Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_13-cv-01081/USCOURTS-cand-5_13-cv-01081-45/pdf.json

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

---

1

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

[PROPOSED] JURY VERDICT FORM

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GSI TECHNOLOGY, INC.,

Plaintiff,

v.

UNITED MEMORIES, INC., et al.,

Defendants.

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

[PROPOSED] JURY VERDICT FORM

Case 5:13-cv-01081-PSG Document 1023 Filed 11/19/15 Page 1 of 31
2

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

[PROPOSED] JURY VERDICT FORM

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

CONTENTS

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

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

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

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

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

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

F. GSI’s Misappropriation of Trade Secrets Claims Against ISSI......................................... 9

G. ISSI’s Affirmative Defense: Unclean Hands ................................................................... 10

H. ISSI’s Affirmative Defense: Ready Ascertainability ....................................................... 10

I. ISSI’s Affirmative Defense: Estoppel.............................................................................. 11

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

K. Misappropriation of Trade Secrets: Damages.................................................................. 12

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

D. GSI’s Intentional Interference with Prospective Economic Relations Against ISSI ....... 16

E. ISSI Affirmative Defense: Unclean Hands...................................................................... 17

F. ISSI’s Affirmative Defense: Estoppel.............................................................................. 18

G. ISSI’s Affirmative Defense: Mitigation........................................................................... 19

H. Damages........................................................................................................................... 19

III. Breach of Contract ........................................................................................................... 21

A. GSI’s Breach of Contract Claim Against UMI ................................................................ 21

B. UMI’s Affirmative Defense: Unclean Hands................................................................... 21

C. UMI’s Affirmative Defense: Fraudulent Inducement...................................................... 22

D. UMI’s Affirmative Defense: Waiver ............................................................................... 23

E. UMI’s Affirmative Defense: Statute of Limitations ........................................................ 23

F. UMI’s Affirmative Defense: Mitigation .......................................................................... 24

G. Damages........................................................................................................................... 24

Case 5:13-cv-01081-PSG Document 1023 Filed 11/19/15 Page 2 of 31
3

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

[PROPOSED] JURY VERDICT FORM

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

IV. Fraud................................................................................................................................. 25

A. GSI’s Claim of Fraud against UMI.................................................................................. 25

B. UMI’s Affirmative Defense: Unclean Hands................................................................... 26

C. UMI’s Affirmative Defense: Waiver ............................................................................... 26

D. UMI’s Affirmative Defense: Statute of Limitations ........................................................ 27

E. Damages........................................................................................................................... 27

V. False Promise ................................................................................................................... 28

A. GSI’s Claim of False Promise Against UMI.................................................................... 28

B. UMI’s Affirmative Defense: Unclean Hands................................................................... 29

C. Damages........................................................................................................................... 30

Case 5:13-cv-01081-PSG Document 1023 Filed 11/19/15 Page 3 of 31
4

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

[PROPOSED] JURY VERDICT FORM

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

I. Trade Secret Claims

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

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

the following 25 circuit schematics?

Yes No

1 chcon

2 rclk

3 rclk_match

4 dmmatch

5 wclk

6 rcbufwrc

7 wbkcom

8 qcalblk

9 qcal

10 qcaladj

11 qcals

12 pcalreg

13 ncalreg

14 fidec

15 gclk

16 yclkmix

17 r13buf

18 rbuf

19 bnkcon

20 yclkclk

21 lwrite

22 pretimer

23 bab_s80

24 lread

25 rcbuf

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

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

the next question.

Case 5:13-cv-01081-PSG Document 1023 Filed 11/19/15 Page 4 of 31
5

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

[PROPOSED] JURY VERDICT FORM

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

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

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

Yes No

1 chcon

2 rclk

3 rclk_match

4 dmmatch

5 wclk

6 rcbufwrc

7 wbkcom

8 qcalblk

9 qcal

10 qcaladj

11 qcals

12 pcalreg

13 ncalreg

14 fidec

15 gclk

16 yclkmix

17 r13buf

18 rbuf

19 bnkcon

20 yclkclk

21 lwrite

22 pretimer

23 bab_s80

24 lread

25 rcbuf

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

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

the next question.

