`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`
`CIRBA INC. (d/b/a DENSIFY)
`and CIRBA IP, INC.,
`
`V.
`
`VMWARE, INC.,
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`Defendant.
`
`C.A. No. 19-742-LPS
`
`VERDICT FORM
`
`INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,209,687
`
`Question No. 1:
`
`Has Densify proven, by a preponderance of the evidence, that VMware has literally
`
`infringed any of the following claims of the ' 687 patent?
`
`"Yes " is a finding for Densify. "No " is a finding for VMware.
`
`Ii
`
`Product
`
`Claim
`
`Answer
`
`vSphere with
`DRS
`
`vROps with DRS
`
`VMConAWS
`with DRS 2.0
`
`Claim 3
`
`Claim 7
`
`Claim 3
`
`Claim 7
`
`Claim 3
`
`Claim 7
`
`/
`
`Yes t/
`Yes v
`Yes ( /
`
`Yes V'
`
`Yes V
`
`Yes I/
`
`No
`
`No
`
`No
`
`No
`
`No
`
`No
`
`1
`
`
`
`Case 1:19-cv-00742-LPS Document 550 Filed 01/24/20 Page 2 of 7 PageID #: 37461
`
`Question No. 2:
`
`Has Densify proven, by a preponderance of the evidence, that VMware has actively
`
`induced direct infringement of any of the following claims of the ' 687 patent?
`
`"Yes " is afindingfor Densify. "No " is afindingfor VMware.
`
`Product
`
`Claim
`
`Answer
`
`Claim 3
`
`Yes ~ No
`
`vSphere with
`DRS
`
`vROps with DRS
`
`VMConAWS
`with DRS 2.0
`
`Claim 7
`
`Claim 3
`
`Claim 7
`
`Claim 3
`
`Claim 7
`
`Question No. 3:
`
`(/""
`
`Yes
`Yes v
`
`~
`
`No
`
`No
`
`Yes ~ No
`Yes y
`
`No
`
`Yes
`
`t,,,/ No
`
`If you have found that VMware directly infringed at least one claim of Densify' s ' 687
`
`patent, or if you have found that VMware has actively induced direct infringement of at least one
`
`claim ofDensify' s ' 687 patent, has Densify proven, by a preponderance of the evidence, that
`
`VMware' s infringement of the ' 687 patent was willful?
`
`"Yes " is afindingfor Densify. "No " is afindingfor VMware.
`
`t,/ Yes (Willful)
`
`No (Not Willful)
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case 1:19-cv-00742-LPS Document 550 Filed 01/24/20 Page 3 of 7 PageID #: 37462
`
`INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 9,654,367
`
`Question No. 4:
`
`Has Densify proven, by a preponderance of the evidence, that VMware has literally
`
`infringed any of the following claims of the ' 367 patent?
`
`"Yes " is afindingfor Densify. "No" is afindingfor VMware.
`
`Claim 1
`
`No - - - -
`
`Claim 9
`
`Yes I/ No ___ _
`
`Claim 13
`
`Yes
`-~ -
`
`No
`- - - -
`
`Claim 17
`
`Yes ----'""'--- No - - - -
`
`Question No. 5:
`
`Has Densify proven, by a preponderance of the evidence, that VMware has actively
`
`induced direct infringement of any of the following claims of the ' 367 patent?
`
`"Yes" is afindingfor Densify. "No " is afindingfor VMware.
`
`Claim 1
`
`Yes - - -
`
`Claim 9
`
`Yes - - -
`
`Claim 13
`
`No
`Yes
`- - - - - - -
`
`Claim 17
`
`No
`Yes
`- - - - - - -
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case 1:19-cv-00742-LPS Document 550 Filed 01/24/20 Page 4 of 7 PageID #: 37463
`
`Question No. 6:
`
`If you have found that VMware infringed at least one claim of Densify's '367 patent, or
`
`if you have found that VMware has actively induced direct infringement of at least one claim of
`
`Densify's '367 patent, has Densify proven, by a preponderance of the evidence, that VMware's
`
`infringement of the ' 367 patent was willful?
`
`"Yes " is afindingfor Densify. "No" is afindingfor VMware.
`
`Yes (Willful)
`
`No (Not Willful)
`
`VALIDITY OF DENSIFY'S U.S. PATENT NO. 8,209,687
`
`Question No. 7:
`
`Has VMware proven, by clear and convincing evidence, that any of the following claims
`
`of the '687 patent is invalid as anticipated by DRS 2006?
`
`"Yes " is a finding for VMware. "No " is a finding f or Densify.
`
`Claim 3
`
`Yes - - -
`
`Claim 7
`
`Yes
`
`No
`
`4
`
`
`
`Case 1:19-cv-00742-LPS Document 550 Filed 01/24/20 Page 5 of 7 PageID #: 37464
`
`Question No. 8:
`
`Has VMware proven, by clear and convincing evidence, that any of the following claims
`
`of the ' 687 patent is invalid because the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to a
`
`person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the claimed invention based on DRS 2006?
`
`"Yes " is afindingfor VMware. "No " is afindingfor Densify.
`
`Claim 3
`
`Yes - - -
`
`Claim 7
`
`Yes
`
`No - - - -
`
`TRADEMARK INFRINGEMENT
`
`Question No. 9:
`
`Do you find that VMware is liable for trademark infringement?
`
`"Yes " is a finding for Densify. "No " is a finding for VMware.
`
`No~
`
`DELAWARE DECEPTIVE TRADE PRACTICES ACT
`
`Question No. 10:
`
`Do you find that VMware is liable for deceptive trade practice?
`
`"Yes " is afindingfor Densify. "No " is afindingfor VMware.
`
`No V
`
`/
`
`5
`
`
`
`Case 1:19-cv-00742-LPS Document 550 Filed 01/24/20 Page 6 of 7 PageID #: 37465
`
`DAMAGES
`
`The '687 Patent
`
`Question No. 11:
`
`If you have found that VMware infringed at least one claim of the '687 patent, and if you
`
`have found that this same claim is not invalid, what is the dollar amount Densify has proven it is
`
`entitled to as a reasonable royalty for past infringement?
`$ 23<S 72'( 7l..!,~
`
`--~-......,11-----.a...+--J - - - - - -
`
`The '367 Patent
`
`Question No. 12:
`
`If you have found that VMware infringed at least one claim of the '367 patent, what is the
`
`dollar amount Densify has proven it is entitled to as a reasonable royalty for past infringement?
`
`$ ___ , , ......... l_..l~Z---, ~"~' - - - -
`
`Trademark Infringement
`
`Question No. 13:
`
`If you have found that VMware is liable for trademark infringement, what is the dollar
`
`amount of damages that Densify has proven?
`$ ___ [2( ___ _
`
`6
`
`
`
`Case 1:19-cv-00742-LPS Document 550 Filed 01/24/20 Page 7 of 7 PageID #: 37466
`
`CONCLUSION
`
`You have reached the end of the verdict form. Review the completed form to ensure that
`
`it accurately reflects your unanimous determinations. All jurors should then sign the verdict
`
`form in the space below and notify the Court Security Officer that you have reached a verdict.
`
`The Foreperson should retain possession of the verdict form and bring it to the Courtroom in the
`
`envelope provided.
`
`Date
`
`I /2,4 J 20Zo
`
`7
`
`