Free Proposed Pretrial Order - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1:04-cv-01199-SLR

Document 465-27

Filed 10/06/2006

Page 1 of 17

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] SPECIAL VERDICT FORM

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

1

Case 1:04-cv-01199-SLR

Document 465-27

Filed 10/06/2006

Page 2 of 17

I.

INFRINGEMENT BY BOTH DEFENDANTS

'203 Patent 1. Do you find that SRI has proven by a preponderance of the

evidence that Symantec literally infringes the asserted claims of the `203 patent? YES (for SRI) Claim 1: Claim 2: Claim 4: Claim 6: Claim 12: Claim 13: Claim 15: Claim 17: 2. ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ NO (for Symantec) ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______

Do you find that SRI has proven by a preponderance of the

evidence that Symantec infringes the asserted claims of the `203 patent under the doctrine of equivalents? YES (for SRI) Claim 1: Claim 2: Claim 4: Claim 6: Claim 12: Claim 13: Claim 15: Claim 17: ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ 2 NO (for Symantec) ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______

Case 1:04-cv-01199-SLR

Document 465-27

Filed 10/06/2006

Page 3 of 17

3.

Do you find that SRI has proven by a preponderance of the

evidence that ISS literally infringes the asserted claims of the `203 patent? YES (for SRI) Claim 1: Claim 2: Claim 4: Claim 6: Claim 12: Claim 13: Claim 15: Claim 17: ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ NO (for ISS) ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______

4.

Do you find that SRI has proven by a preponderance of the

evidence that ISS infringes the asserted claims of the `203 patent under the doctrine of equivalents? YES (for SRI) Claim 1: Claim 2: Claim 4: Claim 6: Claim 12: Claim 13: Claim 15: Claim 17: ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ NO (for ISS) ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______

3

Case 1:04-cv-01199-SLR

Document 465-27

Filed 10/06/2006

Page 4 of 17

'615 Patent 5. Do you find that SRI has proven by a preponderance of the

evidence that Symantec literally infringes the asserted claims of the `615 patent? YES (for SRI) Claim 1: Claim 2: Claim 4: Claim 7: Claim 13: Claim 14: Claim 16: ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ NO (for Symantec) ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______

6.

Do you find that SRI has proven by a preponderance of the

evidence that Symantec infringes the asserted claims of the `615 patent under the doctrine of equivalents? YES (for SRI) Claim 1: Claim 2: Claim 4: Claim 7: Claim 13: Claim 14: Claim 16: ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ NO (for Symantec) ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______

4

Case 1:04-cv-01199-SLR

Document 465-27

Filed 10/06/2006

Page 5 of 17

7.

Do you find that SRI has proven by a preponderance of the

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

8.

Do you find that SRI has proven by a preponderance of the

evidence that ISS infringes the asserted claims 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 465-27

Filed 10/06/2006

Page 6 of 17

II.

INFRINGEMENT BY ISS

'338 Patent 9. Do you find that SRI has proven by a preponderance of the

evidence that ISS literally infringes the asserted 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.

Do you find that SRI has proven by a preponderance of the

evidence that ISS infringes the asserted claims of the '338 patent 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 465-27

Filed 10/06/2006

Page 7 of 17

III.

INFRINGEMENT BY SYMANTEC

'212 Patent 11. Do you find that SRI has proven by a preponderance of the

evidence that Symantec literally infringes the asserted claims of the `212 patent? YES (for SRI) Claim 1: Claim 2: Claim 3: Claim 4: Claim 5: Claim 6: Claim 14: Claim 15: Claim 16: Claim 17: ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ NO (for Symantec) ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______

7

Case 1:04-cv-01199-SLR

Document 465-27

Filed 10/06/2006

Page 8 of 17

12.

Do you find that SRI has proven by a preponderance of the

evidence that Symantec infringes the asserted claims of the `212 patent under the doctrine of equivalents? YES (for SRI) Claim 1: Claim 2: Claim 3: Claim 4: Claim 5: Claim 6: Claim 14: Claim 15: Claim 16: Claim 17: ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ NO (for Symantec) ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______

8

Case 1:04-cv-01199-SLR

Document 465-27

Filed 10/06/2006

Page 9 of 17

IV.

INVALIDITY BASED ON PRIOR ART

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

evidence that the following claims of the `203 patent are invalid as anticipated based on the prior art? NO (for SRI) Claim 1: Claim 2: Claim 4: Claim 6: Claim 12: Claim 13: Claim 15: Claim 17: ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ YES (for defendants) ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______

14.

