Free Proposed Pretrial Order - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1:04-cv-01199-SLR

Document 465-28

Filed 10/06/2006

Page 1 of 23

EXHIBIT 28 SYMANTEC'S PROPOSED SPECIAL VERDICT FORM You must consider each question of the Special Verdict Form and answer questions according to the instructions.

-1-

Case 1:04-cv-01199-SLR

Document 465-28

Filed 10/06/2006

Page 2 of 23

INFRINGEMENT Direct Infringement by SYMANTEC 1. Do you find that SRI has shown by the more probable than not standard that Symantec directly infringes any of the claims-in-suit by making, using, or selling iForce IDS, ManHunt 3.0, Symantec Network Security 4.0, or the Symantec Network Security 7100 Series appliances (the "ManHunt Products")? YES___ (finding for SRI) 2. If yes, which claims? The `212 Patent Claim 1 Claim 2 Claim 3 Claim 4 Claim 5 Claim 6 Claim 14 Claim 15 Claim 16 Claim 17 YES___ (for SRI) YES___ (for SRI) YES___ (for SRI) YES___ (for SRI) YES___ (for SRI) YES___ (for SRI) YES___ (for SRI) YES___ (for SRI) YES___ (for SRI) YES___ (for SRI) The `203 Patent Claim 1 Claim 2 Claim 4 Claim 6 Claim 12 Claim 13 Claim 15 Claim 17 YES___ (for SRI) YES___ (for SRI) YES___ (for SRI) YES___ (for SRI) YES___ (for SRI) YES___ (for SRI) YES___ (for SRI) YES___ (for SRI) NO___ (for Symantec) NO___ (for Symantec) NO___ (for Symantec) NO___ (for Symantec) NO___ (for Symantec) NO___ (for Symantec) NO___ (for Symantec) NO___ (for Symantec) NO___ (for Symantec) NO___ (for Symantec) NO___ (for Symantec) NO___ (for Symantec) NO___ (for Symantec) NO___ (for Symantec) NO___ (for Symantec) NO___ (for Symantec) NO___ (for Symantec) NO___ (for Symantec) NO___ (finding for Symantec)

-2-

Case 1:04-cv-01199-SLR

Document 465-28

Filed 10/06/2006

Page 3 of 23

The `615 Patent Claim 1 Claim 2 Claim 4 Claim 7 Claim 13 Claim 14 Claim 16 YES___ (for SRI) YES___ (for SRI) YES___ (for SRI) YES___ (for SRI) YES___ (for SRI) YES___ (for SRI) YES___ (for SRI) NO___ (for Symantec) NO___ (for Symantec) NO___ (for Symantec) NO___ (for Symantec) NO___ (for Symantec) NO___ (for Symantec) NO___ (for Symantec)

-3-

Case 1:04-cv-01199-SLR

Document 465-28

Filed 10/06/2006

Page 4 of 23

3. Do you find that SRI has shown by the more probable than not standard that Symantec directly infringes any of the claims-in-suit by making, using, or selling Symantec Gateway Security ("SGS") 5400 in combination with Incident Manager 3.0 or the Security Information Manager 9500 Series appliances (the "Manager Products")? YES___ (finding for SRI) 4. If yes, which claims? The `212 Patent Claim 1 Claim 2 Claim 3 Claim 4 Claim 5 Claim 6 Claim 14 Claim 15 Claim 16 Claim 17 YES___ (for SRI) YES___ (for SRI) YES___ (for SRI) YES___ (for SRI) YES___ (for SRI) YES___ (for SRI) YES___ (for SRI) YES___ (for SRI) YES___ (for SRI) YES___ (for SRI) The `203 Patent Claim 1 Claim 2 Claim 4 Claim 6 Claim 12 Claim 13 Claim 15 Claim 17 YES___ (for SRI) YES___ (for SRI) YES___ (for SRI) YES___ (for SRI) YES___ (for SRI) YES___ (for SRI) YES___ (for SRI) YES___ (for SRI) The `615 Patent Claim 1 Claim 2 YES___ (for SRI) YES___ (for SRI) NO___ (for Symantec) NO___ (for Symantec) NO___ (for Symantec) NO___ (for Symantec) NO___ (for Symantec) NO___ (for Symantec) NO___ (for Symantec) NO___ (for Symantec) NO___ (for Symantec) NO___ (for Symantec) NO___ (for Symantec) NO___ (for Symantec) NO___ (for Symantec) NO___ (for Symantec) NO___ (for Symantec) NO___ (for Symantec) NO___ (for Symantec) NO___ (for Symantec) NO___ (for Symantec) NO___ (for Symantec) NO___ (finding for Symantec)

