Jury Verdict Form - Knobbe Medical

Case 1:11-cv-00652-LPS Document 322 Filed 06/14/13 Page 1 of 20 PageID #: 16962IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTFOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE)DEPUY SYNTHES PRODUCTS, LLC, ))Plaintiff, ))v. ))GLOBUS MEDICAL, INC., ))Defendant.C.A. No. 11-652-LPSJURY VERDICT FORM

Case 1:11-cv-00652-LPS Document 322 Filed 06/14/13 Page 2 of 20 PageID #: 16963This case will be decided on the basis of the answers that you give to certain questions.Each of the questions calls for a "YES" or ''NO" answer, or for a number. When answering thefollowing questions and filling out this Verdict Form, please refer to the Jury Instructions forguidance on the law applicable to the subject matter covered by each question.The answer to each question must be based on a unanimous decision. When all of youhave agreed on any answer, the Foreperson of the jury will write the answer in the spaceprovided. As you will note from the wording of the questions, depending on how you answercertain questions, you may not have to answer others.When you have answered all the questions that require answers, place the completedverdict form in an envelope the Court will provide to you and send the Court a note stating thatyou have reached a verdict.Do not assume from the questions or from the wording of the questions or from theCourt's instructions on them what the answers should be.

Case 1:11-cv-00652-LPS Document 322 Filed 06/14/13 Page 3 of 20 PageID #: 16964WE THE JURY, unanimously agree to the answers to the following questions and returnthem under the instructions of this Court as our verdict in this case:I. INFRINGEMENTA. Infringement- Globus' Independence® Product1. Has Synthes proven by a preponderance of the evidence that Globus'Independence® product literally infringed the following claim of U.S.Patent No. 7,875,076 ("the '076 patent")?Please check YES or NO.YES is afindingfor Synthes. NO is afindingfor Globus.Claim 1: YES ~ NOIf you answered NO, please answer question number 2.If you answered YES, please skip to question number 3.2. Has Synthes proven by a preponderance of the evidence that Globus'Independence® product infringed under the doctrine of equivalents thefollowing claim ofthe '076 patent?Please check YES or NO.YES is a finding for Synthes. NO is afindingfor Globus.Claim 1: YES NOIf you answered YES, please answer question number 3.If you answered no, please skip to question number 5.3. Has Synthes proven by a preponderance ofthe evidence that Globus'Independence® product literally infringed the following claim of the '076patent?Please check YES or NO.YES is a finding for Synthes. NO is a finding for Globus.Claim 11: YES ..L NOIf you answered NO, please answer question number 4.If you answered YES, please skip to question number 5.2

Case 1:11-cv-00652-LPS Document 322 Filed 06/14/13 Page 4 of 20 PageID #: 169654. Has Synthes proven by a preponderance of the evidence that Globus'Independence® product infringed under the doctrine of equivalents thefollowing claim ofthe ' 076 patent?Please check YES or NO.YES is a finding for Synthes. NO is a finding for Globus.Claim 11: YES NO5. Has Synthes proven by a preponderance of the evidence that Globus'Independence® product literally infringed the following claim of U.S.Patent No. 7,862,616 ("the ' 616 patent")?Please check YES or NO.YES is a finding for Synthes. NO is a finding for Globus.Claim 1: YES V NOIf you answered NO, please answer question number 6.If you answered YES, please skip to question number 7.6. Has Synthes proven by a preponderance of the evidence that Globus'Independence® product infringed under the doctrine of equivalents thefollowing claim of the ' 616 patent?Please check YES or NO.YES is afindingfor Synthes. NO is afindingfor Globus.Claim 1: YES NOIf you answered YES, please answer question number 7.If you answered no, please skip to question number 9.7. Has Synthes proven by a preponderance of the evidence that Globus'Independence® product literally infringed the following claim of the ' 616patent?Please check YES or NO.YES is a finding for Synthes. NO is a finding for Globus.Claim 13: YEs:L NOIf you answered NO, please answer question number 8.If you answered YES, please skip to question number 9.3

