Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 194 Filed 09/07/18 Page 1 of 2
`
`I R E L L & M A N E L L A L L P
`
`A REGISTERED LIMITED LIABILITY LAW PARTNERSHIP
`
`INCLUDING PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS
`
`8 4 0 N E W P O R T C E N T E R D R I V E , S U I T E 4 0 0
`
`1 8 0 0 A V E N U E O F T H E S T A R S , S U I T E 9 0 0
`
`N E W P O R T B E A C H , C A 9 2 6 6 0 - 6 3 2 4
`
`T E L E P H O N E ( 9 4 9 ) 7 6 0 - 0 9 9 1
`
`F A C S I M I L E ( 9 4 9 ) 7 6 0 - 5 2 0 0
`
`
`
`L O S A N G E L E S , C A L I F O R N I A 9 0 0 6 7 - 4 2 7 6
`
`September 7, 2018
`
`T E L E P H O N E ( 3 1 0 ) 2 7 7 - 1 0 1 0
`
`F A C S I M I L E ( 3 1 0 ) 2 0 3 - 7 1 9 9
`
`W E B S I T E : w w w . i r e l l . c o m
`
`W R I T E R ' S D I R E C T
`
`T E L E P H O N E ( 3 1 0 ) 2 0 3 - 7 1 8 9
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Hon. William Alsup
`U.S. District Court
`Northern District of California
`
`
`
`Re:
`
`Finjan, Inc. v. Juniper Networks, Inc., Case No. 3:17-cv-05659-WHA
`
`Dear Judge Alsup:
`
`Juniper writes to request clarification of an ambiguity regarding the scope of the
`upcoming trial in this matter, currently scheduled for December 10, 2018. Juniper has
`conferred with counsel for Finjan, who indicated that clarification was needed.
`
`The Court’s first Amended Case Management Order (Dkt. 35) of February 23 notes
`that, in conjunction with the early summary judgment proceedings, “[i]f issues of fact
`prevent summary judgment, then we will have a trial on the disputed points soon thereafter.”
`Dkt. 35 at 4. On August 31, this Court issued an order that effectively denied summary
`judgment and identified four disputed issues that remained for trial. Dkt. 189 at 20-21
`(Order Granting in Part Early Motion for Summary Judgment on ‘494 Patent). This order
`states:
`
`[T]he following issues will be decided at trial: (1) whether the accused
`products meet the “database” limitation; (2) Juniper’s Section 101
`invalidity defense; (3) Juniper’s Section 287 defense on damages; and
`(4) the extent of damages. A separate order will address the trial
`schedule.
`
`The first Amended Case Management Order (Dkt. 35) indicated that trial on all
`remaining issues would occur in July 2019. On September 4, 2018, the Court issued its
`“separate order” addressing the first trial schedule, the Third Amended Case Management
`Order (Dkt. 193). While Juniper understood that the purpose of the Third Amended Case
`Management Order was to set forth the first trial schedule, not to alter the scope of the first
`trial, Finjan suggested that because the order says it “superseded all previous case
`management orders,” Finjan understands this Third Amended Case Management Order to
`remove the limitations on the scope of the trial that the Court set forth in its first Amended
`Case Management Order of February 23. Thus, Finjan indicated that it believed the
`December trial was no longer limited to the issues set forth in this Court’s early summary
`judgment order and would now include all issues in dispute in this case, including
`infringement and validity for all seven patents-in-suit.
`
`10573662
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 194 Filed 09/07/18 Page 2 of 2
`
`I R E L L & M A N E L L A L L P
`
`A REGISTERED LIMITED LIABILITY L AW PARTNERSHIP
`
`INCLUDING PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS
`
`
`
`Given the ambiguity identified by Finjan, Juniper respectfully requests clarification
`whether the scope of the December 2018 trial is limited to the issues the Court enumerated
`in its August 31 early summary judgment order (Dkt. 189 at 20-21) or will be expanded to
`encompass all remaining issues for all seven asserted patents in this case (thus eliminating
`the July 2019 trial on all remaining issues).
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`/s/ Jonathan Kagan________
`Jonathan S. Kagan
`IRELL & MANELLA LLP
`Attorneys for Juniper Networks, Inc.
`
`10573662
`
`
`- 2 -
`
`
`
`