Opinion ID: 431689
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: stucki company

Text: NO. 76-800 INTERROGATORIES TO THE JURY 114 We, the jury in the above captioned case, unanimously find as follows: 115 Instructions: Answer questions 1, 2 and 3A. 116 1. Do you find that the plaintiff has proved by clear and convincing evidence that United States Patent No. 3,837,292 is invalid on the ground of obviousness? YES ----- NO X 117 2. Do you find that defendant has proved by a preponderance of the evidence that the effective filing date of the invention claimed in United States Patent NO. 3,827,292 is August 22, 1969? 118 YES X NO ----- 119 3A. Do you find that plaintiff has proved by clear and convincing evidence that United States Patent No. 3,827,292 is invalid on the ground that the invention claimed was known, in public use or on sale more than one year prior to the effective filing date of the patent application? YES ----- NO X 120 Instructions: If your answer to question 3A is No, proceed to question 4 and following questions. If your answer to question 3A is Yes, answer question 3B and following questions. 121 3B. Do you find that defendant has proved by clear and convincing evidence that use of sale of the claimed invention was an experimental use? 122 YES ----- NO ----- 123 4. Do you find that plaintiff has proved by clear and convincing evidence that United States Patent No. 3,837,292 is invalid on the ground that the amendment to the patent application filed on April 18, 1972 required a supplemental oath or declaration in that the amendment contained matter originally shown or described but not substantially embraced in the statement of invention or claim originally presented in the application? YES ----- NO X 124 5. Do you find that the plaintiff has proved by clear and convincing evidence that United States Patent No. 3,387,292 is invalid for late claiming? YES----- NOX 125 6. Do you find that plaintiff has proved by clear and convincing evidence that United States Patent No. 3,837,292 is invalid on the ground that the patent application failed to set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor for carrying out his invention? YES ----- NO X 126 7. Do you find that plaintiff has proved by clear and convincing evidence that claims 7 and/or 9 of United States Patent No. 3,837,292 are invalid on the ground they do not particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention? YES ----- NO X 127 8. Do you find that plaintiff has proved by clear and convincing evidence that United States Patent No. 3,837,292 is invalid on the ground that the specification of the application does not provide a description such that it would enable on skilled in the art to practice the invention? YES ----- NO X 128 Instructions: If you have found by any of your answers to prior questions that Patent No. 3,827,292 is invalid, then proceed no further. If, however, you have not found the patent to be invalid, answer questions 9 and 10. 129 9. Do you find that plaintiff has proved by a preponderance of the evidence that it has acquired intervening rights under United States Patent No. 3,387,292? YES ----- NO X 130 10. Do you find that defendant has proved by a preponderance of the evidence that plaintiff's infringement of United States Patent No. 3,827,292 was willful? YES ----- NO X 131 /s/ signature 132 ------------------------------(Signature of Foreperson) 133 Dated:June 10 1980.