Case 1:11-cv-00652-LPS Document 322 Filed 06/14/13 Page 5 of 20 PageID #: 169668. Has Synthes proven by a preponderance of the evidence that Globus'Independence® product infringed under the doctrine of equivalents thefollowing claim of the '616 patent?Please check YES or NO.YES is a finding for Synthes. NO is a finding for Globus.Claim 13: YES NO9. Has Synthes proven by a preponderance of the evidence that Globus'Independence® product literally infringed the following claim ofU.S.Patent No. 7,846,207 ("the '207 patent")?Please check YES or NO.YES is afindingfor Synthes. NO is afindingfor Globus.Claim 1: YEs / NOIf you answered NO, please answer question number 10.If you answered YES, please skip to question number 11.10. Has Synthes proven by a preponderance ofthe evidence that Globus'Independence® product infringed under the doctrine of equivalents thefollowing claim of the '207 patent?Please check YES or NO.YES is afindingfor Synthes. NO is afindingfor Globus.Claim 1: YES NOIf you answered YES, please answer question number 11.If you answered no, please skip to question number 15.11. Has Synthes proven by a preponderance of the evidence that Globus'Independence® product literally infringed the following claim of the '207patent?Please check YES or NO.YES is a finding for Synthes. NO is a finding for Globus.Claim 2: YES V NOIf you answered NO, please answer question number 12.If you answered YES, please skip to question number 13.4

Case 1:11-cv-00652-LPS Document 322 Filed 06/14/13 Page 6 of 20 PageID #: 1696712. Has Synthes proven by a preponderance of the evidence that Globus'Independence® product infringed under the doctrine of equivalents thefollowing claim of the '207 patent?Please check YES or NO.YES is a finding for Synthes. NO is a finding for Globus.Claim 2: YES NO13. Has Synthes proven by a preponderance of the evidence that Globus'Independence® product literally infringed the following claim of the '207patent?Please check YES or NO.YES is a finding for Synthes.IClaim 16: YESNO is afindingfor Globus.NOIf you answered NO, please answer question number 14.If you answered YES, please skip to question number 15.14. Has Synthes proven by a preponderance of the evidence that Globus'Independence® product infringed under the doctrine of equivalents thefollowing claim ofthe '207 patent?Please check YES or NO.YES is a finding for Synthes. NO is afindingfor Globus.Claim 16: YES NO15. Has Synthes proven by a preponderance of the evidence that Globus'Independence® product literally infringed the following claim of the '207patent?Please check YES or NO.YES is a finding for Synthes. NO is afindingfor Globus.Claim 42: YES / NOIf you answered NO, please answer question number 16.If you answered YES, please skip to question number B.1.5

Case 1:11-cv-00652-LPS Document 322 Filed 06/14/13 Page 7 of 20 PageID #: 1696816. Has Synthes proven by a preponderance of the evidence that Globus'Independence® product infringed under the doctrine of equivalents thefollowing claim of the '207 patent?Please check YES or NO.YES is a finding for Synthes. NO is afindingfor Globus.Claim 42: YES NO6

Case 1:11-cv-00652-LPS Document 322 Filed 06/14/13 Page 8 of 20 PageID #: 16969B. Infringement- Globus' Coalition® Product1. Has Synthes proven by a preponderance of the evidence that Globus'Coalition® product literally infringed the following claim of U.S. PatentNo. 7,875,076 ("the '076 patent")?Please check YES or NO.YES is a finding for Synthes. NO is a finding for Globus.Claim 1: YES V NOIf you answered NO, please answer question number 2.If you answered YES, please skip to question number 3.2. Has Synthes proven by a preponderance of the evidence that Globus'Coalition® product infringed under the doctrine of equivalents thefollowing claim ofthe '076 patent?Please check YES or NO.YES is afindingfor Synthes. NO is a finding for Globus.Claim 1: YES NOIf you answered YES, please answer question number 3.If you answered no, please skip to question number 5.3. Has Synthes proven by a preponderance ofthe evidence that Globus'Coalition® product literally infringed the following claim of the '076patent?Please check YES or NO.YES is a finding for Synthes. NO is afindingfor Globus.Claim 11: YES V NOIf you answered NO, please answer question number 4.If you answered YES, please skip to question number 5.4. Has Synthes proven by a preponderance of the evidence that Globus'Coalition® product infringed under the doctrine of equivalents thefollowing claim of the '076 patent?Please check YES or NO.YES is afindingfor Synthes. NO is a finding for Globus.Claim 11: YES NO7

