Case 1:22-cv-01233-GBW Document 334 Filed 08/27/25 Page 1 of 7 PagelD #: 13753
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`
`NEXUS PHARMACEUTICALS, INC,,
`
`Plaintiff, C.A. No. 22-1233-GBW
`
`(consolidated)
`V.
`
`EXELA PHARMA SCIENCES, LLC,
`
`Defendants.
`
`[PROPOSED] VERDICT FORM
`
`Pursuant to D. Del. L.R. 51.1 and the Scheduling Order, Plaintiffs Nexus
`Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (“Nexus”) and Defendant Exela Pharma Sciences, LLC (“Exela’) submit
`
`the following Proposed Verdict Form.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 1:22-cv-01233-GBW Document 334 Filed 08/27/25 Page 2 of 7 PagelD #: 13754
`
`PROPOSED VERDICT FORM
`
`I. INFRINGEMENT
`
`A. U.S. Patent No. 11,426,369 (“the 369 patent™)
`
`1. Has Nexus proven by a preponderance of the evidence that Exela has infringed
`the following asserted claims of the *369 patent?
`
`CLAIM 6 Yes No
`
`(For Nexus) (For Exela)
`CLAIM 9 Yes No
`
`(For Nexus) (For Exela)
`
`2. If you answered yes for any claim in question A.1, has Nexus proven by a
`preponderance of the evidence that Exela’s infringement of those claims of
`the *369 patent was willful? If you did not answer yes for any claim in
`question A.1, you should skip this question and move to Section B.
`
`Yes No
`(For Nexus) (For Exela)
`
`B. U.S. Patent No. 11,571,398 (“the *398 patent™)
`
`1. Has Nexus proven by a preponderance of the evidence that Exela has infringed
`the following asserted claim of the 398 patent?
`
`CLAIM 1 Yes No
`(For Nexus) (For Exela)
`
`2. Ifyou answered yes for the claim listed in question B.1, has Nexus proven by
`a preponderance of the evidence that Exela’s infringement of claim 1 of the
`"398 patent was willful? If you did not answer yes for the claim in question
`B.1, you should skip this question and move to Section C.
`
`Yes No
`(For Nexus) (For Exela)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 1:22-cv-01233-GBW Document 334 Filed 08/27/25 Page 3 of 7 PagelD #: 13755
`
`C. U.S. Patent No. 11,464,752 (“the ’752 patent™)
`
`1. Has Nexus proven by a preponderance of the evidence that Exela has infringed
`the following asserted claim of the *752 patent?
`
`CLAIM 7 Yes No
`(For Nexus) (For Exela)
`
`2. If you answered yes for the claim in question C.1, has Nexus proven by a
`preponderance of the evidence that Exela’s infringement of claim 1 of the 752
`patent was willful? If you did not answer yes for the claim in question C.1, you
`should skip this question and move to Section II.
`
`Yes No
`(For Nexus) (For Exela)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 1:22-cv-01233-GBW Document 334 Filed 08/27/25 Page 4 of 7 PagelD #: 13756
`
`II. INVALIDITY
`
`A. U.S. Patent No. 11,426,369 (“the 369 patent™)
`
`1. Has Exela proven by clear and convincing evidence that the following
`asserted claims of the *369 patent are invalid as obvious?
`
`CLAIM 6 Yes No
`
`(For Exela) (For Nexus)
`CLAIM 9 Yes No
`
`(For Exela) (For Nexus)
`
`2. Has Exela proven by clear and convincing evidence that the following
`asserted claims of the *369 patent are invalid for lack of written description?
`
`CLAIM 6 Yes No
`
`(For Exela) (For Nexus)
`CLAIM 9 Yes No
`
`(For Exela) (For Nexus)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 1:22-cv-01233-GBW Document 334 Filed 08/27/25 Page 5 of 7 PagelD #: 13757
`
`B. U.S. Patent No. 11,571,398 (“the 398 patent™)
`
`1. Has Exela proven by clear and convincing evidence that the following
`asserted claim of the *398 patent is invalid as obvious?
`
`CLAIM 1 Yes No
`(For Exela) (For Nexus)
`
`2. Has Exela proven by clear and convincing evidence that the following
`asserted claims of the 398 patent is invalid for lack of written description?
