Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 31 Filed 02/15/18 Page 1 of 31
`
`
`
`PAUL 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
`AUSTIN MANES (State Bar No. 284065)
`amanes@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.
`
`
`IRELL & MANELLA LLP
`Jonathan Kagan (166039)
`jkagan@irell.com
`Joshua Glucoft (301249)
`jglucoft@irell.com
`1800 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 900
`Los Angeles, CA 90067
`Telephone: (650)752-1700
`Facsimile: (650)752-1800
`
`Rebecca Carson (254105)
`rcarson@irell.com
`Nima Hefazi (272816)
`nhefazi@irell.com
`840 Newport Center Drive, Suite 400
`Newport Beach, CA 92660
`Telephone: (949)760-0991
`Facsimile: (949)760-5200
`
`Attorneys for Defendant
`JUNIPER NETWORKS, INC.
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`
`FINJAN, INC., a Delaware Corporation,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
`Case No.: 3:17-cv-05659-WHA
`
`JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT
`STATEMENT & [PROPOSED] ORDER
`
`JUNIPER NETWORKS, INC., a Delaware
`Corporation,
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`February 22, 2018
`Date:
` 11:00 a.m.
`Time:
`Location: Courtroom 12, 19th Floor
`
`Date Complaint Filed: September 29, 2017
`
`Trial Date: None Set
`
`
`
`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
`
`JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT Case No.: 3:17-cv-05659-WHA
`& [PROPOSED] ORDER
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 31 Filed 02/15/18 Page 2 of 31
`
`
`
`Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(f), Civil Local Rule 16-9, Patent Local Rule 2-
`
`1, the Standing Order for All Judges of the Northern District of California – Contents of Joint Case
`
`Management Statement, Judge Alsup’s Supplemental Order regarding Case Management Conferences,
`
`and the November 6, 2017 Clerk’s Notice Scheduling Initial Case Management Conference On
`
`Reassignment (Dkt. No. 13), the parties to the above-titled action, Plaintiff Finjan, Inc. (“Finjan”) and
`
`Defendant Juniper Networks, Inc. (“Juniper”), jointly submit this Case Management Statement and
`
`Proposed Order.
`1.
`This is an action for patent infringement arising under 35 U.S.C. § 101 et seq. The Court has
`
`Jurisdiction and Service
`
`subject matter jurisdiction over actions for patent infringement pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1338(a),
`
`2201, and 2202. Notwithstanding the forgoing, Juniper avers that it lacks information at this stage of
`
`the litigation to determine whether Finjan has sufficient rights in the patents-in-suit to confer subject
`
`matter jurisdiction in this case.
`
`Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(b) and (c) and/or 1400(b). No
`
`issues exist regarding personal jurisdiction, venue or service.
`2.
`
`Facts
`(a)
`Finjan filed its original complaint (the “Complaint”) in this action on September 29, 2017.
`
`Finjan’s Statement
`
`Finjan alleges that Juniper directly infringes U.S. Patent Nos.: 6,154,844 (“the ‘844 Patent”);
`
`6,804,780 (“the ‘780 Patent”); 7,613,926 (“the ‘926 Patent”); 7,647,633 (“the ‘633 Patent”); 8,141,154
`
`(“the ‘154 Patent”); 8,677,494 (“the ‘494 Patent”), 7,975,305 (“the ‘305 Patent”); and 8,225,408 (“the
`
`‘408 Patent”) (collectively the “Patents-in-Suit”) by making, using, selling, offering for sale and/or
`
`importing its: SRX Series Services Gateways (including Defendant’s SRX Gateway appliances, vSRX
`
`Virtual Firewall, and cSRX Container Firewall); Sky Advanced Threat Protection (“Sky ATP”); Junos
`
`Space Security Director; and Contrail products. The foregoing products and services are collectively
`
`referred to herein as the “Accused Products.”
`
`1
`JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT Case No.: 3:17-cv-05659-WHA
`& [PROPOSED] ORDER
`
`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 31 Filed 02/15/18 Page 3 of 31
`
`
`
`Finjan contends it holds all rights, title, and interest in the Patents-in-Suit. Finjan seeks
`
`damages and injunctive relief for the alleged infringement, as well as a finding that this case is
`
`exceptional.
