United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
GENENTECH, INC., a Delaware
corporation, and TERCICA, INC., a
Delaware corporation,
Plaintiffs,
v.
INSMED INCORPORATED, a Virginia
corporation; CELTRIX PHARMACEUTICALS,
INC., a Delaware corporation; and
INSMED THERAPEUTIC PROTEINS, INC. a
Colorado Corporation,
Defendants.
/
AND RELATED COUNTERCLAIMS.
/
No. C 04-5429 CW
FINAL JURY
INSTRUCTIONS
DUTIES OF JURY TO FIND FACTS AND FOLLOW LAW
Members of the jury, now that you have heard all the evidence,
it is my duty to instruct you on the law which applies to this
case. A copy of these instructions will be available in the jury
room for you to consult if you find it necessary.
It is your duty to find the facts from all the evidence in the
case. To those facts you will apply the law as I give it to you.
Case 4:04-cv-05429-CW Document 975 Filed 11/27/2006 Page 1 of 22
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28 2
You must follow the law as I give it to you whether you agree with
it or not. You must not be influenced by any personal likes or
dislikes, opinions, prejudices, or sympathy. That means that you
must decide the case solely on the evidence before you. You will
recall that you took an oath promising to do so at the beginning of
the case.
In following my instructions, you must follow all of them and
not single out some and ignore others; they are all equally
important. You must not read into these instructions or into
anything the court may have said or done any suggestion as to what
verdict you should return -- that is a matter entirely up to you.
WHAT IS EVIDENCE
The evidence from which you are to decide what the facts are
consists of:
(1) the sworn testimony of any witness;
(2) the exhibits which have been received into evidence; and
(3) any facts to which the lawyers have agreed or stipulated.
WHAT IS NOT EVIDENCE
In reaching your verdict, you may consider only the testimony
and exhibits received into evidence. Certain things are not
evidence, and you may not consider them in deciding what the facts
are. I will list them for you:
(1) Arguments and statements by lawyers are not evidence.
The lawyers are not witnesses. What they have said in their
opening statements, will say in their closing arguments, and at
other times is intended to help you interpret the evidence, but
it is not evidence. If the facts as you remember them differ from
Case 4:04-cv-05429-CW Document 975 Filed 11/27/2006 Page 2 of 22
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28 3
the way the lawyers have stated them, your memory of them controls.
(2) Questions and objections by lawyers are not evidence.
Attorneys have a duty to their clients to object when they believe
a question is improper under the rules of evidence. You should not
be influenced by the objection or by the court's ruling on it.
(3) Testimony that has been excluded or stricken, or that
you have been instructed to disregard, is not evidence and must
not be considered. In addition, some testimony and exhibits have
been received only for a limited purpose; where I have given a
limiting instruction, you must follow it.
(4) Anything you may have seen or heard when the court was not
in session is not evidence. You are to decide the case solely on
the evidence received at the trial.
DIRECT AND CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE
Evidence may be direct or circumstantial. Direct evidence is
direct proof of a fact, such as testimony by a witness about what
the witness personally saw or heard or did. Circumstantial
evidence is proof of one or more facts from which you could find
another fact. You should consider both kinds of evidence. The law
makes no distinction between the weight to be given to either
direct or circumstantial evidence. It is for you to decide how
much weight to give to any evidence.
CREDIBILITY OF WITNESSES
In deciding the facts in this case, you may have to decide
which testimony to believe and which testimony not to believe. You
may believe everything a witness says, or part of it, or none of
it.
Case 4:04-cv-05429-CW Document 975 Filed 11/27/2006 Page 3 of 22
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28 4
In considering the testimony of any witness, you may take into
account:
(1) the opportunity and ability of the witness to see or hear
or know the things testified to;
(2) the witness' memory;
(3) the witness' manner while testifying;
(4) the witness' interest in the outcome of the case and any
bias or prejudice;
(5) whether other evidence contradicted the witness'
testimony;
(6) whether the witness made prior inconsistent statements;
(7) the reasonableness of the witness' testimony in light of
all the evidence; and
(8) any other factors that bear on believability.