Case 1:11-cv-00652-LPS Document 322 Filed 06/14/13 Page 9 of 20 PageID #: 169705. Has Synthes proven by a preponderance of the evidence that Globus'Coalition® product literally infringed the following claim of U.S. PatentNo. 7,862,616 ("the '616 patent")?Please check YES or NO.YES is a finding for Synthes.Claim 1: YES /NO is a finding for Globus.NOIf you answered NO, please answer question number 6.If you answered YES, please skip to question number 7.6. Has Synthes proven by a preponderance of the evidence that Globus'Coalition® product infringed under the doctrine of equivalents thefollowing claim of the '616 patent?Please check YES or NO.YES is a finding for Synthes. NO is a finding for Globus.Claim 1: YES NOIf you answered YES, please answer question number 7.If you answered no, please skip to question number 9.7. Has Synthes proven by a preponderance of the evidence that Globus'Coalition® product literally infringed the following claim of the '616patent?Claim 13:Please check YES or NO.YES is a finding for Synthes.YES~NO is a finding for Globus.NOIf you answered NO, please answer question number 8.If you answered YES, please skip to question number 9.8. Has Synthes proven by a preponderance of the evidence that Globus'Coalition® product infringed under the doctrine of equivalents thefollowing claim of the '616 patent?Please check YES or NO.YES is a finding for Synthes. NO is a finding for Globus.Claim 13: YES NO8

Case 1:11-cv-00652-LPS Document 322 Filed 06/14/13 Page 10 of 20 PageID #: 169719. Has Synthes proven by a preponderance of the evidence that Globus'Coalition® product literally infringed the following claim of U.S. PatentNo. 7,846,207 ("the '207 patent")?Please check YES or NO.YES is a finding for Synthes.Claim 1: YES /NO is afindingfor Globus.NOIf you answered NO, please answer question number 10.If you answered YES, please skip to question number 11.10. Has Synthes proven by a preponderance of the evidence that Globus'Coalition® product infringed under the doctrine of equivalents thefollowing claim ofthe '207 patent?Please check YES or NO.YES is a finding for Synthes. NO is a finding for Globus.Claim 1: YES NOIf you answered YES, please answer question number 11.If you answered no, please skip to question number 15.11. Has Synthes proven by a preponderance of the evidence that Globus'Coalition® product literally infringed the following claim of the '207patent?Please check YES or NO.YES is a finding for Synthes.Claim 2: YES /NO is a finding for Globus.NOIf you answered NO, please answer question number 12.If you answered YES, please skip to question number 13.12. Has Synthes proven by a preponderance of the evidence that Globus'Coalition® product infringed under the doctrine of equivalents thefollowing claim of the '207 patent?Please check YES or NO.YES is afindingfor Synthes. NO is afindingfor Globus.Claim 2: YES NO9