`
`CLAIM 1 Yes No
`(For Exela) (For Nexus)
`
`C. U.S. Patent No. 11.464.752 (“the *752 patent”)
`
`1. Has Exela proven by clear and convincing evidence that the following asserted
`claim of the *752 patent is invalid as obvious?
`
`CLAIM 7 Yes No
`(For Exela) (For Nexus)
`
`2. Has Exela proven by clear and convincing evidence that the following asserted
`claim of the *752 patent is invalid for lack of written description?
`
`CLAIM 7 Yes No
`(For Exela) (For Nexus)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 1:22-cv-01233-GBW Document 334 Filed 08/27/25 Page 6 of 7 PagelD #: 13758
`
`III. DAMAGES
`
`If you answered “Yes” to any asserted claim in Section I on Infringement, and answered
`“No” for the same claim(s) in Section II (i.e., if you found any asserted claim to be both
`infringed and valid), proceed to answering the remaining questions. Otherwise, you should leave
`
`this section blank.
`
`A. LOST PROFITS DAMAGES
`
`If Nexus has proven by a preponderance of the evidence that it is entitled to damages in
`the form of lost profits, what is the amount of lost profits damages that Nexus is entitled
`to?
`
`$
`
`B. PRICE EROSION
`
`If Nexus has proven by a preponderance of the evidence that it is entitled to damages in
`the form of price erosion, what is the amount of price erosion damages that Nexus is
`entitled to?
`
`$
`
`C. REASONABLE ROYALTY DAMAGES
`
`If you find that lost profits are not applicable, or that lost profits apply to less than all of
`Exela’s sales, what amount of reasonable royalty damages has Nexus proven it is entitled
`to by a preponderance of the evidence?
`
`$
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 1:22-cv-01233-GBW Document 334 Filed 08/27/25 Page 7 of 7 PagelD #: 13759
`
`You have now reached the end of the verdict form and you should review it to ensure it
`accurately reflects your unanimous determinations. You must each sign the verdict form in the
`spaces below and notify the Jury Officer after you have reached a verdict.
`
`Dated: , 2025
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`
`NEXUS PHARMACEUTICALS, INC,,
`
`Plaintiff, C.A. No. 22-1233-GBW
`
`(consolidated)
`V.
`
`EXELA PHARMA SCIENCES, LLC,
`
`Defendants.
`
`[PROPOSED] VERDICT FORM
`
`Pursuant to D. Del. L.R. 51.1 and the Scheduling Order, Plaintiffs Nexus
`Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (“Nexus”) and Defendant Exela Pharma Sciences, LLC (“Exela’) submit
`
`the following Proposed Verdict Form.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 1:22-cv-01233-GBW Document 334 Filed 08/27/25 Page 2 of 7 PagelD #: 13754
`
`PROPOSED VERDICT FORM
`
`I. INFRINGEMENT
`
`A. U.S. Patent No. 11,426,369 (“the 369 patent™)
`
`1. Has Nexus proven by a preponderance of the evidence that Exela has infringed
`the following asserted claims of the *369 patent?
`
`CLAIM 6 Yes No
`
`(For Nexus) (For Exela)
`CLAIM 9 Yes No
`
`(For Nexus) (For Exela)
`
`2. If you answered yes for any claim in question A.1, has Nexus proven by a
`preponderance of the evidence that Exela’s infringement of those claims of
`the *369 patent was willful? If you did not answer yes for any claim in
`question A.1, you should skip this question and move to Section B.
`
`Yes No
`(For Nexus) (For Exela)
`
`B. U.S. Patent No. 11,571,398 (“the *398 patent™)
`
`1. Has Nexus proven by a preponderance of the evidence that Exela has infringed
`the following asserted claim of the 398 patent?
`
`CLAIM 1 Yes No
`(For Nexus) (For Exela)
`
`2. Ifyou answered yes for the claim listed in question B.1, has Nexus proven by
`a preponderance of the evidence that Exela’s infringement of claim 1 of the
`"398 patent was willful? If you did not answer yes for the claim in question
`B.1, you should skip this question and move to Section C.
