Free Proposed Voir Dire - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1:05-cv-00349-GMS

Document 372

Filed 07/08/2007

Page 1 of 11

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE ) TALECRIS BIOTHERAPEUTICS, INC. and ) BAYER HEALTHCARE LLC., ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) v. ) ) BAXTER INTERNATIONAL INC. and ) BAXTER HEALTHCARE ) CORPORATION, ) ) Defendants. ) BAXTER HEALTHCARE CORPORATION, Counterclaimant, v. TALECRIS BIOTHERAPEUTICS, INC. and BAYER HEALTHCARE LLC, Counterdefendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

Civil Action No. 05-349-GMS Jury Trial Demanded

JOINT PROPOSED SPECIAL VERDICT FORM We, the jury, unanimously find as follows:

PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com

Case 1:05-cv-00349-GMS

Document 372

Filed 07/08/2007

Page 2 of 11

1.

PATENT INFRINGEMENT

Has Talecris proven by a preponderance of the evidence that Baxter literally infringes claim 7 of United States Patent No. 6,686,191 ("the `191 patent")? YES (for Talecris) _________________ NO (for Baxter) __________________

1

PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com

Case 1:05-cv-00349-GMS

Document 372

Filed 07/08/2007

Page 3 of 11

2.

WILLFUL INFRINGEMENT Please answer question 2 if you answered YES to question 1. Question No. 2: Willful Infringement

Has Talecris proven by clear and convincing evidence that Baxter willfully infringed the '191 patent? YES (for Talecris) ______________ NO (for Baxter) ______________

2

PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com

Case 1:05-cv-00349-GMS

Document 372

Filed 07/08/2007

Page 4 of 11

3.

INVALIDITY No matter how you answered questions 1 and 2, please answer the following questions. A. Anticipation

Question No. 3(a) Has Baxter proven by clear and convincing evidence that either of the following claims of the '191 patent are invalid because they are anticipated by the prior art? YES (for Baxter) Claim 1 ____________ Claim 7 ____________ NO (for Talecris) ____________ ____________

Please go on to the next question.

3

PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com

Case 1:05-cv-00349-GMS

Document 372

Filed 07/08/2007

Page 5 of 11

B.

Obviousness

Question No. 3(b)

Has Baxter proven by clear and convincing evidence that either of the following claims of the '191 patent are invalid because they are obvious?

YES (for Baxter) Claim 1 ____________ Claim 7 ____________

NO (for Talecris) ____________ ____________

Please go on to the next question.

4

PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com

Case 1:05-cv-00349-GMS

Document 372

Filed 07/08/2007

Page 6 of 11

C.

Written Description

Question No. 3(c)

Has Baxter proven by clear and convincing evidence that either of the following claims of the '191 patent are invalid because they lack written description? YES (for Baxter) Claim 1 ____________ Claim 7 ____________ NO (for Talecris) ____________ ____________

Please go on to the next question.

5

PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com

Case 1:05-cv-00349-GMS

Document 372

Filed 07/08/2007

Page 7 of 11

4.

INEQUITABLE CONDUCT

Has Baxter proven by clear and convincing evidence that the `191 patent is unenforceable due to inequitable conduct? YES (for Baxter) ____________ NO (for Talecris) ____________

6

PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com

Case 1:05-cv-00349-GMS

Document 372

Filed 07/08/2007

Page 8 of 11

5.

DAMAGES If you find that Baxter has infringed claim 7 of the `191 patent, that claim 7 is valid, and that the `191 patent is enforceable, please answer the following questions.

Question No. 5(a) What amount of damages, if any, has Talecris proven it is entitled to receive from Baxter based on sales of GAMMAGARD® LIQUID from September 26, 2005 to the present date?

$ _______________ Question No. 5(b) [What reasonable royalty, if any, has Talecris proven by a preponderance of the evidence, for a license that allows Baxter to continue using the `191 patent for the entire life of the patent?]1

_______________ %

Question No. 5(c) [What reasonable royalty, if any, has Talecris proven by a preponderance of the evidence, for a license that allows Baxter to use the `191 patent through the time of trial?]2

Baxter objects to the question on alternative royalty rates as contrary to reasonable royalty analysis under Georgia-Pacific Corp. v. United States Plywood Corp., 318 F. Supp. 1116 (S.D.N.Y. 1970) and for the reasons stated in Baxter's Motion In Limine No. 5 (D.I. 251 and 354). Without waiving these objections, if the Court is inclined to give any question to the jury on alternative royalty rates, Baxter agrees to the language as written. Baxter objects to the question on alternative royalty rates as contrary to reasonable royalty analysis under Georgia-Pacific Corp. v. United States Plywood Corp., 318 F. Supp. 1116 (S.D.N.Y. 1970) and for the reasons stated in Baxter's Motion In Limine No. 5 (D.I. 251 and 354). Without waiving these objections, if the Court is inclined to give any question to the jury on alternative royalty rates, Baxter agrees to the language as written. 7
2

1

PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com

Case 1:05-cv-00349-GMS

Document 372

Filed 07/08/2007

Page 9 of 11

_______________%

*

*

*

8

PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com

Case 1:05-cv-00349-GMS

Document 372

Filed 07/08/2007

Page 10 of 11

Each juror must sign this verdict form to reflect that a unanimous decision has been reached.

Dated:

FOREPERSON

9

PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com

Case 1:05-cv-00349-GMS

Document 372

Filed 07/08/2007

Page 11 of 11

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Jeffrey B. Bove, hereby certify that on this 9th day of July, 2007, I electronically filed the foregoing Joint Proposed Special Verdict Form with the Clerk of Court using CM/ECF which will send notification of such filing to the following: Philip A. Rovner, Esquire Potter Anderson & Corroon LLP Hercules Plaza P.O. Box 951 Wilmington, DE 19899 (302) 984-6140 [email protected] Susan Spaeth, Esquire Townsend&Townsend&Crew LLP 379 Lytton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301-1431 (415) 576-0200 [email protected]

I also hereby certify that a true copy of the foregoing document was served upon the following in the matter indicated on July 9, 2007. Via Hand Delivery and Email Philip A. Rovner, Esquire Potter Anderson & Corroon LLP Hercules Plaza P.O. Box 951 Wilmington, DE 19899 (302) 984-6140 [email protected] Via FedEx and E-mail Susan Spaeth, Esquire Townsend&Townsend&Crew LLP 379 Lytton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301-1431 (415) 576-0200 [email protected]

/s/ Jeffrey B. Bove Jeffrey B. Bove (#998) Connolly Bove Lodge & Hutz LLP 1007 N. Orange Street Wilmington, DE 19801 (302) 658-9141 [email protected]

551364

10

PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com