Free Proposed Pretrial Order - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1:04-cv-01199-SLR

Document 524-26

Filed 08/18/2008

Page 1 of 11

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE SRI INTERNATIONAL, INC., a California Corporation, Plaintiff and Counterclaim-Defendant, 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.

C. A. No. 04-1199 (SLR) [PROPOSED] MULTI-PART GENERAL VERDICT FORM

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

1

Case 1:04-cv-01199-SLR

Document 524-26

Filed 08/18/2008

Page 2 of 11

I.

INFRINGEMENT BY DEFENDANTS

'615 Patent 1. Direct ­ Literal: Do you find that SRI has proven by a

preponderance of the evidence that Symantec literally infringes the following claims of the `615 patent? YES (for SRI) Claim 1: Claim 2: Claim 4: Claim 13: Claim 14: Claim 16: ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ NO (for Symantec) ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______

2.

Direct ­ Doctrine of Equivalents: If you answered "NO" as to

any claim(s) in question 1, do you nevertheless find that SRI has proven by a preponderance of the evidence that Symantec infringes such claim(s) of the `615 patent under the doctrine of equivalents? YES (for SRI) Claim 1: Claim 2: Claim 4: Claim 13: Claim 14: Claim 16: ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ NO (for Symantec) ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______

2

Case 1:04-cv-01199-SLR

Document 524-26

Filed 08/18/2008

Page 3 of 11

3.

Inducement - Literal: Do you find that SRI has proven by a

preponderance of the evidence that Symantec induces literal infringement by its customers of the following claims of the `615 patent? YES (for SRI) Claim 1: Claim 2: Claim 4: Claim 13: Claim 14: Claim 16: ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ NO (for Symantec) ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______

4.

Inducement ­ Doctrine of Equivalents: If you answered "NO"

as to any claim(s) in question 3, do you nevertheless find that SRI has proven by a preponderance of the evidence that Symantec induces infringement by its customers of such claim(s) of the `615 patent under the doctrine of equivalents? YES (for SRI) Claim 1: Claim 2: Claim 4: Claim 13: Claim 14: Claim 16: ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ NO (for Symantec) ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______

3

Case 1:04-cv-01199-SLR

Document 524-26

Filed 08/18/2008

Page 4 of 11

5.

Direct ­ Literal: Do you find that SRI has proven by a

preponderance of the evidence that ISS literally infringes the following claims of the `615 patent? YES (for SRI) Claim 1: Claim 2: Claim 4: Claim 13: Claim 14: Claim 16: ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ NO (for ISS) ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______

6.

Direct ­ Doctrine of Equivalents: If you answered "NO" as to

any claim(s) in question 5, do you nevertheless find that SRI has proven by a preponderance of the evidence that ISS infringes such claim(s) of the `615 patent under the doctrine of equivalents? YES (for SRI) Claim 1: Claim 2: Claim 4: Claim 13: Claim 14: Claim 16: ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ NO (for ISS) ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______

4

Case 1:04-cv-01199-SLR

Document 524-26

Filed 08/18/2008

Page 5 of 11

7.

Inducement - Literal: Do you find that SRI has proven by a

preponderance of the evidence that ISS induces literal infringement by its customers of the following claims of the `615 patent? YES (for SRI) Claim 1: Claim 2: Claim 4: Claim 13: Claim 14: Claim 16: ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ NO (for ISS) ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______

8.

Inducement ­ Doctrine of Equivalents: If you answered "NO"

as to any claim(s) in question 7, do you nevertheless find that SRI has proven by a preponderance of the evidence that ISS induces infringement by its customers of such claim(s) of the `615 patent under the doctrine of equivalents? YES (for SRI) Claim 1: Claim 2: Claim 4: Claim 13: Claim 14: Claim 16: ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ NO (for ISS) ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______

5

Case 1:04-cv-01199-SLR

Document 524-26

Filed 08/18/2008

Page 6 of 11

'338 Patent 9. Direct ­ Literal: Do you find that SRI has proven by a

preponderance of the evidence that ISS literally infringes the following claims of the '338 patent? YES (for SRI) Claim 1: Claim 4: Claim 5: Claim 11: Claim 12: Claim 13: Claim 24: ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ NO (for ISS) ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______

10.

