Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 114-2 Filed 06/22/18 Page 1 of 6
`
` 
`
` 
`
` 
`
` 
`
` 
`
` 
`
`Exhibit 1
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 114-2 Filed 06/22/18 Page 2 of 6
`From: Hannah, James
`Sent: Thursday, June 21, 2018 11:09 AM
`To: 'Song, Sharon'
`Cc: Andre, Paul; Kastens, Kris; Kobialka, Lisa; Lee, Michael H.; Manes, Austin; Nguyen, Stephanie
`Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL] RE: Finjan v. Juniper - Prosecution Bar
` 
`Sharon,
`
`As you know, for the last month, we have attempted to meet and confer with you in order to finalize the Stipulated
`Protective Order. To date, you still have not provided any edits to the Protective Order and instead raise the same,
`baseless issues that we have already addressed as set forth in our email below. Your actions are in direct violation of
`N.D. Cal Local Rule 11-4 and we are forced to bring a motion to compel you and your firm to comply with your
`professional obligations under the local rules and to maintain the same position that you have taken in other cases with
`regard to the Protective Order.
`
`James
` 
` 
`From: Song, Sharon [mailto:ssong@irell.com]
`Sent: Tuesday, June 19, 2018 9:45 AM
`To: Hannah, James
`Cc: Andre, Paul; Kastens, Kris; Kobialka, Lisa; Lee, Michael H.; Manes, Austin; Nguyen, Stephanie; #Juniper/Finjan [Int]
`Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL] RE: Finjan v. Juniper - Prosecution Bar
` 
`James, 
`
`  
`Your email seems to suggest that you believe counsel who have received access to Juniper’s “Highly Confidential – Attorneys’ 
`Eyes Only” or “Highly Confidential – Source Code” information are allowed to participate in the Cisco IPR.  That is directly 
`contrary to the plain terms of the Interim Protective Order, which defines “prosecution” as “directly or indirectly drafting, 
`amending, advising, or otherwise affecting the scope or maintenance of patent claims.”  There can be no serious dispute that 
`the Cisco IPR proceedings will “affect the scope or maintenance” of the claims of the ‘633 patent and is thus encompassed 
`within the prosecution bar.  
`
`  
`More importantly, your email is not responsive to my question.  Please specifically identify the steps that Kramer Levin has taken 
`to ensure that no personnel who has had access to Juniper’s confidential information will participate in the ‘633 Cisco IPR.  In 
`addition, please expressly confirm that neither you, nor Mr. Lee, has had any involvement in the Cisco IPR since Juniper first 
`produced confidential information on March 19, 2018. 
` 
`Sharon S. Song 
`Irell & Manella LLP 
`1800 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 900  |  Los Angeles, CA 90067  
`310.203.7507 (direct)  |  ssong@irell.com 
` 
` 
`From: Hannah, James [mailto:JHannah@KRAMERLEVIN.com]
`Sent: Monday, June 18, 2018 9:57 AM
`To: Song, Sharon
`Cc: ~Andre, Paul; ~Kastens, Kristopher; ~Kobialka, Lisa; ~Lee, Michael; ~Manes, Austin; ~Nguyen, Stephanie
`Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL] RE: Finjan v. Juniper - Prosecution Bar
` 
`Sharon,  
`
`  
`You appear to be misinterpreting the interim protective order as preventing counsel from participating in the Cisco IPR 
`particularly.  The interim protective order does not mention IPRs and we have not finalized the bounds of the prosecution 
`bar.  Nevertheless, we confirm that we took measures to wall‐off any access to Juniper confidential information and have been 
`in compliance with the terms.   
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 114-2 Filed 06/22/18 Page 3 of 6
`
`  
`
`Please provide us with your compromise language to the protective order by tomorrow.  Otherwise, we will need to raise the 
`issue with the Court immediately and inform the Court of the contrary positions you have taken in the numerous cases you 
`represent plaintiffs and patent owners. 
` 
`James 
` 
`
`
`James Hannah
`Partner
`
`
`Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel LLP
`990 Marsh Road, Menlo Park, California 94025
`T 650.752.1712 F 650.752.1812
`
`This communication (including any attachments) is intended solely for the recipient(s) named above and may contain information that is confidential,
`privileged or legally protected. Any unauthorized use or dissemination of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in
`error, please immediately notify the sender by return e-mail message and delete all copies of the original communication. Thank you for your cooperation.
`
`
`
`From: Song, Sharon [mailto:ssong@irell.com]
`Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2018 4:16 PM
`To: Hannah, James
`Cc: Andre, Paul; Kastens, Kris; Kobialka, Lisa; Lee, Michael H.; Manes, Austin; Nguyen, Stephanie; #Juniper/Finjan [Int]
`Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL] RE: Finjan v. Juniper - Prosecution Bar
` 
`James,
`
`None of the attorneys representing Juniper in this litigation were involved in the Fraunhofer case, so we are not aware of what 
`the significant considerations were with regard to the prosecution bar for Fraunhofer.  We’d be happy to investigate further.