Case 5:13-cv-01081-PSG Document 1023 Filed 11/19/15 Page 5 of 31
6

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

[PROPOSED] JURY VERDICT FORM

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

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

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

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

Yes No

1 chcon

2 rclk

3 rclk_match

4 dmmatch

5 wclk

6 rcbufwrc

7 wbkcom

8 qcalblk

9 qcal

10 qcaladj

11 qcals

12 pcalreg

13 ncalreg

14 fidec

15 gclk

16 yclkmix

17 r13buf

18 rbuf

19 bnkcon

20 yclkclk

21 lwrite

22 pretimer

23 bab_s80

24 lread

25 rcbuf

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

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

the next question.

Case 5:13-cv-01081-PSG Document 1023 Filed 11/19/15 Page 6 of 31
7

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

[PROPOSED] JURY VERDICT FORM

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

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

substantial factor in causing GSI to suffer harm?

Yes No

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

proceed to Section I.F.

C. UMI’s Affirmative Defense: Unclean Hands

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

violated standards of good faith or conscience?

Yes No

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

proceed to Section I.D.

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

related to its claim of misappropriation of trade secrets?

Yes No

If you answered “Yes,” then proceed to Section I.F. If you answered “No,” then 

proceed to the next question.

D. UMI’s Affirmative Defense: Ready Ascertainability

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

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

disclosure?

Yes No

If you answered “Yes,” then proceed to Section I.F. If you answered “No,” then 

proceed to the next question.

Case 5:13-cv-01081-PSG Document 1023 Filed 11/19/15 Page 7 of 31
8

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

[PROPOSED] JURY VERDICT FORM

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

E. UMI’s Affirmative Defense: Statute of Limitations

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

or before March 8, 2010?

Yes No

Proceed to the next question.

Case 5:13-cv-01081-PSG Document 1023 Filed 11/19/15 Page 8 of 31
9

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

[PROPOSED] JURY VERDICT FORM

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

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

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

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

Yes No

1 chcon

2 rclk

3 rclk_match

4 dmmatch

5 wclk

6 rcbufwrc

7 wbkcom

8 qcalblk

9 qcal

10 qcaladj

11 qcals

12 pcalreg

13 ncalreg

14 fidec

15 gclk

16 yclkmix

17 r13buf

18 rbuf

19 bnkcon

20 yclkclk

21 lwrite

22 pretimer

23 bab_s80

24 lread

25 rcbuf

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

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

the next question.

Case 5:13-cv-01081-PSG Document 1023 Filed 11/19/15 Page 9 of 31
10

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

[PROPOSED] JURY VERDICT FORM

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

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

substantial factor in causing GSI to suffer harm?

Yes No

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

proceed to Section I.K.

G. ISSI’s Affirmative Defense: Unclean Hands

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

violated standards of good faith or conscience?

Yes No

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

proceed to Section I.H.

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

related to its claim of misappropriation of trade secrets?

Yes No

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

next question.

H. ISSI’s Affirmative Defense: Ready Ascertainability

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

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

disclosure?

Yes No

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

next question.

Case 5:13-cv-01081-PSG Document 1023 Filed 11/19/15 Page 10 of 31
11

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

[PROPOSED] JURY VERDICT FORM

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

I. ISSI’s Affirmative Defense: Estoppel

14. Do you find by a preponderance of the evidence that GSI had knowledge of the facts upon 

which it bases its misappropriation of trade secrets claim against ISSI, but failed to 

communicate them to ISSI in a timely way?

Yes No

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

proceed to Section I.J.

15. Do you find by a preponderance of the evidence that GSI intended that its failure to 

communicate with ISSI in a timely way would influence ISSI?

Yes No

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

proceed to Section I.J.

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

facts?

Yes No

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

proceed to Section I.J.

17. Do you find by a preponderance of the evidence that ISSI relied upon GSI’s conduct to 

ISSI’s injury?

Yes No

If you answered “Yes,” then proceed to Section I.K. If you answered “No,” then 

proceed to the next question.

Case 5:13-cv-01081-PSG Document 1023 Filed 11/19/15 Page 11 of 31
12

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

[PROPOSED] JURY VERDICT FORM

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

J. ISSI’s Affirmative Defense: Mitigation

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

through reasonable efforts or expenditures?

