Case 1:20-cv-01098-GBW-JLH Document 313 Filed 08/25/23 Page 1 of 12 PageID #: 18696
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`
`C.A. No. 20-1098-GBW
`
`W. R. GRACE & CO.-CONN.,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`V.
`
`ELYSIUM HEAL TH, INC.,
`
`Defendant.
`
`VERDICT FORM
`
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`
`C.A. No. 20-1098-GBW
`
`W. R. GRACE & CO.-CONN.,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`V.
`
`ELYSIUM HEAL TH, INC.,
`
`Defendant.
`
`VERDICT FORM
`
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-01098-GBW-JLH Document 313 Filed 08/25/23 Page 2 of 12 PageID #: 18697
`
`INSTRUCTIONS
`
`When answering the following questions and completing this Verdict Form, please
`
`follow the directions provided throughout the form. Your answer to each question must be
`
`unanimous. Some of the questions contain legal terms that are defined and explained in detail in
`
`the Jury Instructions. Please refer to the Jury Instructions for guidance on the law applicable to
`
`each question.
`
`• You should answer all of questions 1 to 8.
`
`• Whether you answer questions 9 to 11 , which concern the issues of damages and
`
`willfulness, will depend on the answers you give to questions 1 to 8 as indicated
`
`by the additional instructions provided with each set of questions.
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-01098-GBW-JLH Document 313 Filed 08/25/23 Page 3 of 12 PageID #: 18698
`
`FINDINGS ON INFRINGEMENT
`
`Directions: The questions regarding infringement should be answered regardless of your findings
`with respect to the validity or invalidity of the patents.
`
`1. Direct Infringement of the Asserted Claims
`
`Has Grace proven by a preponderance of the evidence that Elysium has directly infringed any of the
`asserted claims? Check YES or NO for each claim.
`Checking "yes " below indicates a finding for Grace
`Checking "no " below indicates afindingfor Elysium
`
`YES (Elysium NO (Elysium
`infringes)
`does not infringe)
`
`YES (Elysium NO (Elysium
`infringes)
`does not infringe)
`
`Claim 1
`
`Claim 2
`
`Claim 21
`
`'058 Patent
`
`✓
`✓-
`✓
`
`Claim 1
`
`Claim 6
`
`Claim 15
`
`' 872 Patent
`✓
`✓-
`✓
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-01098-GBW-JLH Document 313 Filed 08/25/23 Page 4 of 12 PageID #: 18699
`
`2. Induced Infringement of an Asserted Claim
`
`Has Grace proven by a preponderance of the evidence that Elysium has induced infringement of the
`following asserted claim?
`Checking "yes " below indicates a finding for Grace
`Checking "no " below indicates a finding for Elysium
`
`YES (Elysium
`infringes)
`
`NO (Elysium
`does not infringe)
`
`Claim 21
`
`' 058 Patent
`✓
`
`4
`
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-01098-GBW-JLH Document 313 Filed 08/25/23 Page 5 of 12 PageID #: 18700
`
`3. Contributory Infringement of an Asserted Claims
`
`Has Grace proven by a preponderance of the evidence that Elysium has contributed to the infringement of
`the following asserted claim?
`Checking "yes" below indicates afindingfor Grace
`Checking "no " below indicates a finding for Elysium
`
`YES (Elysium
`infringes)
`
`NO (Elysium
`does not infringe)
`
`Claim 21
`
`'05 8 Patent
`✓
`
`5
`
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-01098-GBW-JLH Document 313 Filed 08/25/23 Page 6 of 12 PageID #: 18701
`
`FINDINGS ON INVALIDITY
`
`Direction for Question 4: The questions regarding invalidity should be answered regardless of
`your findings with respect to the infringement or noninfringement of the patents.
`
`4. Anticipation of the Asserted Claims (35 U.S.C. §102(a)- On-Sale)
`Has Elysium proven by clear and convincing evidence that any of the asserted claims are invalid because
`the invention was offered for sale or sold prior to the applicable critical date? Check YES or NO for each
`claim.
`
`Checking "yes" below indicates a finding for Elysium
`Checking "no " below indicates a finding for Grace
`
`YES ( claim is
`invalid for being
`on-sale)
`
`NO (claim is not
`invalid for being
`on-sale)
`
`'058 Patent (critical date July 24, 2013)
`
`Claim 1
`
`Claim 2
`
`Claim 21
`
`✓
`,/
`1/
`
`6
`
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-01098-GBW-JLH Document 313 Filed 08/25/23 Page 7 of 12 PageID #: 18702
`
`5. Anticipation of the Asserted Claims (35 U.S.C. §102(a)-Prior Art)
`
`Question 5: Has Elysium proven by clear and convincing evidence that any of the asserted claims of the
`' 058 patent are invalid because the invention was anticipated by International Publication No. WO
`2015/186068 Al ("the GSK reference")? Check YES or NO for each claim.
`Checking "yes" below indicates ajindingfor Elysium
`Checking "no " below indicates a finding for Grace
`
`YES (claim is
`invalid for being
`anticipated)
`
`NO (claim is not
`invalid for being
`anticipated)
`
`'058 Patent (critical date July 24, 2013)
`
`Claim 1
`
`Claim 2
`
`Claim 21
`
`v
`✓
`✓
`
`7
`
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-01098-GBW-JLH Document 313 Filed 08/25/23 Page 8 of 12 PageID #: 18703
`
`6. Written Description Requirement for the Asserted Claims (35 U.S.C. §
`112(a))
`
`Has Elysium proven by clear and convincing evidence that any of the asserted claims are invalid because
`the patent specification does not contain an adequate written description of the invention? Check YES or
`NO for each claim.
