Case assumes-449' Filed 03/03/17 "page 1 of 14 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS SPRINT COMMUNICATIONS COMPANY L.P., Plaintiff, v. Case No. 1-2686-IWL TIME WARNER CABLE, INC., et al., Defendants. VERDICT FORM We, the jury, impaneled and sworn in the above~entitled case, upon our oaths, do make the following answers to the questions propounded by the Court: Please answer each ofthe sabparts of Questions 1 through 19. 1. Claim 1 of the ?084 Patent Do you ?nd that Sprint has proved, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Time Warner Cable?s accused system literally infringed Claim 1 of the ?0184 Patent? Yes No Do you ?nd that Sprint has proved, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Time Warner Cable?s accused system infringed Claim 1 of the ?084 Patent under of equivalents? Yes 0 0. Do you ?nd that Time Warner Cable has proved, by clear and convincing evidence, that Claim 1 of the ?084 Patent is invalid because it does not satisfy the written description requirement? Yes N0 4 d. Do you ?nd that Time Warner Cable has proved, by clear and convincing evidence, that Claim 1 of the ?084 Patent is invalid as anticipated? Yes N0 4 e. Do you ?nd that Time Warner Cable has proved, by clear and convincing evidence, that Claim 1 of the ?084 Patent is invalid as obvious? f. Yes No 2. Claim 7 of the ?084 Patent (dependent claim to independent Claim 1) a. Do you ?nd that Sprint has proved, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Time Warner Cable?s accused system infringed Claim 7 of the ?084 Patent? Yes No b. Do you ?nd that Time Warner Cable has proved, by clear and convincing evidence, that Claim 7 of the ?084 Patent is invalid because it does not satisfy the written description requirement? Yes No i 0. Do you ?nd that Time Warner Cable has proved, by clear and convincing evidence, that Claim 7 of the ?084 Patent is invalid as anticipated? Yes No if! d. Do you ?nd that Time Warner Cable has proved, by clear and convincing evidence, that Claim 7 of the ?084 Patent is invalid as obvious? Yes No 3. 4. 'Docu?m?ht?azig Pag?li?liofl121" Claim 1 of the ?561 Patent a. Do you that Sprint has proved, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Time Warner Cable?s accused system infringed Claim 1 of the ?561 Patent? Yes 55 N0 Do you find that Time Warner Cable has proved, by clear and convincing evidence, that Claim 1 of the ?561 Patent is invalid because it does not satisfy the written description requirement? Yes No Do you find that Time Warner Cable has proved, by clear and convincing evidence, that Claim 1 of the ?561 Patent is invalid as anticipated? Yes No Do you find that Time Warner Cable has proved, by clear and convincing evidence, that Claim 1 of the ?561 Patent is invalid as obvious? Yes No Claim 3 of the ?5 61 Patent (dependent claim to independent Claim 1) a. Do you ?nd that Sprint has proved, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Time Warner Cable?s accused system infringed Claim 3 of the ?561 Patent? Yes No Do you find that Time Warner Cable has proved, by clear and convincing evidence, that Claim 3 of the ?561 Patent is invalid because it does not satisfy the written description requirement? Yes No Case Ddcum'en't 449' Filed 02:76am page-"21 of 14 0. Do you ?nd that Time Warner Cable has proved, by clear and convincing evidence, that Claim 3 of the ?561 Patent is invalid as obvious? Yes No 5. Claim 15 of the ?561 Patent (dependent claim to independent Claim 1) a. Do you ?nd that Sprint has proved, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Time Warner Cable?s accused system infringed Claim 15 of the ?5 61 Patent? Yes N0 b. Do you ?nd that Time Warner Cable has proved, by clear and convincing evidence, that Claim 15 of the ?561 Patent is invalid because it does not satisfy the written description requirement? Yes No 0. Do you ?nd that Time Warner Cable has proved, by clear and convincing evidence, that Claim 15 of the ?561 Patent is invalid as anticipated? Yes No i d. Do you ?nd that Time Warner Cable has proved, by clear and convincing evidence, that Claim 15 of the ?561 Patent is invalid as obvious? Yes No 4? Case? Document-E449- Filed C?7bBll7 Page's (if-1:4 6. Claim 23 of the ?561 Patent (dependent claim to independent Claim 1) a. Do you ?nd that Sprint has proved, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Time Warner Cable?s accused system infringed Claim 23 of the ?5 61 Patent? I Yes N0 b. Do you ?nd that Time Warner Cable has proved, by clear and convincing evidence, that Claim 23 of the ?561 Patent is invalid because it does not satisfy the written description requirement? Yes No 0. Do you ?nd that Time Warner Cable has proved, by clear and convincing evidence, that Claim 23 of the ?5 61 Patent is invalid as anticipated? Yes N0 M: d. Do you find that Time Warner Cable has proved, by clear and convincing evidence, that Claim 23 of the ?5 61 Patent is invalid as obvious? Yes No 7. Claim 24 of the ?561 Patent a. Do you ?nd that Sprint has proved, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Time Warner Cable?s accused system infringed Claim 24 of the ?561 Patent? Yes N0 mm b. Do you ?nd that Time Warner Cable has