`
`However, in order for us to have any meaningful conversation with you relating to any compromise regarding the prosecution 
`bar, we need to know whether Finjan has been complying with the Protective Order that has been in place since we first 
`produced confidential information on March 19, 2018.  This is the third time we’ve asked for confirmation that Kramer Levin has 
`been complying with the Protective Order in this case.  Please immediately confirm that no one who has had access to Juniper’s 
`confidential information has participated in the ‘633 Cisco IPR proceedings to date, and describe what steps your firm has taken 
`to ensure that no personnel who has had access to Juniper’s confidential information will participate in the ‘633 Cisco IPR.     
`
`  
`Best, 
` 
`Sharon S. Song 
`Irell & Manella LLP 
`1800 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 900  |  Los Angeles, CA 90067  
`310.203.7507 (direct)  |  ssong@irell.com 
` 
` 
` 
` 
` 
`From: Hannah, James [mailto:JHannah@KRAMERLEVIN.com]
`Sent: Wednesday, June 13, 2018 11:26 AM
`To: Song, Sharon
`Cc: ~Andre, Paul; ~Kastens, Kristopher; ~Kobialka, Lisa; ~Lee, Michael; ~Manes, Austin; ~Nguyen, Stephanie; #Juniper/Finjan
`[Int]
`Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL] RE: Finjan v. Juniper - Prosecution Bar
` 
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 114-2 Filed 06/22/18 Page 4 of 6
`Sharon, you can do a docket search just as easy as I can.  There are numerous cases in which Irell represents both the plaintiff in 
`District Court litigation and the patent owner in PTAB proceedings.  One involving our firm is the Fraunhofer case in which the 
`exact same team is representing both Fraunhofer as plaintiff and patent owner.  If you refuse to work with us to come up with a 
`compromise regarding the prosecution bar, we will have to inform the Court of your incredible and contradictory position on 
`this issue. 
` 
`James   
` 
`
`
`James Hannah
`Partner
`
`
`Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel LLP
`990 Marsh Road, Menlo Park, California 94025
`T 650.752.1712 F 650.752.1812
`
`This communication (including any attachments) is intended solely for the recipient(s) named above and may contain information that is confidential,
`privileged or legally protected. Any unauthorized use or dissemination of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in
`error, please immediately notify the sender by return e-mail message and delete all copies of the original communication. Thank you for your cooperation.
`
`
`
`From: Song, Sharon [mailto:ssong@irell.com]
`Sent: Wednesday, June 13, 2018 11:03 AM
`To: Hannah, James
`Cc: Andre, Paul; Kastens, Kris; Kobialka, Lisa; Lee, Michael H.; Manes, Austin; Nguyen, Stephanie; #Juniper/Finjan [Int]
`Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL] RE: Finjan v. Juniper - Prosecution Bar
` 
`James, 
` 
`This is the first time you have raised the issue of the positions my firm has taken with regard to the prosecution bar in other 
`cases.  Could you please identify the specific matter or matters to which you are referring?  In addition, please identify all cases 
`where Kramer Levin has represented a different plaintiff or defendant and taken the position that a protective order should 
`include a bar on participation in IPR proceedings. 
` 
`As you know, the Protective Order that is currently in place—and which has been in place since Juniper first produced 
`confidential information on March 19, 2018—contains a prosecution bar that bars participation in IPR proceedings.  Your failure 
`to provide a substantive response to my question about the steps that Kramer Levin has taken to comply with this prosecution 
`bar is very concerning.  Please immediately confirm that no one who has had access to Juniper’s confidential information has 
`participated in the ‘633 Cisco IPR proceedings.  In addition, please tell us what steps you are currently taking to comply with the 
`Protective Order. 
` 
`Best, 
` 
`Sharon S. Song 
`Irell & Manella LLP 
`1800 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 900  |  Los Angeles, CA 90067  
`310.203.7507 (direct)  |  ssong@irell.com 
`  
` 
` 
`From: Hannah, James [mailto:JHannah@KRAMERLEVIN.com]
`Sent: Tuesday, June 12, 2018 5:38 PM
`To: Song, Sharon
`Cc: ~Andre, Paul; ~Kastens, Kristopher; ~Kobialka, Lisa; ~Lee, Michael; ~Manes, Austin; ~Nguyen, Stephanie; #Juniper/Finjan
`[Int]
`Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] RE: Finjan v. Juniper - Prosecution Bar
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 114-2 Filed 06/22/18 Page 5 of 6
`
` 
`Sharon, as I asked during the meet and confer, please explain why your firm is taking contrary positions with regard to the 
`prosecution bar provisions in this case as opposed to other cases in which it serves as counsel for plaintiffs?  You have still failed 
`to answer this threshold question and we demand a response.  
` 
`James 
` 
`
`James Hannah 
`Partner 
`
`  
`Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel LLP 
`990 Marsh Road, Menlo Park, California 94025 
`T 650.752.1712 F 650.752.1812 
`  
`This communication (including any attachments) is intended solely for the recipient(s) named above and may contain information that is confidential,
`privileged or legally protected. Any unauthorized use or dissemination of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in
`error, please immediately notify the sender by return e-mail message and delete all copies of the original communication. Thank you for your cooperation. 