`
`Counsel for Juniper contacted Finjan on October 30, 2017, requesting an extension of Juniper’s
`
`time to respond to the Complaint. The parties filed a joint stipulation on November 8, 2017, extending
`
`the time for Juniper to respond until December 22, 2017. The Court granted that stipulation by Order
`
`dated November 9, 2017 (Dkt. No. 16).
`
`(b)
`Juniper’s Statement
`Juniper is a leading provider of networking and network security products. Finjan has sued a
`
`number of technology companies, including Juniper, for alleged infringement of patents related to
`
`network security, including the Patents-in-Suit. Juniper contests Finjan’s allegations that Juniper
`
`infringes the Patents-in-Suit. Juniper also alleges that the Patents-in-Suit are invalid and
`
`unenforceable. This case is in its early stages and Juniper’s assessment of Finjan’s allegations and of
`
`the Patents-in-Suit is still ongoing.
`
`On December 22, 2017, Juniper filed a motion to dismiss the allegations of indirect
`
`infringement and willfulness in Finjan’s complaint. On February 1, 2018, the Court granted Juniper’s
`
`motion after hearing argument and ordered Finjan to seek leave before Finjan could file an amended
`
`complaint. Dkt. No. 28. Finjan has informed Juniper that Finjan does not intend to seek leave to
`
`amend its Complaint to resolve the deficiencies in its willful and induced infringement claims.
`3.
`The principal disputed legal issues are:
`
`Legal Issues
`
` Whether Juniper has infringed or not infringed any claim of the Patents-in-Suit under 35
`U.S.C. § 271;
`
` Whether the Patents-in-Suit are invalid;
`
` Whether the Patents-in-Suit are unenforceable;
`
` The proper construction of any disputed claim terms;
`
`2
`JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT Case No.: 3:17-cv-05659-WHA
`& [PROPOSED] ORDER
`
`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 31 Filed 02/15/18 Page 4 of 31
`
`
`
` Whether Finjan is entitled to recover damages as a result of the alleged infringement of any
`or all of the Patents-in-Suit, and if so, the amount (35 U.S.C. §§ 284, 287);
`
` Whether Finjan is entitled to injunctive relief to prevent alleged irreparable harm as a result
`of the alleged continuing infringement of any or all of the Patents-in-Suit (35 U.S.C. § 283);
`
` Whether this case is exceptional (35 U.S.C. § 285), entitling either party to its reasonable
`attorneys’ fees;
`
` Whether Finjan’s claims are barred, in whole or in part, by the defenses advanced by
`Juniper;
`
` Whether Juniper is entitled to equitable relief.
`
`4.
`
`Motions and/or Pending Matters
`(a)
`
`Pending Motions
`
`Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b), Juniper filed a motion to dismiss Finjan’s
`
`claims of indirect infringement and willful infringement. See Dkt. No. 23. This Court heard oral
`
`argument related to Juniper’s motion to dismiss on February 1, 2018. The Court granted Juniper’s
`
`motion with a written Order to follow.
`(b)
`
`Anticipated Motions
`
`Finjan and Juniper anticipate moving for summary judgment and may file other dispositive and
`
`non-dispositive motions as appropriate, as the case progresses.
`
`The parties anticipate filing a joint motion for a protective order governing the confidentiality
`
`of information and the review of source code in this matter. The parties also anticipate filing a
`
`Stipulated Order Regarding Discovery of ESI (“ESI Order”).
`5.
`Other than with respect to allegations dismissed by the Court pursuant to Juniper’s Motion to
`
`Amendment of Pleadings
`
`Dismiss (Dkt. No. 30), the parties agree that the deadline for joining parties and amending the
`
`pleadings without leave of Court should be May 4, 2018, and that otherwise the parties may only
`
`amend the pleadings upon a showing of good cause, or upon being granted leave to amend by the
`
`Court.