The weight of the evidence as to a fact does not necessarily
depend on the number of witnesses who testify.
OPINION EVIDENCE, EXPERT WITNESSES
You have heard testimony from persons who, because of
education or experience, are permitted to state opinions and the
reasons for those opinions.
Opinion testimony should be judged just like any other
testimony. You may accept it or reject it, and give it as much
weight as you think it deserves, considering the witness' education
and experience, the reasons given for the opinion, and all the
other evidence in the case.
DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBITS NOT RECEIVED IN EVIDENCE
Certain demonstrative exhibits that have not been received in
Case 4:04-cv-05429-CW Document 975 Filed 11/27/2006 Page 4 of 22
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28 5
evidence have been shown to you in order to help explain the
evidence in the case. They are not themselves evidence or proof of
any facts. If they do not correctly reflect the evidence in the
case, you should disregard these demonstrative exhibits and
determine the facts from the underlying evidence.
SUMMARY OF CONTENTIONS
I will first give you a summary of each side's contentions
in this case. I will then tell you what each side must prove to
win on each of its contentions.
As I previously told you, Plaintiffs Genentech and Tercica
seek money damages from Defendant Insmed for allegedly directly
infringing the '287 and '414 patents by making, using, selling, and
offering for sale a product or methods that Plaintiffs argue are
covered by claims 1, 6-8, and 17 of the '287 patent and claims 1-4
and 9-10 of the '414 patent, and indirectly infringing claims 1 and
4-5 of the '151 patent by inducing or contributing to the
infringement of another. These are the asserted claims of the
'151, '287, and '414 patents. The product that is alleged to
infringe is a medication called iPlex, and the methods that are
alleged to infringe are the methods of using and making iPlex.
It has already been determined in another proceeding that
Insmed has literally infringed claims 1-4 and 9-10 of the '414
patent. You need not be concerned with that determination.
Insmed denies that it has infringed the asserted claims of the
'151 and '287 patents. Insmed contends that the asserted claims of
the '414 patent are invalid for lack of enablement and for lack of
written description.
Case 4:04-cv-05429-CW Document 975 Filed 11/27/2006 Page 5 of 22
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28 6
Your job is to decide (1) whether the asserted claims of the
'151 and '287 patents have been infringed and (2) whether any of
the asserted claims of the '414 patent are invalid.
If any claim of the patents has been infringed and is not
invalid, you will then need to decide the money damages to be
awarded to Plaintiffs to compensate them for the infringement. You
will also need to decide whether the infringement was willful.
If you decide that any infringement was willful, you may not
consider that decision in deciding on any damages award. I will
take willfulness into account later.
INTERPRETATION OF CLAIMS
I have interpreted the meaning of some of the language in the
patent claims involved in this case. You must accept those
interpretations as correct. My interpretation of the language
should not be taken as an indication that I have a view regarding
the issues of infringement and invalidity. The decisions regarding
infringement and invalidity are yours to make.
For the `151 patent:
The phrase "produce a greater anabolic state" means "promote
a greater total body weight gain as well as statural growth."
The phrase "greater anabolic state in the mammal than that
achieved using an equivalent dose of IGF-I" means "promote total
body weight gain or statural growth that is greater than whatever
total body weight gain or statural growth, if any, would be
observed if the same amount of IGF-I as is present in the
IGF-I/IGFBP-3 mixture were administered by the same route, regimen,
and schedule of administration as used in the administration of the
Case 4:04-cv-05429-CW Document 975 Filed 11/27/2006 Page 6 of 22
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28 7
IGF-I/IGFBP-3 mixture."
The term "co-administering" means "administering a mixture
of IGF-I and IGFBP-3."
The term "IGF-I" means "a polypeptide that corresponds in
amino acid sequence to insulin-like growth factor-I from any
species, including bovine, ovine, porcine, equine, and preferably
human, in native-sequence or in variant form and from any source,
whether natural, synthetic, or recombinant, provided that it will
bind to an IGFBP at the appropriate site."