Yes No

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

proceed to Section I.K.

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

efforts or expenditures?

Yes No

Proceed to the next question. 

K. Misappropriation of Trade Secrets: Damages

20. What was the amount of GSI’s actual loss?

__________

Proceed to the next question.

21. Was UMI unjustly enriched by the misappropriation of GSI’s trade secrets?

Yes No

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

to question 23.

22. What was the amount of UMI’s unjust enrichment?

__________

Proceed to the next question.

Case 5:13-cv-01081-PSG Document 1023 Filed 11/19/15 Page 12 of 31
13

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

[PROPOSED] JURY VERDICT FORM

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

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

Yes No

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

to question 25.

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

__________

Proceed to the next question.

25. Is GSI entitled to a reasonable royalty because of UMI and/or ISSI’s misappropriation?

Yes No

Proceed to the next question.

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

Yes No

Proceed to the next question.

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

Yes No

Proceed to the next question.

Case 5:13-cv-01081-PSG Document 1023 Filed 11/19/15 Page 13 of 31
14

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

[PROPOSED] JURY VERDICT FORM

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

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

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

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

every schematic in question 9, or if you answered “No” to question 10, or if you 

answered “Yes” to questions 11 and 12, or if you answered “Yes” to question 13, or if 

you answered “Yes” to questions 14, 15, 16, and 17, or if you answered “Yes” to 

questions 18 and 19.

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

bad faith?

Yes No

Proceed to the next question.

Case 5:13-cv-01081-PSG Document 1023 Filed 11/19/15 Page 14 of 31
15

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

[PROPOSED] JURY VERDICT FORM

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

II. Intentional Interference with Prospective Economic Relations Claim

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

Question

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

economic benefit to GSI?

Yes No

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

proceed to Section III.

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

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

Yes No

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

proceed to Section II.D.

31. Did UMI engage in unfair competition?

Yes No

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

proceed to Section II.D.

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

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

Yes No

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

proceed to Section II.D.

Case 5:13-cv-01081-PSG Document 1023 Filed 11/19/15 Page 15 of 31
16

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

[PROPOSED] JURY VERDICT FORM

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

33. Was the relationship disrupted?

Yes No

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

proceed to Section II.D.

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

Yes No

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

proceed to Section II.D.

C. UMI’s Affirmative Defense: Unclean Hands

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

violated standards of good faith or conscience?

Yes No

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

proceed to Section II.D.

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

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

Yes No

Proceed to the next question.

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

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

Yes No

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

proceed to Section II.H, and do not answer question 52.

Case 5:13-cv-01081-PSG Document 1023 Filed 11/19/15 Page 16 of 31
17

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

[PROPOSED] JURY VERDICT FORM

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

38. Did ISSI engage in unfair competition?

Yes No

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

proceed to Section II.H, and do not answer question 52.

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

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

Yes No

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

proceed to Section II.H, and do not answer question 52.

40. Was the relationship disrupted?

Yes No

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

proceed to Section II.H, and do not answer question 52.

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

Yes No

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

to Section II.H, and do not answer question 52.

E. ISSI Affirmative Defense: Unclean Hands

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

violated standards of good faith or conscience?

Yes No

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

proceed to Section II.F.

Case 5:13-cv-01081-PSG Document 1023 Filed 11/19/15 Page 17 of 31
18

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

[PROPOSED] JURY VERDICT FORM

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

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

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

Yes No

If you answered “Yes,” proceed to Section II.H, and do not answer question 52. If you 

answered “No,” proceed to the next question.

F. ISSI’s Affirmative Defense: Estoppel

44. Do you find by a preponderance of the evidence that GSI had knowledge of the facts upon 

which it bases its claim of intentional interference with prospective economic relations 

against ISSI, but failed to communicate them to ISSI in a timely way?

Yes No

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

proceed to Section II.G

45. Do you find by a preponderance of the evidence that GSI intended that its failure to 

communicate with ISSI in a timely way would influence ISSI?

Yes No

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

proceed to Section II.G

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

facts?