Case 1:11-cv-00652-LPS Document 322 Filed 06/14/13 Page 11 of 20 PageID #: 1697213. Has Synthes proven by a preponderance of the evidence that Globus'Coalition® product literally infringed the following claim of the '207patent?Please check YES or NO.YES is a finding for Synthes.NO is a finding for Globus.Claim 16: YES /NOIf you answered NO, please answer question number 14.If you answered YES, please skip to question number 15.14. Has Synthes proven by a preponderance of the evidence that Globus'Coalition® product infringed under the doctrine of equivalents thefollowing claim of the '207 patent?Please check YES or NO.YES is afindingfor Synthes. NO is a finding for Globus.Claim 16: YES NO15. Has Synthes proven by a preponderance of the evidence that Globus'Coalition® product literally infringed the following claim of the '207patent?Please check YES or NO.YES is a finding for Synthes.NO is a finding for Globus.Claim 42:YES _:/'NOIf you answered NO, please answer question number 16.If you answered YES, please skip to question number C.1 .16. Has Synthes proven by a preponderance of the evidence that Globus'Coalition® product infringed under the doctrine of equivalents thefollowing claim ofthe '207 patent?Please check YES or NO.YES is a finding for Synthes. NO is a finding for Globus.Claim 42: YES NO10

Case 1:11-cv-00652-LPS Document 322 Filed 06/14/13 Page 12 of 20 PageID #: 16973C. Infringement- Globus' InterContinental® Product1. Has Synthes proven by a preponderance of the evidence that Globus'InterContinental® product literally infringed the following claim of U.S.Patent No. 7,875,076 ("the '076 patent")?Please check YES or NO.YES is a finding for Synthes. NO is a finding for Globus.Claim 1: YES / NOIf you answered NO, please answer question number 2.If you answered YES, please skip to question number 3.2. Has Synthes proven by a preponderance of the evidence that Globus'InterContinental® product infringed under the doctrine of equivalents thefollowing claim of the '076 patent?Please check YES or NO.YES is a finding for Synthes. NO is a finding for Globus.Claim 1: YES NOIf you answered YES, please answer question number 3.If you answered no, please skip to question number 5.3. Has Synthes proven by a preponderance of the evidence that Globus'InterContinental® product literally infringed the following claim ofthe'076 patent?Please check YES or NO.YES is a finding y r Synthes.Claim 11: YES YNO is a finding for Globus.NOIf you answered NO, please answer question number 4.If you answered YES, please skip to question number 5.4. Has Synthes proven by a preponderance of the evidence that Globus'InterContinental® product infringed under the doctrine of equivalents thefollowing claim of the '076 patent?Please check YES or NO.YES is a finding for Synthes. NO is a finding for Globus.Claim 11: YES NO11

Case 1:11-cv-00652-LPS Document 322 Filed 06/14/13 Page 13 of 20 PageID #: 169745. Has Synthes proven by a preponderance of the evidence that Globus'InterContinental® product literally infringed the following claim ofU.S.Patent No. 7,862,616 ("the ' 616 patent")?Please check YES or NO.YES is a finding for Synthes.Claim 1: YES /NO is a finding for Globus.NOIf you answered NO, please answer question number 6.If you answered YES, please skip to question number 7.6. Has Synthes proven by a preponderance ofthe evidence that Globus'InterContinental® product infringed under the doctrine of equivalents thefollowing claim of the '616 patent?Please check YES or NO.YES is a finding for Synthes. NO is a finding for Globus.Claim 1: YES NOIf you answered YES, please answer question number 7.If you answered no, please skip to question number 9.7. Has Synthes proven by a preponderance of the evidence that Globus'InterContinental® product literally infringed the following claim of the'616 patent?Please check YES or NO.YES is a finding for Synthes.NO is a finding for Globus.Claim 13:YES LNOIf you answered NO, please answer question number 8.If you answered YES, please skip to question number 9.8. Has Synthes proven by a preponderance of the evidence that Globus'InterContinental® product infringed under the doctrine of equivalents thefollowing claim of the '616 patent?Please check YES or NO.YES is a finding for Synthes. NO is afindingfor Globus.Claim 13: YES NO12