Obviousness: Have defendants proven by clear and convincing

evidence that the following claims of the `203 patent are invalid as obvious based on the prior art? N0 (for SRI) ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ 9 YES (for defendants) ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______

Claim 1: Claim 2: Claim 4: Claim 6: Claim 12: Claim 13: Claim 15: Claim 17:

Case 1:04-cv-01199-SLR

Document 465-27

Filed 10/06/2006

Page 10 of 17

`615 Patent 15. Anticipation: Have defendants proven by clear and convincing

evidence that 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 7: Claim 13: Claim 14: Claim 16:

16.

Obviousness: Have defendants proven by clear and convincing

evidence that 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 7: Claim 13: Claim 14: Claim 16: ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ YES (for defendants) ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______

10

Case 1:04-cv-01199-SLR

Document 465-27

Filed 10/06/2006

Page 11 of 17

`338 Patent 17. Anticipation: Has ISS proven by clear and convincing evidence

that 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) ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______

18.

Obviousness: Has ISS proven by clear and convincing evidence

that 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) ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______

11

Case 1:04-cv-01199-SLR

Document 465-27

Filed 10/06/2006

Page 12 of 17

`212 Patent 19. Anticipation: Has Symantec proven by clear and convincing

evidence that the following claims of the `212 patent are invalid as anticipated based on the prior art? NO (for SRI) Claim 1: Claim 2: Claim 3: Claim 4: Claim 5: Claim 6: Claim 14: Claim 15: Claim 16: Claim 17: ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ YES (for Symantec) ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______

12

Case 1:04-cv-01199-SLR

Document 465-27

Filed 10/06/2006

Page 13 of 17

20.

Obviousness: Has Symantec proven by clear and convincing

evidence that the following claims of the `212 patent are invalid as obvious based on the prior art? NO (for SRI) Claim 1: Claim 2: Claim 3: Claim 4: Claim 5: Claim 6: Claim 14: Claim 15: Claim 16: Claim 17: ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ YES (for Symantec) ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______

13

Case 1:04-cv-01199-SLR

Document 465-27

Filed 10/06/2006

Page 14 of 17

V.

INVALIDITY BASED ON SECTION 112

`203 Patent 21. Have defendants proven by clear and convincing evidence that the

following claims of the `203 patent are invalid because of: (i) lack of enablement or (ii) failure by the named inventors to disclose what they believed to be the best mode of practicing their invention? "No" is a finding in favor of SRI, "Yes" to either question is a finding in favor of defendants. NO (for SRI) Claim 1: Claim 2: Claim 4: Claim 6: Claim 12: Claim 13 Claim 15: Claim 17: ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ YES (enablement) (for defendants) ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ YES (best mode) (for defendants) ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______

14

Case 1:04-cv-01199-SLR

Document 465-27

Filed 10/06/2006

Page 15 of 17

`615 Patent 22. Have defendants proven by clear and convincing evidence that the

following claims of the `615 patent are invalid because of: (i) lack of enablement or (ii) failure by the named inventors to disclose what they believed to be the best mode of practicing their invention? " No" is a finding in favor of SRI, " Yes" to either question is a finding in favor of defendants. NO (for SRI) Claim 1: Claim 2: Claim 4: Claim 7: Claim 13 Claim 14: Claim 15: Claim 16: ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ YES (enablement) (for defendants) ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ YES (best mode) (for defendants) ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______

15

Case 1:04-cv-01199-SLR

Document 465-27

Filed 10/06/2006

Page 16 of 17

`338 Patent 23. Have defendants proven by clear and convincing evidence that the

following claims of the `338 patent are invalid because of: (i) lack of enablement or (ii) failure by the named inventors to disclose what they believed to be the best mode of practicing their invention? " No" is a finding in favor of SRI, " Yes" to either question is a finding in favor of defendants. NO (for SRI) Claim 1: Claim 4: Claim 5: Claim 11: Claim 12: Claim 13 Claim 24: ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ YES (enablement) (for defendants) ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ YES (best mode) (for defendants) ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______

16

Case 1:04-cv-01199-SLR

Document 465-27

Filed 10/06/2006

Page 17 of 17

`212 Patent 24. Have defendants proven by clear and convincing evidence that the

following claims of the `212 patent are invalid because of: (i) lack of enablement or (ii) failure by the named inventors to disclose what they believed to be the best mode of practicing their invention? " No" is a finding in favor of SRI, " Yes" to either question is a finding in favor of defendants. NO (for SRI) Claim 1: Claim 2: Claim 3: Claim 4: Claim 5: Claim 6: Claim 14: Claim 15: Claim 16: Claim 17: ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ YES (enablement) (for defendants) ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ YES (best mode) (for defendants) ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______

Dated: ______________________

________________________________ Jury Foreperson

17