-4-

Case 1:04-cv-01199-SLR

Document 465-28

Filed 10/06/2006

Page 5 of 23

Claim 4 Claim 7 Claim 13 Claim 14 Claim 16

YES___ (for SRI) YES___ (for SRI) YES___ (for SRI) YES___ (for SRI) YES___ (for SRI)

NO___ (for Symantec) NO___ (for Symantec) NO___ (for Symantec) NO___ (for Symantec) NO___ (for Symantec)

-5-

Case 1:04-cv-01199-SLR

Document 465-28

Filed 10/06/2006

Page 6 of 23

5. Do you find that SRI has shown by the more probable than not standard that Symantec directly infringes any of the claims-in-suit by making, using, or selling Symantec Gateway Security (" SGS" ) 1600 or " SGS" 5600, in combination with Incident Manager 3.0 or the Security Information Manager 9500 Series appliances (the " Manager Products" )? YES___ (finding for SRI) 6. If yes, which claims? The `203 Patent Claim 1 Claim 2 Claim 4 Claim 6 Claim 12 Claim 13 Claim 15 Claim 17 YES___ (for SRI) YES___ (for SRI) YES___ (for SRI) YES___ (for SRI) YES___ (for SRI) YES___ (for SRI) YES___ (for SRI) YES___ (for SRI) The `615 Patent Claim 1 Claim 2 Claim 4 Claim 13 Claim 14 Claim 16 YES___ (for SRI) YES___ (for SRI) YES___ (for SRI) YES___ (for SRI) YES___ (for SRI) YES___ (for SRI) NO___ (for Symantec) NO___ (for Symantec) NO___ (for Symantec) NO___ (for Symantec) NO___ (for Symantec) NO___ (for Symantec) NO___ (for Symantec) NO___ (for Symantec) NO___ (for Symantec) NO___ (for Symantec) NO___ (for Symantec) NO___ (for Symantec) NO___ (for Symantec) NO___ (for Symantec) NO___ (finding for Symantec)

-6-

Case 1:04-cv-01199-SLR

Document 465-28

Filed 10/06/2006

Page 7 of 23

Inducing Infringement by SYMANTEC 7. Do you find that SRI has shown by the more probable than not standard that Symantec actively induced its customers to infringe any of the claims-in-suit by the customers' use of iForce IDS, ManHunt 3.0, Symantec Network Security 4.0, or the Symantec Network Security 7100 Series appliances (the " ManHunt Products" )? YES___ (finding for SRI) 8. If yes, which claims? The `212 Patent Claim 1 Claim 2 Claim 3 Claim 4 Claim 5 Claim 6 Claim 14 Claim 15 Claim 16 Claim 17 YES___ (for SRI) YES___ (for SRI) YES___ (for SRI) YES___ (for SRI) YES___ (for SRI) YES___ (for SRI) YES___ (for SRI) YES___ (for SRI) YES___ (for SRI) YES___ (for SRI) The `203 Patent Claim 1 Claim 2 Claim 4 Claim 6 Claim 12 Claim 13 Claim 15 Claim 17 YES___ (for SRI) YES___ (for SRI) YES___ (for SRI) YES___ (for SRI) YES___ (for SRI) YES___ (for SRI) YES___ (for SRI) YES___ (for SRI) The `615 Patent Claim 1 YES___ (for SRI) NO___ (for Symantec) NO___ (for Symantec) NO___ (for Symantec) NO___ (for Symantec) NO___ (for Symantec) NO___ (for Symantec) NO___ (for Symantec) NO___ (for Symantec) NO___ (for Symantec) NO___ (for Symantec) NO___ (for Symantec) NO___ (for Symantec) NO___ (for Symantec) NO___ (for Symantec) NO___ (for Symantec) NO___ (for Symantec) NO___ (for Symantec) NO___ (for Symantec) NO___ (for Symantec) NO___ (finding for Symantec)

