Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_00-cv-04524/USCOURTS-cand-3_00-cv-04524-9/pdf.json

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

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO, LTD,

Plaintiff,

v

COMPAL ELECTRONICS, INC,

Defendant. /

No C-00-4524 VRW

FINAL JURY INSTRUCTIONS

Case 3:00-cv-04524-VRW Document 551 Filed 11/15/06 Page 1 of 52
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

DUTIES OF JURY TO FIND FACTS AND FOLLOW LAW

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

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

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

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

consult if you find it necessary.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

promising to do so at the beginning of the case.

In following these instructions, you must follow all of

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

equally important. You must not read into these instructions or

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

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

entirely up to you.

Case 3:00-cv-04524-VRW Document 551 Filed 11/15/06 Page 2 of 52
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3

SUMMARY OF CONTENTIONS

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

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

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

Samsung seeks money damages from Compal for allegedly infringing

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

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

through 7 of the ‘273 patent. 

Samsung also argues that Compal has actively induced

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

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

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

and fully assembled notebook computers with various model numbers. 

Compal denies that it has infringed the asserted claims

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

7 are invalid. 

Your job is to decide whether the asserted claims of the

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

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

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

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

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

finding whether the infringement was willful. If you decide that

any infringement was willful, that decision should not affect any

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

Case 3:00-cv-04524-VRW Document 551 Filed 11/15/06 Page 3 of 52
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

4

INTERPRETATION OF CLAIMS

I have interpreted the meaning of some of the language in

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

interpretations as correct. My interpretation of the language

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

the issues of infringement and invalidity. The decisions regarding

infringement and invalidity are yours to make.

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

ISA standard defined interrupts. An ISA-compatible

computer must be physically capable of handling all ISA

standard defined interrupts.

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

to the letters of an alphabet, the decimal digits and

punctuation symbols.

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

identified as F1 through F12.

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

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

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

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

arrow and right arrow’ keys.

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

keyboard generates whenever a key is depressed or

released, said scan code number created by converting a

pairing of a row signal and a column signal in the

keyboard matrix.

Case 3:00-cv-04524-VRW Document 551 Filed 11/15/06 Page 4 of 52
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

5

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

functionally distinct from the keyboard, that activates

interrupts signals in response to receipt of data scan

codes from the keyboard and, upon request, transmits the

data scan code to the computer.

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

circuitry to output or generate data scan codes.

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

functionally discrete thing to another.

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

interrupt signal which is activated by the keyboard

controller in response to the activation of any of the

conventional keys.

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

IRQ1.

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

keyboard controller connected to the ISA-compatible

computer for transmitting the first interrupt signal.

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

signal line from the keyboard controller connected to the

ISA-compatible computer for transmitting the second

interrupt signal.

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

interrupt handling routine that responds to the first

interrupt signal from the keyboard controller by

inputting data scan codes originating at the keyboard.

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

second interrupt handling routine, which, in response to

Case 3:00-cv-04524-VRW Document 551 Filed 11/15/06 Page 5 of 52
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

6

the second interrupt signal inputs an identification of

said activated alphanumeric key, and performs a

predetermined function selected by the alphanumeric key. 

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

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

to receive keyboard scan codes from the keyboard

controller.

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

receipt of the second interrupt signal.

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

controller that generates one of a number of interrupt

vectors depending on the interrupt signal received.

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

signal and also corresponds to an interrupt handling

routine.

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

utilize an interrupt vector to access a memory location

corresponding to an interrupt vector.

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

accesses an identifier that corresponds to the start of

the first conventional interrupt handling routine.

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

an identifier that corresponds to the start of the second

non-conventional interrupt handling routine. 

Case 3:00-cv-04524-VRW Document 551 Filed 11/15/06 Page 6 of 52
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

7

INFRINGEMENT – BURDEN OF PROOF

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

deciding whether Samsung has proven that Compal has infringed one

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

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

more likely than not that Compal has infringed that claim. 

Case 3:00-cv-04524-VRW Document 551 Filed 11/15/06 Page 7 of 52
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

8

DIRECT INFRINGEMENT

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

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

one claim of the patent.

Deciding whether a claim has been directly infringed is a

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

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

already instructed you as to the meaning of the asserted patent

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

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

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

this decision.

With one exception, you must consider each of the

asserted claims of the patent individually, and decide whether any

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

considering claims individually concerns dependent claims. A

dependent claim includes all of the requirements of a particular

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

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

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

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

infringed, you must still separately decide whether the additional

requirements of its asserted dependent claims have also been

infringed. 