`
`Given Finjan’s representation that it does not intend to file a motion for leave to amend its
`
`3
`JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT Case No.: 3:17-cv-05659-WHA
`& [PROPOSED] ORDER
`
`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 31 Filed 02/15/18 Page 5 of 31
`
`
`
`Complaint, Juniper has agreed to file an answer and counterclaims in response to Finjan’s complaint
`
`no later than 14 days after the Court order on Juniper’s Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. No. 30). Given that
`
`this litigation is in its early stages, Juniper submits that it is unable to determine the extent to which
`
`proposed pleading amendments may be submitted.
`6.
`The parties have reviewed the Northern District of California’s Guidelines for the Discovery of
`
`Evidence Preservation
`
`Electronically Stored Information (“ESI”) and the Checklist for Rule 26(f) Meet and Confer Regarding
`
`ESI, including those portions related to evidence preservation. The parties confirm that they have met
`
`and conferred pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f) regarding reasonable and proportionate steps taken to
`
`preserve electronic and hardcopy evidence relevant to the issues reasonably evident in this action.
`
`The parties anticipate addressing further agreement regarding ESI in the parties’ ESI Order.
`7.
`The parties agree to exchange initial disclosures pursuant to Rule 26(a) on March 30, 2018.
`
`Initial Disclosures
`
`Each party reserves its right to amend such disclosures as discovery progresses.
`8.
`No discovery has been taken to date, and, at this time, the parties have not identified any
`
`Discovery
`
`discovery disputes. Pursuant to Rule 26(f) and paragraph 8 of the Standing Order for All Judges of the
`
`Northern District of California – Contents of Joint Case Management Statement, the parties propose
`
`the following discovery plan:
`(a)
`Changes to the timing, form, or requirement for disclosures under Rule
`26(a), including a statement of when initial disclosures were made or will be
`made.
`As noted above, the parties agree to exchange initial disclosures pursuant to Rule 26(a) on
`
`March 30, 2018. The parties’ proposals regarding the timing for expert disclosures under Rule
`
`26(a)(2) and pretrial disclosures under Rule 26(a)(3) are set forth in the proposed schedule at Section
`
`17 (Appendix A) below.
`
`4
`JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT Case No.: 3:17-cv-05659-WHA
`& [PROPOSED] ORDER
`
`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 31 Filed 02/15/18 Page 6 of 31
`
`
`
`(b)
`
`Subjects on which discovery may be needed, when discovery should be
`completed, and whether discovery should be conducted in phases or be
`limited to or focused on particular issues.
`
`The parties anticipate that the scope of discovery will encompass the factual and legal issues
`
`identified in Sections 2 and 3 above, and the requested relief discussed in Section 11 below, including
`
`all related, ancillary, and subsidiary factual and legal issues and matters. The parties’ proposals
`
`regarding when discovery should be completed are set forth in the proposed schedule in Section 17
`
`(Appendix A) below.
`
`(c)
`
`Any issues about disclosure, discovery, or preservation of electronically
`stored information, including the form or forms in which it should be
`produced.
`
`The parties discussed discovery of ESI during their Rule 26(f) conference. The parties intend
`
`to file a proposed stipulated ESI Order to address discovery of ESI, including the particular topics set
`
`forth in the Northern District of California’s Guidelines for the Discovery of ESI and Checklist for
`
`Rule 26(f) Meet and Confer Regarding ESI. The parties will continue to meet and confer in good faith
`
`to reach agreement on the terms of the ESI Order and will advise the Court if they are unable to resolve
`
`any disputed issues. The parties intend to file the stipulated ESI Order (with competing provisions if
`
`necessary) by March 5, 2018.
`
`(d)
`
`Any issues about claims of privilege or of protection as trial-preparation
`materials, including — if the parties agree on a procedure to assert these
`claims after production — whether to ask the court to include their
`agreement in an order.
`
`The parties agree that neither party will produce nor list on any privilege log any item protected
`
`by any privilege, immunity, or protection that occurred or was/is created on or after the filing of the
`
`Complaint (September 29, 2017).
`
`The parties agree that the production or disclosure of any information (including documents) in
`
`this action that a party or non-party (“Producing Party”) later claims should not have been produced
`
`due to a privilege or protection from discovery, including but not limited to any attorney-client
`
`privilege, work product privilege, joint defense privilege, or settlement privilege, shall not be deemed
`
`5
`JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT Case No.: 3:17-cv-05659-WHA
`& [PROPOSED] ORDER
`
`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 31 Filed 02/15/18 Page 7 of 31
`
`
`
`to waive any such privilege or protection. A party or non-party may request the return or destruction
`
`of such information, which request shall identify the information and the basis for requesting its return.