`  
`
`  
`On Jun 12, 2018, at 8:19 PM, Song, Sharon <ssong@irell.com> wrote: 
`
`Counsel,
`
`We have considered Finjan’s proposed language regarding the prosecution bar, and have concluded that Juniper cannot agree to 
`stipulate to Finjan’s proposed language.  As noted during our meet and confer on May 30, 2018, we do not think it is possible for 
`any individual assisting in defending a patent in an inter partes reexamination to also not be “directly or indirectly drafting, 
`amending, advising, or otherwise affecting the scope of patent claims.”  An individual who has access to highly confidential 
`information would be able to narrow the scope of patent claims in a particular way that incorporates the highly confidential 
`technical information they’ve reviewed, to the detriment of Juniper’s interests.  
`
`Juniper cannot think of any language that would both address the concerns described above and allow individuals with access to 
`highly confidential information to participate in an IPR.  Accordingly, Juniper does not agree to any deviation from the Model 
`Protective Order that governs this case.  See Patent Local Rule 2‐2.
`
`We understand that the Cisco ‘633 IPR (IPR2018‐00391) has been instituted and that Kramer Levin attorneys, including James 
`Hannah and Michael Lee, are counsel of record for Finjan since the IPR’s preliminary proceedings.  Please explain how Finjan has 
`complied with the Protective Order provisions regarding the prosecution bar despite Kramer Levin’s involvement in the Cisco 
`‘633 IPR, for which the POPR was filed March 28, 2018.  Please also confirm that Kramer Levin will withdraw as counsel in the 
`Cisco ‘633 IPR.  
`
`Best,
`
`Sharon S. Song 
`Irell & Manella LLP 
`1800 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 900  |  Los Angeles, CA 90067  
`310.203.7507 (direct)  |  ssong@irell.com 
`  
`
`  
`From: Glucoft, Josh
`Sent: Sunday, May 27, 2018 2:10 PM
`To: ~Kastens, Kristopher
`Cc: ~Andre, Paul; ~Hannah, James; ~Kobialka, Lisa; Holland, Eileen; Curran, Casey; Carson, Rebecca; Wang, Kevin; Kagan,
`Jonathan; Song, Sharon
`Subject: RE: Finjan v. Juniper - Prosecution Bar 
`
`  
`Kris, 
`  
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 114-2 Filed 06/22/18 Page 6 of 6
`On all future correspondence, please include Jon and Sharon, copied here. 
`
` 
`Please provide times on Wednesday and Thursday that you are available to discuss Finjan’s proposal below. 
`
` 
`Thanks, 
`Josh 
`
` 
`From: Kastens, Kris [mailto:KKastens@KRAMERLEVIN.com]
`Sent: Sunday, May 27, 2018 9:47 AM
`To: Glucoft, Josh
`Cc: ~Andre, Paul; ~Hannah, James; ~Kobialka, Lisa; Holland, Eileen; Curran, Casey; Carson, Rebecca; Wang, Kevin
`Subject: Finjan v. Juniper - Prosecution Bar 
`  
`Josh, 
`
`  
`As we discussed on our call last week, Finjan proposes that the parties stipulate to compromise language regarding the 
`prosecution bar provided below.   
`  
`
`8. PROSECUTION BAR 
`Absent written consent from the Producing Party, any individual who receives access to “HIGHLY
`CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY” or “HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – SOURCE CODE”
`information shall not be involved in the prosecution of patents or patent applications relating to systems that are
`accused of infringement in this action, including without limitation the patents asserted in this action and any
`patent or application claiming priority to or otherwise related to the patents asserted in this action, before any
`foreign or domestic agency, including the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“the Patent Office”). 
`
` 
`For purposes of this paragraph, “prosecution” includes directly or indirectly drafting, amending, advising, or
`otherwise affecting the scope of patent claims. To avoid any doubt, “prosecution” as used in this paragraph does
`not include representing a party challenging a patent before a domestic or foreign agency (including, but not
`limited to, a reissue protest, ex parte reexamination or inter partes reexamination). Furthermore, nothing in this
`section precludes any individual who receives access to “HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS’ EYES
`ONLY” or “HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – SOURCE CODE” from assisting in defending a patent in an inter
`partes reexaminations, so long as the individual does not take part in drafting or amending any claims in the
`inter partes reexamination.  
`
`  
`
`Please let us know your thoughts on this language and when you are available to meet and confer. 
`               
`Sincerely, 
`Kris 
`  
`  
` 
`
`Kris Kastens 
`Associate 
`
` 
`Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel LLP 
`990 Marsh Road, Menlo Park, California 94025 
`T 650.752.1715 F 650.752.1815 
`kkastens@kramerlevin.com 
`
` 
`Bio 
`  
`This communication (including any attachments) is intended solely for the recipient(s) named above and may contain information that is confidential,
`privileged or legally protected. Any unauthorized use or dissemination of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in
`error, please immediately notify the sender by return e-mail message and delete all copies of the original communication. Thank you for your cooperation. 
`
`5
`
`