There are two ways in which a patent claim may be

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

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

Case 3:00-cv-04524-VRW Document 551 Filed 11/15/06 Page 8 of 52
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

9

following instructions will provide more detail on these two types

of direct infringement.

Case 3:00-cv-04524-VRW Document 551 Filed 11/15/06 Page 9 of 52
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

10

COMPRISING CLAIMS

The claims of the ‘273 patent use the word “comprising.” 

“Comprising” means “including” or “containing.” A claim that uses

the word “comprising” or “comprises” is not limited to products

having only the elements that are recited in the claim, but also

covers products that add additional elements. 

Case 3:00-cv-04524-VRW Document 551 Filed 11/15/06 Page 10 of 52
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

11

LITERAL INFRINGEMENT

To decide whether any of Compal’s products literally

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

with the patent claims and determine whether every requirement of

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

literally infringes that claim. If, however, a product does not

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

literally infringe that claim. You must decide literal

infringement for each asserted claim separately. 

Case 3:00-cv-04524-VRW Document 551 Filed 11/15/06 Page 11 of 52
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

12

INFRINGEMENT UNDER THE DOCTRINE OF EQUIVALENTS

If you decide that Compal’s products do not literally

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

products infringe the asserted claims under what is called the

“doctrine of equivalents.” 

Under the doctrine of equivalents, a product can infringe

an asserted patent claim if the product includes parts that are

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

product is missing an identical or equivalent part to even one

requirement of the asserted patent claim, the product cannot

infringe the claim under the doctrine of equivalents. Therefore,

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

look at each individual requirement of the asserted patent claim

and decide whether the product has an identical or equivalent part

to that individual claim requirement.

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

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

think that the differences between the part and the requirement

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

One way to decide whether any difference between a

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

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

infringement, the part of the product performed substantially the

same function, in substantially the same way, to achieve

substantially the same result as the requirement in the patent

claim.

In deciding whether any difference between a claim

Case 3:00-cv-04524-VRW Document 551 Filed 11/15/06 Page 12 of 52
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

13

requirement and the product is not substantial, you may consider

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

ordinary skill in the field would have known of the

interchangeability of the part with the claimed requirement. The

known interchangeability between the claim requirement and the part

of the product is not necessary to find infringement under the

doctrine of equivalents. Yet, known interchangeability may support

a conclusion that the difference between the part in the product

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

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

by itself, sufficient to show known interchangeability. Where two

elements of the accused product perform a single function of the

patented invention, or when separate claim limitations are combined

into a single element of the accused product, the doctrine of

equivalents may still apply where the differences are

insubstantial.

You may not use the doctrine of equivalents to find

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

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

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

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

holder may not obtain, under the doctrine of equivalents,

protection that it could not have lawfully obtained from the Patent

and Trademark Office.

Case 3:00-cv-04524-VRW Document 551 Filed 11/15/06 Page 13 of 52
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

14

LIMITATIONS ON THE DOCTRINE OF EQUIVALENTS

Because Samsung made certain claim limitations during the

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

equivalents analysis cannot be applied to the following

requirements of the asserted claims:

The second limitation of claim 1 requires that “said

keyboard controller responsive to an activation of said additional

function key in combination with at least one of said conventional

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

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

Case 3:00-cv-04524-VRW Document 551 Filed 11/15/06 Page 14 of 52
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

15

DETERMINATION OF INFRINGEMENT

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

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

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

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

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

Case 3:00-cv-04524-VRW Document 551 Filed 11/15/06 Page 15 of 52
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

16

INDIRECT INFRINGEMENT – GENERALLY

Samsung also argues that Compal contributed to

infringement by another of and induced another to infringe claims 1

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

infringe or induce infringement unless Samsung proves that someone

other than Compal directly infringes the patent claim by making,

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

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

is no direct infringement, Compal cannot have contributed to

infringement or induced infringement.

Case 3:00-cv-04524-VRW Document 551 Filed 11/15/06 Page 16 of 52
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

17

CONTRIBUTORY INFRINGEMENT

Samsung argues that Compal has contributed to

infringement by another. Contributory infringement may arise when

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

the patent claims. 

In order for there to be contributory infringement by

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

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

there can be no contributory infringement. 

If you find someone has directly infringed the ‘273

patent, then contributory infringement exists if:

(1) Compal supplied an important component of the

infringing part of the product;

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

non-infringing use; and 

(3) Compal supplied the component with the knowledge of

the ‘273 patent and knowledge that the component was

especially made or adapted for use in an infringing

manner.

