`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF SHELLY GUPTA
`
`I Shelly Gupta, declare as follow:
`
`1. I have personal knowledge of the facts set forth in this declaration, and I could and would
`
`testify competently thereto if called upon to do so.
`
`2. I am a Senior Director of Finance at Juniper Networks, Inc., I am responsible for managing a
`
`team of professionals which provides finance support to Juniper’s Research and
`
`Development Centers. In my role I help to oversee Juniper’s revenues and operating
`
`expenses.
`
`3. I have been deposed on two separate occasions in this case, most recently yesterday,
`
`December 7, 2018.
`
`4. I understand from Finjan’s Offer of Proof (Dkt. 303) that Finjan seeks to calculate revenues
`
`for SRX devices associated with free Sky ATP licenses using the “Shipment Quantity” and
`
`“Shipments Net Value” columns (columns G and H) in the spreadsheet marked JNPR-
`
`FNJN_29028_01012873. However, these columns do not identify the net values associated
`
`with the specific SRX devices for which a free Sky ATP license was activated (devices
`
`which the spreadsheet identifies by unique Serial Number). Instead, these columns expose
`
`the value of all products from a particular SRX product line that were included in the same
`
`sales order with the specific Sky ATP-enabled SRX devices (identified by Serial Number).
`
`For example, in Column L (“Sales Order Number”) as sorted in ascending order, Row 26
`
`reflects a sales order that included 200 SRX300 devices, only one of which was enabled to
`
`use the free version of Sky ATP.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 305-1 Filed 12/08/18 Page 2 of 3
`
`
`
`Finjan’s proposed $7.2 million number includes the revenues for the other 199 SRX300
`
`devices included in this shipment—SRX devices that were not used with the free version
`
`of Sky ATP. Finjan repeats this same error for each of the shipments covered by the
`
`spreadsheet.
`
`5. Additionally, Finjan’s use of the Shipment Quantity and Shipment Net Value columns leads
`
`to double counting. The spreadsheet includes a separate row for each Sky ATP-enabled SRX
`
`device (identified by Serial Number). In turn, each row includes information regarding the
`
`sales order in which that specific device was included. For those sales orders that included
`
`more than one Sky ATP-enabled SRX device, there are therefore multiple corresponding
`
`rows in the spreadsheet (one row for each Sky ATP enabled SRX device), all of which refer
`
`to the same sales order. For example, the rows highlighted in the below image refer to a
`
`single sales order that included 3 SRX1500-AC units that were enabled with Sky ATP.
`
`The fact that these three rows refer to the same sales order is clear from the fact that they
`
`all have the identical Sales Order Number (15015402). But when Finjan manipulated the
`
`spreadsheet to come up with its alleged $7.2 million revenue figure, Finjan counted the
`
`revenue from that single sales order three times.
`
`6. During my deposition yesterday I became concerned that Finjan might overstate the relevant
`
`financial figures associated with SRX devices enabled to use the free version of Sky ATP. I
`
`stated that the Drop Ship tab contains a larger population of data than is relevant and made
`
`clear that Finjan should use the “us_prod tab.” I explained that the “us_prod” reflects the
`
`values of SRX units enabled with free Sky ATP.
`
`
`
`
`
`- 2 -
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 305-1 Filed 12/08/18 Page 3 of 3
`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 305-1 Filed 12/08/18 Page 3 of 3
`
`ExecutedDecember8, 2018 at anta (IgAQ California. Ideclareunder
`penalty ofperjury underthe laws ofthe United States ofAmerica that the foregoingis true
`and correct.
`
`Shelly Gupta
`
`