Free Other Notice - District Court of Arizona - Arizona

1 Lawrence G. Scarborough (No. 6965)
George C. Chen (No. 19704)

2 BRYAN CAVE, LLP

Two North Central Avenue, Suite 2200 Telephone: (602) 364-7000 Michael D. Rounds (admitted pro hac vice) 5371 Kietzke Lane

3 Phoenix, AZ 85004-4406 4

5 WATSON ROUNDS 6 Reno, NV 89511 7
Telephone: (775) 324-4100 Henry C. Bunsow (admitted pro hac vice) HOWREY, SIMON, ARNOLD & WHITE San Francisco, CA 94105

8 Michelle A. Madriaga (admitted pro hac vice) 9 525 Market Street, Suite 3600 10 Telephone: (415) 848-4900 11 Attorneys for Reno A & E 12 13 14 15 EBERLE DESIGN, INC., 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
-vsEBERLE DESIGN, INC., and RENO A & E, Counter-claimant, -vsRENO A & E, Defendant. Plaintiff, ) CIV 02 2575 PHX DGC (LEAD) ) CIV 03-883 PHX DGC ) (Consolidated) ) ) RENO A & E'S PROPOSED JURY ) VERDICT FORM ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

25 ELECTRONIC DEVICES, INC., 26 Counter-defendants. 27 28

1
HOWREY SIMON ARNOLD & WHITE

Case 2:02-cv-02575-DGC

Document 191

Filed 09/07/2005

Page 1 of 7

1 2

Reno A & E hereby submits its Proposed Jury Verdict Form. VERDICT FORM

3 We, the Jury, in the above-captioned action, find as follows: 4 I. VALIDITY OF THE `964 PATENT 5 6 1. Do you find that Eberle has proven by clear and convincing evidence that Tom 7 Potter sold or offered for sale the inventions claimed by any of the asserted claims of the `964 patent before April 24, 1996? 8 NO_____ YES_____ 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Claim 1_____ Claim 2_____ Claim 3_____ Claim 4_____ Claim 5_____ Claim 6_____ Claim 7_____ Claim 8_____ Claim 9_____ Claim 10_____ Claim 11_____ Claim 13_____ Claim 14_____ Claim 15_____ Claim 17_____ Claim 21_____ Claim 24_____ Claim 25_____ Claim 26_____ Claim 27_____ Claim 28_____ Claim 30_____ Claim 31_____ Claim 32_____ Claim 33_____ Claim 34_____ Claim 35_____ Claim 36_____ Claim 37_____ Claim 38_____ Claim 39_____ Claim 40_____ Claim 41_____ Claim 42_____ Claim 44_____ IF YOU ANSWERED YES, PLEASE INDICATE BELOW WHICH OF THE ASSERTED CLAIMS OF THE `964 PATENT, IF AN, YOU FIND HAVE BEEN PROVEN TO BE INVALID BY PLACING AN "X" NEXT TO EACH SUCH CLAIM. IF YOU ANSWERED NO, PLEASE PROCEED TO QUESTION NO. 2:

2. Do you find that Eberle has proven by clear and convincing evidence that any of 23 the asserted claims of the `964 patent are invalid by anticipation of the prior art specified in the Jury Instructions? 24 25 26 27 28
-2HOWREY SIMON ARNOLD & WHITE

NO_____

YES_____

Case 2:02-cv-02575-DGC

Document 191

Filed 09/07/2005

Page 2 of 7

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

IF YOU ANSWERED YES, PLEASE INDICATE BELOW WHICH OF THE ASSERTED CLAIMS OF THE `964 PATENT, IF AN, YOU FIND HAVE BEEN PROVEN TO BE INVALID BY PLACING AN "X" NEXT TO EACH SUCH CLAIM. IF YOU ANSWERED NO, PLEASE PROCEED TO QUESTION NO. 3: Claim 1_____ Claim 2_____ Claim 3_____ Claim 4_____ Claim 5_____ Claim 6_____ Claim 7_____ Claim 8_____ Claim 9_____ Claim 10____ Claim 31_____ Claim 32_____ Claim 33_____ Claim 36_____ Claim 37_____ Claim 38_____ Claim 39_____ Claim 40_____ Claim 41_____

3. Do you find that Eberle has proven by clear and convincing evidence that any of the asserted claims of the `964 patent are invalid because they are obvious in light of a 12 combination of the prior art specified in the Jury Instructions? 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
-3HOWREY SIMON ARNOLD & WHITE

NO_____

YES_____

IF YOU ANSWERED YES, PLEASE INDICATE BELOW WHICH OF THE ASSERTED CLAIMS OF THE `964 PATENT, IF AN, YOU FIND HAVE BEEN PROVEN TO BE INVALID BY PLACING AN "X" NEXT TO EACH SUCH CLAIM. IF YOU ANSWERED NO, PLEASE PROCEED TO QUESTION NO. 4: Claim 1_____ Claim 2_____ Claim 3_____ Claim 4_____ Claim 5_____ Claim 6_____ Claim 7_____ Claim 8_____ Claim 9_____ Claim 10_____ Claim 11_____ Claim 13_____ Claim 14_____ Claim 15_____ Claim 17_____ Claim 21_____ Claim 24_____ Claim 25_____ Claim 26_____ Claim 27_____ Claim 28_____ Claim 30_____ Claim 31_____ Claim 32_____ Claim 33_____ Claim 34_____ Claim 35_____ Claim 36_____ Claim 37_____ Claim 38_____ Claim 39_____ Claim 40_____ Claim 41_____ Claim 42_____ Claim 44_____