Case 3:00-cv-04524-VRW Document 551 Filed 11/15/06 Page 17 of 52
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

18

INDUCING PATENT INFRINGEMENT

Samsung argues that Compal has actively induced another

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

of infringement by Compal, someone else must directly infringe a

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

anyone, there can be no inducement of infringement. 

Active inducement exists if Compal took action that

actually induced direct infringement by another. Compal cannot be

liable for inducing infringement if it was not aware of the

existence of the ‘273 patent.

Case 3:00-cv-04524-VRW Document 551 Filed 11/15/06 Page 18 of 52
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

19

WILLFUL INFRINGEMENT

In this case, Samsung argues both that Compal infringed

and that Compal infringed willfully. To prove willful

infringement, Samsung must persuade you that it is “highly

probable” that Compal willfully infringed.

Specifically, Samsung must demonstrate that it is highly

probable that:

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

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

that Compal’s product did not infringe the ‘273

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

In deciding whether Compal committed willful

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

are not limited to: 

(A) whether Compal intentionally copied a product of

Samsung covered by the ‘273 patent;

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

protection, investigated the scope of the patent and

formed a good-faith belief that the patent was

invalid or that it was not infringed;

(C) whether Compal had a substantial defense to

infringement and reasonably believed that the

defense would be successful if litigated;

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

infringing the patent; and

(E) whether Compal relied on a legal opinion that

appeared to it to be well-supported and believable

Case 3:00-cv-04524-VRW Document 551 Filed 11/15/06 Page 19 of 52
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

20

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

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

was invalid.

Case 3:00-cv-04524-VRW Document 551 Filed 11/15/06 Page 20 of 52
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

21

INVALIDITY – BURDEN OF PROOF

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

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

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

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

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

that you will have to decide in this case.

Case 3:00-cv-04524-VRW Document 551 Filed 11/15/06 Page 21 of 52
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

22

ANTICIPATION

A patent claim is invalid if the claimed invention is not

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

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

described in a single previous publication or patent. We call

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

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

all the requirements must be there, either stated or necessarily

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

microprocessor-based computer systems looking at that one reference

would be able to make and use the claimed invention. 

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

patent claim was not new:

(1) If the claimed invention was already publicly known

or publicly used by others in the United States

before the inventors made the claimed invention.

(2) If the claimed invention was already patented or

described in a printed publication anywhere in the

world before the inventors made the claimed

invention. A reference is a “printed publication”

if it is accessible to those interested in the

field, even if it is difficult to find.

(3) If the claimed invention was already described in

another issued US patent or published US patent

application that was based on a patent application

filed before the inventors made the claimed

invention.

Case 3:00-cv-04524-VRW Document 551 Filed 11/15/06 Page 22 of 52
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

23

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

inventor, the person who first conceived of the

claimed invention and first reduced it to practice

is the first inventor. If one person conceived of

the claimed invention first, but reduced to practice

second, that person is the first inventor only if

that person (a) began to reduce the claimed

invention to practice before the other party

conceived of it and (b) continued to work diligently

to reduce it to practice. A claimed invention is

“reduced to practice” when it has been tested

sufficiently to show that it will work for its

intended purpose or when it is fully described in a

filed patent application.

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

conception for the claimed and allegedly prior inventions. 

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

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

disclosure to another or other forms of evidence presented at

trial.

Case 3:00-cv-04524-VRW Document 551 Filed 11/15/06 Page 23 of 52
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

24

OBVIOUSNESS

A patent claim is invalid if the claimed invention would

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

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

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

reference that would anticipate the claim or constitute a statutory

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

microprocessor-based computer systems who knew about all this prior

art would have come up with the claimed invention. 

The claimed invention is not obvious unless there was

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

of ordinary skill in the field that would suggest the claimed

invention. You must be careful not to determine obviousness using

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

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

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

or what is learned from the teaching of the patent. 

Your conclusion about the question whether a claim is

obvious must be based on several factual decisions that you must

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

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

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

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

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

consider any evidence that has been presented with respect to the

following: 

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

Case 3:00-cv-04524-VRW Document 551 Filed 11/15/06 Page 24 of 52
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

25

invention;

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

claimed invention;

(3) unsuccessful attempts by others to find the solution

provided by the claimed invention;

(4) copying of the claimed invention by others;

(5) unexpected superior results from the claimed

invention;

(6) acceptance by others of the claimed invention as

shown by praise from others in the field or from the

licensing of the claimed invention; and

(7) independent invention of the claimed invention by

others before or at about the same time as the named

inventor thought of it.

