Joint Appendix (Part 1)

Case 2:10-cv-02225-JAK -JC Document 156 Filed 12/17/11 Page 4 of 6 Page ID #:268312345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728weight than the weight of said manifold, such that said turret remains in a stationaryposition.” The jury must be allowed to construe this claim as it is written pursuant to theCourt’s claim construction in the Item Docket #50. All of the words in the claimlanguage are commonly understood rather than technical terms that require additionalexplanations or construction. None of the parties in this case have presented any evidenceor expert testimony arguing that the claim language should not be construed as it iswritten and commonly understood. In fact, the Court’s language in its Jury InstructionNo. 15 add additional requirement of “frictional forces” that were never included oraddressed in the Patent-in-suit.Plaintiff in this case has argued that the spring and ball bearing in Defendants’accused product is simply an “additional feature” that is not sufficient to avoidinfringement. It is true that simply including an “additional feature” to a product is notsufficient to avoid infringement of patent claims. This is specifically addressed by JuryInstruction No. 17 which states:“If you find, for example, that an accused product includes all of therequirements of a claim, the fact that the accused product might includeadditional elements would not avoid infringement of a claim”. See JuryInstruction No. 17.Thus the central question in this case is whether the spring and ball bearing used inDefendants’ accused product is simply an “additional feature”. This is a factualdetermination for the jury to decide. Plaintiff has the burden to prove that the spring andball was simply an “additional feature”. This issue was clearly addressed by the Court inDocket Item #50. The Court found the following:“The language in the claim and the specification state that the turret shallremain stationary because the turret is heavier than the manifold, but thisdoes not in turn require that there be no additional feature in place, suchas a pin, spring, or other mechanical interference.” See Item Docket #50,p.5-6.This Court must respect the Court Order Re Claim Construction (Docket Item#50). The Court must instruct the jury to construe the claim language “as it is written”.- 3 -DEFENDANTS’ PROPOSED LANGUAGE FOR JURY INSTRUCTION NO. 15CASE NO. CV10-02225-JAK (JCx)-A277-