The phrase "molar ratio of IGFBP-3 to IGF-I" means "the ratio
of the number of molecules of IGFBP-3 to the number of molecules of
IGF-I."
The phrase "about 0.5:1 to about 3:1" means "a ratio of about
5 molecules of IGFBP-3 to 10 molecules of IGF-I to about 30
molecules of IGFBP-3 to 10 molecules of IGF-I."
The phrase "about 0.8:1 to 1.5:1" means "a ratio of about 8
molecules of human IGFBP-3 to 10 molecules of human nativesequence,
mature IGF-I to about 15 molecules of human IGFBP-3 to
10 molecules of human native-sequence, mature IGF-I."
The phrase "effective amounts" means "the amounts of IGF-I
and IGFBP-3 co-administered produce a 'greater anabolic state in
the mammal than that achieved using an equivalent dose of IGF-I
alone.'"
For the `287 patent:
The phrase "hybridizes, under stringent conditions" means
"single strands of DNA from two sources form a stable doublestranded
structure that remains intact during manipulation in the
Case 4:04-cv-05429-CW Document 975 Filed 11/27/2006 Page 7 of 22
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28 8
following conditions: Hybridizing in 50% formamide at 5XSSC at a
temperature of 42N C. and washing the filters in 0.2XSSC at 60N C."
The phrase "the portion of the DNA sequence of FIG. 3
coding for mature BP53 or the preprotein for BP53" means "the
portion of the nucleotide sequence depicted in Figure 3 that
encodes the amino acid sequence as indicated by the positive
amino acid residues in Figure 3 (mature BP53) or the amino acid
sequence as indicated by all of the numbered amino acid residues
in Figure 3 (preprotein for BP53)."
The term "BP53" means "a mammalian insulin-like growth
factor binding protein having the amino acid sequence of Figure 3,
together with analogues and variants thereof that are capable
of specifically binding IGF-I or IGF-II."
The phrase "operably linked" refers to "juxtaposition such
that the normal function of the components can be performed."
The phrase "insulin-like Growth Factor Binding Protein" has
the same meaning as "BP53."
For the `414 patent:
The term "expression" used in claim 1 covers both fusion and
direct expression.
The term "human IGF-I" comprises the amino acid sequence
corresponding to human IGF native to human tissue; human IGF-I
does not include fusion proteins.
The phrase "exogenous to human IGF-I" means "any other source
other than the human IGF-I sequence."
The term "human IGF-I" in claim 1, and the phrase "mature
human IGF-I" in claim 9 refer to bioactive material.
Case 4:04-cv-05429-CW Document 975 Filed 11/27/2006 Page 8 of 22
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28 9
The phrase "capable of expressing" means "capable of producing
the encoded polypeptide sequence."
The phrase "prokaryotic host cell culture" means "a culture
of cells or organisms in which the genetic material is not enclosed
in a nucleus, which can be transformed with a 'replicable
expression vector'."
The phrase "culturing said recombinant host cell culture"
means "growing cells that contain DNA from another source in a
specially prepared medium."
The phrase "refractile bodies" means "protein aggregates,
also called inclusion bodies, that can be present in both the
cytoplasmic and periplasmic space of bacteria upon expression of
a DNA sequence encoding a protein."
The phrase "cleaving the fusion protein to release mature
human IGF-I having the proper amino terminus (gly)" means "the
fusion protein is separated in a manner that yields mature human
IGF-I protein with glycine at the amino terminus."
You should give the remaining terms of the asserted claims of
the `151, `287 and `414 patents their ordinary, everyday meaning.
INFRINGEMENT -- BURDEN OF PROOF
I will now instruct you on the rules you must follow in
deciding whether Plaintiffs have proven that Insmed has infringed
one or more of the asserted claims of the `151 and `287 patents.
To prove infringement of any claim by Insmed, Plaintiffs must
persuade you that it is more likely than not that Insmed has
infringed that claim.
Case 4:04-cv-05429-CW Document 975 Filed 11/27/2006 Page 9 of 22
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28 10
DIRECT INFRINGEMENT
A patent's claims define what is covered by the patent. A
product or method directly infringes a patent if it is covered by
at least one claim of the patent. This type of infringement is
called "direct infringement."