-7-

Case 1:04-cv-01199-SLR

Document 465-28

Filed 10/06/2006

Page 8 of 23

Claim 2 Claim 4 Claim 7 Claim 13 Claim 14 Claim 16

YES___ (for SRI) YES___ (for SRI) YES___ (for SRI) YES___ (for SRI) YES___ (for SRI) YES___ (for SRI)

NO___ (for Symantec) NO___ (for Symantec) NO___ (for Symantec) NO___ (for Symantec) NO___ (for Symantec) NO___ (for Symantec)

-8-

Case 1:04-cv-01199-SLR

Document 465-28

Filed 10/06/2006

Page 9 of 23

9. Do you find that SRI has shown by the more probable than not standard that Symantec actively induced its customers to infringe any of the claims-in-suit by the customers' use of Symantec Gateway Security (" SGS" ) 5400 in combination with Incident Manager 3.0 or the Security Information Manager 9500 Series appliances (the " Manager Products" )? YES___ (finding for SRI) 10. If yes, which claims? The `212 Patent Claim 1 Claim 2 Claim 3 Claim 4 Claim 5 Claim 6 Claim 14 Claim 15 Claim 16 Claim 17 YES___ (for SRI) YES___ (for SRI) YES___ (for SRI) YES___ (for SRI) YES___ (for SRI) YES___ (for SRI) YES___ (for SRI) YES___ (for SRI) YES___ (for SRI) YES___ (for SRI) The `203 Patent Claim 1 Claim 2 Claim 4 Claim 6 Claim 12 Claim 13 Claim 15 Claim 17 YES___ (for SRI) YES___ (for SRI) YES___ (for SRI) YES___ (for SRI) YES___ (for SRI) YES___ (for SRI) YES___ (for SRI) YES___ (for SRI) The `615 Patent Claim 1 YES___ (for SRI) NO___ (for Symantec) NO___ (for Symantec) NO___ (for Symantec) NO___ (for Symantec) NO___ (for Symantec) NO___ (for Symantec) NO___ (for Symantec) NO___ (for Symantec) NO___ (for Symantec) NO___ (for Symantec) NO___ (for Symantec) NO___ (for Symantec) NO___ (for Symantec) NO___ (for Symantec) NO___ (for Symantec) NO___ (for Symantec) NO___ (for Symantec) NO___ (for Symantec) NO___ (for Symantec) NO___ (finding for Symantec)

-9-

Case 1:04-cv-01199-SLR

Document 465-28

Filed 10/06/2006

Page 10 of 23

Claim 2 Claim 4 Claim 7 Claim 13 Claim 14 Claim 16

YES___ (for SRI) YES___ (for SRI) YES___ (for SRI) YES___ (for SRI) YES___ (for SRI) YES___ (for SRI)

NO___ (for Symantec) NO___ (for Symantec) NO___ (for Symantec) NO___ (for Symantec) NO___ (for Symantec) NO___ (for Symantec)

- 10 -

Case 1:04-cv-01199-SLR

Document 465-28

Filed 10/06/2006

Page 11 of 23

11. Do you find that SRI has shown by the more probable than not standard that Symantec actively induced its customers to infringe any of the claims-in-suit by the customers' use of Symantec Gateway Security (" SGS" ) 1600 or " SGS" 5600, in combination with Incident Manager 3.0 or the Security Information Manager 9500 Series appliances (the " Manager Products" )? YES___ (finding for SRI) 12. If yes, which claims? The `203 Patent Claim 1 Claim 2 Claim 4 Claim 6 Claim 12 Claim 13 Claim 15 Claim 17 YES___ (for SRI) YES___ (for SRI) YES___ (for SRI) YES___ (for SRI) YES___ (for SRI) YES___ (for SRI) YES___ (for SRI) YES___ (for SRI) The `615 Patent Claim 1 Claim 2 Claim 4 Claim 13 Claim 14 Claim 16 YES___ (for SRI) YES___ (for SRI) YES___ (for SRI) YES___ (for SRI) YES___ (for SRI) YES___ (for SRI) NO___ (for Symantec) NO___ (for Symantec) NO___ (for Symantec) NO___ (for Symantec) NO___ (for Symantec) NO___ (for Symantec) NO___ (for Symantec) NO___ (for Symantec) NO___ (for Symantec) NO___ (for Symantec) NO___ (for Symantec) NO___ (for Symantec) NO___ (for Symantec) NO___ (for Symantec) NO___ (finding for Symantec)