The presence of any of these considerations may be an

indication that a claimed invention would not have been obvious at

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

consideration may be an indication that the claimed invention would

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

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

your decision on whether the claimed invention would have been

obvious is up to you.

Case 3:00-cv-04524-VRW Document 551 Filed 11/15/06 Page 25 of 52
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

26

SCOPE AND CONTENT OF PRIOR ART

Samsung and Compal disagree whether any of the prior art

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

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

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

references must be reasonably related to the claimed invention of

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

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

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

solve the problem the named inventor was trying to solve. 

Case 3:00-cv-04524-VRW Document 551 Filed 11/15/06 Page 26 of 52
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

27

DIFFERENCES OVER THE PRIOR ART

In reaching your conclusion whether or not claims 1 and 3

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

was made, you should consider any difference or differences between

the prior art references and the claimed requirements.

Case 3:00-cv-04524-VRW Document 551 Filed 11/15/06 Page 27 of 52
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

28

LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL

You have heard several references to a person of ordinary

skill in the field of microprocessor-based computer systems. It is

up to you to decide the level of ordinary skill in the field of

microprocessor-based computer systems. You should consider all the

evidence introduced at trial in making this decision, including:

(1) the levels of education and experience of persons

working in the field;

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

(3) the sophistication of the technology.

Samsung contends that the level of ordinary skill in the

field was a bachelor of science degree in electrical engineering

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

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

science degree in electrical engineering or computer engineering

and one year in the field. 

Compal contends that the level of ordinary skill in the

field was a bachelor of science degree in electrical or computer

engineering with two or three years of experience. 

Case 3:00-cv-04524-VRW Document 551 Filed 11/15/06 Page 28 of 52
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

DAMAGES – BURDEN OF PROOF

I will instruct you about the measure of damages. By

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

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

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

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

infringement. 

The amount of those damages must be adequate to

compensate Samsung for the infringement. A damages award should

put the patent holder in approximately the financial position it

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

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

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

compensate the patent holder and not to punish an infringer. 

Samsung has the burden to persuade you of the amount of

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

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

its damages with mathematical precision, it must prove them with

reasonable certainty. Samsung is not entitled to damages that are

remote or speculative.

Case 3:00-cv-04524-VRW Document 551 Filed 11/15/06 Page 29 of 52
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

30

REASONABLE ROYALTY – DEFINITION

A royalty is a payment made to a patent holder in

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

reasonable royalty is the payment that would have resulted from a

negotiation between a patent holder and the infringer taking place

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

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

expectations of the patent holder and infringer would have been had

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

their negotiations. Yet, you must assume that both parties

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

assume that patent holder and infringer were willing to enter into

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

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

resulted from the hypothetical negotiation and not simply what

either party would have preferred. 

Case 3:00-cv-04524-VRW Document 551 Filed 11/15/06 Page 30 of 52
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

31

FACTORS IN SETTING THE REASONABLE ROYALTY

In deciding what is a reasonable royalty, you may

consider the factors that Samsung and Compal would consider in

setting the amount Compal should pay.

I will list for you a number of factors you may consider:

(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 use of other

patents comparable to the patent in suit.

(3) The nature and scope of the licenses, as exclusive

or non-exclusive, or as restricted or non-restricted

in terms of territory or with respect to whom the

manufactured products may be sold.

(4) The licensor’s established policy and marketing

program to maintain its 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 generator of sales of its non-patented items and

Case 3:00-cv-04524-VRW Document 551 Filed 11/15/06 Page 31 of 52
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

32

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 patent; its commercial success and its

popularity.

(9) The utility and advantages of the patent 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.

(12) The portion of the profit or of the selling price

that may be customary in the particular business or

in comparable businesses to all for the use of the

invention or analogous inventions.

(13) The portion of the realizable profit 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.

(14) The opinion testimony of qualified experts.

(15) The amount that a licensor (such as the patentee)

and a licensee (such as the infringer) would have

Case 3:00-cv-04524-VRW Document 551 Filed 11/15/06 Page 32 of 52
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

33

agreed (at the time the infringement began) if both

had been reasonably and voluntarily trying to reach

an agreement.

Case 3:00-cv-04524-VRW Document 551 Filed 11/15/06 Page 33 of 52
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

34

DATE OF COMMENCEMENT– PRODUCTS

Damages that Samsung may be awarded by you commence on

April 21, 1999. 

