IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE

ATELIERS DE LA HAUTE-GARONNE (French Corporation) and F2C2 SYSTEMS S.A.S. (French Corporation),

) ) ) ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) v. ) BROETJE AUTOMATION-USA INC. ) (Delaware Corporation), BROTJE-AUTOMATION) GMBH (German Corporation), ) ) Defendants. )

Civil Action No.: 09-598-LPS

VERDICT FORM

PATENT INFRINGEMENT
DIRECT INFRINGEMENT

1.

U.S. Pat. No. 5.011.339: Have Ateliers de la Haute-Garrone and F2C2 Systems S.A.S.

(collectively, "AHG") proven by a preponderance ofthe evidence that Broetje Automation- USA Inc. and Brotje-Automation GmbH (collectively, "Broetje") infringed the claims ofthe '339 patent listed below?
YES (for AHG) NO (for Broetje)

Claim 1: Claim 2: Claim 6:

/
/

2.

U.S. Pat. No. 5.143.216: Has AHG proven by a preponderance ofthe evidence that

Broetje infringed the claims of the '216 patent listed below?

YES (for AHG)

NO (for Broetje)

Claim 1: Claim 2:

INDUCING INFRINGEMENT

3.

U.S. Pat. No. 5,011,339: Has AHG proven by a preponderance of the evidence that

Broetje Automation-USA Inc. induced a third party to infringe the claims ofthe '339 patent listed below?
YES (for AHG)
NO (for Broetje)

Claim 1: Claim 2: Claim 6:

4.

U.S. Pat. No. 5,011,339: Has AHG proven by a preponderance of the evidence that

Brotje-Automation GmbH induced a third party to infringe the claims ofthe '339 patent listed below?
YES (for AHG)
NO (for Broetje)

Claim 1: Claim 2: Claim 6:

CONTRIBUTORY INFRINGEMENT
5.

U.S. Pat. No. 5,011.339: Has AHG proven by a preponderance of the evidence that

Broetje Automation-USA Inc. contributed to the infringement by a third party of the claims of the '339 patent listed below?
YES (for AHG) NO (for Broetje)

Claim 1: Claim 2: Claim 6:

6.

U.S. Pat. No. 5,011,339: Has AHG proven by a preponderance of the evidence that

Brotje-Automation GmbH contributed to the infringement by a third party of the claims of the '3 39 patent listed below?
YES (for AHG) NO (for Broetje)

Claim 1: Claim 2: Claim 6:

WILLFUL INFRINGEMENT

INSTRUCTION: If you answered "YES" to any of questions 1, 3, or 5 above, answer question

7. Otherwise, go to question 8.

7.

U.S. Pat. No. 5,011.339: Has AHG proven by clear and convincing evidence that Broetje

Automation-USA Inc. willfully infringed the '339 patent?

YES (for AHG) NO (for Broetje)

/
INSTRUCTION: If you answered "YES" to any of questions 1, 4, or 6 above, answer question

8. Otherwise, go to question 9.

8.

U.S. Pat. No. 5,011.339: Has AHG proven by clear and convincing evidence that

Brotje-Automation GmbH willfully infringed the '339 patent?

YES (for AHG)

NO (for Broetje)

INSTRUCTION: Ifyou answered "YES" to question 2 above, answer questions 9 and 10.

Otherwise, go to question 11.

9.

U.S. Pat. No. 5,143,216: Has AHG proven by clear and convincing evidence that Broetje

Automation-USA Inc. willfully infringed the '216 patent?

YES (for AHG)

NO (for Broetje)

/
10.

U.S. Pat. No. 5.143,216: Has AHG proven by clear and convincing evidence that

Brotje-Automation GmbH willfully infringed the '216 patent?

YES (for AHG)

NO (for Broetje)

INVALIDITY
ANTICIPATION 11.

U.S. Pat. No. 5,011.339: Has Broetje proven by clear and convincing evidence that the

following claims of the '339 patent are invalid as anticipated by the prior art?
YES (for Broetje)

NO (for AHG)

Claim 1: Claim 2: Claim 6:

/
/

12.

U.S. Pat. No. 5,143,216: Has Broetje proven by clear and convincing evidence that the

following claims of the '216 patent are invalid as anticipated by the prior art?
YES (for Broetje)

NO (for AHG)

Claim 1: Claim 2:

/
/

OBVIOUSNESS

13.

U.S. Pat. No. 5.011,339: Has Broetje proven by clear and convincing evidence that the

following claims ofthe '339 patent are invalid as obvious based on the prior art?
YES (for Broetje) NO (for AHG)

Claim 1: Claim 2: Claim 6:

14.