proved, by clear and convincing evidence, that Claim 24 of the ?561 Patent is invalid because it does not satisfy the written description requirement? Yes No case Dada-mam 44?'iril'Filed 03/03/17 Page 6 of 14 0. Do you ?nd that Time Warner Cable has proved, by clear and convincing evidence, that Claim 24 of the ?561 Patth is invalid as anticipated? Yes No d. Do you ?nd that Time Warner Cable has proved, by clear and convincing evidence, that Claim 24 of the ?561 Patent is invalid as obvious? Yes No 8. Claim 26 of the ?561 Patent dependent claim to independent Claim 24) a. Do you ?nd that Sprint has proved, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Time Warner Cable?s accused system infringed Claim 26 of the ?5 61 Patent? Yes No b. Do you ?nd that Time Warner Cable has proved, by clear and convincing evidence, that Claim 26 of the ?561 Patth is invalid because it does not satisfy the written description requirement? Yes No 0. Do you find that Time Warner Cable has proved, by clear and convincing evidence, that Claim 26 of the ?561 Patent is invalid as obvious? Yes No I Case Dioicum?ht' 449 Fiiled 03/03/17 I Page 7 of 14 I 9. 10. Claim 38 of the ?5 61 Patent (dependent claim to independent Claim 24) Claim Do you ?nd that Sprint has proved, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Time Warner Cable?s accused system infringed Claim 38 of the ?5561 Patent? Yes No Do you find that Time Warner Cable has proved, by clear and convincing evidence, that Claim 38 of the ?561 Patent is invalid because it does not satisfy the written description requirement? Yes No 414/ Do you ?nd that Time Warner Cable has proved, by clear and convincing evidence, that Claim 38 of the ?5 61 Patent is invalid as anticipated? Yes N0 Do you ?nd that Time Warner Cable has proved, by clear and convincing evidence, that Claim 38 of the ?561 Patent is invalid as obvious? Yes No of the ?052 Patent Do you ?nd that Sprint has proved, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Time Warner Cable?s accused system infringed Claim 1 of the ?052 Patent? Yes No Do you ?nd that Time Warner Cable has proved, by clear and convincing evidence, that Claim 1 of the ?052 Patent is invalid because it does not satisfy the written description requirement? Yes No "Document 449" r?n?dos/osm? ?Page 8 Of 14 c. Do you ?nd that Time Warner Cable has proved, by clear and convincing evidence, that Claim 1 of the ?052 Patent is invalid as anticipated? Yes No d. Do you ?nd that Time Warner Cable has proved, by clear and convincing evidence, that Claim 1 of the ?052 Patth is invalid as obvious? Yes No 11. Claim 3 of the ?052 Patent (dependent claim to independent Claim 1) a. Do you that Sprint has proved, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Time Warner Cable?s accused system infringed Claim 3 of the ?052 Patent? Yes NO b. Do you ?nd that Time Warner Cable has proved, by clear and convincing evidence, that Claim 3 of the ?052 Patth is invalid because it does not satisfy the written description requirement? Yes No 0. Do you ?nd that Time Warner Cable has proved, by clear and convincing evidence, that Claim 3 of the ?052 Patent is invalid as anticipated? Yes No (1. Do you ?nd that Time Warner Cable has proved, by clear and convincing evidence, that Claim 3 of the ?052 Patent is invalid as obvious? Yes No ?Ease Document 449 'Filed'03/03/17 I Page 9"of 14 12. Claim 4 of the ?052 Patent (dependent claim to independent Claim 1) a. Do you ?nd that Sprint has proved, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Time Warner Cable?s accused system infringed Claim 4 of the ?052 Patent? Yes No b. Do you ?nd that Time Warner Cable has proved, by clear and convincing evidence, that Claim 4 of the ?052 Patent is invalid because it does not satisfy the written description requirement? Yes No c. Do you ?nd that Time Warner Cable has proved, by clear and convincing evidence, that Claim 4 of the ?052 Patent is invalid as anticipated? Yes No Do you ?nd that Time Warner Cable has proved, by clear and convincing evidence, that Claim 4 of the ?052 Patth is invalid as obvious? Yes No 13. Claim 5 0f the ?052 Patent (dependent claim to independent Claim 1) a. Do you ?nd that Sprint has proved, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Time Warner Cable?s accused system infringed Claim 5 of the ?052 Patent? Yes No b. Do you ?nd that Time Warner Cable has proved, by clear and convincing evidence, that Claim 5 of the ?052 Patent is invalid because it does not satisfy the written description requirement? Yes I No Case Document 449 Filled-?6370317 Page 10' of 14' 14. Claim Do you ?nd that Time Warner Cable has proved, by clear and convincing evidence, that Claim 5 of the ?052 Patent is invalid as obvious? Yes No 1 of the ?429 Patent Do you ?nd that Sprint has proved, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Time Warner Cable?s accused system literally infringed Claim 1 of the ?429 Patent? Yes No Do you ?nd that Sprint has proved, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Time Warner Cable?s accused system infringed Claim 1 of the ?429 Patent under the doctrine of equivalents? Yes 9/ No Do you ?nd that Time Warner Cable has proved, by clear and convincing evidence, that Claim 1 of the ?429 Patent is invalid because it does not satisfy the written description requirement? Yes No Do you ?nd that Time Warner Cable has proved, by clear and convincing evidence, that Claim 1 of the ?429 Patent is invalid as anticipated? Yes No Do you ?nd that Time Warner Cable has proved, by clear and convincing evidence, that Claim 1 of the ?429 Patent is invalid as obvious? Yes No 10 15. 