- 11 -

Case 1:04-cv-01199-SLR

Document 465-28

Filed 10/06/2006

Page 12 of 23

INVALIDITY Anticipation 1. Do you find that Symantec has proven by the highly probable standard that any of the claims-in-suit are invalid as anticipated by prior art? YES___ (finding for Symantec) 2. If YES, which claims? The `338 Patent Claim 1 Claim 2 Claim 4 Claim 11 Claim 12 Claim 13 Claim 18 Claim 19 Claim 24 YES___ (for Symantec) YES___ (for Symantec) YES___ (for Symantec) YES___ (for Symantec) YES___ (for Symantec) YES___ (for Symantec) YES___ (for Symantec) YES___ (for Symantec) YES___ (for Symantec) The `212 Patent Claim 1 Claim 2 Claim 3 Claim 4 Claim 5 Claim 6 Claim 14 Claim 15 Claim 16 Claim 17 YES___ (for Symantec) YES___ (for Symantec) YES___ (for Symantec) YES___ (for Symantec) YES___ (for Symantec) YES___ (for Symantec) YES___ (for Symantec) YES___ (for Symantec) YES___ (for Symantec) YES___ (for Symantec) NO___ (for SRI) NO___ (for SRI) NO___ (for SRI) NO___ (for SRI) NO___ (for SRI) NO___ (for SRI) NO___ (for SRI) NO___ (for SRI) NO___ (for SRI) NO___ (for SRI) NO___ (for SRI) NO___ (for SRI) NO___ (for SRI) NO___ (for SRI) NO___ (for SRI) NO___ (for SRI) NO___ (for SRI) NO___ (for SRI) NO___ (for SRI) NO___ (finding for SRI)

- 12 -

Case 1:04-cv-01199-SLR

Document 465-28

Filed 10/06/2006

Page 13 of 23

The `203 Claim 1 Claim 2 Claim 4 Claim 6 Claim 12 Claim 13 Claim 15 Claim 17 YES___ (for Symantec) YES___ (for Symantec) YES___ (for Symantec) YES___ (for Symantec) YES___ (for Symantec) YES___ (for Symantec) YES___ (for Symantec) YES___ (for Symantec) The `615 Claim 1 Claim 2 Claim 4 Claim 7 Claim 13 Claim 14 Claim 16 YES___ (for Symantec) YES___ (for Symantec) YES___ (for Symantec) YES___ (for Symantec) YES___ (for Symantec) YES___ (for Symantec) YES___ (for Symantec) NO___ (for SRI) NO___ (for SRI) NO___ (for SRI) NO___ (for SRI) NO___ (for SRI) NO___ (for SRI) NO___ (for SRI) NO___ (for SRI) NO___ (for SRI) NO___ (for SRI) NO___ (for SRI) NO___ (for SRI) NO___ (for SRI) NO___ (for SRI) NO___ (for SRI)

- 13 -

Case 1:04-cv-01199-SLR

Document 465-28

Filed 10/06/2006

Page 14 of 23

Obviousness 3. Do you find that Symantec has proven by the highly probable standard that the subject matter of any of the claims-in-suit would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention? YES___ (finding for Symantec) 4. If YES, which claims? The `338 Patent Claim 1 Claim 2 Claim 4 Claim 11 Claim 12 Claim 13 Claim 18 Claim 19 Claim 24 YES___ (for Symantec) YES___ (for Symantec) YES___ (for Symantec) YES___ (for Symantec) YES___ (for Symantec) YES___ (for Symantec) YES___ (for Symantec) YES___ (for Symantec) YES___ (for Symantec) The `212 Patent Claim 1 Claim 2 Claim 3 Claim 4 Claim 5 Claim 6 Claim 14 Claim 15 Claim 16 Claim 17 YES___ (for Symantec) YES___ (for Symantec) YES___ (for Symantec) YES___ (for Symantec) YES___ (for Symantec) YES___ (for Symantec) YES___ (for Symantec) YES___ (for Symantec) YES___ (for Symantec) YES___ (for Symantec) NO___ (for SRI) NO___ (for SRI) NO___ (for SRI) NO___ (for SRI) NO___ (for SRI) NO___ (for SRI) NO___ (for SRI) NO___ (for SRI) NO___ (for SRI) NO___ (for SRI) NO___ (for SRI) NO___ (for SRI) NO___ (for SRI) NO___ (for SRI) NO___ (for SRI) NO___ (for SRI) NO___ (for SRI) NO___ (for SRI) NO___ (for SRI) NO___ (finding for SRI)