`
`When a Producing Party identifies such information as privileged or protected, a receiving party: 1)
`
`shall not use and shall immediately cease any prior use of such information (except for using that
`
`information for filing an objection to its designation as privileged or a motion to compel its
`
`production); 2) shall take reasonable steps to retrieve the information from others to which the
`
`receiving party disclosed the information; 3) shall within five business days of the Producing Party's
`
`request: a) return the information and all copies thereof to the Producing Party; or b) destroy and
`
`confirm to the Producing Party in writing that the information and all copies thereof have been
`
`destroyed. No one shall use the fact or circumstances of production of the information in this action to
`
`argue that any privilege or protection has been waived. Within fourteen days after a Producing Party
`
`or receiving party identifies the information, and not thereafter, the receiving party may file a motion
`
`to compel the production of the information on the basis that: (a) the information was never privileged
`
`or protected from disclosure; or (b) any applicable privilege or immunity has been waived by some act
`
`other than the production of the information in this action. The Producing Party and the receiving
`
`party shall meet and confer in accordance with applicable law or Court rules regarding any such
`
`motion to compel. Notwithstanding this provision, no party shall be required to return or destroy any
`
`information that may exist on any disaster recovery backup system
`
`Subject to the foregoing, the parties agree that this and any other agreement regarding issues of
`
`privilege or work product shall be addressed as provided in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,
`
`Federal Rule of Evidence 502 and the Protective Order and/or ESI Order to be entered in this action.
`
`(e)
`
`Changes that should be made in the limitations on discovery imposed under
`these rules or by local rule, and what other limitations should be imposed.
`
`To the extent not limited below, and unless otherwise agreed to by the parties, the parties agree
`
`that discovery is subject to the limitations set forth in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Local
`
`Rules of this Court and the ESI Order and Protective Order to be entered in this action. If a party
`
`requests discovery that exceeds any of the limitations set forth below, the parties agree to meet and
`
`6
`JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT Case No.: 3:17-cv-05659-WHA
`& [PROPOSED] ORDER
`
`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 31 Filed 02/15/18 Page 8 of 31
`
`
`
`confer in good faith to attempt to resolve the issue without intervention of the Court. If the parties are
`
`unable to reach agreement, a party may seek leave from the Court for the additional discovery.
`
`(i)
`The parties agree that there is no limit on the number of requests for production of documents
`
`Requests for Production of Documents and Things
`
`and things that each side may serve, consistent with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
`
`(ii)
`
`Interrogatories
`
`The parties agree that each side may serve up to 25 Interrogatories, consistent with the Federal
`
`Rules of Civil Procedure.
`
`(iii) Request for Admissions
`
`Finjan’s Proposal: Each side may serve up to 50 Requests for Admission. Requests for
`
`Admission related to the authentication of documents are exempt from this limitation.
`
`Juniper’s Proposal: There is no limit on the number of requests for admission that each side
`
`may serve, consistent with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
`(iv) Depositions
`
`Fact Depositions:
`
`The parties agree that depositions of party employees will occur in a mutually agreeable
`
`location within the Northern District of California, unless otherwise agreed. The parties agree that
`
`expert depositions will not count towards the limits on fact depositions. The parties further agree that
`
`all fact depositions, including depositions under FRCP 30(b)(6), shall be limited to no more than 7
`
`hours on the record, except that depositions of witnesses who require an interpreter shall be counted as
`half of the time on the record.1 The 7 hours total per-witness limit does not apply to Rule 30(b)(6)
`depositions when multiple witnesses are designated pursuant to a single Rule 30(b)(6) deposition
`
`
`1 E.g., two hours on the record with a foreign-language witness would count as only one hour on the
`record against the limit set forth above.