Direct ­ Doctrine of Equivalents: If you answered "NO" as to

any claim(s) in question 9, do you nevertheless find that SRI has proven by a preponderance of the evidence that ISS infringes such claim(s) of the ' patent 338 under the doctrine of equivalents? YES (for SRI) Claim 1: Claim 4: Claim 5: Claim 11: Claim 12: Claim 13: Claim 24: ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ NO (for ISS) ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______

6

Case 1:04-cv-01199-SLR

Document 524-26

Filed 08/18/2008

Page 7 of 11

11.

Inducement - Literal: Do you find that SRI has proven by a

preponderance of the evidence that ISS induces literal infringement by its customers of the following claims of the '338 patent? YES (for SRI) Claim 1: Claim 4: Claim 5: Claim 11: Claim 12: Claim 13: Claim 24: ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ NO (for ISS) ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______

12.

Inducement ­ Doctrine of Equivalents: If you answered "NO"

as to any claim(s) in question 11, do you nevertheless find that SRI has proven by a preponderance of the evidence that ISS induces infringement by its customers of such claim(s) of the ' patent under the doctrine of equivalents? 338 YES (for SRI) Claim 1: Claim 4: Claim 5: Claim 11: Claim 12: Claim 13: Claim 24: ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ NO (for ISS) ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______

7

Case 1:04-cv-01199-SLR

Document 524-26

Filed 08/18/2008

Page 8 of 11

II.

VALIDITY

`615 Patent 13. Anticipation: Have defendants proven by clear and convincing

evidence that any of the following claims of the `615 patent are invalid as anticipated based on the prior art? NO (for SRI) ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ YES (for defendants) ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______

Claim 1: Claim 2: Claim 4: Claim 13: Claim 14: Claim 16:

14.

Obviousness: Have defendants proven by clear and convincing

evidence that any of the following claims of the `615 patent are invalid as obvious based on the prior art? NO (for SRI) Claim 1: Claim 2: Claim 4: Claim 13: Claim 14: Claim 16: ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ YES (for defendants) ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______

8

Case 1:04-cv-01199-SLR

Document 524-26

Filed 08/18/2008

Page 9 of 11

15.

Best Mode: Have defendants proven by clear and convincing

evidence that any of the following claims of the `615 patent are invalid because of a failure by the named inventors to disclose what they believed to be the best mode of practicing their invention? NO (for SRI) Claim 1: Claim 2: Claim 4: Claim 13 Claim 14: Claim 15: Claim 16: ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ YES (for defendants) ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______

`338 Patent 16. Anticipation: Has ISS proven by clear and convincing evidence

that any of the following claims of the `338 patent are invalid as anticipated based on the prior art? NO (for SRI) Claim 1: Claim 4: Claim 5: Claim 11: Claim 12: Claim 13: Claim 24: ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ YES (for ISS) ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______

9

Case 1:04-cv-01199-SLR

Document 524-26

Filed 08/18/2008

Page 10 of 11

17.

Obviousness: Has ISS proven by clear and convincing evidence

that any of the following claims of the `338 patent are invalid as obvious based on the prior art? NO (for SRI) Claim 1: Claim 4: Claim 5: Claim 11: Claim 12: Claim 13: Claim 24: ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ YES (for ISS) ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______

18.

Best Mode: Has ISS proven by clear and convincing evidence

that any of the following claims of the `338 patent are invalid because of a failure by the named inventors to disclose what they believed to be the best mode of practicing their invention? NO (for SRI) Claim 1: Claim 4: Claim 5: Claim 11: Claim 12: Claim 13 Claim 24: ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ YES (for defendants) ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______

10

Case 1:04-cv-01199-SLR

Document 524-26

Filed 08/18/2008

Page 11 of 11

Dated: ______________________

________________________________ Jury Foreperson

11