- 14 -

Case 1:04-cv-01199-SLR

Document 465-28

Filed 10/06/2006

Page 15 of 23

The `203 Claim 1 Claim 2 Claim 4 Claim 6 Claim 12 Claim 13 Claim 15 Claim 17 YES___ (for Symantec) YES___ (for Symantec) YES___ (for Symantec) YES___ (for Symantec) YES___ (for Symantec) YES___ (for Symantec) YES___ (for Symantec) YES___ (for Symantec) The `615 Claim 1 Claim 2 Claim 4 Claim 7 Claim 13 Claim 14 Claim 16 YES___ (for Symantec) YES___ (for Symantec) YES___ (for Symantec) YES___ (for Symantec) YES___ (for Symantec) YES___ (for Symantec) YES___ (for Symantec) NO___ (for SRI) NO___ (for SRI) NO___ (for SRI) NO___ (for SRI) NO___ (for SRI) NO___ (for SRI) NO___ (for SRI) NO___ (for SRI) NO___ (for SRI) NO___ (for SRI) NO___ (for SRI) NO___ (for SRI) NO___ (for SRI) NO___ (for SRI) NO___ (for SRI)

- 15 -

Case 1:04-cv-01199-SLR

Document 465-28

Filed 10/06/2006

Page 16 of 23

Enablement 5. Do you find that Symantec has proven by the highly probable standard that any of the asserted claims are invalid for lack of enablement? YES___ (finding for Symantec) 6. If YES, which claims? The `338 Patent Claim 1 Claim 2 Claim 4 Claim 11 Claim 12 Claim 13 Claim 18 Claim 19 Claim 24 YES___ (for Symantec) YES___ (for Symantec) YES___ (for Symantec) YES___ (for Symantec) YES___ (for Symantec) YES___ (for Symantec) YES___ (for Symantec) YES___ (for Symantec) YES___ (for Symantec) The `212 Patent Claim 1 Claim 2 Claim 3 Claim 4 Claim 5 Claim 6 Claim 14 Claim 15 Claim 16 Claim 17 YES___ (for Symantec) YES___ (for Symantec) YES___ (for Symantec) YES___ (for Symantec) YES___ (for Symantec) YES___ (for Symantec) YES___ (for Symantec) YES___ (for Symantec) YES___ (for Symantec) YES___ (for Symantec) The `203 Claim 1 Claim 2 YES___ (for Symantec) YES___ (for Symantec) NO___ (for SRI) NO___ (for SRI) NO___ (for SRI) NO___ (for SRI) NO___ (for SRI) NO___ (for SRI) NO___ (for SRI) NO___ (for SRI) NO___ (for SRI) NO___ (for SRI) NO___ (for SRI) NO___ (for SRI) NO___ (for SRI) NO___ (for SRI) NO___ (for SRI) NO___ (for SRI) NO___ (for SRI) NO___ (for SRI) NO___ (for SRI) NO___ (for SRI) NO___ (for SRI) NO___ (finding for SRI)

- 16 -

Case 1:04-cv-01199-SLR

Document 465-28

Filed 10/06/2006

Page 17 of 23

Claim 4 Claim 6 Claim 12 Claim 13 Claim 15 Claim 17

YES___ (for Symantec) YES___ (for Symantec) YES___ (for Symantec) YES___ (for Symantec) YES___ (for Symantec) YES___ (for Symantec) The `615

NO___ (for SRI) NO___ (for SRI) NO___ (for SRI) NO___ (for SRI) NO___ (for SRI) NO___ (for SRI)

Claim 1 Claim 2 Claim 4 Claim 7 Claim 13 Claim 14 Claim 16

YES___ (for Symantec) YES___ (for Symantec) YES___ (for Symantec) YES___ (for Symantec) YES___ (for Symantec) YES___ (for Symantec) YES___ (for Symantec)

NO___ (for SRI) NO___ (for SRI) NO___ (for SRI) NO___ (for SRI) NO___ (for SRI) NO___ (for SRI) NO___ (for SRI)

