`
`
`
`Paul Andre
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`November 16, 2018
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`990 Marsh Road
`Menlo Park, CA 94025-1949
`T 650.752.1700
`F 650.752.1800
`
`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:
`
`Finjan writes in response to Juniper’s letter (Dkt # 232) filed this morning regarding
`Finjan’s motions in limine (“MIL”). Juniper raised this issue with Finjan yesterday claiming
`that all four of Finjan’s MILs violated the Court’s Guidelines that “[e]ach motion should
`address a single topic.” Finjan informed Juniper its MILs did follow the Court’s Guideline
`and only addressed a single topic, but that Finjan was willing to meet and confer on the
`issue. Specifically, Finjan informed Juniper as follows:
`
`Each of Finjan’s MILs relates to a single topic:
`
`MIL #1 – Juniper’s Late Disclosures
`MIL #2 – Rubin’s Improper Arguing of Claim Construction
`MIL #3 – Rubin’s Improper Opinions on Prejudicial Material
`MIL #4 – Juniper’s Improper Introduction of Prejudicial Material
`
` •
`
`
`•
`•
`•
`
`Juniper choose not to meet and confer with Finjan, but instead filed its letter.
`Apparently, Finjan’s email response persuaded Juniper that Finjan’s first two MILs followed
`the Court’s Guideline, as Juniper only requests relief on MILs #3 and #4.
`
`Finjan’s MIL #3 seeks to preclude Juniper’s expert Dr. Rubin form testifying
`regarding prejudicial materials in his three expert reports. The single topic of Dr. Rubin’s
`inappropriate opinions spread out over three expert reports does not consist of five
`separate topics as Juniper complains, but instead identifies five different instances where
`Dr. Rubin provided such inappropriate opinions. Under Juniper’s interpretation of the
`Court’s Guideline, parties would be required to file a MIL on every instance where an
`expert sought to introduce a host of inappropriate opinions instead of tackling this single
`issue in a single MIL.
`
`The same is true of MIL #4 relating to Juniper’s introduction of prejudicial material
`at trial. The single issue to preclude irrelevant and prejudicial material identifies three
`different examples of such prejudicial material, but does not consist of three separate
`topics.
`
`KRAMER LEVIN NAFTALIS & FRANKEL LLP
`
`
`
`
`
`
`SILICON VALLEY | NEW YORK | PARIS
`
`
`
`
`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 233 Filed 11/16/18 Page 2 of 2
`
`Hon. William Alsup
`November 16, 2018
`
`
`
`Finjan request the Court deny Juniper’s request to require multiple MILs where a
`single MIL addresses the one issue that Finjan seeks to be precluded.
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`/s/ Paul Andre_________
`Paul Andre
`KRAMER LEVIN NAFTALIS & FRANKEL LLP
`Attorneys for Plaintiff
`Finjan, Inc.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