`
`Yes No
`(For Nexus) (For Exela)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 1:22-cv-01233-GBW Document 334 Filed 08/27/25 Page 3 of 7 PagelD #: 13755
`
`C. U.S. Patent No. 11,464,752 (“the ’752 patent™)
`
`1. Has Nexus proven by a preponderance of the evidence that Exela has infringed
`the following asserted claim of the *752 patent?
`
`CLAIM 7 Yes No
`(For Nexus) (For Exela)
`
`2. If you answered yes for the claim in question C.1, has Nexus proven by a
`preponderance of the evidence that Exela’s infringement of claim 1 of the 752
`patent was willful? If you did not answer yes for the claim in question C.1, you
`should skip this question and move to Section II.
`
`Yes No
`(For Nexus) (For Exela)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 1:22-cv-01233-GBW Document 334 Filed 08/27/25 Page 4 of 7 PagelD #: 13756
`
`II. INVALIDITY
`
`A. U.S. Patent No. 11,426,369 (“the 369 patent™)
`
`1. Has Exela proven by clear and convincing evidence that the following
`asserted claims of the *369 patent are invalid as obvious?
`
`CLAIM 6 Yes No
`
`(For Exela) (For Nexus)
`CLAIM 9 Yes No
`
`(For Exela) (For Nexus)
`
`2. Has Exela proven by clear and convincing evidence that the following
`asserted claims of the *369 patent are invalid for lack of written description?
`
`CLAIM 6 Yes No
`
`(For Exela) (For Nexus)
`CLAIM 9 Yes No
`
`(For Exela) (For Nexus)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 1:22-cv-01233-GBW Document 334 Filed 08/27/25 Page 5 of 7 PagelD #: 13757
`
`B. U.S. Patent No. 11,571,398 (“the 398 patent™)
`
`1. Has Exela proven by clear and convincing evidence that the following
`asserted claim of the *398 patent is invalid as obvious?
`
`CLAIM 1 Yes No
`(For Exela) (For Nexus)
`
`2. Has Exela proven by clear and convincing evidence that the following
`asserted claims of the 398 patent is invalid for lack of written description?
`
`CLAIM 1 Yes No
`(For Exela) (For Nexus)
`
`C. U.S. Patent No. 11.464.752 (“the *752 patent”)
`
`1. Has Exela proven by clear and convincing evidence that the following asserted
`claim of the *752 patent is invalid as obvious?
`
`CLAIM 7 Yes No
`(For Exela) (For Nexus)
`
`2. Has Exela proven by clear and convincing evidence that the following asserted
`claim of the *752 patent is invalid for lack of written description?
`
`CLAIM 7 Yes No
`(For Exela) (For Nexus)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 1:22-cv-01233-GBW Document 334 Filed 08/27/25 Page 6 of 7 PagelD #: 13758
`
`III. DAMAGES
`
`If you answered “Yes” to any asserted claim in Section I on Infringement, and answered
`“No” for the same claim(s) in Section II (i.e., if you found any asserted claim to be both
`infringed and valid), proceed to answering the remaining questions. Otherwise, you should leave
`
`this section blank.
`
`A. LOST PROFITS DAMAGES
`
`If Nexus has proven by a preponderance of the evidence that it is entitled to damages in
`the form of lost profits, what is the amount of lost profits damages that Nexus is entitled
`to?
`
`$
`
`B. PRICE EROSION
`
`If Nexus has proven by a preponderance of the evidence that it is entitled to damages in
`the form of price erosion, what is the amount of price erosion damages that Nexus is
`entitled to?
`
`$
`
`C. REASONABLE ROYALTY DAMAGES
`
`If you find that lost profits are not applicable, or that lost profits apply to less than all of
`Exela’s sales, what amount of reasonable royalty damages has Nexus proven it is entitled
`to by a preponderance of the evidence?
`
`$
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 1:22-cv-01233-GBW Document 334 Filed 08/27/25 Page 7 of 7 PagelD #: 13759
`
`You have now reached the end of the verdict form and you should review it to ensure it
`accurately reflects your unanimous determinations. You must each sign the verdict form in the
`spaces below and notify the Jury Officer after you have reached a verdict.
`
`Dated: , 2025
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
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
