CARRIER CORPORATION, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Civ. No. 12-930-SLR ) GOODMAN GLOBAL, INC., ) GOODMAN MANUFACTURING ) COMPANY, L.P., GOODMAN GLOBAL ) HOLDINGS, INC., GOODMAN ) DISTRIBUTION, INC., AND ) GOODMAN SALES COMPANY, ) ) Defendants, ) VERDICT SHEET Dated: September 12, 2014 We, the jury, unanimously find as follows: I. INFRINGEMENT A. Direct Infringement 1. Has Carrier proven, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Goodman directly infringes any of the following claims of U.S. Patent No. 7,243,004 ("the '004 patent") by making, using, offering to sell, or selling the accused ComfortNet System? Checking "yes" below indicates a finding for Carrier. Checking "no" below indicates a finding for Goodman. a. The accused ComfortNet System with CTK01 thermostats? Claim6 Yes / No ---- ---- Claim 8 Yes / --=---- No ---- Claim 13 Y e s _ ~ / __ _ No ---- b. The accused ComfortNet System with CTK02 thermostats? Claim 6 Yes / --'--- No ---- Claim 8 Yes / _......:...,__ __ No ---- Claim 13 Yes / ~ No ---- c. The accused ComfortNet System with CTK03 thermostats? Claim 6 Yes /' No ---- Claim 8 Yes / No Yes 7 Claim 13 ---- No ___ _ If you answered "no" to question 1, please proceed to question 3. If you answered "yes" to any parts of question 1, please proceed to question 2. Continue to the next page. B. Indirect Infringement 2. Has Carrier proven, by a preponderance of the evidence, that prior to September 1, 2012, Goodman induced others to infringe any of the claims of the '004 patent that you found to be directly infringed? Checking "yes" below indicates a finding for Carrier. Checking "no" below indicates a finding for Goodman. Yes __ /..:...__ __ No ___ _ II. INVALIDITY A. Obviousness 3. Has Goodman proven, by clear and convincing evidence, that any of the following claims are invalid because they would have been obvious to one of skill in the art at the time of the '004 patent invention? Checking "no" below indicates a finding for Carrier. Checking "yes" below indicates a finding for Goodman. Claim 6 Claim 8 Claim 13 Continue to the next page. Yes ---- Yes ---- Yes ---- No_/.1.___ No / No /
Reckitt Benckiser Pharmaceuticals Inc., Et Al. v. Watson Laboratories, Inc., Et Al., C.A. No. 13-1674-RGA v. Par Pharmaceutical, Inc., Et Al., C.A. No. 14-422-RGA (D. Del. June 3, 2016)
Blackbird Tech LLC d/b/a Blackbird Technologies v. Service Lighting and Electrical Supplies, Inc. d/b/a 1000bulbs.com et al., C.A. Nos. 15-53-RGA, 15-56-RGA, 15-57-RGA, 15-58-RGA, 15-59-RGA, 15-60-RGA, 15-61-RGA, 15-62-RGA, 15-63-RGA (D. Del. May 18, 2016).