THE DYNAMICS OF JUROR SELECTION IN PATENT LITIGATION

1. THE DYNAMICS OF JUROR SELECTION IN PATENT LITIGATION HOUSTON INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY INN OF COURT Pupillage Groups 3 & 4 March 28, 2013

2. Houston Intellectual Property Inn of Court PROGRAM OVERVIEW: • Each table/pupillage group is designated to represent either the plaintiff or the defendant. • Each table/pupillage group will select a jury. • Case selected is Apple v. Samsung. • Jury panel consists of 12 members of PG 3 and 4 assuming the personas of actual jury panel members from the Apple v. Samsung case. • Voir dire questioning and panel member responses are taken from the actual transcript of Apple v. Samsung.

3. Houston Intellectual Property Inn of Court THE JURY SELECTION PROCESS: • Overview of issues in the Apple v. Samsung case • General comments on the jury selection process from • Judge Rosenthal and • Jury consultants: Dan Jacks and Samantha Holmes of EDGE Litigation Consulting • Voir dire of jury panel members • Each table/pupillage group selects a jury of 6 from the panel of 12 (3 strikes per table)

4. Houston Intellectual Property Inn of Court THE COMPETITION: • Actual case with a large plaintiff’s verdict • A number of the 12 panel members actually served on the Apple v. Samsung jury • Exercise compresses and simulates the actual jury selection process • Time Pressure / Interactive / Competitive • Each table’s selections will be tabulated and evaluated – there are correct answers for the plaintiff and defendant

5. Houston Intellectual Property Inn of Court MATERIAL AVAILABLE AT EACH TABLE: • Overview of the Apple v. Samsung litigation and the issues presented (PowerPoint slides) (4 per table) • Juror questionnaires for each of the 12 panel members (2 per table) • Jury panel information and notes summary chart for all 12 jury panel members (10 per table) • Jury panel selection chart for each table to record your strikes (to be handed out during the selection process) (1 per table)

6. The Case: Apple v. Samsung

7. The Case: Apple v. Samsung JURY VERDICT FORM • Apple Patents (4 design, 3 utility / 28 accused products) – • infringement; inducement; willfulness; invalidity; damages D 593,087 DESIGN CLAIM electronic device D 604,305 DESIGN CLAIM graphical user interface … D 618,677 DESIGN CLAIM electronic device 7,469,381 CLAIM 19 7,844,915 CLAIM 8 7,864,163 CLAIM 50 • Apple Trade Dress (registered, unregistered / 20 accused products) • protectability; fame/dilution; willfulness • Samsung Patents (5 utility / 5 accused products) • infringement; willfulness; invalidity; damages; exhaustion; b/k; antitrust

8. The Case: Apple v. Samsung JURY FINDINGS / VERDICT • Patent infringement; trade dress dilution; willful • $1.049 billion damages award based on 23 products • Developments continue … On March 1, 2013, Court struck $450 million and ordered new trial on damages for 14 products for which jury used infringer's profits as remedy for utility patent infringement

9. THE DYNAMICS OF JUROR SELECTION IN PATENT LITIGATION HOUSTON INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY INN OF COURT Pupillage Groups 3 & 4 March 28, 2013

10. Houston Intellectual Property Inn of Court INSTRUCTIONS FOR JURY SELECTION: • Select an “Associate” member as “Table Representative” • You have less than 15 minutes to complete the selection process (same time as in Court) • Participation by all members of each PG is encouraged • Use the panel selection chart to indicate the 3 jurors you think should be stricken • Hand the completed form to Richard Stanley for processing