Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_00-cv-04524/USCOURTS-cand-3_00-cv-04524-10/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

SPECIAL VERDICT FORM

With respect to the claims of the ‘273 patent, we the

jury in the above-entitled action find as follows: 

Case 3:00-cv-04524-VRW Document 552 Filed 11/15/06 Page 1 of 3
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

Question Claims

1* 3 4 5* 6 7

1 Has Samsung proven by a

preponderance of the evidence

that Compal literally infringed

any asserted claim of the ‘273

patent? (“yes” is a finding for

Samsung; “no” is a finding for

Compal)

2 Has Samsung proven by a

preponderance of the evidence

that Compal infringed any

asserted claim of the ‘273

patent under the doctrine of

equivalents? (“yes” is a finding

for Samsung; “no” is a finding

for Compal)

3 Has Samsung proven by a

preponderance of the evidence

that Compal contributed to the

infringement by another of any

asserted claim of the ‘273?

(“yes” is a finding for Samsung;

“no” is a finding for Compal)

4 Has Samsung proven by a

preponderance of the evidence

that Compal induced another to

infringe any asserted claim of

the ‘273? (“yes” is a finding

for Samsung; “no” is a finding

for Compal)

5 Has Compal proven by clear and

convincing evidence that any of

the following claims of the ‘273

patent are invalid on the ground

of anticipation? (“yes” is a

finding for Compal; “no” is a

finding for Samsung)

6 Has Compal proven by clear and

convincing evidence that any of

the following claims of the ‘273

patent are invalid on the ground

of obviousness? (“yes” is a

finding for Compal; “no” is a

finding for Samsung)

* Claims 1 and 5 are independent claims. Claims 3, 4 and 6, 7 are

dependent claims under claims 1 and 5, respectively. With respect

to questions 1-4, if you find that an independent claim is not

infringed, you must find that its dependent claims are also not

infringed.

Case 3:00-cv-04524-VRW Document 552 Filed 11/15/06 Page 2 of 3
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

Only answer questions 7 and 8 if you found at least one of

the claims infringed and not invalid. 

Question 7

Has Samsung proven by clear and convincing evidence that

Compal’s infringement of the ‘273 patent was willful? (“yes” is a

finding for Samsung; “no” is a finding for Compal)

Yes____ No____

Question 8

What amount of damages should be awarded to Samsung for

infringement of the ‘273 patent by Compal?

$_____________________

We, the jury, have unanimously agreed to the answers to

the above questions, and return such answers in open court as our

verdict in this case.

Dated:_________ Foreperson:________________________________

Case 3:00-cv-04524-VRW Document 552 Filed 11/15/06 Page 3 of 3