Case 2:02-cv-02575-DGC

Document 191

Filed 09/07/2005

Page 3 of 7

1 II. 2

ENFORCEABILITY OF THE `964 PATENT

4. Do you find that Eberle has proven by clear and convincing evidence that Tom 3 Potter withheld "Material Information" from the Patent Office Examiners as that term is defined in the Jury Instructions? 4 NO_____ YES_____ 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 III. INFRINGEMENT OF THE `964 PATENT 5. Do you find that Reno A&E has proven by a preponderance of the evidence that the Eberle "Oracle" line of vehicle detectors infringe (are covered by) any of the following 14 claims of the `964 patent? (Please indicate "YES" or "NO".) 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
-4HOWREY SIMON ARNOLD & WHITE

4.A. If you answered "YES" to this question, do you find that Mr. Potter withheld such material information with an "intent to deceive" the Patent Office Examiner? NO_____ YES_____

REGARDLESS OF YOUR ANSWERS TO THE PREVIOUS QUESTIONS NO. 1 THROUGH 4, PLEASE ANSWER THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS:

Claim 1_____ Claim 2_____ Claim 3_____ Claim 4_____ Claim 5_____ Claim 6_____ Claim 7_____ Claim 8_____ Claim 9_____ Claim 10_____ Claim 11_____ Claim 13_____

Claim 14_____ Claim 15_____ Claim 17_____ Claim 21_____ Claim 24_____ Claim 25_____ Claim 26_____ Claim 27_____ Claim 28_____ Claim 30_____

Claim 31_____ Claim 32_____ Claim 33_____ Claim 34_____ Claim 35_____ Claim 36_____ Claim 37_____ Claim 38_____ Claim 39_____ Claim 40_____ Claim 41_____ Claim 42_____ Claim 44_____

Case 2:02-cv-02575-DGC

Document 191

Filed 09/07/2005

Page 4 of 7

6. If you found any of the claims of the `964 Patent to be infringed, do you also find that Reno A&E has proven by clear and convincing evidence that such infringement was 2 willful? (If you did not find any claims infringed, do not answer this question.) 3 1 4 5 NO_____ YES_____

7. Do you find that Reno A&E has proven by a preponderance of the evidence that 6 Electronic Devices, Inc. has contributed to or induced infringement of at least one claim of the `964 Patent that you have found to be infringed by Eberle? 7 8 9 8. If you answered "YES" to Question No. 7, do you also find that Reno A&E has 10 proven by clear and convincing evidence that inducing or contributing to such infringement was willful? (If you did not find any claims infringed, do not answer this question.) 11 12 13 14 IV. DAMAGES Answer Question No. 9 if you have found that any of the asserted claims of the `964 Patent have not been proven to be invalid; that such claim(s) is/are infringed; and that Mr. 16 Potter did not withhold material information from the Patent Office Examiners with the intent to deceive them: 17 9. We, the Jury, find that the following amount of damages would compensate Reno A&E for the infringement committed by Eberle Design, Inc.: 18 15 19 20 $________________________________ NO_____ YES_____ NO_____ YES_____

Answer Question No. 10 if you have found that any of the asserted claims of the `964 Patent have not been proven to be invalid; that such claim(s) is/are infringed; that Electronic 21 Devices, Inc. induced or contributed to such infringement; and that Mr. Potter did not withhold material information from the Patent Office Examiners with the intent to deceive them: 22 23 /// 24 /// 25 /// 26 /// 27 /// 28 ///
-5HOWREY SIMON ARNOLD & WHITE

Case 2:02-cv-02575-DGC

Document 191

Filed 09/07/2005

Page 5 of 7

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. We, the Jury, find that the following amount of damages would compensate Reno A&E for the infringement committed by Electronic Devices, Inc.: $________________________________

Dated:_______________

_______________________________ FOREPERSON JUROR NUMBER

Dated: September 7, 2005

Respectfully submitted,

By: s/George C. Chen Attorneys Reno A & E BRYAN CAVE, LLP (00145700) George C. Chen (019704) Two North Central Avenue, Suite 2200 Phoenix, AZ 85004-4406 Telephone: (602) 364-7000 WATSON & ROUNDS Michael D. Rounds (admitted pro hac) 5371 Kietzke Lane Reno, NV 89511 Telephone: (775) 324-4100 Henry C. Bunsow (admitted pro hac) Michelle A. Madriaga (admitted pro hac) HOWREY, SIMON, ARNOLD & WHITE 525 Market Street, Suite 3600 San Francisco, CA 94105 Telephone: (415) 848-4900

-6HOWREY SIMON ARNOLD & WHITE

Case 2:02-cv-02575-DGC

Document 191

Filed 09/07/2005

Page 6 of 7

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
Charles Hauff Daniel Pote Doug Seitz Snell & Wilmer One Arizona Center 400 East Van Buren Phoenix, AZ 85004

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE The undersigned hereby certifies that a true and correct copy of RENO A & E'S PROPOSED JURY VERDICT FORM was served on all counsel of record on September 7, 2005 via the Court's CM/ECF System including:

Dated: September 7, 2005

s/Mary Ann Villa_________

-7HOWREY SIMON ARNOLD & WHITE

Case 2:02-cv-02575-DGC

Document 191

Filed 09/07/2005

Page 7 of 7