it would have been in had the infringement not occurred, but in no event may the damages 

award be less than a reasonable royalty. You should keep in mind that the damages you award are 

meant to compensate the patent holder and not to punish an infringer. 

The patent holder has the burden to persuade you of the amount of its damages. You should award 

only those damages that the patent holder more likely than not suffered. While a patent holder is 

not required to prove its damages with mathematical precision, it must prove them with reasonable 

certainty. A patent holder is not entitled to damages that are remote or speculative. 

Case 5:12-cv-05826-PSG Document 533 Filed 07/31/15 Page 28 of 39
29 

Case No. 5:12-cv-05826-PSG

AMENDED FINAL JURY INSTRUCTIONS

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

For the Northern District of California

25. PATENT DAMAGES—DATE OF COMMENCEMENT

Damages that a patent holder may be awarded by you commence on the date that the alleged 

infringer has both infringed and been notified of the patent. 

Good Technology and MobileIron agree that for Good’s allegations that MobileIron’s products 

infringe the Good Technology patents, the date of commencement was November 14, 2012. 

Good Technology and MobileIron agree that for MobileIron’s allegations that Good Technology’s 

products infringe MobileIron’s patent, the date of commencement was March 1, 2013. 

Case 5:12-cv-05826-PSG Document 533 Filed 07/31/15 Page 29 of 39
30 

Case No. 5:12-cv-05826-PSG

AMENDED FINAL JURY INSTRUCTIONS

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

For the Northern District of California

26. DAMAGES—REASONABLE ROYALTY

If you determine that any products made, used or sold by an alleged infringer have infringed any 

valid claims of any of the patents at issue in this case, then the patent holder should be awarded at 

least a reasonable royalty.

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. Evidence of things that 

happened after the infringement first began can be considered in evaluating the reasonable royalty 

only to the extent that the evidence aids in assessing what royalty would have resulted from a 

hypothetical negotiation. In considering this hypothetical 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. 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 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. 

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. 

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. However, in a circumstance in 

which the patented feature is the reason customers buy the whole product, the base revenue could 

be the value of the whole product. Even if the patented feature is not the reason for customer 

demand, the value of the whole product could be used if, for example, the value of the patented 

feature could not be separated out from the value of the whole product. In such a case, however, 

the rate resulting from the hypothetical negotiation would be a lower rate because it is being 

applied to the value of the whole product and the patented feature is not the reason for the 

customer’s purchase of the whole product. 

It is up to you, based on the evidence, to decide what royalty is appropriate in this case. 

Case 5:12-cv-05826-PSG Document 533 Filed 07/31/15 Page 30 of 39
31 

Case No. 5:12-cv-05826-PSG

AMENDED FINAL JURY INSTRUCTIONS

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

For the Northern District of California

27. PATENT DAMAGES—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-insuit.

3. The nature and scope of the license, as exclusive or nonexclusive, or as restricted or nonrestricted in terms of territory or with respect to whom the manufactured product may be 

sold. 

4. The licensor’s established policy and marketing program to maintain his or her patent 

monopoly by not licensing others to use the invention or by granting licenses under special 

conditions designed to preserve that monopoly. 

5. The commercial relationship between the licensor and licensee, such as whether they are 

competitors in the same territory in the same line of business, or whether they are inventor 

and promoter. 

6. The effect of selling the patented specialty in promoting sales of other products of the 

licensee, the existing value of the invention to the licensor as a generator of sales of his 

non-patented items, and the extent of such derivative or convoyed sales. 

7. The duration of the patent and the term of the license. 

8. The established profitability of the product made under the patents, its commercial 

success, and its current popularity. 

9. 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. 

10. 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. 

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

probative of the value of that use. 

Case 5:12-cv-05826-PSG Document 533 Filed 07/31/15 Page 31 of 39
32 

Case No. 5:12-cv-05826-PSG

AMENDED FINAL JURY INSTRUCTIONS

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

For the Northern District of California

12. 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. 

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

distinguished from non-patented elements, the manufacturing process, business risks, or 

significant features or improvements added by the infringer. 

14. The opinion and testimony of qualified experts. 

15. 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 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. 

Case 5:12-cv-05826-PSG Document 533 Filed 07/31/15 Page 32 of 39
33 

Case No. 5:12-cv-05826-PSG

AMENDED FINAL JURY INSTRUCTIONS

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

For the Northern District of California

28. PATENT DAMAGES—REASONABLE ROYALTY—USE OF SETTLEMENT 

AGREEMENTS

The damages experts for both parties in this case have referred to settlement agreements in 

connection with their opinions as to the reasonable royalties that would be owed if you find 

infringement of a valid patent claim. Each of these settlement agreements cover patents other than, 

or in addition to, the patents-in-suit.

There are several things you must keep in mind when considering such evidence of settlement 

agreements.

First, where a settlement agreement covers patents other than, or in addition to, the patent under 

consideration, you should consider whether the party advocating the use of the settlement 

agreement has established that the scope of the rights conveyed in the settlement agreement is 

comparable in scope to the license that would result from the hypothetical negotiation concerning 

the patent under consideration. If it is not, you should consider whether the party advocating the 

use of the settlement agreement has established that a portion of the consideration for that 

agreement can be attributed with reasonable certainty to the use of the technology protected by the 

patent under consideration. 

