Case 1:11-cv-00173-SLR Document 300 Filed 05/03/13 Page 1 of 5 PageID #: 14099

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE

CELLECTIS S.A., Plaintiff, v.

)
)

)
)

) Civ. No. 11-173-SLR ) PRECISION BIOSCIENCES, INC. and ) PRECISION PLANTSCIENCES, INC., ) ) D~endan~. )

VERDICT SHEET

Dated: April 30, 2013

Case 1:11-cv-00173-SLR Document 300 Filed 05/03/13 Page 2 of 5 PageID #: 14100

We, the jury, unanimously find as follows:

I. INFRINGEMENT

A. Direct Infringement
1. Do you find that Cellectis has proven, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Precision's meganucleases literally infringe any of the asserted claims of U.S. Patent No. 7,897,372 ("the '372 patent")?

Checking 'yes" below indicates a finding for Cel/ectis. Checking "no" below indicates a finding for Precision.
Claim 37 Claim 40 Claim 50 Yes- - - Yes- - - Yes_ _ __ No_ _,x'---·_

No_.....!..X~-

X No- --

2. Do you find that Cellectis has proven, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Precision's meganucleases infringe any of the asserted claims of the '372 patent under the doctrine of equivalents?

Checking "yes" below indicates a finding for Cel/ectis. Checking "no" below indicates a finding for Precision.
Claim 37 Claim 40 Claim 50 Yes----=---Yes- - - Yes

X

No_ _ __ No

X

X

No_ _ __

If you answered "no" to questions 1 and 2, please proceed to question 5. If you answered "yes" to questions 1 and/or 2, please proceed to question 3.
Continue to the next page.

Case 1:11-cv-00173-SLR Document 300 Filed 05/03/13 Page 3 of 5 PageID #: 14101

B. Indirect Infringement
3. Do you find that Cellectis has proven, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Precision has induced the infringement of any asserted claim of the '372 patent?
Checking 'yes" below indicates a finding for Cellectis. Checking "no" below indicates a finding for Precision.

Yes_ _ __

No

X

4. Do you find that Cellectis has proven, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Precision has contributed to the infringement of any asserted claim of the '372 patent?
Checking "yes" below indicates a finding for Cel/ectis. Checking "no" below indicates a finding for Precision.

Yes_ _ __
Continue to the next page.

No_....jX~-

Case 1:11-cv-00173-SLR Document 300 Filed 05/03/13 Page 4 of 5 PageID #: 14102

II. INVALIDITY
A. Obviousness

5. Do you find that Precision has proven, by clear and convincing evidence, that any asserted claim of the '372 patent is invalid because the subject matter of the claim would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention?

Checking "no" below indicates a finding for Cellectis. Checking "yes" below indicates a finding for Precision.
Claim 37 Claim 40 Claim 50 No_ _ __ No- - - No- - - -

X Yes----'--y es_--!-x-"--_
Yes- - - -

X

B. Written Description

6. Do you find that Precision has proven, by clear and convincing evidence, that any asserted claim of the '372 patent is invalid for lack of an adequate written description?

Checking "no" below indicates a finding for Cellectis. Checking 'yes" below indicates a finding for Precision.
Claim 37 Claim 40 Claim 50
Continue to the next page.

No No No

Yes Yes Yes

x
X
X

Case 1:11-cv-00173-SLR Document 300 Filed 05/03/13 Page 5 of 5 PageID #: 14103

Ill. UNFAIR COMPETITION
7. Do you find that Cellectis has proven, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Precision competed unfairly by making a false or misleading statement on its website in violation of the Lanham Act?

Checking "yes" below indicates a finding for Cellectis. Checking "no" below indicates a finding for Precision.
Yes_ _ __

No_..-~.X~-

8. Do you find that Cellectis has proven, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Precision competed unfairly by making a false or misleading statement on its website in violation of the Delaware Unfair Competition Law?

Checking 'yes" below indicates a finding for Cel/ectis. Checking "no" below indicates a finding for Precision.
Yes- - - Continue to the next page.

No__X,____

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful