Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_02-cv-03378/USCOURTS-cand-3_02-cv-03378-59/pdf.json

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

---

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

Case No. C 02-03378 EDL

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

INFORMATICA CORPORATION, a

Delaware corporation,

Plaintiff,

v.

BUSINESS OBJECTS DATA

INTEGRATION, INC., formerly known as

ACTA TECHNOLOGY, INC., a Delaware

corporation,

Defendant

Case No. C 02-03378 EDL

VERDICT FORM

AND RELATED COUNTERCLAIMS.

Case 3:02-cv-03378-EDL Document 653 Filed 03/29/07 Page 1 of 8
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2 Case No. C 02-03378 EDL

I.

INFRINGEMENT

Question No. 1

Do you find Informatica proved that it is more likely than not that BODI indirectly infringes any

of the following claims of the ‘670 Patent?

“Yes” is a finding for Informatica. “No” is a finding for BODI.

Answer Yes or No to each.

Claim 1 Yes (infringes)______ or No (does not infringe)______

Claim 18 Yes (infringes)______ or No (does not infringe)______

Question No. 2

If you answered “Yes” above for Claim 1 of the ‘670 Patent, then answer the following question: 

Do you find Informatica proved that it is more likely than not that BODI indirectly infringes any

of the following claims of the ‘670 Patent?

“Yes” is a finding for Informatica. “No” is a finding for BODI.

Answer Yes or No to each.

Claim 8 Yes (infringes)______ or No (does not infringe)______

Claim 15 Yes (infringes)______ or No (does not infringe)______

Claim 12 Yes (infringes)______ or No (does not infringe)______

Case 3:02-cv-03378-EDL Document 653 Filed 03/29/07 Page 2 of 8
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3 Case No. C 02-03378 EDL

Question No. 3

Do you find Informatica proved that it is more likely than not that BODI indirectly infringes any

of the following claims of the ‘775 Patent?

“Yes” is a finding for Informatica. “No” is a finding for BODI.

Answer Yes or No to each.

Claim 11 Yes (infringes)______ or No (does not infringe)______

Claim 5 Yes (infringes)______ or No (does not infringe)______

Claim 7 Yes (infringes)______ or No (does not infringe)______

Case 3:02-cv-03378-EDL Document 653 Filed 03/29/07 Page 3 of 8
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

4 Case No. C 02-03378 EDL

II.

VALIDITY

Question No. 4

Do you find BODI proved that it is highly probable that any of the following claims of the ‘670

Patent are invalid because of anticipation or statutory bar?

“Yes” is a finding for BODI. “No” is a finding for Informatica.

Answer Yes or No to each.

Claim 1 Yes (invalid)______ or No (not proved invalid)______

Claim 18 Yes (invalid)______ or No (not proved invalid)______

Question No. 5

If you answered “Yes” above for Claim 1 of the ‘670 Patent, then answer the following question: 

Do you find BODI proved that it is highly probable that any of the following claims of the ‘670

Patent are invalid because of anticipation or statutory bar?

“Yes” is a finding for BODI. “No” is a finding for Informatica.

Answer Yes or No to each.

Claim 8 Yes (invalid)______ or No (not proved invalid)______

Claim 15 Yes (invalid)______ or No (not proved invalid)______

Claim 12 Yes (invalid)______ or No (not proved invalid)______

Case 3:02-cv-03378-EDL Document 653 Filed 03/29/07 Page 4 of 8
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

5 Case No. C 02-03378 EDL

Question No. 6

Do you find BODI proved that it is highly probable that any of the following claims of the ‘775

Patent are invalid because of anticipation or statutory bar?

“Yes” is a finding for BODI. “No” is a finding for Informatica.

Answer Yes or No to each.

Claim 11 Yes (invalid)______ or No (not proved invalid)______

Claim 5 Yes (invalid)______ or No (not proved invalid)______

Claim 7 Yes (invalid)______ or No (not proved invalid)______

Case 3:02-cv-03378-EDL Document 653 Filed 03/29/07 Page 5 of 8
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

6 Case No. C 02-03378 EDL

Question No. 7

Do you find BODI proved that it is highly probable that any of the following claims of the ‘670

Patent are invalid because of obviousness?

“Yes” is a finding for BODI. “No” is a finding for Informatica.

Answer Yes or No to each.

Claim 1 Yes (invalid)______ or No (not invalid)______

Claim 18 Yes (invalid)______ or No (not invalid)______

Question No. 8

If you answered “Yes” above for Claim 1 of the ‘670 Patent, then answer the following question: 

Do you find BODI proved that it is highly probable that any of the following claims of the ‘670

Patent are invalid because of obviousness?

“Yes” is a finding for BODI. “No” is a finding for Informatica.

Answer Yes or No to each.

Claim 8 Yes (invalid)______ or No (not invalid)______

Claim 15 Yes (invalid)______ or No (not invalid)______

Claim 12 Yes (invalid)______ or No (not invalid)______

Case 3:02-cv-03378-EDL Document 653 Filed 03/29/07 Page 6 of 8
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

7 Case No. C 02-03378 EDL

III.

DAMAGES

Question No. 9

If you have found that BODI indirectly infringed one or more claims (by answering “Yes” to any

of questions 1 - 3 above) and not found every one of those same claims invalid (by answering

“Yes” for each corresponding claim in question 4 - 6 and/or 7 - 8), then also answer the following

question: 

What amount of reasonable royalty damages do you find that Informatica has proven that it is

more likely than not is necessary to adequately compensate it for BODI’s infringement?

This is a finding BODI should pay Informatica damages.

Amount $ ________

Question No. 10

DAMAGES ATTRIBUTABLE TO INFRINGEMENT UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 271(f)

If you awarded damages in response to Question No. 9, what amount of damages indicated above

do you attribute to BODI’s act of supplying or causing to be supplied in or from the United States

all or a substantial portion of the components of a patented invention, in such a manner as to

actively induce the combination of such components outside of the United States in a manner that

would infringe any of claims 1, 8, 12, 15, or 18 of the ‘670 patent or claims 5, 7, or 11 of the ‘775

patent if such combination had occurred within the United States?

Amount $__________

Question No. 11

If you have found that BODI did not indirectly infringe any claims (by answering “No” to all of

Questions 1 – 3), and have not found every one of those same claims invalid (by answering “Yes”

for each corresponding claim in question 4 - 6 and/or 7 - 8), what amount of reasonable royalty

damages do you find that Informatica has proven that it is more likely than not is necessary to

adequately compensate it for BODI’s direct infringement by testing?

Amount $__________

Case 3:02-cv-03378-EDL Document 653 Filed 03/29/07 Page 7 of 8
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

8 Case No. C 02-03378 EDL

IV.

WILLFUL INFRINGEMENT

Question No. 12

Do you find Informatica proved that it is highly probable that BODI’s infringement was willful?

“Yes” is a finding for Informatica. “No” is a finding for BODI.

Answer Yes or No to each.

‘670 Patent Yes(willful)_____ or No______

‘775 Patent Yes(willful)_____ or No______

V.

CHECKING AND SIGNING OF VERDICT FORM

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

reflects your unanimous determinations. The Presiding Juror should then sign and date the verdict

form in the spaces below and notify the Marshal that you have reached a verdict. The Presiding

Juror should retain possession of the verdict form and bring it when the jury is brought back into

the courtroom.

DATED:________________, 2007 By:___________________________

 Presiding Juror

Case 3:02-cv-03378-EDL Document 653 Filed 03/29/07 Page 8 of 8