Deciding whether a claim has been directly infringed is a
two-step process. The first step is to decide the meaning of the
patent claim. I have already made this decision, and I have
already instructed you as to the meaning of the asserted patent
claims. The second step is to decide whether Insmed has made,
used, sold, or offered for sale within the United States a product
or method covered by a claim of the patent. You, the jury, make
this decision.
With one exception, you must consider each of the asserted
claims of the patent individually, and decide whether Insmed's
product or method infringes that claim. The one exception to
considering claims individually concerns dependent claims. A
dependent claim includes all of the requirements of a particular
independent claim, plus additional requirements of its own. As a
result, if you find that an independent claim is not infringed, you
must find that its dependent claims are also not infringed. On
the other hand, if you find that an independent claim has been
infringed, you must still separately decide whether the additional
requirements of its asserted dependent claims have also been
infringed. Here, claim 1 of the '287 patent is an independent
claim and claims 6-8 and 17 of the '287 patent are dependent on
claim 1. Claim 1 of the '151 patent is an independent claim and
Case 4:04-cv-05429-CW Document 975 Filed 11/27/2006 Page 10 of 22
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28 11
claims 4 and 5 of the '151 patent are dependent on claim 1.
In this case, Plaintiffs have alleged that Insmed directly
infringes claims 1, 6-8, and 17 of the `287 patent.
A company directly infringes a claim if, during the time the
patent is in force, the company makes, uses, sells, or offers to
sell a product or method that meets all the requirements of that
claim. To determine whether Insmed's product or method meets all
the requirements of the claim, you must understand the meaning of
the words in the claim and the requirements that those words
impose. I have already explained to you the meaning of some of the
words of the claims in this case. I have also explained to you
that other words in the claims should be given their ordinary,
everyday meaning.
To decide whether Insmed's product or method infringes an
asserted claim of a patent, you must compare the product or method
with the patent claim and determine whether every requirement or
limitation of the claim is included in the product or method. If
so, Insmed's product or method infringes that claim. If, however,
Insmed's product or method does not have every requirement of the
patent claim, it does not infringe. You must decide infringement
for each asserted claim separately.
INDIRECT INFRINGEMENT
Plaintiffs contend that Insmed has contributed to and actively
induced infringement by a third party of claims 1, 4 and 5 of the
`151 patent. Insmed cannot contributorily infringe or induce
infringement unless Plaintiffs prove that a third party other than
Insmed directly infringes the patent by using a product that
Case 4:04-cv-05429-CW Document 975 Filed 11/27/2006 Page 11 of 22
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28 12
includes all the requirements of an asserted claim. If there is no
direct infringement, Insmed cannot have contributed to infringement
or induced infringement. In this case, Plaintiffs contend that the
administration of iPlex to patients directly infringes the claims
of the patent, and that Insmed contributes to or induces that
infringing act.
I will now explain contributory infringement and inducing
infringement in more detail.
CONTRIBUTORY INFRINGEMENT
Plaintiffs argue that Insmed has contributed to infringement
by another of claims 1, 4 and 5 of the `151 patent. Contributory
infringement may arise if Insmed supplied something that was used
to infringe one or more of the patent claims. To prove
contributory infringement, Plaintiffs must persuade you that it is
more likely than not that a third party other than Insmed directly
infringed one or more of the asserted claims. If you are so
persuaded, Insmed contributorily infringed if:
(1) Insmed sold or supplied iPlex to a third party;
(2) iPlex is not suitable for other substantial
non-infringing use; and
(3) Insmed supplied iPlex with the knowledge that iPlex was
especially made for use in an infringing manner.
INDUCING INFRINGEMENT
Plaintiffs have alleged that Insmed induced infringement of
claims 1, 4 and 5 of the `151 patent. A company induces patent
infringement if it causes, urges, or encourages a third party to
infringe a patent. In other words, inducing infringement cannot
Case 4:04-cv-05429-CW Document 975 Filed 11/27/2006 Page 12 of 22
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28 13
occur unintentionally.