Yes No

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

proceed to Section II.G.

47. Do you find by a preponderance of the evidence that ISSI relied upon GSI’s conduct to 

ISSI’s injury?

Yes No

Case 5:13-cv-01081-PSG Document 1023 Filed 11/19/15 Page 18 of 31
19

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

[PROPOSED] JURY VERDICT FORM

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

If you answered “Yes,” proceed to Section II.H, and do not answer question 52. If you 

answered “No,” proceed to the next question.

G. ISSI’s Affirmative Defense: Mitigation

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

through reasonable efforts or expenditures?

Yes No

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

proceed to Section II.H.

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

efforts or expenditures?

Yes No

If you answered “Yes,” proceed to Section II.H, and do not answer question 52. If you 

answered “No,” proceed to Section II.H and answer all questions in Section II.H.

H. Damages

50. What are GSI’s damages?

A. Past economic loss

Lost Profits $__________

b. Future economic loss

Lost Profits $__________

TOTAL $__________

Proceed to the next question.

51. Answer this question if you answered “Yes” to questions 30, 31, 32, 33, and 34, and

you answered “No” to question 35 and/or question 36: Did UMI engage in the conduct 

with malice, oppression, or fraud?

Yes No

Case 5:13-cv-01081-PSG Document 1023 Filed 11/19/15 Page 19 of 31
20

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

[PROPOSED] JURY VERDICT FORM

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

Proceed to the next question.

52. Did ISSI engage in the conduct with malice, oppression, or fraud?

Yes No

If your answer to question 51 and/or 52 is “Yes,” proceed to the next question. If you 

answered “No” to both questions 51 and 52, proceed to Section III.

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

______________________________________________. 

Proceed to the next question.

Case 5:13-cv-01081-PSG Document 1023 Filed 11/19/15 Page 20 of 31
21

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

[PROPOSED] JURY VERDICT FORM

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

III. Breach of Contract

A. GSI’s Breach of Contract Claim Against UMI

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

Yes No

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

proceed to Section IV.

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

Yes No

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

proceed to Section IV.

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

Yes No

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

proceed to Section IV.

B. UMI’s Affirmative Defense: Unclean Hands

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

violated standards of good faith or conscience?

Yes No

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

proceed to Section III.C.

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

related to its claim of breach of contract?

Yes No

Case 5:13-cv-01081-PSG Document 1023 Filed 11/19/15 Page 21 of 31
22

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

[PROPOSED] JURY VERDICT FORM

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

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

next question.

C. UMI’s Affirmative Defense: Fraudulent Inducement

59. Did UMI prove that GSI concealed or made a false representation about a past or present 

fact?

Yes No

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

to Section III.D.

60. Did UMI prove that the fact was material?

Yes No

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

to Section III.D.

61. Did UMI prove that it reasonably relied on the representation?

Yes No

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

to Section III.D.

62. Did UMI prove that its reasonable reliance caused UMI harm?

Yes No

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

to Section III.D.

63. Did UMI prove that it returned or offered to return to GSI all schematics and property GSI 

paid for under the contract, or the money GSI paid to UMI under the contract?

Yes No

Case 5:13-cv-01081-PSG Document 1023 Filed 11/19/15 Page 22 of 31
23

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

[PROPOSED] JURY VERDICT FORM

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

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

next question.

D. UMI’s Affirmative Defense: Waiver

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

Yes No

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

to Section III.E.

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

gave GSI the right to sue UMI for damages?

Yes No

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

to Section III.E.

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

Yes No

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

to Section III.E.

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

Yes No

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

next question.

E. UMI’s Affirmative Defense: Statute of Limitations

68. Did UMI prove that it breached the contract before March 8, 2009?

Yes No

Case 5:13-cv-01081-PSG Document 1023 Filed 11/19/15 Page 23 of 31
24

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

[PROPOSED] JURY VERDICT FORM

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

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

to Section III.F.

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

diligence, of the existence of the breach before March 8, 2009?

Yes No

If you answered this question “Yes,” then proceed to Section IV. If you answered this 

question “No,” then proceed to the next question.

F. UMI’s Affirmative Defense: Mitigation

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

through reasonable efforts or expenditures?

