Free Proposed Pretrial Order - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1:04-cv-01199-SLR

Document 524-27

Filed 08/18/2008

Page 1 of 7

EXHIBIT 25 DEFENDANTS' PROPOSED SPECIAL VERDICT FORM1 You must consider each question of the Special Verdict Form and answer questions according to the instructions.

1

The Defendants' Proposed Special Verdict Form utilizes the "clear and convincing" standard for questions of invalidity for the convenience of the Court. However, as discussed in Proposed Pretrial Order Exhibit 6, Defendants request that the Court either (1) instruct the jury that Defendants need only prove invalidity by a preponderance of the evidence with respect to those issues on which PTO has initially rejected the claims during reexamination, or (2) instruct the jury that it may consider the PTO's decision to declare re-examinations and initially reject the claims-in-suit when determining whether or not Defendants have rebutted the presumption of validity and proven invalidity by clear and convincing evidence. As discussed in Exhibit 6, Defendants also request the Court consider providing special interrogatories regarding the factual inquiries underlying the legal question of obviousness.

-1-

Case 1:04-cv-01199-SLR

Document 524-27

Filed 08/18/2008

Page 2 of 7

JOINT ISSUES OF INVALIDITY 1. Considering each claim separately, has Symantec or ISS established by the clear and convincing standard that any of the following claims are invalid? Please check the boxes that reflect your verdict. If you find a claim "Invalid," you must then go on to check each reason you find the claim invalid. You may check more than one reason. A finding of "Valid" is a finding for SRI. A finding of "Invalid" is a finding for Defendants (Symantec and ISS). INVALIDITY VALID (FINDING FOR SRI) INVALID (FINDING FOR SYMANTEC AND ISS) ANTICIPATION OBVIOUSNESS INADEQUATE DESCRIPTION BEST MODE

Patent No. 6,084,203 Claim 1 Claim 2 Claim 4 Claim 6 Claim 12 Claim 13 Claim 15 Claim 17 Patent No. 6,711,615 Claim 1 Claim 2 Claim 4 Claim 13 Claim 14 Claim 16 Patent No. 6,321,338

-2-

Case 1:04-cv-01199-SLR

Document 524-27

Filed 08/18/2008

Page 3 of 7

INVALIDITY VALID (FINDING FOR SRI) INVALID (FINDING FOR SYMANTEC AND ISS) ANTICIPATION OBVIOUSNESS INADEQUATE DESCRIPTION BEST MODE

Claim 1 Claim 4 Claim 5 Claim 11 Claim 12 Claim 13 Claim 24

-3-

Case 1:04-cv-01199-SLR

Document 524-27

Filed 08/18/2008

Page 4 of 7

INFRINGEMENT BY SYMANTEC 2. Considering each claim separately, has SRI established by the preponderance of the evidence standard that Symantec infringed any of the following claims by using iForce IDS, ManHunt 3.0, Symantec Network Security 4.0, or the Symantec Network Security 7100 Series appliances (the "ManHunt Products"), or by knowingly inducing its customers to use one or more of the ManHunt Products to infringe the claim? Please check the boxes that reflect your verdict. A finding of "Not Infringed" is a finding for Symantec. A finding of "Infringed" is a finding for SRI. DIRECT INFRINGEMENT BY SYMANTEC NOT INFRINGED INFRINGED (FINDING FOR (FINDING FOR SRI) SYMANTEC) Patent No. 6,084,203 Claim 1 Claim 2 Claim 4 Claim 6 Claim 12 Claim 13 Claim 15 Claim 17 Patent No. 6,711,615 Claim 1 Claim 2 Claim 4 Claim 13 Claim 14 Claim 16 INDUCING INFRINGEMENT BY SYMANTEC'S CUSTOMERS NOT INFRINGED INFRINGED (FINDING FOR (FINDING FOR SRI) SYMANTEC)

-4-

Case 1:04-cv-01199-SLR

Document 524-27

Filed 08/18/2008

Page 5 of 7

3.

Considering each claim separately, has SRI established by the preponderance of the evidence standard that Symantec infringed any of the following claims by using Symantec Gateway Security 5400, 5600, or 1600 Series (the "SGS Products") in combination with Incident Manager 3.0 or the Security Information Manager 9500 Series appliances (the "Manager Products"), or by knowingly inducing its customers to use one or more of the SGS Products in combination with one or more of the Manager Products to infringe the claim? Please check the boxes that reflect your verdict. A finding of "Not Infringed" is a finding for Symantec. A finding of "Infringed" is a finding for SRI.

DIRECT INFRINGEMENT BY SYMANTEC NOT INFRINGED INFRINGED (FINDING FOR (FINDING FOR SRI) SYMANTEC) Patent No. 6,084,203 Claim 1 Claim 2 Claim 4 Claim 6 Claim 12 Claim 13 Claim 15 Claim 17 Patent No. 6,711,615 Claim 1 Claim 2 Claim 4 Claim 13 Claim 14 Claim 16

INDUCING INFRINGEMENT BY SYMANTEC'S CUSTOMERS NOT INFRINGED INFRINGED (FINDING FOR (FINDING FOR SRI) SYMANTEC)

-5-

Case 1:04-cv-01199-SLR

Document 524-27

Filed 08/18/2008

Page 6 of 7

INFRINGEMENT BY ISS 4. Considering each claim separately, has SRI established by the preponderance of the evidence standard that ISS infringed any of the following claims through the operation of the RealSecure Agents (Network, Guard, Server, and Desktop series) and Proventia agents (A, G, M, Server and Desktop series) (the "ISS sensors") used in combination with the SiteProtector SecurityFusion Module 2.0 (as well as later versions), or by knowingly inducing its customers to operate one or more of the ISS sensors used in combination with the SiteProtector Security Fusion Module 2.0 (as well as later versions) to infringe the claim? Please check the boxes that reflect your verdict. A finding of "Not Infringed" is a finding for ISS. A finding of "Infringed" is a finding for SRI. DIRECT INFRINGEMENT BY ISS NOT INFRINGED (FINDING FOR ISS) Patent No. 6,084,203 Claim 1 Claim 2 Claim 4 Claim 6 Claim 12 Claim 13 Claim 15 Claim 17 Patent No. 6,711,615 Claim 1 Claim 2 Claim 4 Claim 13 Claim 14 Claim 16 INFRINGED (FINDING FOR SRI) INDUCING INFRINGEMENT BY ISS'S CUSTOMERS NOT INFRINGED INFRINGED (FINDING FOR (FINDING FOR SRI) ISS)

-6-

Case 1:04-cv-01199-SLR

Document 524-27

Filed 08/18/2008

Page 7 of 7

5.

Considering each claim separately, has SRI established by the preponderance of the evidence standard that ISS infringed any of the following claims by using the Proventia Network Anomaly Detection System (ADS) product operating in standalone mode, or by knowingly inducing its customers to use the Proventia Network Anomaly Detection System (ADS) product operating in standalone mode to infringe the claim? Please check the boxes that reflect your verdict. A finding of "Not Infringed" is a finding for ISS. A finding of "Infringed" is a finding for SRI.

DIRECT INFRINGEMENT BY ISS NOT INFRINGED (FINDING FOR ISS) Patent No. 6,321,338 Claim 1 Claim 4 Claim 5 Claim 11 Claim 12 Claim 13 Claim 24 INFRINGED (FINDING FOR SRI)

INDUCING INFRINGEMENT BY ISS'S CUSTOMERS NOT INFRINGED INFRINGED (FINDING FOR (FINDING FOR SRI) ISS)

-7-