To prove inducing infringement, Plaintiffs must prove that it
is more likely than not that the following three things happened:
First, Insmed encouraged or instructed a third party how to
administer iPlex in a manner that you, the jury, find infringes the
asserted claims.
Second, Insmed knew or should have known that its
encouragement or instructions would likely result in the third
party doing that which you find to be an infringement of the
asserted patent claims; and
Third, the third party infringed the asserted patent claims.
WILLFUL INFRINGEMENT
Plaintiffs contend that Insmed has infringed the asserted
patents willfully. Asserting willful infringement requires a
higher burden of proof than proving infringement. To prove willful
infringement, Plaintiffs must persuade you it is highly probable
that Insmed had no reasonable basis for believing (1) that its
alleged product or method did not infringe the patent or (2) that
the patent was invalid.
In deciding whether Insmed committed willful infringement,
you must consider all of the facts, which include but are not
limited to:
A. Whether Insmed intentionally copied a product of
Plaintiffs covered by the patent;
B. Whether Insmed, when it knew of Plaintiffs' patent
protection, investigated the scope of the patent and formed a
good-faith belief that the patent was invalid or that it was not
Case 4:04-cv-05429-CW Document 975 Filed 11/27/2006 Page 13 of 22
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28 14
infringed;
C. Whether Insmed had a substantial defense to infringement
and reasonably believed that the defense would be successful if
litigated;
D. Whether Insmed made a good faith effort to avoid
infringing the patent; and
E. Whether Insmed relied on a legal opinion that appeared
to it to be well-supported and believable and that advised Insmed
(1) that its product or method did not infringe the patent, or (2)
that the patent was invalid.
INVALIDITY -- BURDEN OF PROOF
I will now instruct you on the rules you must follow in
deciding whether Insmed has proven that the asserted claims of
the`414 patent are invalid.
To prove invalidity of any patent claim, Insmed must persuade
you that it is highly probable that the claim is invalid. Each
claim must be considered separately.
WRITTEN DESCRIPTION REQUIREMENT
(CLAIMS 1-4 AND 9-10 OF THE `414 PATENT)
Insmed can meet its burden of proving that a patent claim is
invalid by showing that the patent does not contain an adequate
written description of the claimed invention. In the course of the
prosecution of the patent application, the claims may be changed
between the time the original patent application is first filed and
the time the patent is finally granted. An inventor may amend the
claims in his or her original application or add new claims. The
changes may narrow the scope of the claims or may broaden their
Case 4:04-cv-05429-CW Document 975 Filed 11/27/2006 Page 14 of 22
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28 15
scope. The purpose of the written description requirement is to
make sure that the inventor had in mind the invention as claimed in
the issued patent, at the time the application for the patent was
originally filed. The written description requirement is satisfied
if a person of ordinary skill in the field reading the patent
application as originally filed would recognize that the patent
application described the invention as finally claimed in the
patent. A requirement in a claim need not be specifically
disclosed in the patent application as originally filed if persons
of ordinary skill in the field would understand that the missing
requirement is necessarily implied in the patent application as
originally filed.
ENABLEMENT REQUIREMENT
(CLAIMS 1-4 AND 9-10 OF THE `414 PATENT)
Insmed can meet its burden of proving that a patent claim is
invalid by showing that the patent does not contain a description
of the claimed invention that is sufficiently full and clear to
enable persons of ordinary skill in the field to make and use the
invention. This is known as the "enablement" requirement. If a
patent claim is not enabled, it is invalid. The inventor need not
demonstrate in the specification that the inventor has actually
made the patented product or carried out the patented method. It
is enough if the inventor's description of the invention is
sufficiently full and clear to enable persons of ordinary skill in
the field to make and use the invention.