Case 3:00-cv-04524-VRW Document 551 Filed 11/15/06 Page 34 of 52
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

35

WHAT IS EVIDENCE

The evidence from which you are to decide what the facts

are consists of:

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

cross-examination, regardless of who called the witness; 

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

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

stipulated.

Case 3:00-cv-04524-VRW Document 551 Filed 11/15/06 Page 35 of 52
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

36

WHAT IS NOT EVIDENCE

In reaching your verdict, you may consider only the

testimony and exhibits received into evidence. Certain things are

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

facts are. I will list them for you:

Arguments and statements by lawyers are not evidence. 

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

opening statements, closing arguments, and at other times is

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

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

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

Questions and objections by lawyers are not evidence. 

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

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

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

Testimony that has been excluded or stricken, or that you

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

considered. In addition, some testimony and exhibits have been

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

instruction, you must follow it.

Anything you may have seen or heard when the court was

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

on the evidence received at the trial.

Case 3:00-cv-04524-VRW Document 551 Filed 11/15/06 Page 36 of 52
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

37

DIRECT AND CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE

Evidence may be direct or circumstantial. Direct

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

about what that witness personally saw or heard or did. 

Circumstantial evidence is proof of one or more facts from which

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

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

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

to decide how much weight to give to any evidence.

Case 3:00-cv-04524-VRW Document 551 Filed 11/15/06 Page 37 of 52
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

38

CREDIBILITY OF WITNESSES

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

decide which testimony to believe and which testimony not to

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

or none of it.

In considering the testimony of any witness, you may take

into account:

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

or know the things testified to;

(2) the witness’ memory;

(3) the witness’ manner while testifying;

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

bias or prejudice;

(5) whether other evidence contradicted the witness’

testimony;

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

all the evidence and

(7) any other factors that bear on believability.

The weight of the evidence as to a fact does not

necessarily depend on the number of witnesses who testify.

DISCREPANCIES IN TESTIMONY

Case 3:00-cv-04524-VRW Document 551 Filed 11/15/06 Page 38 of 52
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

39

 Discrepancies in a witness’ testimony or between such

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

do not necessarily mean that any witness should be discredited. 

Failure of recollection is common. Innocent misrecollection is not

uncommon. Two persons witnessing an incident or a transaction

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

a discrepancy pertains to an important matter or only to something

trivial.

Case 3:00-cv-04524-VRW Document 551 Filed 11/15/06 Page 39 of 52
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

40

OPINION EVIDENCE, EXPERT WITNESSES

You have heard testimony from persons who, because of

education or experience, are permitted to state opinions and the

reasons for those opinions.

Opinion testimony should be judged just like any other

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

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

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

evidence in the case.

Case 3:00-cv-04524-VRW Document 551 Filed 11/15/06 Page 40 of 52
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

41

CHARTS AND SUMMARIES NOT RECEIVED IN EVIDENCE

Certain charts and summaries that have not been received

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

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

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

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

evidence in the case, you should disregard these charts and

summaries and determine the facts from the underlying evidence.

Case 3:00-cv-04524-VRW Document 551 Filed 11/15/06 Page 41 of 52
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

42

CHARTS AND SUMMARIES IN EVIDENCE

Certain charts and summaries have been received into

evidence to illustrate information brought out in the trial. 

Charts and summaries are only as good as the underlying evidence

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

weight as you think the underlying evidence deserves.

Case 3:00-cv-04524-VRW Document 551 Filed 11/15/06 Page 42 of 52
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

43

DUTY TO DELIBERATE

When you begin your deliberations, you should elect one

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

over the deliberations and speak for you here in court.

You will then discuss the case with your fellow jurors to

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

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

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

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

of your fellow jurors.

Do not be afraid to change your opinion if the discussion

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

simply because other jurors think it is right.

It is important that you attempt to reach a unanimous

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

made your own conscientious decision. Do not change an honest

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

a verdict.

Case 3:00-cv-04524-VRW Document 551 Filed 11/15/06 Page 43 of 52
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

44

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE

Your verdict must be based solely on the evidence and on

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

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

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

Case 3:00-cv-04524-VRW Document 551 Filed 11/15/06 Page 44 of 52
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

45

USE OF NOTES

Some of you have taken notes during the trial. Whether

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

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

overly influenced by your notes.

Case 3:00-cv-04524-VRW Document 551 Filed 11/15/06 Page 45 of 52
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

46

COMMUNICATION WITH COURT

If it becomes necessary during your deliberations to

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

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

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

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

communicate with any member of the jury on anything concerning the

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

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

which may take some time. You may continue your deliberations

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

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

numerically or otherwise, until after you have reached a unanimous

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

any note to the court.

