Case 6:06-cv-06346-JWF Document 220 Filed 03/08/13 Page 1 of 15 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK Degelman Industries, Ltd., Plaintiff, v. Pro-Tech Welding & Fabrication, Inc. and Michael Weagley, Defendant ( s) . 06-CV-6346 VERDICT FORM In accordance with the Court's instructions, please answer the following questions. Your answers for each question must be unanimous.
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
Case 6:06-cv-06346-JWF Document 220 Filed 03/08/13 Page 1 of 15
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
Degelman Industries, Ltd.,
Plaintiff, v.
Pro-Tech Welding & Fabrication, Inc. and Michael Weagley,
Defendant ( s) .
06-CV-6346 VERDICT FORM
In accordance with the Court's instructions, please answer the following questions. Your answers for each question must be unanimous.
Case 6:06-cv-06346-JWF Document 220 Filed 03/08/13 Page 2 of 15
FINDINGS ON DEGELMAN'S CLAIMS
DEGELMAN'S UTILITY AND DESIGN PATENT CLAIMS AGAINST DEFENDANTS
1. For each of the following products, has Degelman proven by a preponderance of the evidence that Defendants, Pro-Tech Welding and Fabrication, Inc. ("Pro-Tech"), and/or Michael P. Weagley ("Weagley"), has infringed Claim 1 of the '576 Patent?
(Please answer in each cell with a "Y" for "yes" (for Degelman), or with an "N" for "no" for each Defendant.)
.
· Accused Defe.ndant ·ProduCt Pr.o-Tech Welding and 'li MichlicJ P. Weagley Fabrication, ~nc.
Case 6:06-cv-06346-JWF Document 220 Filed 03/08/13 Page 3 of 15
Super Duty Loader
- 2-
Case 6:06-cv-06346-JWF Document 220 Filed 03/08/13 Page 4 of 15
2. For each of the following products, has Degclman proven by a preponderance of the evidence that Defendants, Pro-Tech and/or Weagley, has infringed Claim 2 of the '576 Patent?
(Please answer in each cell with a "Y" for «yes" (for Degelman), or with an "N" for "no" for each Defendant.)
Accused Defendant Product Pro-Tech Welding and
Michael P. ¥leagle1; Fabrication, Inc.
SPL Loader '(~ VeA I.
SPB Backhoe ve:s ~/eA I
SPS Skidsteer '{G> [;£J SPC Compact y~..s k/t1
IST Loader ye;s (;;b.; IST Backhoe ye5 ~~ 1ST Skidsteer '{£:> CfM PBS Pullback '{€:5 lf~ ~ I
F~L Foldout ye; lj_!VJ FTF Forklift Y~5
I
Vtv.J SBL Switchblade Loader re> {;/b)
SSB Switchblade Backhoe ye; ~~ SBS Switchblade Skidsteer '{€.) ~M
Super Duty Loader v~> rt::' {;~ I
.., - j -
Case 6:06-cv-06346-JWF Document 220 Filed 03/08/13 Page 5 of 15
3. For each of the following products, has Degelman proven by a preponderance of the evidence that Defendants, Pro-Tech and/or Weagley, has infringed Claim 3 of the '576 Patent?
(Please answer in each cell with a "Y" for "yes" (for Degelman), or with an "N" for "no" for each Defendant.)
Accused Defendant Product
SPL Loader
SPB Backhoe
SPS Skidsteer
SPC Compact
1ST Loader
IST Backhoe
1ST Skidsteer
PBS Pullback , F$L Foldout
FTF Forklift
SBL Switchblade Loader
SSB Switchblade Backhoe
SBS Switchblade Skidsteer
Super Duty Loader
Pro-Tech Welding and Fabrication, Inc.
-4 -
Michael P. Weagley
Case 6:06-cv-06346-JWF Document 220 Filed 03/08/13 Page 6 of 15
4. For each of the following products, has Degelman proven by a preponderance of the evidence that Defendants, Pro-Tech and/or Weagley, has infringed Claim 4 of the '576 Patent?
(Please answer in each cell with a "Y" for "yes" (for Degelman), or with an "N" for "no" for each Defendant.)
Accused Defendant Product
SPL Loader
SPB Backhoe
SPS Skidsteer
SPC Compact
1ST Loader
IST Backhoe
IST Skidsteer
PBS Pullback
FTF Forklift
SBL Switchblade Loader
SSB Switchblade Backhoe
SBS Switchblade Skidsteer
Super Duty Loader
Pro-Tech Welding and Fabrication, Inc.
11 0/V ..,
- 5-
Michael P. Weagley
Case 6:06-cv-06346-JWF Document 220 Filed 03/08/13 Page 7 of 15
5. For each of the following products, has Degelman proven by a preponderance of the evidence that Defendants, Pro-Tech and/or Weagley, has infringed Claim 5 of the '576 Patent?
(Please answer in each cell with a "Y" for "yes" (for Degelman), or with an ''N" for "no" for each Defendant.)
Accused Defendant Product
SPL Loader
SPB Backhoe
SPS Skidsteer
SPC Compact
1ST Loader
IST Backhoe
IST Skidsteer
PBS Pullback
FTF Forklift
SBL Switchblade Loader
SSB Switchblade Backhoe
SBS Switchblade Skidsteer
Super Duty Loader
Pro-Tech Welding and Fabrication, Inc.