`Checking "yes" below indicates afindingfor Elysium
`Checking "no " below indicates a finding for Grace
`
`YES (claim is
`invalid for lack
`of written
`description)
`
`NO (claim is not
`invalid for lack of
`written
`description)
`
`YES (claim is
`invalid for lack
`of written
`description)
`
`NO (claim is not
`invalid for lack of
`written
`description)
`
`' 058 Patent
`
`' 872 Patent
`
`Claim 1
`
`Claim 2
`
`Claim 21
`
`,/
`✓
`✓
`
`Claim 1
`
`Claim 6
`
`Claim 15
`
`✓
`✓
`✓
`
`8
`
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-01098-GBW-JLH Document 313 Filed 08/25/23 Page 9 of 12 PageID #: 18704
`
`7. Enablement of the Asserted Claims (35 U.S.C. §112(a))
`
`Has Elysium proven by clear and convincing evidence that any of the asserted claims are invalid because
`the patent specification does not enable persons of ordinary skill in the field to make or use the
`invention? Check YES or NO for each claim.
`Checking "yes" below indicates afindingfor Elysium
`Checking "no " below indicates afindingfor Grace
`
`YES ( claim is
`invalid for lack
`of enablement)
`
`NO (claim is not
`invalid for lack of
`enablement)
`
`YES ( claim is
`invalid for lack
`of enablement)
`
`NO (claim is not
`invalid for lack of
`enablement)
`
`' 058 Patent
`
`' 872 Patent
`
`Claim I
`
`Claim 2
`
`Claim 21
`
`✓
`✓
`✓
`
`Claim I
`
`Claim 6
`
`Claim 15
`
`✓
`✓
`✓
`
`9
`
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-01098-GBW-JLH Document 313 Filed 08/25/23 Page 10 of 12 PageID #: 18705
`
`8. Indefiniteness of the Certain Asserted Claims (35 U.S.C. §112(b))
`
`Has Elysium proven by clear and convincing evidence that any of the asserted claims are invalid for
`indefiniteness? Check YES or NO for each claim.
`Checking ''yes " below indicates afindingfor Elysium
`Checking "no " below indicates a finding for Grace
`
`YES (claim is
`invalid for lack
`of enablement)
`
`NO (claim is not
`invalid for lack of
`enablement)
`
`YES ( claim is
`invalid for lack
`of enablement)
`
`NO (claim is not
`invalid for lack of
`enablement)
`
`'058 Patent
`
`' 872 Patent
`
`l/
`✓/
`✓
`
`Claim 1
`
`Claim 6
`
`Claim 15
`
`,/
`✓
`✓
`
`Claim 1
`
`Claim 2
`
`Claim 21
`
`10
`
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-01098-GBW-JLH Document 313 Filed 08/25/23 Page 11 of 12 PageID #: 18706
`
`FINDINGS ON DAMAGES {IF APPLICABLE)
`
`If you answered "yes" for any claims in questions 1-3 and did not answer "yes" for those claims
`in questions 4-8, answer the following questions.
`
`Question 9: What is (a) the reasonable royalty rate (in percent), (b) the royalty base (in dollars),
`and (c) the total amount of damages (in dollars) that results from applying the reasonable royalty
`rate to the royalty base, that Grace has proven by a preponderance of the evidence would
`compensate it for Elysium's infringement for the time period from August 21, 2020 to March 31,
`2023?
`
`a) Royalty Rate: !1£%
`b) Royalty Base: $ ~ll ,~~~ ~~o
`c) Total Damages:$ d 14tfb,9'q5
`
`Question 10: What is (a) the reasonable royalty rate (in percent), (b) the royalty base (in dollars),
`and ( c) the total amount of damages (in dollars) that results from applying the reasonable royalty
`rate to the royalty base, that Grace has proven by a preponderance of the evidence would
`compensate it for Elysium' s infringement for the time period from July 2017 to January 29,
`2019?
`
`a) Royalty Rate: 3-~5%
`b) Royalty Base: $ ~]l 5% t'cto(
`c) Total Damages:$ I I >hd ,1st{
`
`11
`
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-01098-GBW-JLH Document 313 Filed 08/25/23 Page 12 of 12 PageID #: 18707
`
`FINDINGS ON WILLFUL INFRINGEMENT QF APPLICABLE)
`
`Direction for Question ll(a): Only answer Question 1 l(a) if you answered "yes" for any claims
`of the '058 patent in questions 1-3 and did not answer ''yes" for those claims in questions 4-8.
`
`Otherwise, skip Questions 1 l(a) and proceed to the Directions for Question 1 l(b).
`
`Question ll(a): Has Grace proven by a preponderance of the evidence that Elysium willfully infringed
`any valid asserted claim of the '058 patent?
`
`Checking "yes" below indicates a.finding for Grace
`Checking "no" below indicates a.finding for Elysium
`Yes ✓ No
`
`Direction for Question ll(b): Only answer Question 1 l(b) if you answered ''yes" for any
`claims of the '872 patent in question 1 and did not answer ''yes" for those claims in questions 6-
`8.
`
`Question ll(b): Has Grace proven by a preponderance of the evidence that Elysium willfully infringed
`any valid asserted claim of the ' 872 patent?
`
`Checking "yes" below indicates a.finding for Grace
`Checkin~ 'no " below indicates a finding for Elysium
`
`Yes
`
`,./ No
`
`*
`
`*
`
`*
`
`You have now reached the end of the verdict form and should review it to ensure that it
`accurately reflects your unanimous decisions. The Foreperson should then sign and date the
`verdict form in the spaces below and notify the Courtroom Deputy that you have reached a
`verdict. The Foreperson should retain possession of the verdict form and bring it when the jury
`is brought back into the courtroom.
`
`Date: August 1 :) , 2023
`
`12
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