- 17 -

Case 1:04-cv-01199-SLR

Document 465-28

Filed 10/06/2006

Page 18 of 23

Written Description 7. Do you find that Symantec has proven by the highly probable standard that any of the claims-in-suit are invalid for lack of an adequate written description? YES___ (finding for Symantec) 8. If YES, which claims? The `338 Patent Claim 1 Claim 2 Claim 4 Claim 11 Claim 12 Claim 13 Claim 18 Claim 19 Claim 24 YES___ (for Symantec) YES___ (for Symantec) YES___ (for Symantec) YES___ (for Symantec) YES___ (for Symantec) YES___ (for Symantec) YES___ (for Symantec) YES___ (for Symantec) YES___ (for Symantec) The `212 Patent Claim 1 Claim 2 Claim 3 Claim 4 Claim 5 Claim 6 Claim 14 Claim 15 Claim 16 Claim 17 YES___ (for Symantec) YES___ (for Symantec) YES___ (for Symantec) YES___ (for Symantec) YES___ (for Symantec) YES___ (for Symantec) YES___ (for Symantec) YES___ (for Symantec) YES___ (for Symantec) YES___ (for Symantec) The `203 Claim 1 Claim 2 YES___ (for Symantec) YES___ (for Symantec) NO___ (for SRI) NO___ (for SRI) NO___ (for SRI) NO___ (for SRI) NO___ (for SRI) NO___ (for SRI) NO___ (for SRI) NO___ (for SRI) NO___ (for SRI) NO___ (for SRI) NO___ (for SRI) NO___ (for SRI) NO___ (for SRI) NO___ (for SRI) NO___ (for SRI) NO___ (for SRI) NO___ (for SRI) NO___ (for SRI) NO___ (for SRI) NO___ (for SRI) NO___ (for SRI) NO___ (finding for SRI)

- 18 -

Case 1:04-cv-01199-SLR

Document 465-28

Filed 10/06/2006

Page 19 of 23

Claim 4 Claim 6 Claim 12 Claim 13 Claim 15 Claim 17

YES___ (for Symantec) YES___ (for Symantec) YES___ (for Symantec) YES___ (for Symantec) YES___ (for Symantec) YES___ (for Symantec) The `615

NO___ (for SRI) NO___ (for SRI) NO___ (for SRI) NO___ (for SRI) NO___ (for SRI) NO___ (for SRI)

Claim 1 Claim 2 Claim 4 Claim 7 Claim 13 Claim 14 Claim 16

YES___ (for Symantec) YES___ (for Symantec) YES___ (for Symantec) YES___ (for Symantec) YES___ (for Symantec) YES___ (for Symantec) YES___ (for Symantec)

NO___ (for SRI) NO___ (for SRI) NO___ (for SRI) NO___ (for SRI) NO___ (for SRI) NO___ (for SRI) NO___ (for SRI)

- 19 -

Case 1:04-cv-01199-SLR

Document 465-28

Filed 10/06/2006

Page 20 of 23

Best Mode 9. Do you find that Symantec has proven by the highly probable standard that any of the claims-in-suit are invalid because the named inventors failed to adequately disclose their best mode for practicing the claimed inventions? YES___ (finding for Symantec) 10. If YES, which claims? The `338 Patent Claim 1 Claim 2 Claim 4 Claim 11 Claim 12 Claim 13 Claim 18 Claim 19 Claim 24 YES___ (for Symantec) YES___ (for Symantec) YES___ (for Symantec) YES___ (for Symantec) YES___ (for Symantec) YES___ (for Symantec) YES___ (for Symantec) YES___ (for Symantec) YES___ (for Symantec) The `212 Patent Claim 1 Claim 2 Claim 3 Claim 4 Claim 5 Claim 6 Claim 14 Claim 15 Claim 16 Claim 17 YES___ (for Symantec) YES___ (for Symantec) YES___ (for Symantec) YES___ (for Symantec) YES___ (for Symantec) YES___ (for Symantec) YES___ (for Symantec) YES___ (for Symantec) YES___ (for Symantec) YES___ (for Symantec) The `203 Claim 1 YES___ (for Symantec) NO___ (for SRI) NO___ (for SRI) NO___ (for SRI) NO___ (for SRI) NO___ (for SRI) NO___ (for SRI) NO___ (for SRI) NO___ (for SRI) NO___ (for SRI) NO___ (for SRI) NO___ (for SRI) NO___ (for SRI) NO___ (for SRI) NO___ (for SRI) NO___ (for SRI) NO___ (for SRI) NO___ (for SRI) NO___ (for SRI) NO___ (for SRI) NO___ (for SRI) NO___ (finding for SRI)