Second, the license fees negotiated during the course of a lawsuit may be influenced by factors 

unrelated to the value of the patent or patents that are the subject of the settlement agreement. Such 

factors may include a threat of high litigation costs that may be strongly influenced by a desire to 

avoid full litigation, as well as the threat of an injunction, enhanced damages for willful 

infringement, and future litigation. 

Third, whether the settlement agreements were negotiated on dates that are earlier or later than the 

date on which the alleged infringement began, and whether the economic circumstances were 

different at the time the settlement agreements were negotiated compared to the time of the alleged 

infringement are factors to consider regarding whether the settlement agreements are relevant to the 

hypothetical negotiation between Good Technology and MobileIron in this case. The negotiation 

assumed in the hypothetical negotiation is assumed to take place just before the alleged 

infringement begins. 

Case 5:12-cv-05826-PSG Document 533 Filed 07/31/15 Page 33 of 39
34 

Case No. 5:12-cv-05826-PSG

AMENDED FINAL JURY INSTRUCTIONS

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

For the Northern District of California

29. PATENT DAMAGES—REASONABLE ROYALTY—COMPARABILITY OF 

LICENSE AGREEMENTS

One of the factors you should consider in determining a reasonable royalty is whether there are 

agreements that are comparable to the license that would result from the hypothetical negotiation 

concerning a particular patent in suit. Both parties have presented expert testimony to establish a 

reasonable royalty. In attempting to establish a reasonable royalty, agreements relied on by the 

parties’ experts must be sufficiently comparable to the hypothetical license at issue in suit.

When relying on licenses to prove a reasonable royalty, alleging a loose or vague comparability 

between different technologies or licenses does not suffice. The circumstances surrounding a 

comparable agreement, however, do not need to be identical to those surrounding the hypothetical 

negotiation because any reasonable royalty analysis necessarily involves an element of 

approximation and uncertainty. 

You should exercise vigilance when considering past licenses to technologies other than the patent 

in suit. Your evaluation of the comparability of a past license to the hypothetical license agreement 

the parties to this lawsuit would have negotiated should involve consideration of the comparability 

of the technology (in the past agreement as compared with the hypothetical agreement the parties 

here would have reached) as well as consideration of the comparability of the commercial terms 

and economic circumstances (in the past agreement as compared with the hypothetical agreement 

the parties here would have reached). When considering past agreements and technologies other 

than the patent in suit, the party advocating a particular agreement must account for differences in 

the technologies and economic circumstances of the contracting parties.

In evaluating whether a license agreement advanced by a party is comparable to the license that 

would result from the hypothetical negotiation concerning a particular patent in suit, the following 

factors may be considered:

1. The date of the agreement;

2. The type of agreement;

3. The scope of the agreement, including that it may include more patents than are at issue 

in this action;

4. Whether the agreement includes both accused and non-accused technology; 

5. The relationship between the parties to the agreement;

6. The intended use of the technology; and 

7. Any other of the relevant factors listed above in Instruction No. 29. 

Case 5:12-cv-05826-PSG Document 533 Filed 07/31/15 Page 34 of 39
35 

Case No. 5:12-cv-05826-PSG

AMENDED FINAL JURY INSTRUCTIONS

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

For the Northern District of California

30. NON-INFRINGING SALES

If you find that a patent is only infringed through conduct other than sales of an accused product, 

you may not award a reasonable royalty based on sales of the accused product. The reasonable 

royalty you award must instead relate only to the activity constituting patent infringement. For 

example, if you find that a patent is infringed only through internal testing of a particular feature, 

the reasonable royalty you award should be specifically tied to evidence of the value of that testing. 

Case 5:12-cv-05826-PSG Document 533 Filed 07/31/15 Page 35 of 39
36 

Case No. 5:12-cv-05826-PSG

AMENDED FINAL JURY INSTRUCTIONS

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

For the Northern District of California

31. NO COPYING

In this case, neither party has raised any assertion of improper copying, copyright infringement, 

trade secret misappropriation, or unauthorized access or use of the other party’s information. The 

only claims raised by the parties are based upon patent infringement and the Lanham Act.

Case 5:12-cv-05826-PSG Document 533 Filed 07/31/15 Page 36 of 39
37 

Case No. 5:12-cv-05826-PSG

AMENDED FINAL JURY INSTRUCTIONS

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

For the Northern District of California

32. 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 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.

Case 5:12-cv-05826-PSG Document 533 Filed 07/31/15 Page 37 of 39
38 

Case No. 5:12-cv-05826-PSG

AMENDED FINAL JURY INSTRUCTIONS

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

For the Northern District of California

33. COMMUNICATION WITH COURT

If it becomes necessary during your deliberations to communicate with me, you may send a note 

through Mr. Rivera, 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 may continue your deliberations while waiting for the answer to any 

question. Remember that you are not to tell anyone—including me—how the jury stands, 

numerically or otherwise, until after you have reached a unanimous verdict or have been 

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

Case 5:12-cv-05826-PSG Document 533 Filed 07/31/15 Page 38 of 39
Case 5:12-cv-05826-PSG Document 533 Filed 07/31/15 Page 39 of 39