`
`7
`JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT Case No.: 3:17-cv-05659-WHA
`& [PROPOSED] ORDER
`
`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 31 Filed 02/15/18 Page 9 of 31
`
`
`
`notice,2 provided, however, that no person deposed in his or her personal capacity and also deposed as
`a witness under Rule 30(b)(6) designation shall be deposed for more than 7 hours across both
`capacities.3
`Finjan’s Proposal: Each side shall be limited to 70 hours of total deposition time (both party
`
`and non-party witnesses).
`
`Juniper’s Proposal: Each side shall be limited to 70 hours of deposition time, with no party
`
`being subject to more than 30 hours of depositions.
`
`Expert Depositions:
`
`The parties agree that an expert witness may be deposed for up to 7 hours for each expert report
`
`the expert submits. Thus, if an expert provides an opening expert report regarding infringement as
`
`well as a rebuttal expert report regarding invalidity, then that expert may be deposed for up to 7 hours
`
`regarding infringement and for up to 7 hours regarding invalidity.
`(f)
`The parties will be producing confidential information requiring entry of a protective order in
`
`Protective Order
`
`this action. Any confidential information produced prior to entry of a protective order is subject to the
`
`Northern District of California model protective order for litigation involving patents (pursuant to
`
`Patent Local Rule 2-2). The parties intend to meet and confer in good faith to reach agreement on the
`
`terms of a stipulated Protective Order, taking into consideration the Northern District of California
`
`model protective order for litigation involving patents, and will advise the Court if they are unable to
`
`resolve any disputed issues. The parties intend to file the stipulated Protective Order (with competing
`
`provisions if necessary) by March 5, 2018.
`(g)
`
`Discovery from Experts
`
`
`2 E.g.., if three witnesses are designated in response to a single Rule 30(b)(6) deposition, each witness
`shall be made available for 7 hours of deposition.
`3 E.g., a witness deposed in his personal capacity and also designated as a witness under Rule 30(b)(6)
`may be deposed, for example, for 4 hours in his personal capacity and 3 hours as a Rule 30(b)(6)
`designee, but cannot be deposed for 7 hours in his personal capacity and an additional 7 hours as a
`Rule 30(b)(6) designee.
`
`8
`JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT Case No.: 3:17-cv-05659-WHA
`& [PROPOSED] ORDER
`
`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 31 Filed 02/15/18 Page 10 of 31
`
`
`
`The parties agree that the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (e.g., Rule 26(b)(4)) and the Local
`
`Rules of this Court govern discovery from experts in this case.
`
`The parties further agree that the following communications and materials relating to expert
`
`witnesses in this litigation shall not be the subject of discovery or inquiry at trial: (a) drafts of any
`
`expert disclosures or analysis (including reports, declarations, affidavits, or any other form of
`
`testimony); (b) communications, whether written or oral, between or among any expert, consultant,
`
`and/or counsel for the party retaining said expert; (c) notes or preparatory materials taken by or on
`
`behalf of any expert; (d) emails, lists, agendas, outlines, memoranda, presentations, and letters,
`
`whether in draft or any other form, that are provided to, or by or on behalf of, any expert; and, (e) any
`
`other types of preliminary work product created by or on behalf of any expert. The foregoing
`
`exemptions shall not apply to any communications or materials, including those listed above, on which
`
`any expert, in any disclosure, expressly relies as a basis for an opinion. Such communications or
`
`materials shall be subject to discovery and inquiry at trial. Communications and materials exempt
`
`from discovery under this provision shall be treated as attorney work product and need not be listed on
`
`any privilege log.
`(h)
`The parties agree that all documents will be served electronically by email, except that
`
`Service
`
`documents too large for email service shall be timely made available on an FTP or similar file-sharing
`
`service and accompanied by an email describing the documents served. A party serves documents
`
`electronically by sending the documents (or access information for FTP or similar file-sharing service)
`
`to the following email addresses:
`
`
`for Juniper: jkagan@irell.com, rcarson@irell.com, jglucoft@irell.com, kwang@irell.com,
`
`eholland@irell.com, and, upon written notice by Juniper, all other outside counsel identified by
`
`Juniper
`
`
`
`for Finjan: pandre@kramelevin.com, lkobialka@kramerlevin.com, jhannah@kramerlevin.com,
`
`kkastens@kramerlevin.com, amanes@kramerlevin.com, and, upon written notice by Finjan, all
`
`other outside counsel identified by Finjan
`
`9
`JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT Case No.: 3:17-cv-05659-WHA
`& [PROPOSED] ORDER
`
`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 31 Filed 02/15/18 Page 11 of 31
`
`
`
`For the avoidance of doubt, no additional time is added under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(d) for
`
`Class Actions
`
`responding to documents served by email.
