Free Redacted Document - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1:04-cv-01199-SLR

Document 558

Filed 09/18/2008

Page 1 of 16

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE


SRI INTERNATIONAL, INC., a California Corporation, Plaintiff and Counterclaim-Defendant,
C. A. No..04-1199 (SLR) VERDICT FORM

v.
INTERNET SECURITY SYSTEMS, INC., a Delaware corporation, INTERNET SECURITY SYSTEMS, INC., a Georgia corporation, and SYMANTEC CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation, Defendants and Counterclaim-Plaintiffs.

We, the jury in the above-entitled action, unanimously find the following verdict on the questions submitted to us:

'f

,

Case 1:04-cv-01199-SLR

Document 558

Filed 09/18/2008

Page 2 of 16

Case 1:04-cv-01199-SLR

Document 558

Filed 09/18/2008

Page 3 of 16

I.

INFRINGEMENT BY SYMANTEC

The Symantec Accused Products are: (1) iForce IDS, ManHunt 3.0, Symantec Network Security 4.0, and the Symantec Network Security 7100 Series appliances (the "Manhunt Products"); and (2) the combination of Symantec Gateway Security 5400,5600, or 1600 Series (the "SGS Products") with Incident Manager 3.0 or the Security Information Manager Series 9500 appliances (the "Manager Products"). 1. Direct - Literal: Has SRI proven, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Symantec literally infringes the following claims of the '615 and '203 patents? Please check the boxes that reflect your verdict.

Manager Products
(finding for SRI) (finding for Symantec) (finding for SRI) (finding for Symantec)

Case 1:04-cv-01199-SLR

Document 558

Filed 09/18/2008

Page 4 of 16

Case 1:04-cv-01199-SLR

Document 558

Filed 09/18/2008

Page 5 of 16

2. Inducement - Literal: Has SRI proven, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Symantec induces literal infringement by its customers of the following claims of the '615 and '203 patents?
Please check the boxes that reflect your verdict.

Manhunt Products

SGS Products and Manager Products

YES
(finding for SRI)

NO
(finding for Symantec)

YES
(finding for SRI)

NO
(finding for Symantec)

Case 1:04-cv-01199-SLR

Document 558

Filed 09/18/2008

Page 6 of 16

Case 1:04-cv-01199-SLR

Document 558

Filed 09/18/2008

Page 7 of 16

II.

INFRINGEMENT BY ISS

The ISS Accused Products for the '615 and '203 patents are the ISS sensors (RealSecure Network, Guard, Server, and Desktop series and Proventia A, G, M, Server, and Desktop series) in combination with Fusion 2.0. The ISS Accused Products for the '338 patent are the Proventia Anomaly Detection System (Proventia ADS) products. 3. Direct - Literal: Has SRI proven, by a preponderance of the evidence, that ISS literally infringes the following claims of the '615, '203, and '338 patents? Please check the boxes that reflect your verdict.

(finding for SRI)

(Finding for ISS)

Patent No. 6.711,615 Claim 1 Claim 13 Claim 14 Claim 16 Patent No. 6,484.203 Claim 1

,/

JI

rI
V

Case 1:04-cv-01199-SLR

Document 558

Filed 09/18/2008

Page 8 of 16

Case 1:04-cv-01199-SLR

Document 558

Filed 09/18/2008

Page 9 of 16

4. Inducement - Literal: Has SRI proven, by a preponderance of the evidence, that ISS induces literal infringement by its customers of the following claims of the '615, '203, and '338 patents? Please check the boxes that reflect your verdict.

Patent No. 6,484,203 Claim 1

Case 1:04-cv-01199-SLR

Document 558

Filed 09/18/2008

Page 10 of 16

Case 1:04-cv-01199-SLR

Document 558

Filed 09/18/2008

Page 11 of 16

III.

VALIDITY OF '615, '203, AND'338 PATENTS

5. Anticipation: Have Defendants (Symantec and ISS) proven, by clear and convincing evidence, that any of the following claims of the '615, '203, and '338 patents are invalid due to anticipation? Please check the boxes that reflect your verdict.

Case 1:04-cv-01199-SLR

Document 558

Filed 09/18/2008

Page 12 of 16

Case 1:04-cv-01199-SLR

Document 558

Filed 09/18/2008

Page 13 of 16

6. Obviousness: Have defendants (Symantec and ISS) proven, by clear and convincing evidence, that any of the following claims of the '615 and '203 patents are invalid due to obviousness? Please check the boxes that reflect your verdict.

Case 1:04-cv-01199-SLR

Document 558

Filed 09/18/2008

Page 14 of 16

Case 1:04-cv-01199-SLR

Document 558

Filed 09/18/2008

Page 15 of 16

7. Best Mode: Have defendants (Symantec and ISS) proven, by clear and convincing evidence, that any of the following claims of the '615 and '203 patents are invalid due to failure by the named inventors to disclose what they believed to be the best mode of practicing their invention at the time they filed their patent application? Please check the boxes that reflect your verdict.

Case 1:04-cv-01199-SLR

Document 558

Filed 09/18/2008

Page 16 of 16