IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE ARCELORMITTAL FRANCE,and ARCELORMITTAL ATLANTIQUE ET LORRAINE, Plaintiffs, AK STEEL CORPORATION, SEVERSTAL DEARBORN, INC, and ) ) ) ) ; v. ) Civ, No. 10-050-SLR ) WHEELING-NISSHIN, INC., ) ) ) Defendants. VERDICT SHEET Dated: January 14, 2017We, the jury, unanimously find as follows: |. Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 6,296,805 (“The ‘805 Patent”) 1. Do you find that plaintiffs have proven, by a preponderance of the evidence, that defendants directly infringe the asserted claims of the ‘805 patent? Checking “yes” below indicates a finding for plaintifs. Checking “no” below indicates a finding for the defendant. Ifyou answer “no” with respect fo claim 1, you must answer with respect to dependent claims 2, 5, 7 and 16 for purposes of this question. Defendant | Claim Verdict on direct | infringement AK Steel D yes no 2 Cl yes no s/o yes Bro | [7 jayes x no 16 | O yes @no ' Defendant | Ciaim | Verdict on direct infringement Severstal | 1 Ol yes a no Dearbom, (> 1G yes % no 5 © yes Bno [7 | Dyes &no 4 16 O yes no Question 1 cont. on next pageDefendant Claim | Verdict on direct infringement Wheeling- | 1 D yes no Nisshin, Inc. 2 OD yes W no 5 C yes no 7 Oc yes @ no { 16 O yes & no 2. Do you find that plaintiffs have proven, by a preponderance of the evidence, that defendants have induced the infringement of the asserted claims of the ‘805 patent? Checking “yes” below indicates a finding for plaintiffs. Checking “no” below indicates a finding for the defendant. Ifyou answer “no” with respect to claim 1, you must also answer ‘no" with respect to dependent claims 2, 5, 7 and 16 for purposes of this question. 7 Defendant | Claim | Verdict on inducement. | of infringement AK Steel | 1 cl yes no 2 yes Wno 5 Dyes F no 7 O yes no 16 Ol yes ero | Question 2 cont. next page\ Defendant | Verdict on inducement of infringement Severstal 1 | yes no Dearborn, we 2 |G yes w no 5 0 yes ano 7 0 yes wf no 16 | 0 yes tro | T Defendant | Claim Verdict on inducement. of infringement OO Wheeling- | 1 CO yes ca Nisshin, Sa Ine” 2G yes no 5 0 yes Z n0 O yes no 16 |D yes no 3. Do you find that piaintifis have proven, by a preponderance of the evidence, that defendants have contributed to the infringement of the asserted claims of the '805 patent? Checking “yes” below indicates a finding for plaintiffs. Checking ‘no” below indicates a finding for the defendant. Ifyou answer “no” with respect to claim 1, you must also answer “no” with respect to dependent claims 2, 5, 7 and 16 for purposes of this question. Question 3 cont. on next page1 Defendant | Claim | Verdict on contributory infringement AK Steel 1 O yes % no 2 OG yes no \s 0 yes no 7 oI yes of no 48 O yes @ no Defendant | Claim | Verdict on contributory infringement Severstal | 1 @ no Dearborn, ee 2 O yes @ no 5 OC yes Bho 7 0 yes @no 16 | yes @no Defendant | Claim | Verdict on contributory of infringement Wheeling 1110 yes @ no Nisshin, T Ine 2 0 yes & no 5 O yes 2 no 7 0 yes B no 16 | 0 yes @ no ont, next pageIl, Validity of the ‘805 Patent 4, Do you find that defendants have proven, by clear and convincing evidence, that the asserted claims of the ‘805 patent are invalid as being anticipated by the article titled “Heat Treated Boron Steels in the Automotive Industries” by Bano and Laurent (the “Bano/Laurent article”) (OTX-6; DTX-17a)? If you find that claim 1 is valid and not anticipated, you must find that claims 2, 5, 7 and 16 are also valid and not anticipated far purposes of this question. Claim | No | Yes (Valid) (Invalid, anticipated) 5. Do you find that defendants have proven, by clear and convincing evidence, that the asserted claims of the ‘805 patent are invalid as being obvious in view of the Bano/Laurent article (DTX-6; DTX-17a) in combination with French Patent No. 1,297,906 (the “French ‘906 patent") (DTX-173t)? {f you find that claim 1 is valid and not obvious, you must find that claims 2, 5, 7 and 16 are also valid and not obvious for purposes of this question Question § cont. next pageClaim | No | Yes (Valid) | (Invalid due to abviousness) 1 [o | } 2 [o |@& q is lo |e 7 |o |& le jo |@ | 6. Do you find that defendants have proven, by clear and convincing evidence, that the asserted claims of the ‘805 patent are invalid as being obvious in view of the Bano/Laurent article (DTX-6; DTX-17a) in combination with the French ‘906 patent (OTK-173t) and the 1992 Ford Specification (DTX-532)? if you find that claim 1 is valid and nat abvious, you must find that claims 2, 5, 7 and 16 are also valid and not obvious for purposes of this question. Yes (Invalid due to obviousness)