The patent is enabling if it permits persons of ordinary
skill in the field to make and use the invention without having
Case 4:04-cv-05429-CW Document 975 Filed 11/27/2006 Page 15 of 22
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28 16
to do excessive experimentation. Some amount of experimentation
to make and use the invention is allowable. The factors you may
consider in deciding whether the amount of experimentation
necessary to make or use the invention is excessive include:
the time and cost of any necessary experimentation;
how routine any necessary experimentation is in the field;
whether the patent discloses specific working examples of
the claimed invention;
the amount of guidance presented in the patent;
the nature and predictability of the field;
the level of ordinary skill in the field; and
the scope of the claimed invention.
Enablement is tested as of the date the original patent
application was first filed.
LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL
Several times in my instructions I have referred to a person
of "ordinary skill in the field."
The parties agree that, with respect to the '414 patent, a
person of ordinary skill in the field is a research scientist or
physician; in 1983 this person would usually have a graduate
degree, or be a graduate student in biochemistry or molecular
biology or a technician in an industrial lab, and have at least
three years of research in the field of molecular biology and/or
biochemistry, with knowledge of genetic engineering techniques,
protein chemistry, protein expression, purification and
characterization. In addition, a person of ordinary skill in the
field would be familiar with the main publications concerning gene
Case 4:04-cv-05429-CW Document 975 Filed 11/27/2006 Page 16 of 22
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28 17
cloning, expression vectors, the expression of foreign genes in
bacteria and mammalian cells, and the processes and challenges in
recovering biologically active recombinant proteins from various
expression systems.
DAMAGES
I will instruct you about the measure of damages. By
instructing you on damages, I am not suggesting which party should
win on any issue.
If you decide that any claim of the asserted patents has been
infringed and is not invalid, you must then determine the amount of
money damages to be awarded to Plaintiffs to compensate them for
the infringement.
The amount of the damages must be adequate to compensate
Plaintiffs for the infringement. A damages award should put
Plaintiffs in approximately the financial position they would have
been in had the infringement not occurred, but in no event may the
damages award be less than a reasonable royalty. You should keep
in mind that the damages you award are meant to compensate
Plaintiffs and not to punish an infringer.
Plaintiffs have the burden to persuade you of the amount of
their damages. You should award only those damages that Plaintiffs
more probably than not suffered. While Plaintiffs are not required
to prove their damages with mathematical precision, they must prove
by the more-likely-than-not standard the amount of damages they
have suffered as a result of the infringement. Plaintiffs are not
entitled to damages that are remote or speculative.
Case 4:04-cv-05429-CW Document 975 Filed 11/27/2006 Page 17 of 22
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28 18
REASONABLE ROYALTY -- DEFINITION
Damages in this case are based on what you consider to be a
reasonable royalty.
A royalty is a payment made to a patent holder in exchange
for rights to make, use or sell the claimed invention. A
reasonable royalty is the payment that would have resulted from a
negotiation between a patent holder and the infringer taking place
at a time when the infringing sales first began. In considering
the nature
of this hypothetical negotiation, the focus is on what the
expectations of the patent holder and infringer would have been had
they entered into an agreement at that time and acted reasonably in
their negotiations. However, you must assume that both parties
believed that the patents were valid and infringed. In addition,
you must assume that the patent holder and infringer were willing
to enter into an agreement; your role is to determine what that
agreement would have been. The test for damages is what royalty
would have resulted from the hypothetical negotiation and not
simply what either party would have preferred.
In this trial, you have heard evidence of things that happened
after the infringing sales first began. The evidence can be
considered only to the extent that it sheds light on the parties'
state of mind at the time of the hypothetical negotiation. You may
not limit or increase the royalty rate based on the actual profits
that Insmed made.
In determining a reasonable royalty, you may consider evidence
of any of the following factors if you find those factors apply to
Case 4:04-cv-05429-CW Document 975 Filed 11/27/2006 Page 18 of 22
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28 19
this case. You have heard the parties' expert witnesses refer to
these as the "Georgia-Pacific" factors.
1. The royalties received by Plaintiffs for the licensing of
the '151, '287 or '414 patent, proving or tending to prove an
established royalty.
2. The rates paid by Insmed for the use of other patents
comparable to the '151, '287 or '414 patent.