Case 1:11-cv-00652-LPS Document 322 Filed 06/14/13 Page 14 of 20 PageID #: 169759. Has Synthes proven by a preponderance of the evidence that Globus'InterContinental® product literally infringed the following claim of U.S.Patent No. 7,846,207 ("the '207 patent")?Claim 1:Please check YES or NO.YES is a finding for Synthes.YEs LNO is a finding for Globus.NOIf you answered NO, please answer question number 10.If you answered YES, please skip to question number 11.10. Has Synthes proven by a preponderance of the evidence that Globus'InterContinental® product infringed under the doctrine of equivalents thefollowing claim of the '207 patent?Please check YES or NO.YES is a finding for Synthes. NO is a finding for Globus.Claim 1: YES NOIf you answered YES, please answer question number 11.If you answered no, please skip to question number 15.11. Has Synthes proven by a preponderance ofthe evidence that Globus'InterContinental® product literally infringed the following claim of the'207 patent?Please check YES or NO.YES is a finding for Synthes. NO is a finding for Globus.Claim 2: YEsL NOIf you answered NO, please answer question number 12.If you answered YES, please skip to question number 13.12. Has Synthes proven by a preponderance of the evidence that Globus'InterContinental® product infringed under the doctrine of equivalents thefollowing claim of the '207 patent?Please check YES or NO.YES is a finding for Synthes. NO is a finding for Globus.Claim 2: YES NO13

Case 1:11-cv-00652-LPS Document 322 Filed 06/14/13 Page 15 of 20 PageID #: 1697613. Has Synthes proven by a preponderance of the evidence that Globus'InterContinental® product literally infringed the following claim of the' 207 patent?Please check YES or NOYES is a finding for Synthes.Claim 16: YES /NO is a finding for Globus.NOIf you answered NO, please answer question number 14.If you answered YES, please skip to question number 15.14. Has Synthes proven by a preponderance of the evidence that Globus'InterContinental® product infringed under the doctrine of equivalents thefollowing claim ofthe '207 patent?Please check YES or NOYES is a finding for Synthes. NO is afindingfor Globus.Claim 16: YES NO15. Has Synthes proven by a preponderance of the evidence that Globus'InterContinental® product literally infringed the following claim ofthe' 207 patent?Please check YES or NOYES is a finding for Synthes. NO is a finding for Globus.Claim42: YES V NOIf you answered NO, please answer question number 16.If you answered YES, please skip to question number D.1.16. Has Synthes proven by a preponderance of the evidence that Globus'InterContinental® product infringed under the doctrine of equivalents thefollowing claim ofthe '207 patent?Please check YES or NOYES is a finding for Synthes. NO is a finding for Globus.Claim 42: YES NO14

Case 1:11-cv-00652-LPS Document 322 Filed 06/14/13 Page 16 of 20 PageID #: 16977II.VALIDITYD. Obviousness in View of U.S. Patent No. 6,432,106 ("The Fraser Patent")1. Has Globus shown by clear and convincing evidence that any assertedclaim of the '616 patent is invalid for obviousness based on combining theFraser patent with any one or more other references?Please check YES or NO.YES is a finding for Globus. NO is a finding for Synthes.a. Claim 1: YES No /If you answered NO, skip to question D.2.below.If you answered YES, answer the following question:b. Claim 13: YES NO2. Has Globus shown by clear and convincing evidence that any assertedclaim of the '207 patent is invalid for obviousness based on combining theFraser patent with any one or more other references?a.Please check YES or NO.YES is afindingfor Globus. NO is a finding for Synthes.Claim 1: YES No VIf you answered NO, skip to question D. 2. d. below.If you answered YES, answer all of the following questions:b.Claim 2:YESNOc.d.Claim 16:Claim 42:YESYESNO v15