- 20 -

Case 1:04-cv-01199-SLR

Document 465-28

Filed 10/06/2006

Page 21 of 23

Claim 2 Claim 4 Claim 6 Claim 12 Claim 13 Claim 15 Claim 17

YES___ (for Symantec) YES___ (for Symantec) YES___ (for Symantec) YES___ (for Symantec) YES___ (for Symantec) YES___ (for Symantec) YES___ (for Symantec) The `615

NO___ (for SRI) NO___ (for SRI) NO___ (for SRI) NO___ (for SRI) NO___ (for SRI) NO___ (for SRI) NO___ (for SRI)

Claim 1 Claim 2 Claim 4 Claim 7 Claim 13 Claim 14 Claim 16

YES___ (for Symantec) YES___ (for Symantec) YES___ (for Symantec) YES___ (for Symantec) YES___ (for Symantec) YES___ (for Symantec) YES___ (for Symantec)

NO___ (for SRI) NO___ (for SRI) NO___ (for SRI) NO___ (for SRI) NO___ (for SRI) NO___ (for SRI) NO___ (for SRI)

- 21 -

Case 1:04-cv-01199-SLR

Document 465-28

Filed 10/06/2006

Page 22 of 23

Definiteness 11. Do you find that Symantec has proven by the highly probable standard that any of the claims-in-suit are invalid because the language of the claims are indefinite? YES___ (finding for Symantec) 12. If YES, which claims? The `338 Patent Claim 1 Claim 2 Claim 4 Claim 11 Claim 12 Claim 13 Claim 18 Claim 19 Claim 24 YES___ (for Symantec) YES___ (for Symantec) YES___ (for Symantec) YES___ (for Symantec) YES___ (for Symantec) YES___ (for Symantec) YES___ (for Symantec) YES___ (for Symantec) YES___ (for Symantec) The `212 Patent Claim 1 Claim 2 Claim 3 Claim 4 Claim 5 Claim 6 Claim 14 Claim 15 Claim 16 Claim 17 YES___ (for Symantec) YES___ (for Symantec) YES___ (for Symantec) YES___ (for Symantec) YES___ (for Symantec) YES___ (for Symantec) YES___ (for Symantec) YES___ (for Symantec) YES___ (for Symantec) YES___ (for Symantec) The `203 Claim 1 Claim 2 YES___ (for Symantec) YES___ (for Symantec) NO___ (for SRI) NO___ (for SRI) NO___ (for SRI) NO___ (for SRI) NO___ (for SRI) NO___ (for SRI) NO___ (for SRI) NO___ (for SRI) NO___ (for SRI) NO___ (for SRI) NO___ (for SRI) NO___ (for SRI) NO___ (for SRI) NO___ (for SRI) NO___ (for SRI) NO___ (for SRI) NO___ (for SRI) NO___ (for SRI) NO___ (for SRI) NO___ (for SRI) NO___ (for SRI) NO___ (finding for SRI)

- 22 -

Case 1:04-cv-01199-SLR

Document 465-28

Filed 10/06/2006

Page 23 of 23

Claim 4 Claim 6 Claim 12 Claim 13 Claim 15 Claim 17

YES___ (for Symantec) YES___ (for Symantec) YES___ (for Symantec) YES___ (for Symantec) YES___ (for Symantec) YES___ (for Symantec) The `615

NO___ (for SRI) NO___ (for SRI) NO___ (for SRI) NO___ (for SRI) NO___ (for SRI) NO___ (for SRI)

Claim 1 Claim 2 Claim 4 Claim 7 Claim 13 Claim 14 Claim 16

YES___ (for Symantec) YES___ (for Symantec) YES___ (for Symantec) YES___ (for Symantec) YES___ (for Symantec) YES___ (for Symantec) YES___ (for Symantec)

NO___ (for SRI) NO___ (for SRI) NO___ (for SRI) NO___ (for SRI) NO___ (for SRI) NO___ (for SRI) NO___ (for SRI)

- 23 -