Yes No

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

proceed to Section III.G.

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

efforts or expenditures?

Yes No

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

next question. 

G. Damages

72. What are GSI’s damages?

a. General damages $__________ 

b. Special damages $ __________

TOTAL $__________ 

Case 5:13-cv-01081-PSG Document 1023 Filed 11/19/15 Page 24 of 31
25

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

[PROPOSED] JURY VERDICT FORM

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

IV. Fraud

A. GSI’s Claim of Fraud against UMI

73. Did UMI make a false representation to GSI?

Yes No

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

proceed to Section V.

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

recklessly and without regard for its truth?

Yes No

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

proceed to Section V.

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

Yes No

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

proceed to Section V.

76. Did GSI reasonably rely on the representation?

Yes No

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

proceed to Section V.

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

Yes No

Case 5:13-cv-01081-PSG Document 1023 Filed 11/19/15 Page 25 of 31
26

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

[PROPOSED] JURY VERDICT FORM

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

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

proceed to Section V.

B. UMI’s Affirmative Defense: Unclean Hands

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

violated standards of good faith or conscience?

Yes No

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

proceed to Section IV.C.

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

related to its claim of fraud?

Yes No

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

Section IV.C.

C. UMI’s Affirmative Defense: Waiver

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

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

Yes No

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

to Section IV.D.

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

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

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

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

would not have done so?

Yes No

Case 5:13-cv-01081-PSG Document 1023 Filed 11/19/15 Page 26 of 31
27

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

[PROPOSED] JURY VERDICT FORM

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

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

next question.

D. UMI’s Affirmative Defense: Statute of Limitations

82. Did UMI prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the false representation occurred 

on or before March 8, 2010?

Yes No

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

next question.

E. Damages

83. What are GSI’s damages?

a. Past economic loss

lost profits $ __________

other past economic loss $ __________

Total Past Economic Damages: $__________ 

b. Future economic loss

lost profits $ __________

TOTAL $__________

Proceed to the next question.

84. Did UMI engage in the conduct with malice, oppression, or fraud?

Yes _______________ No _______________

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

to Section V.

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

______________________________________________.

Proceed to the next question.

Case 5:13-cv-01081-PSG Document 1023 Filed 11/19/15 Page 27 of 31
28

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

[PROPOSED] JURY VERDICT FORM

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

V. False Promise

A. GSI’s Claim of False Promise Against UMI

86. Did UMI make a promise to GSI?

Yes No

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

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

this form.

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

Yes No

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

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

question.

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

Yes No

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

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

this form.

89. Did GSI reasonably rely on this promise?

Yes No

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

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

this form.

Case 5:13-cv-01081-PSG Document 1023 Filed 11/19/15 Page 28 of 31
29

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

[PROPOSED] JURY VERDICT FORM

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

90. Did UMI perform the promised act?

Yes No

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

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

this form.

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

Yes No

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

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

this form.

B. UMI’s Affirmative Defense: Unclean Hands

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

violated standards of good faith or conscience?

Yes No

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

proceed to Section V.C

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

related to its claim of false promise?

Yes No

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

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

next question.

Case 5:13-cv-01081-PSG Document 1023 Filed 11/19/15 Page 29 of 31
30

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

[PROPOSED] JURY VERDICT FORM

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

C. Damages

94. What are GSI’s damages?

a. Past economic loss

Lost profits $ __________

Other past economic loss $ __________

Total Past Economic Damages: $__________ 

b. Future economic loss

Lost profits $ __________

TOTAL $__________ 

Proceed to the next question.

95. Did UMI engage in the conduct with malice, oppression, or fraud?

Yes No

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

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

form.

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

______________________________________________.

Have the presiding juror sign and date this form. 

Signed: 

 ________________________________

Presiding Juror

Dated: _________________________________

Case 5:13-cv-01081-PSG Document 1023 Filed 11/19/15 Page 30 of 31
31

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

[PROPOSED] JURY VERDICT FORM

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

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

your verdict in the courtroom.

SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 19, 2015

_________________________________

PAUL S. GREWAL

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 5:13-cv-01081-PSG Document 1023 Filed 11/19/15 Page 31 of 31