Case 3:00-cv-04524-VRW Document 551 Filed 11/15/06 Page 46 of 52
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

47

RETURN OF VERDICT

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

reached unanimous agreement on a verdict, your foreperson will fill

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

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

the courtroom.

Case 3:00-cv-04524-VRW Document 551 Filed 11/15/06 Page 47 of 52
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

48

GLOSSARY

Some of the terms in this glossary will be defined in

more detail in the legal instructions you are given. The

definitions in the instructions must be followed and must control

your deliberations.

Abstract: A brief summary of the technical disclosure in

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

public to determine quickly the nature and gist of the technical

disclosure in the patent. 

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

claims or to the specification either in response to an office

action taken by a patent examiner or independently by the patent

applicant during the patent application examination process.

Anticipation: A situation in which a claimed invention

describes an earlier invention and, therefore, is not considered

new and is not entitled to be patented.

Assignment: A transfer of patent rights to another

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

rights assigned.

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

definition of an invention and appears at the end of the

specification in a separately numbered paragraph. In concept, a

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

that a legal description in a deed specifies the boundaries of

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

trespassing on the bounded property, the inventor can prevent

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

Case 3:00-cv-04524-VRW Document 551 Filed 11/15/06 Page 48 of 52
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

49

dependent. An independent claim stands alone. A dependent claim

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

dependent claim incorporates whatever the other referenced claim or

claims say.

Conception: The complete mental part of the inventive

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

another, etc.

Drawings: The drawings are visual representations of the

claimed invention contained in a patent application and issued

patent, and usually include several figures illustrating various

aspects of the claimed invention. 

Elements: The required parts of a device or the required

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

contains each and every requirement of a patent claim.

Embodiment: A product or method that contains the

claimed invention. 

Enablement: A description of the invention that is

sufficient to enable persons skilled in the field of the invention

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

must contain such an enabling description.

Examination: Procedure before the U.S. Patent and

Trademark Office whereby a patent examiner reviews the filed patent

application to determine if the claimed invention is patentable.

Filing Date: Date a patent application, with all the

required sections, has been submitted to the US Patent and

Trademark Office.

Infringement: Violation of a patent occurring when

someone makes, uses or sells a patented invention, without

Case 3:00-cv-04524-VRW Document 551 Filed 11/15/06 Page 49 of 52
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

50

permission of the patent holder, within the United States during

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

or contributory. Direct infringement is making, using or selling

the patented invention without permission. Inducing infringement

is intentionally causing another to directly infringe a patent. 

Contributory infringement is offering to sell or selling an item

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

directly infringes the patent. To be a contributory infringer one

must know that the part being offered or sold is designed

specifically for infringing the patented invention and is not a

common object suitable for non-infringing uses.

Limitation: A required part of an invention set forth in

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

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

“requirement.”

Nonobviousness: One of the requirements for securing a

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

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

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

patent application or the date of invention.

Office Action: A written communication from the patent

examiner to the patent applicant in the course of the application

examination process.

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

Patent and Trademark Office to an inventor to prevent others from

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

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

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

Case 3:00-cv-04524-VRW Document 551 Filed 11/15/06 Page 50 of 52
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

51

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

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

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

and Trademark Office of a patent application filed by the inventor

which has these parts, and this examination is called the

prosecution history.

Patent and Trademark Office (PTO): An administrative

branch of the US Department of Commerce that is charged with

overseeing and implementing the federal laws of patents and

trademarks. It is responsible for examining all patent

applications and issuing all patents in the United States. 

Prior Art: Previously known subject matter in the field

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

includes issued patents, publications, and knowledge deemed to be

publicly available such as trade skills, trade practices and the

like.

Prosecution History: The prosecution history is the

complete written record of the proceedings in the PTO from the

initial application to the issued patent. The prosecution history

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

the patent application filed by the applicant during the

examination process.

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

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

device or method.

Reduction to Practice: The invention is “reduced to

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

work for its intended purpose.

Case 3:00-cv-04524-VRW Document 551 Filed 11/15/06 Page 51 of 52
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

52

Requirement: A required part or step of an invention set

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

interchangeably with the word “limitation.”

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

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

the claimed invention.

Specification: The specification is a required part of a

patent application and an issued patent. It is a written

description of the invention and of the manner and process of

making and using the claimed invention.

Case 3:00-cv-04524-VRW Document 551 Filed 11/15/06 Page 52 of 52