Case 1:11-cv-00652-LPS Document 322 Filed 06/14/13 Page 17 of 20 PageID #: 169783. Has Globus shown by clear and convincing evidence that any assertedclaim of the '076 patent is invalid for obviousness based on combining theFraser patent with any one or more other references?Please check YES or NO.YES is a finding for Globus. NO is a finding for Synthes.Claim 1: YES No /If you answered NO, skip to question E.l.below.If you answered YES, answer the following question:Claim 11: YES NOE. Obviousness in View ofU.S. Patent No. 6,972,019 ("The Michelson '019 Patent")1. Has Globus shown by clear and convincing evidence that any assertedclaim of the '616 patent is invalid for obviousness based on combining theMichelson '019 patent with any one or more other references?Please check YES or NO.YES is a finding for Globus. NO is afindingfor Synthes.a. Claim 1: YESIf you answered NO, skip to question E.2. below.If you answered YES, answer the following question:b. Claim 13: YES NO2. Has Globus shown by clear and convincing evidence that any assertedclaim of the '207 patent is invalid for obviousness based on combining theMichelson '019 patent with any one or more other references?a.Please check YES or NO.YES is afindingfor Globus. NO is a finding for Synthes.Claim 1: YES NO VIf you answered NO, skip to question E.2.d below.If you answered YES, answer all of the following questions:b.Claim 2:YESNOc.Claim 16:YESNOd.Claim 42:YESNO v"'16

Case 1:11-cv-00652-LPS Document 322 Filed 06/14/13 Page 18 of 20 PageID #: 169793. Has Globus shown by clear and convincing evidence that any assertedclaim of the '076 patent is invalid for obviousness based on combining theMichelson '019 patent with any one or more other references?Please check YES or NO.YES is a finding for Globus. NO is a finding for Synthes.a. Claim 1: YES No /If you answered NO, skip to question f.I. below.If you answered YES, answer following question:b. Claim 11: YES NOF. Obviousness in View of U.S. Patent No. 5,397,364 ("The Kozak Patent")1. Has Globus shown by clear and convincing evidence that any assertedclaim of the '616 patent is invalid for obviousness based on combining theKozak patent with any one or more other references?Please check YES or NO.YES is a finding for Globus. NO is afindingfor Synthes.a. Claim 1: YES NO /If you answered NO, skip to question F.2. below.If you answered YES, answer the following question:b. Claim 13: YES NO2. Has Globus shown by clear and convincing evidence that any assertedclaim of the '207 patent is invalid for obviousness based on combining theKozak patent with any one or more other references?a.Please check YES or NO.YES is afindingfor Globus. NO is a finding for Synthes.Claim 1: YES NoLIf you answered NO, skip to question F.2.d. below.If you answered YES, answer all of the following questions:b.Claim 2:YESNOc.Claim 16:YESNOd.Claim 42:YESNOV17

Case 1:11-cv-00652-LPS Document 322 Filed 06/14/13 Page 19 of 20 PageID #: 169803. Has Globus shown by clear and convincing evidence that any assertedclaim of the '076 patent is invalid for obviousness based on combining theKozak patent with any one or more other references?Please check YES or NO.YES is a finding for Globus. NO is a finding for Synthes.a. Claim 1: YESIf you answered NO, skip to Section Ill below.If you answered YES, answer the following question:b. Claim 11 : YES NO18

Case 1:11-cv-00652-LPS Document 322 Filed 06/14/13 Page 20 of 20 PageID #: 16981III.DAMAGESComplete this Section if you answered "YES" for any claim in Section I and you did notanswer "YES" for that same claim in Section II.1. For infringing sales made by Globus, what percentage royalty is necessaryto adequately compensate Synthes for Globus' infringement?/~ %2. What is the dollar amount of sales by Globus to which the percentageroyalty should apply to calculate Synthes' damages?You have now reached the end of the verdict form and should review it to ensure itaccurately reflects your unanimous determinations. The Foreperson should then sign and datethe verdict form in the spaces below and all other jurors must then sign the verdict form in thespaces below. Then, notify the marshal that you have reached a verdict.The Foreperson should retain possession of the verdict form and bring it when the jury isbrought back into the courtroom.'2013 By:ForepersonL'U.JUJI21