- 6-
Michael .P. Weagley
Case 6:06-cv-06346-JWF Document 220 Filed 03/08/13 Page 8 of 15
6. For each of the following products, has Degelman proven by a preponderance of the evidence that Defendants, Pro-Tech and/or Weagley, has infringed Claim 6 of the '576 Patent?
(Please answer in each cell with a "Y" for "yes" (for Degelman), or with an "N" for "no" for each Defendant.)
'
Accused Defendant Product Pro-Tech Welding and
Michael P. Weagley Fabrication, Inc.
SPL Loader Jj~ Jj_t4
SPB Backhoe (J p /()A .., .
SPS Skidsteer ~!JU 1;/u SPC Compact UY y_f)A
1ST Loader .I lJ~ L;{k
IST Backhoe ,I " C/o.A ~VP'Y
I I
1ST Skidsteer 11~ {/u PBS Pullback ~14 v~
p F:IJL Foldout 'VP--1 Vu FTF Forklift uj!A ~vu
SBL Switchblade Loader (jQ/J v~ SSB Switchblade Backhoe Jl4M I
u~ SBS Switchblade Skidsteer VM L;I/.J
Super Duty Loader VIr 'fr I /~ J
- 7-
Case 6:06-cv-06346-JWF Document 220 Filed 03/08/13 Page 9 of 15
7. For each of the following products, has Degelman proven by a preponderance of the evidence that Defendants, Pro-Tech and/or Weagley, has infringed Claim 7 of the '576 Patent?
(Please answer in each cell with a "Y" for "yes" (for Degelman), or with an "N'' for "no" for each Defendant.)
Accused Defendant Product
SPL Loader
SPB Backhoe
SPS Skidsteer
SPC Compact
IST Loader
IST Backhoe
1ST Skidsteer
PBS Pullback
FBL Foldout
FTF Forklift
SBL Switchblade Loader
SSB Switchblade Backhoe
SBS Switchblade Skidsteer
Super Duty Loader
Pro-Tech Welding and Fabrication, Inc.
- 8 -
Michael P. Weagley
Case 6:06-cv-06346-JWF Document 220 Filed 03/08/13 Page 10 of 15
8. For each of the following products, has Degelman proven by a preponderance of the evidence that Defendants, Pro-Tech and/or Wcagley, has infringed Claim 8 ofthe '576 Patent?
(Please answer in each cell with a "Y" for "yes" (for Degelman), or with an "N" for "no" for each Defendant.)
Accused Defendant Product
SPL Loader
SPB Backhoe
SPS Skidsteer
SPC Compact
IST Loader
IST Backhoe
IST Skidsteer
PBS Pullback
p FI3L Foldout
FTF Forklift
SBL Switchblade Loader
SSB Switchblade Backhoe
SBS Switchblade Skidsteer
Super Duty Loader
Pro-Tech Welding and Fabrication, Inc.
- 9-
Michael P. Weagley
Case 6:06-cv-06346-JWF Document 220 Filed 03/08/13 Page 11 of 15
9. For each of the following products, has Degclman proven by a preponderance of the evidence that Defendants, Pro-Tech and/or Weagley, has infringed the '097 Patent?
(Please answer in each cell with a "Y" for "yes" (for Degelman), or with an "N" for "no" for each Defendant.)
Accused Defendant Product · Pro-Tech Welding and Michael P. Weagley
Case 6:06-cv-06346-JWF Document 220 Filed 03/08/13 Page 12 of 15
-
10. For each of the following products, has Degelman proven by a preponderance of the evidence that Defendants, Pro-Tech and/or Weagley, has infringed the '128 Patent?
(Please answer in each cell with a "Y" for "yes" (for Degelman), or with an "N" for ' 'no" for each Defendant.)
.. -~- - - - - - - - -- -- - ~: ._
Accused Defendant Product Pro-Tech Welding and
Michael P. Weagley Fabrication, Inc.
SPL Loader jJ() No SPB Backhoe IJO No SPS Skidsteer No NO SPC Compact NO No
IST Loader /J() ;Jo IST Backhoe No No IST Skidsteer ;VO f'/d' PBS Pullback tid jVd
p
/JO !Vo FJL Foldout
FTF Forklift t/b NO
- 11 -
Case 6:06-cv-06346-JWF Document 220 Filed 03/08/13 Page 13 of 15
11. For each of the following products, has Degelman proven by a preponderance of the evidence that Defendants, Pro-Tech and/or Weagley, has infringed the '129 Patent?
(Please answer in each cell with a "Y" for "yes" (for Degelman), or with an "N" for "no" for each Defendant.)
Accused Defendant Product Pro-Tech Welding and Michael P. Weagley
IST Loader No N6 IST Backhoe N6 !fo 1ST Skidsteer tJa lf6 PBS Pullback tJo flO
- 12-
Case 6:06-cv-06346-JWF Document 220 Filed 03/08/13 Page 14 of 15
12. If you answered "Yes" to any of Questions 1 through 11, and thus found that any Defendant has infringed any Degelman patent(s), has Degelman proven by clear and convincing evidence that such Defendant's(s') infringement was willful?
(Please answer in each cell with a "Y" for "yes" (for Degelman), or with an "N" for "no" for each Defendant.)