16. Case Documenizztg' Filed'os703/17 Page 11 of 14 Claim 5 of the ?429 Patent (dependent claim to independent Claim 1) a. Do you ?nd that Sprint has proved, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Time Warner Cable?s accused system infringed Claim 5 of the ?429 Patent? Yes No Do you ?nd that Time Warner Cable has proved, by clear and convincing evidence, that Claim 5 of the ?429 Patent is invalid because it does not satisfy the written description requirement? Yes No Do you ?nd that Time Warner Cable has proved, by clear and convincing evidence, that Claim 5 of the ?429 Patent is invalid as anticipated? Yes No tx/ Do you ?nd that Time Warner Cable has proved, by clear and convincing evidence, that Claim 5 of the ?429 Patent is invalid as obvious? Yes No Claim 7 of the ?429 Patent dependent claim to independent Claim 1) a. Do you ?nd that Sprint has proved, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Time Warner Cable?s accused system infringed Claim 7 of the ?429 Patent? Yes No Do you ?nd that Time Warner Cable has proved, by clear and convincing evidence, that Claim 7 of the ?429 Patent is invalid because it does not satisfy the written description requirement? Yes No ll 17. Case? 2: Claim Filed 03/03/17 Page 12 of '14 Do you ?nd that Time Warner Cable has proved, by clear and convincing evidence, that Claim 7 of the ?429 Patent is invalid as obvious? Yes No 1 of the ?064 Patent Do you ?nd that Sprint has proved, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Time Warner Cable?s accused system literally infringed Claim 1 of the ?064 Patent? Yes No DO you ?nd that Sprint has proved, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Time Warner Cable?s accused system infringed Claim 1 of the ?064 Patent under the doctrine of equivalents? Yes No Do you ?nd that Time Warner Cable has proved, by clear and convincing evidence, that Claim 1 of the ?064 Patent is invalid because it does not satisfy the written description requirement? Yes No /i Do you ?nd that Time Warner Cable has proved, by clear and convincing evidence, that Claim 1 of the ?064 Patent is invalid as anticipated? Yes No Mf- Do you ?nd that Time Warner Cable has proved, by clear and convincing evidence, that Claim 1 of the ?064 Patent is invalid as obvious? Yes No 12 Document 449 Filed'03/03/17 Page 13 of 14 I 18. Claim 3 of the ?064 Patent (dependent claim to independent Claim 1) a. Do you ?nd that Sprint has proved, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Time Warner Cable?s accused system infringed Claim 3 of the ?064 Patent? Yes NO b. Do you ?nd that Time Warner Cable has proved, by clear and convincing evidence, that Claim 3 of the ?064 Patth is invalid because it does not satisfy the written description requirement? Yes No 0. Do you ?nd that Time Warner Cable has proved, by clear and convincing evidence, that Claim 3 of the ?064 Patth is invalid as anticipated? Yes No v/ d. Do you ?nd that Time Warner Cable has proved, by clear and convincing evidence, that Claim 3 of the ?064 Patent is invalid as obvious? Yes No 19. Claim 26 of the ?064 Patent (dependent claim to independent Claim 1) a. Do you ?nd that Sprint has proved, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Time Warner Cable?s accused system infringed Claim 26 of the ?064 Patent? Yes No b. Do you ?nd that Time Warner Cable has proved, by clear and convincing evidence, that Claim 26 of the ?064 Patent is invalid because it does not satisfy the written description requirement? Yes No l3 Docum?nmg Filed 03/03/17 Page 14of14 0. Do you ?nd that Time Warner Cable has proved, by clear and convincing evidence, that Claim 26 of the ?064 Patent is invalid as obvious? Yes No with respect to any patent claim addressed in Questions I through 19 above, you found that Time Warner Cable did infringe (either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents) AND that the claim is not invalid (under any theory of invalidity), please answer Questions 20, and 22; if not, please sign and date the form below, and your deliberations are complete. 20. Do you find that Sprint proved, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the appropriate date of the hypothetical royalty negotiation between the parties is 2010? Yes No 21. State the amount of damages that Sprint proved by a preponderance of the evidence, representing a reasonable royalty for Time Warner?s infringement of the asserted patent claims. it l35l?i5iWNeim 22. Do you ?nd that Sprint has proved, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Time Warner Cable?s infringement was willful? Yes No Your deliberations are complete. Please have the foreperson sign and date this verdict form and noti?z the Court that you have reached a verdict. Date Foreperson l4