throbber

`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLIN
`
`1:17CV687
`
`) )
`
`)
`
`:
`:
`:
`
`OPTOLUM,
`
`INC.,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`Vv.
`INC.,
`Defendant.
`
`CREE,
`
`VERDICT FORM
`
`INFRINGEMENT
`
`Lis
`
`Has OptoLum proved by a preponderance of the evidence
`
`that Cree literally infringed any of the following claims of the
`
`‘303 Patent as to the Multi-Ring Bulb?
`
`For each asserted claim please check “Yes” or “No” below.
`
`Claim 2
`Claim 3
`Claim 4
`Claim 6
`
`Claim 7
`Claim 8
`Claim 9
`
`YES
`(for OptoLum)
`
`NO
`(for Cree)
`v
`vO
`fi
`v
`
`Y
`A
`Sf
`
`Case 1:17-cv-00687-WO-JLW Document 342 Filed 11/09/21 Page 1 of 6
`Case 1:17-cv-00687-WO-JLW Document 342 Filed 11/09/21 Page 1 of 6
`
`

`

`2.
`
`Has OptoLum proved by a preponderance of the evidence
`
`that Cree literally infringed any of the following claims of the
`
`‘028 Patent as to the Multi-Ring Bulb?
`
`For each asserted claim please check “Yes” or “No” below.
`
`YES
`(for OptoLum)
`
`NO
`(for Cree)
`
`ANSISIASSISS
`
`Claim 1
`
`Claim 2
`
`Claim 3
`
`Claim 5
`
`Claim 6
`
`Claim 7
`
`Claim 8
`
`Claim 14
`
`Claim 16
`
`Case 1:17-cv-00687-WO-JLW Document 342 Filed 11/09/21 Page 2 of 6
`Case 1:17-cv-00687-WO-JLW Document 342 Filed 11/09/21 Page 2 of 6
`
`

`

`OBVIOUSNESS
`
`3.
`Has Cree proven by clear and convincing evidence that
`any of the following claims of the ‘303 Patent are invalid for
`
`obviousness?
`
`For each asserted claim please check “Yes” or “No” below.
`
`Claim 2
`
`Claim 3
`
`Claim 4
`
`Claim 6
`
`Claim 7
`
`Claim 8
`
`Claim 9
`
`Case 1:17-cv-00687-WO-JLW Document 342 Filed 11/09/21 Page 3 of 6
`Case 1:17-cv-00687-WO-JLW Document 342 Filed 11/09/21 Page 3 of 6
`
`

`

`Has Cree proven by clear and convincing evidence that
`4.
`any of the following claims of the ‘028 Patent are invalid for
`
`obviousness?
`For each asserted claim please check “Yes” or “No” below.
`
`Claim 1
`Claim 2
`Claim 3
`Claim 5
`Claim 6
`
`Claim 7
`Claim 8
`Claim 14
`Claim 16
`
`.
`
`YES
`(for. ree)
`-
`
`N
`
`(for
`
`foLum)
`ee
`
`QU
`n/
`OY
`
`O~w
`Kw
`I—
`
`oe
`
`JV
`
`>J
`
`Case 1:17-cv-00687-WO-JLW Document 342 Filed 11/09/21 Page 4 of 6
`Case 1:17-cv-00687-WO-JLW Document 342 Filed 11/09/21 Page 4 of 6
`
`

`

`WRITTEN DESCRIPTION
`
`Die
`
`Has Cree proven by clear and convincing evidence that
`
`any of the following claims of the ‘028 Patent are invalid for
`
`failure to satisfy the written description requirement?
`
`For each asserted claim please check “Yes” or “No” below.
`
`NO
`(for OptoLum)
`
`Claim 1
`Claim 2
`Claim 3
`
`Claim 5
`Claim 6
`
`Claim 7
`
`Claim 8
`
`Claim 14
`
`Claim 16
`
`YES
`(for| Cree)
`OW
`ou
`O-
`
`Orv
`WY
`ae
`
`a
`
`Sq >
`XG Oro
`
`Case 1:17-cv-00687-WO-JLW Document 342 Filed 11/09/21 Page 5 of 6
`Case 1:17-cv-00687-WO-JLW Document 342 Filed 11/09/21 Page 5of6
`
`

`

`DAMAGES
`
`in the form of a royalty is OptoLum
`What amount
`6.
`entitled to recover for Cree’s sales of the Accused Products?
`
`Be
`
`This the
`
`day of November, 2021.
`
`YDA
`
`Foreperson
`
`Case 1:17-cv-00687-WO-JLW Document 342 Filed 11/09/21 Page 6 of 6
`Case 1:17-cv-00687-WO-JLW Document 342 Filed 11/09/21 Page 6 of 6
`
`

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

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.

throbber

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.

Become a Member

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

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket