Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 120 Filed 06/26/18 Page 1 of 9
`
`
`
`PAUL J. ANDRE (State Bar No. 196585)
`pandre@kramerlevin.com
`LISA KOBIALKA (State Bar No. 191404)
`lkobialka@kramerlevin.com
`JAMES HANNAH (State Bar No. 237978)
`jhannah@kramerlevin.com
`KRISTOPHER KASTENS (State Bar No. 254797)
`kkastens@kramerlevin.com
`KRAMER LEVIN NAFTALIS & FRANKEL LLP
`990 Marsh Road
`Menlo Park, CA 94025
`Telephone: (650) 752-1700
`Facsimile: (650) 752-1800
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff
`FINJAN, INC.
`
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
`
`FINJAN, INC., a Delaware Corporation,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`
`JUNIPER NETWORKS, INC., a Delaware
`Corporation,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`Case No.: 3:17-cv-05659-WHA
`
`FINJAN’S PROPOSED REDACTIONS –
`
`EXHIBIT A TO DECLARATION OF
`SHARON SONG IN SUPPORT OF
`DEFENDANT JUNIPER NETWORKS, INC.’S
`OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR LEAVE TO
`FILE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT –
`REDACTED
`
`
`
`
`
`
`EX. A TO SONG DECLARATION - REDACTED
`
` CASE NO. 17-cv-05659-WHA
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 120 Filed 06/26/18 Page 2 of 9
`REDACTED VERSION OF DOCUMENT SOUGHT TO BE SEALED
`
`Exhibit A
`(Filed Under Seal)
`
`

`

`REDACTED VERSION OF DOCUMENT SOUGHT TO BE SEALED
`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 120 Filed 06/26/18 Page 3 of 9
`
`HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY
`
`PAUL J. ANDRE (State Bar No. 196585)
`pandre@kramerlevin.com
`LISA KOBIALKA (State Bar No. 191404)
`lkobialka@kramerlevin.com
`JAMES HANNAH (State Bar No. 237978)
`jhannah@kramerlevin.com
`KRISTOPHER KASTENS (State Bar No. 254797)
`kkastens@kramerlevin.com
`KRAMER LEVIN NAFTALIS & FRANKEL LLP
`990 Marsh Road
`Menlo Park, CA 94025
`Telephone: (650) 752-1700
`Facsimile: (650) 752-1800
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff
`FINJAN, INC.
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
`
`FINJAN, INC., a Delaware Corporation,
`
`Case No.: 3:17-cv-05659-WHA
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`
`
`v.
`
`JUNIPER NETWORKS, INC., a Delaware
`Corporation,
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL –
`ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY
`
`PLAINTIFF FINJAN, INC.’S SECOND
`SUPPLEMENTAL OBJECTIONS AND
`RESPONSES TO DEFENDANT JUNIPER
`NETWORKS, INC.’S FIRST SET OF
`INTERROGATORIES (NO. 6)
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`FINJAN’S SECOND SUPP. OBJ. & RESP. TO JUNIPER’S
`FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES (NO. 6)
`
` CASE NO.: 3:17-cv-05659-WHA
`
`

`

`REDACTED VERSION OF DOCUMENT SOUGHT TO BE SEALED
`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 120 Filed 06/26/18 Page 4 of 9
`
`Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26 and 33, Plaintiff Finjan, Inc. (“Finjan”) provides these
`
`supplemental responses to Defendant, Juniper Networks, Inc.’s (“Juniper” or “Defendant”) First Set of
`
`Interrogatories (“Interrogatories”) No. 6. Finjan makes these objections and responses herein
`
`(collectively “Responses”) based solely on its current knowledge, understanding, and belief as to the
`
`facts and information reasonably available to it as of the date of the Responses.
`
`Additional discovery and investigation may lead to additions to, changes in, or modifications of
`
`these Responses. The Responses, therefore, are given without prejudice to Finjan’s right to further
`
`supplement these Responses pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(e), or to provide subsequently discovered
`
`information and to introduce such subsequently discovered information at the time of any trial or
`
`proceeding in this action.
`
`Finjan hereby incorporates by reference each and every general objection and objection to
`
`definition and instruction set forth in Finjan’s original and first supplemental objections and responses
`
`to Juniper’s First Set of Interrogatories into each and every specific Response as if fully set forth
`
`herein.
`
`INTERROGATORY NO. 6:
`
`INTERROGATORY RESPONSES
`
`For each of the Patents-in-Suit, state the complete legal and factual basis for any contention that
`
`Juniper was notified of its alleged infringement and continued to infringe thereafter, including by
`
`identifying: the date of the alleged notification; any persons involved or with knowledge; the form of
`
`notification; what information was specifically conveyed in the alleged notification; what patents were
`
`specifically identified; what products were specifically identified; any documents provided to Juniper;
`
`and all other relevant facts, documents, or evidence.
`
`1
`FINJAN’S SECOND SUPP. OBJ. & RESP. TO JUNIPER’S
`FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES (NO. 6)
`
` CASE NO.: 3:17-cv-05659-WHA
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`

`

`REDACTED VERSION OF DOCUMENT SOUGHT TO BE SEALED
`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 120 Filed 06/26/18 Page 5 of 9
`
`HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY
`
`RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 6:
`
`Finjan objects to this Interrogatory as overbroad, unduly burdensome, and oppressive to the
`
`extent it seeks information not relevant to any claim or defense of any party and/or not reasonably
`
`calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Finjan objects to this Interrogatory to the
`
`extent it calls for a legal conclusion. Finjan objects to this Interrogatory to the extent it seeks
`
`information beyond Finjan’s actual knowledge, custody, or control. Finjan objects to this Interrogatory
`
`to the extent it seeks information protected by the attorney-client privilege, the work product doctrine, or
`
`any other applicable law, privilege, doctrine or immunity. Finjan objects to this Interrogatory to the
`
`extent it seeks information within Defendants’ possession, custody or control, or to the extent it seeks
`
`information in the public domain; Defendant can ascertain such information from its own records or
`
`from other sources at least as readily as Finjan. Finjan objects to this Interrogatory to the extent it is
`
`compound because it is comprised of multiple discrete subparts. Finjan also objects to this Interrogatory
`
`as vague and ambiguous, including the terms “was notified of its alleged infringement” and “all other
`
`relevant facts, documents, or evidence.”
`
`Subject to and without waiving the foregoing general and specific objections, Finjan responds as
`
`follows:
`
`Finjan incorporates its response to Juniper’s Interrogatory No. 2.
`
`Finjan understands based on representations by Juniper’s Senior Director of IP, Litigation and
`
`Strategy, Mr. Scott Coonan, that Juniper has either participated or spoken with a group comprised of
`
`defendants in Finjan’s prior litigations, defendants in Finjan’s currently pending litigations, and other
`
`entities that are concerned that they need a license to Finjan’s patents. Juniper has been a member of, or
`
`in communication with, this group since at least in or about November 2014. On or about November
`
`24, 2015, Mr. Scott Coonan told Finjan about this group, and also confirmed that Juniper communicates
`
`regularly with defendants in Finjan’s other patent litigations.
`
`Finjan filed a separate lawsuit against Palo Alto Networks, Inc. (“PAN”) on November 4, 2014,
`
`Case No. 14-cv-04908 (N.D. Cal. 2014), asserting five patents that are also asserted against Juniper in
`
`this case. Mr. Coonan told Finjan that PAN is also a member of the group. Shortly after Finjan filed its
`
`2
`FINJAN’S SECOND SUPP. OBJ. & RESP. TO JUNIPER’S
`FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES (NO. 6)
`
` CASE NO.: 3:17-cv-05659-WHA
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`

`

`REDACTED VERSION OF DOCUMENT SOUGHT TO BE SEALED
`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 120 Filed 06/26/18 Page 6 of 9
`
`HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY
`
`complaint against PAN, Mr. Coonan offered to meet with Finjan to discuss Finjan’s case against PAN
`
`and that he had personal knowledge of PAN’s litigation strategy. Based on Mr. Coonan’s statements,
`
`Finjan understands that Mr. Coonan read Finjan’s complaint against PAN at least as early as in or about
`
`December 2014. In or about December 2014, Mr. Coonan confirmed to Finjan by telephone that he had
`
`done a prior art search on Finjan’s patents. Mr. Coonan visited Finjan’s offices at least twice, in or
`
`about December 2014 and January 2015, to discuss Juniper’s infringement of Finjan’s patents. During
`
`the last meeting, Mr. Coonan stated he would disclose PAN’s litigation strategy to Finjan in exchange
`
`for a low value license to Finjan’s patent portfolio. Finjan terminated the discussions at that point with
`
`Juniper, as it was not interested in being involved with such a discussion regarding another party’s
`
`litigation strategy. Juniper knew of the Patents-in-Suit and how Finjan was asserting and interpreting
`
`these patents since at least as early as November 2014, if not earlier, given Juniper’s offer to sell PAN’s
`
`confidential litigation strategy information to Finjan in exchange for a license.
`
`Prior to becoming Deputy General Counsel at Juniper, Ms. McKenzie was the Senior Director
`
`of Intellectual Property at Symantec, Inc. During Ms. McKenzie’s time as Senior Director of
`
`Intellectual Property at Symantec, Inc., from in or about 2010-2012, Symantec Inc. was a defendant
`
`against Finjan in a patent infringement case involving two patents that are related to seven of the eight
`
`patents asserted against Juniper here. Juniper’s Deputy General Counsel, Ms. McKenzie, and Juniper’s
`
`General Counsel, have also had specific knowledge of the patents-in-suit since at least in or around
`
`December 2014. Finjan understands based on discussions with Mr. Coonan that Mr. Coonan and Ms.
`
`McKenzie presented an idea of collaboration with Finjan to Juniper’s General Counsel.
`
`Finjan’s investigation of this matter is ongoing and it will comply with Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(e)
`
`should additional information become known to it.
`
`FIRST SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 6:
`
`Subject to and without waiving the foregoing general and specific objections, Finjan responds
`
`as follows:
`
`Finjan provided actual notice to Juniper of its infringement of the patents-in-suit since 2014,
`
`and as discussed in response to Finjan’s Interrogatory No. 2, which was previously incorporated into
`
`3
`FINJAN’S SECOND SUPP. OBJ. & RESP. TO JUNIPER’S
`FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES (NO. 6)
`
` CASE NO.: 3:17-cv-05659-WHA
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`

`

`REDACTED VERSION OF DOCUMENT SOUGHT TO BE SEALED
`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 120 Filed 06/26/18 Page 7 of 9
`
`HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY
`
`Finjan’s response. First, Finjan initiated discussions with Juniper in 2014 by providing a claim chart
`
`for how the ‘968 Patent relates to Juniper. FINJAN-JN 193514-517. Finjan continued discussions
`
`with Juniper, notified Juniper of Finjan’s patent portfolio, and stated that a license discussions were
`
`related to a license of Finjan’s patent portfolio. In 2014, 2015, and 2016, Finjan reached out to Juniper
`
`for discussions related to licensing Finjan’s patents, including the Patents-In-Suit. FINJAN-JN
`
`192859-861. FINJAN-JN 193526-527; FINJAN-JN 193539-541; FINJAN-JN 193499-3500. Finjan
`
`requested that Juniper enter an non-disclosure agreement (“NDA”) so that Finjan can provide already
`
`prepared confidential claim charts on other Patents-in-Suit, including the ‘494 Patent, as part of the
`
`licensing discussions and Juniper’s infringement. FINJAN-JN 193526-527; FINJAN-JN 193539-541;
`
`FINJAN-JN 193499-3500. Juniper refused to enter an NDA, stated all communications were not
`
`subject to FRE 408, and also indicated its intent to share any information Finjan shared with third
`
`parties. FINJAN-JN 193535-538. Juniper’s refusal to enter an NDA, statements that none of the
`
`communications were under FRE 408, and that it could publicly disclose any material that Finjan
`
`provided hampered discussions between the parties and limited the information that Finjan could share
`
`with Juniper. Finjan notified Juniper that it was its established practice to limit the information shared
`
`unless under an NDA, and that it was not willing to declassify its confidential information to non-
`
`confidential for Juniper’s unfettered disclosures. FINJAN-JN 193526-527.
`
`Furthermore, Finjan notified Juniper on several occasions that Finjan had additional claim
`
`charts that Finjan could share with Juniper that described its infringement of at least the ‘494 and ‘154
`
`Patents. By October 9, 2015, Finjan had created claim charts for the ‘494 Patent that it offered to share
`
`with Juniper. Furthermore, by October 30, 2015, Finjan had completed a claim chart for the ‘154
`
`Patent that it offered to share with Juniper. However, because of Juniper’s refusal to enter an NDA
`
`and threats to publicly publish any claim charts provided, Finjan could not and did not provide these
`
`charts to Juniper.
`
`As previously provided in Finjan’s incorporated response to Interrogatory No. 2, documents
`
`related to these discussions between Finjan and Juniper include: FINJAN-JN 192859-865, 192859-
`
`192865, 192866-193543, 193544-193575.
`
`4
`FINJAN’S SECOND SUPP. OBJ. & RESP. TO JUNIPER’S
`FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES (NO. 6)
`
` CASE NO.: 3:17-cv-05659-WHA
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`

`

`REDACTED VERSION OF DOCUMENT SOUGHT TO BE SEALED
`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 120 Filed 06/26/18 Page 8 of 9
`
`HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY
`
`Furthermore, Finjan notified Cyphort, Inc. (acquired by Juniper) of its infringement on several
`
`occasions. Finjan sent Cyphort a letter on February 9, 2015, addressed to Mr. Manoj Leelanivas, then
`
`Cyphort’s President and Chief Executive Officer, notifying Cyphort of Finjan’s patent portfolio and
`
`requesting that Cyphort initiate a patent license discussion with Finjan. FINJAN-JN 180255-266.
`
`non-confidential letter that notified Cyphort that the ‘494 Patent, the ‘844 Patent, and the ‘154 Patent
`
` On January 28, 2016, Finjan sent Cyphort a
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`cover Cyphort’s ATP Appliance. FINJAN-JN 193290-292.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` As previously
`
`
`disclosed in Finjan’s incorporated response to Interrogatory No. 2, documents related to these
`
`discussions between Finjan and Cyphort include: FINJAN-JN 180255-368, 192859-192865, 192866-
`
`193543, 193544-193575.
`
`SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 6:
`
`Subject to and without waiving the foregoing general and specific objections, Finjan responds
`
`as follows:
`
`By 2015, Finjan also notified Juniper that it had charts prepared and ready to share with Juniper
`
`for U.S. Patent Nos. 8,225,408; 8,141,154; and 7,418,731. Finjan did not share these charts because of
`
`Juniper’s unwillingness to enter an NDA.
`
`Finjan provided further notice of Finjan’s patents and Juniper’s infringement of those patents
`
`during a November 2015 phone call between John Garland of Finjan and Mr. Coonan of Juniper.
`
`During this call, Mr. Garland stated that Finjan had at least six patents that Finjan believed Juniper
`
`infringed and had claim charts directed to Juniper’s security products, including the SRX Gateways
`
`5
`FINJAN’S SECOND SUPP. OBJ. & RESP. TO JUNIPER’S
`FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES (NO. 6)
`
` CASE NO.: 3:17-cv-05659-WHA
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`

`

`REDACTED VERSION OF DOCUMENT SOUGHT TO BE SEALED
`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 120 Filed 06/26/18 Page 9 of 9
`
`HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY
`
`and Sky ATP, and could share them with Juniper, so long as Juniper treated the charts as confidential.
`
`Mr. Coonan stated on this call that he would not treat the charts as confidential and would publicly
`
`share any charts provided by Finjan to Juniper.
`
`Additional evidence of notice to Juniper is that the ‘968 Patent includes references to the ‘844
`
`Patent and U.S. Patent No. 6,092,194 (“the ‘194 Patent”). The ‘194 Patent is a parent to the ‘780,
`
`‘494, and ‘633 Patents. The ‘780 Patent is a parent to the ‘926 Patent. Juniper would have been put on
`
`notice of these patents when it performed invalidity analysis of the ‘968 Patent, and also through its
`
`knowledge of the ‘780, ‘926, ‘633, ‘154, and ‘494 Patents being asserted against Palo Alto Networks,
`
`which was discussed between Finjan and Juniper.
`
`Finjan’s investigation of this matter is ongoing and it will comply with Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(e)
`
`should additional information become known to it.
`
`Dated: May 23, 2018
`
`By: /s/ Kristopher Kastens
`Paul J. Andre
`Lisa Kobialka
`James Hannah
`Kristopher Kastens
`KRAMER LEVIN NAFTALIS
`& FRANKEL LLP
`990 Marsh Road
`Menlo Park, CA 94025
`Telephone: (650) 752-1700
`Facsimile: (650) 752-1800
`pandre@kramerlevin.com
`lkobialka@kramerlevin.com
`jhannah@kramerlevin.com
`kkastens@kramerlevin.com
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff
`FINJAN, INC.
`
`6
`FINJAN’S SECOND SUPP. OBJ. & RESP. TO JUNIPER’S
`FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES (NO. 6)
`
` CASE NO.: 3:17-cv-05659-WHA
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`