Skip to main content

Full text of "USPTO Patents Application 09870801"

See other formats


IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
FOR THE DISTRICT OP DELAWARE 


ARTHROCARE CORPORATION, 
Plaintiff, 


SMITH & NEPHEW, INC. 

Defendant. 


SMITH & NEPHEW, INC., 

Counterclaim Plaintiff, 


v. 


ARTHROCARE CORPORATION, AND 
ETHICON.INC., 

Counterclaim Defendants. 


OA.No.Ol-504-SLR 


JURY VERDICT 

We, the jury, unanimously find as follows: 


L INFRINGEMENT OF ARTHROCARE'S PATENTS 


The '536 Patent 


Direct Infringement by Smith & Nephew of the '536 Patent 

1 . . Do you find that Arthrocare has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that 
Smith & Nephew has directly infringed any of the following claims of the *536 j atent with its 
Saphyre, ElectroBlade, or Control RF products? ("YES" answers to these questi >ns are findings 
for ArthroCare. "NO" answers are findings for Smith & Nephew.) 


•536 

46 

(y2> 

NO 

(fis) 

NO 

(YES) 

NO 

•536 

47 

(yes) NO 


NO 

(yes) 

NO 

•536 

56 


NO 

(yes) 

NO 

6ra) 

NO 


Inducement of Infringement by Smith & Nephew 

2. Do you find that Arthrocare has shown by a preponderance of the vidence that 
Smith & Nephew has induced infringement by others of any of the following clai as of the *536 
patent with its Saphyre, ElectroBlade, or Control RE products? ("YES" answers o these 
questions are findings for ArthroCare. "NO" answers are findings for Smith & N sphew.) 


•536 

46 

(yes) no 

('YES) NO 

(yes) NO 

•536 

47 

CxisL NO 

(YES) NO 

(yes) no 

•536 

56 

(YES) NO 

(fis) NO 

(yes) no 


1 


Contributory Infringement by Smith & Nephew 


3. Do you find that Arthrocare has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that 
Smith & Nephew has contributed to the infringement any of the following claim ; of the '536 
patent with its Saphyre, ElectroBlade, or Control RF products? ("YES" answers to these 
questions are findings for ArthroCare. "NO" answers are findings for Smith & J fephew.) 



2 


B. The '882 Patent 
Validity of ArthroCare's Certificate of Correction for the *882 Patent 


4. Do you find that Smith & Nephew has shown by clear and convincing evidence 
that the certificate of correction for claim 1 of the c 882 patent is invalid? (A "YES" answer to 
this question is a finding for Smith & Nephew. A "NO M answer is a finding for ArthroCare.) 



Answer questions 5-6 only if yon have answered "NO** in question 4. 


Inducement of Infringement by Smith & Nephew of the '882 Patent 

5. Do you find that Arthrocare has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that 
Smith & Nephew has induced infringement by others of any of the following claims of the *882 
patent with its Saphyre or Control RF products? ("YES** answers to these questions are findings 
for ArthroCare. "NO" answers are findings for Smith & Nephew.) 



3 


Contributory Infringement by Smith & Nephew of the '882 Patent 

6. Do you find that Arthrorare has sto 
Smith & Nephew has contributed to the infringement of any of the following claims of the *882 
patent with its Saphyre or Control RF products? ( <f YES" answers to these questions are findings 
for ArthroCare. *NO" answers are findings for Smith & Nephew.) 



4 


C The '592 Patent 


Inducement of Infringement by Smith & Nephew of the '592 Patent 

7. Do you find that Arthrocare has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that 
Smith & Nephew has induced infringement by others of any of the following claims of the '592 
patent with its Saphyre, ElectroBlade, or Control RF products? ("YES** answers to these 
questions are findings for ArthroCare. W answers are findings for Smith & Nephew.) 



Contributory Infringement by Smith & Nephew of the '592 Patent 

8. Do you find that Arthrocare has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that 
Smith & Nephew has contributed to the infringement of any of the following claims of the *592 
patent with its Saphyre, ElectroBlade, or Control RF products? ("YES" answers to these 
questions are findings for ArthroCare. "NO" answers are findings for Smith & Nephew.) 



O. VALIDITY OF ARTHROCARE'S PATENTS 


A. Anticipation of ArthroCare's Patents 


9. Do you find that Smith & Nephew has shown by clear and convincing evidence 
that the following claims of the patente-in-suit are invalid due to anticipation? (A "YES" answer 
to this question is a finding for Smith & Nephew. A "NO" answer is a finding for ArthroCare.) 



The '882 Patent 




7 


D. Enablement of ArthroCare's Patent 


10. Do you find that Smith & Nephew has shown by clear and convincing 
evidence that the following claims are invalid for lack of enablement? (A "YES" answer 
to this question is a finding for Smith & Nephew. A "NO" answer is a finding for 
ArthroCare.) 



8 


Each Juror should sign the verdict form to reflect that a unanimous verdict has been 
reached. 


Dated: May;2,2003 


' Foreperson 





This Page is Inserted by IFW Indexing and Scanning 
Operations and is not part of the Official Record 

BEST AVAILABLE IMAGES 

Defective images within this document are accurate representations of the original 
documents submitted by the applicant. 

Defects in the images include but are not limited to the items checked: 

□ BLACK BORDERS 

□ IMAGE CUT OFF AT TOP, BOTTOM OR SIDES 
j^f FADED TEXT OR DRAWING 

□ BLURRED OR ILLEGIBLE TEXT OR DRAWING 

□ SKEWED/SLANTED IMAGES 

□ COLOR OR BLACK AND WHITE PHOTOGRAPHS 

□ GRAY SCALE DOCUMENTS 

□ LINES OR MARKS ON ORIGINAL DOCUMENT 

□ REFERENCE(S) OR EXHIBIT(S) SUBMITTED ARE POOR QUALITY 

□ OTHER: ; __ 

IMAGES ARE BEST AVAILABLE COPY. 
As rescanning these documents will not correct the image 
problems checked, please do not report these problems to 
the IFW Image Problem Mailbox. 


S PAGE IS BLANK