U.S. Pat. No. 5.143,216: Has Broetje proven by clear and convincing evidence that the

following claims ofthe '216 patent are invalid as obvious based on the prior art?
YES (for Broetje) NO (for AHG)

Claim 1: Claim 2:

INDEFINITENESS
15.

Has Broetje proven by clear and convincing evidence that the claims ofthe '339 Patent

are invalid because the claim term "peripheral guiding" is indefinite?

YES (for Broetje)

NO (for AHG)

PATENT DAMAGES

INSTRUCTION:

IF
(i) you answered "YES" to any part of questions 1 - 10 above (that is, you found that one or more claims ofU.S. Patent No. 5,011,339 or U.S. Patent No. 5, 14 3,216 were infringed by Broetj e); AND (ii) with respect to any such infringed claim or claims, you answered "NO" to questions 11 - 15 above (that is, you found that such infringed claim or claims are not invalid); THEN Answer Question 16. Otherwise, leave this question blank and go on to Question 17.

16.

What amount of damages is AHG entitled to as compensation for Broetje's infringement

of the '339 patent and/or the '216 patent?

TRADE DRESS, UNFAIR COMPETITION, AND INTENTIONAL INTERFERENCE WITH PROSPECTIVE ECONOMIC ADVANTAGE CLAIMS
TRADE DRESS INFRINGEMENT

17. dress?

Has AHG proven by a preponderance of the evidence that Broetje infringed AHG's trade

YES (for AHG)

NO (for Broetje)

INSTRUCTION: lfyou answered "YES" to question 17, then proceed to questions 18 and 19. Otherwise, skip questions 18 and 19 and proceed to question 20.

18. dress?

Has AHG proven that Broetje Automation-USA Inc. intentionally infringed AHG's trade

YES (for AHG)

NO (for Broetje)

19. dress?

Has AHG proven that Brotje-Automation GmbH intentionally infringed AHG's trade

YES (for AHG)

NO (for Broetje)

UNFAIR COMPETITION {FEDERAL AND STATE LAW)

The parties have stipulated that if you find that Broetje infringed AHG's trade dress, then Broetje is also liable for unfair competition under federal and state law. Please proceed to the next question.

INTENTIONAL INTERFERENCE WITH PROSPECTIVE ECONOMIC ADVANTAGE 20.

Has AHG proven by a preponderance of the evidence that Broetje Automation-USA Inc.

intentionally interfered with AHG's prospective economic advantage?

YES (for AHG)

NO (for Broetje)

/
21.

Has AHG proven by a preponderance of the evidence that Brotje-Automation GmbH

intentionally interfered with AHG's prospective economic advantage?

YES (for AHG)

NO (for Broetje)

DAMAGES ON TRADE DRESS, UNFAIR COMPETITION, AND INTENTIONAL INTERFERENCE WITH PROSPECTIVE ECONOMIC ADVANTAGE CLAIMS 22.

Before May 12, 2007, did AHG discover, or know of facts that would have caused

a reasonable person to suspect, that Broetje was selling its allegedly infringing rivet cassettes in the United States?
YES (for Broetje) NO (for AHG)

/
INSTRUCTION:

If you answered "YES" to question 22, then answer question 23. If you answered "NO" to question 22, continue to question 24.

23.

Before May 12, 2006, did AHG discover, or know of facts that would have caused a

reasonable person to suspect, that Broetje was selling its allegedly infringing rivet cassettes in the United States?
YES (for Broetje) NO (for AHG)

24.

What amount of damages is AHG entitled to as compensation for trade dress

infringement, unfair competition under federal law, unfair competition under state law, or intentional interference with a prospective economic advantage?

Amount:

~- OOV,
7
7

000

25.

If you answered "YES" to question 18 or 19, finding that either Broetje Automation-USA

Inc. or Broetje-Automation GmbH intentionally infringed AHG's trade dress (which the parties have stipulated would mean Broetje is liable for unfair competition under state law), or "YES" to question 20 or 21, finding that either Broetje Automation-USA Inc. or Broetje-Automation GmbH intentionally interfered with AHG's prospective economic advantage, what amount of punitive damages, if any, do you award AHG?

Amount:

You have now reached the end of the verdict form and should review it to ensure it accurately reflects your unanimous determinations. All jurors should then sign and date the verdict form in the spaces below and notify the Court Security Officer that you have reached a verdict. The Presiding Juror should retain possession of the verdict form and bring it when the jury is brought back into the courtroom.