3. The nature and scope of the license, as exclusive or nonexclusive.
4. Plaintiffs' established policy and marketing program to
maintain its patent monopoly by not licensing others to use
the invention or by granting licenses under special conditions
designed to preserve that monopoly.
5. The commercial relationship between Plaintiffs and Insmed,
such as, whether they are competitors in the same territory in
the same line of business; or whether they are inventor and
promoter.
6. The effect of selling the patented specialty in promoting
sales of other products of Insmed; the existing value of the
invention to Plaintiffs as a generator of sales of its nonpatented
items; and the extent of such derivative sales.
7. The duration of the patent and the term of the license.
8. The established profitability of the product made under the
patent; its commercial success; and its current popularity.
9. The utility and advantages of the patent property over the
old modes or devices, if any, that had been used for working
out similar results.
10. The nature of the patented invention; the character of the
commercial embodiment of it as owned and produced by
Plaintiffs; and the benefits to those who have used the
invention.
Case 4:04-cv-05429-CW Document 975 Filed 11/27/2006 Page 19 of 22
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28 20
11. The extent to which Insmed has made use of the invention;
and any evidence probative of the value of that use.
12. The portion of the profit or of the selling price that may
be customary in the particular business or in comparable
businesses to allow for the use of the invention or analogous
inventions.
13. The portion of the realizable profit that should be
credited to the invention as distinguished from non-patented
elements, the manufacturing process, business risks, or
significant features or improvements added by Insmed.
14. The opinion testimony of qualified experts.
15. The amount that a licensor (such as Plaintiffs) and a
licensee (such as Insmed) would have agreed upon (at the time
the infringement began) if both had been reasonably and
voluntarily trying to reach an agreement; that is, the amount
which a prudent licensee-- who desired, as a business
proposition, to obtain a license to manufacture and sell a
particular article embodying the patented invention-- would
have been willing to pay as a royalty, and yet be able to make
a reasonable profit and which amount would have been
acceptable by a prudent licensor who was willing to grant a
license.
DUTY TO DELIBERATE
When you begin your deliberations, you should elect one member
of the jury as your foreperson. That person will preside over the
deliberations and speak for you here in court.
You will then discuss the case with your fellow jurors to
reach agreement if you can do so. Your verdict must be unanimous.
Each of you must decide the case for yourself, but you should
do so only after you have considered all the evidence, discussed it
fully with the other jurors, and listened to the views of your
Case 4:04-cv-05429-CW Document 975 Filed 11/27/2006 Page 20 of 22
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28 21
fellow jurors.
Do not be afraid to change your opinion if the discussion
persuades you that you should. Do not come to a decision simply
because other jurors think it is right.
It is important that you attempt to reach a unanimous verdict
but, of course, only if each of you can do so after having made
your own conscientious decision. Do not change an honest belief
about the weight and effect of the evidence simply to reach a
verdict.
USE OF NOTES
Some of you have taken notes during the trial. Whether or not
you took notes, you should rely on your own memory of what was
said. Notes are only to assist your memory. You should not be
overly influenced by the notes.
COMMUNICATION WITH COURT
If it becomes necessary during your deliberations to
communicate with me, you may send a note through the marshal,
signed by your foreperson or by one or more members of the jury.
No member of the jury should ever attempt to communicate with me
except by a signed writing; and I will communicate with any member
of the jury on anything concerning the case only in writing, or
here in open court. If you send out a question, I will consult
with the parties before answering it, which may take some time.
Case 4:04-cv-05429-CW Document 975 Filed 11/27/2006 Page 21 of 22
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28 22
You may continue your deliberations while waiting for the answer to
any question. Remember that you are not to tell anyone --
including me -- how the jury stands, numerically or otherwise,
until after you have reached a unanimous verdict or have been
discharged. Do not disclose any vote count in any note to the
Court.
RETURN OF VERDICT
A verdict form has been prepared for you. After you have
reached unanimous agreement on a verdict, your foreperson will fill
in the form that has been given to you, sign and date it, and
advise the Court that you are ready to return to the courtroom.
Case 4:04-cv-05429-CW Document 975 Filed 11/27/2006 Page 22 of 22
