Free Verdict Sheet - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1:06-cv-00476-GMS

Document 209

Filed 06/24/2008

Page 1 of 6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE LINEAR TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION Plaintiff, v. MONOLITHIC POWER SYSTEMS, INC., Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

C.A. No. 06-476 (GMS)

LINEAR'S PROPOSED FINAL VERDICT FORM AND LINEAR'S OBJECTIONS TO MONOLITHIC'S PROPOSED FINAL VERDICT FORM MORRIS, NICHOLS, ARSHT & TUNNELL LLP Jack B. Blumenfeld (#1014) Karen Jacobs Louden (#2881) James W. Parrett, Jr. (#4292) 1201 N. Market Street P.O. Box 1347 Wilmington, DE 19899 (302) 658-9200 Attorneys for Plaintiff Linear Technology Corporation OF COUNSEL: Raphael V. Lupo Joel M. Freed Matthew G. Cunningham MCDERMOTT WILL & EMERY LLP 600 13th Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20005 (202) 756-8000 Jimmy Shin MCDERMOTT WILL & EMERY LLP 3150 Porter Dr. Palo Alto, CA 94304 (650) 813-5000 June 24, 2008

Case 1:06-cv-00476-GMS

Document 209

Filed 06/24/2008

Page 2 of 6

We, the jury, unanimously find as follows: I. BREACH OF CONTRACT Do you find that Linear has proven by a preponderance of the evidence that Monolithic breached the Settlement Agreement? A "YES" answer is a finding for Linear. A "NO" answer is a finding for Monolithic. _________ YES ________ NO

II.

INFRINGEMENT A. Do you find that Linear has proven by a preponderance of the evidence that Monolithic has directly infringed, induced infringement, and/or contributorily infringed any of the following patent claims?

A "YES" answer is a finding for Linear. A "NO" answer is a finding for Monolithic. '178 Patent Claim No. 1 2 34 41 55 Direct Yes No Yes Induced No Contributory Yes No

'258 Patent Claim No. 1 2 3 34

Direct Yes No Yes

Induced No

Contributory Yes No

If you have answered "YES" anywhere in II.A., proceed to B. Otherwise, skip to Section III. below.

-1-

Case 1:06-cv-00476-GMS

Document 209

Filed 06/24/2008

Page 3 of 6

B.

Do you find that Linear has proven by clear and convincing evidence that Monolithic's infringement was willful?

A "YES" answer is a finding for Linear. A "NO" answer is a finding for Monolithic. Patent No. `178 `258 Yes No

-2-

Case 1:06-cv-00476-GMS

Document 209

Filed 06/24/2008

Page 4 of 6

III.

VALIDITY A. Do you find that Monolithic has proven by clear and convincing evidence invalidity of any of the following claims by reason of anticipation or obviousness?

A "YES" answer is a finding for Monolithic. A "NO" answer is a finding for Linear. `178 Patent Claim No. 1 2 34 41 55 `258 Patent Claim No. 1 2 3 34 B. Anticipation Yes No Obviousness Yes No

Anticipation Yes No

Obviousness Yes No

For claim(s) found invalid for anticipation, identify the single piece of prior art relied on for that determination. For claim(s) found invalid for obviousness, identify the item(s) of prior art relied on for that determination. ____________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________

-3-

Case 1:06-cv-00476-GMS

Document 209

Filed 06/24/2008

Page 5 of 6

Each juror must sign the verdict form to reflect that a unanimous verdict has been reached. Dated: _________________, 2008 ______________________________ FOREPERSON

______________________________

______________________________

______________________________

______________________________

______________________________

______________________________

______________________________

______________________________

-4-

Case 1:06-cv-00476-GMS

Document 209

Filed 06/24/2008

Page 6 of 6

LINEAR'S OBJECTIONS TO MONOLITHIC'S PROPOSED FINAL VERDICT FORM 1. Linear objects to Questions I.A and I.B as an improper attempt by Monolithic to

parse a single question on breach of contract into two questions in order to get two bites at the apple. Linear's proposed question on breach of contract properly asks the jury whether a breach occurred. 2. Linear objects to the omission of Linear's claim for willful infringement in

Monolithic's Questions on infringement in Section II. That Monolithic may disagree with such a claim provides no basis for denying Linear a jury verdict on it. It is also relevant to Linear's claim that this is an exceptional case. 3. Linear objects to Question III.A on validity because Monolithic has failed to

provide for identification of references on which any invalidity finding would be based, an identification that presents a more complete and necessary record for any post trial motions or appeal. MORRIS, NICHOLS, ARSHT & TUNNELL LLP

/s/ James W. Parrett, Jr.
OF COUNSEL: Raphael V. Lupo Joel M. Freed Matthew G. Cunningham MCDERMOTT WILL & EMERY LLP 600 13th Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20005 (202) 756-8000 Jimmy Shin MCDERMOTT WILL & EMERY LLP 3150 Porter Dr. Palo Alto, CA 94304 (650) 813-5000 June 24, 2008
2365517.1

_________________________________________ Jack B. Blumenfeld (#1014) Karen Jacobs Louden (#2881) James W. Parrett, Jr. (#4292) 1201 N. Market Street P.O. Box 1347 Wilmington, DE 19899 (302) 658-9200 Attorneys for Plaintiff Linear Technology Corporation

-5-