`9.
`Not applicable.
`10.
`Information concerning other pending litigations involving the Patents-in-Suit is provided at
`
`Related Pending Cases
`
`Appendix B.
`11.
`Finjan seeks entry of judgment finding that Juniper has infringed and is infringing the Patents-
`
`Relief
`
`in-Suit. Finjan also seeks injunctive relief, including an injunction against Juniper from infringing the
`
`Patents-in-Suit. Finjan also seeks monetary damages, including damages based on an amount no less
`
`than a reasonable royalty. Finjan further seeks a judgment that this case is exceptional and an award of
`
`Finjan’s costs and reasonable attorneys’ fees. Finjan also seeks an accounting of all sales and
`
`revenues, together with pre-judgment and post-judgment interest. Finjan seeks any other relief
`
`available under applicable law.
`
`Juniper seeks or anticipates that it will seek: (A) the dismissal of Finjan’s Complaint with
`
`prejudice; (B) a declaration that Juniper has not infringed any of the claims of the Patents-in-Suit; (C) a
`
`declaration that the Patents-in-Suit are invalid and unenforceable; (D) a finding that this case is
`
`exceptional and an award to Juniper of its costs, expenses, and attorneys’ fees; and (E) such other relief
`
`as the Court deems just and proper under the circumstances.
`12.
`Pursuant to ADR L.R. 3-5, the parties have reviewed the Court’s ADR handbook, discussed the
`
`Settlement and ADR
`
`available ADR procedures and considered whether this case would benefit from an ADR procedure.
`
`The parties have chosen mediation as the ADR process for this case pursuant to ADR L.R. 6, as set
`
`forth in their stipulation submitted on December 13, 2017 (Dkt. No. 18).
`13.
`The parties do not consent to have a magistrate judge conduct all further proceedings including
`
`Consent to Magistrate Judge
`
`10
`JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT Case No.: 3:17-cv-05659-WHA
`& [PROPOSED] ORDER
`
`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 31 Filed 02/15/18 Page 12 of 31
`
`
`
`trial and entry of judgment.
`14. Other references
`The parties do not believe that this case is suitable for reference to binding arbitration, a special
`
`master, or the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation.
`15.
`Subject to the progression of discovery, the parties may be able to narrow certain issues via
`
`Narrowing of Issues
`
`stipulated facts. Juniper believes that certain issues regarding invalidity, unenforceability, non-
`
`infringement, and damages (including the limitation of damages for failure to mark) may be disposed
`
`of through summary judgment, including potentially early summary judgment.
`
`In addition, in order to streamline “the issues in this case to promote a ‘just, speedy, and
`
`inexpensive determination’ of this action, as provided by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 1,” the
`
`parties propose the following phased limits on asserted claims and invalidity theories.
`
`Not later than 40 days after Juniper is required to provide invalidity contentions pursuant to
`
`Patent Local Rule 3-3 and produce documents sufficient to show the operation of the accused
`
`instrumentalities pursuant to Patent Local Rule 3-4, Finjan shall serve its Election of Asserted Claims,
`which shall identify no more than [Finjan’s proposal: five4][Juniper’s proposal: two5] asserted
`claims per patent and no more than a total of 16 claims across all patents. Not later than 14 days after
`
`service of the Election of Asserted Claims, Juniper shall serve its Election of Asserted Prior Art, which
`shall identify no more than six grounds6 per patent and no more than a total of 32 grounds. See
`Straight Path IP Group, Inc. v. Apple Inc., Case No. 3:16-cv-03582-WHA, Dkt. No. 78 at p. 4 (N.D.
`
`
`4 Finjan proposes the limitations set forth in the Federal Circuit Advisory Board’s Model Order
`Limiting Excess Patent Claims and Prior Art.
`5 This Court has recognized that “a good lawyer never goes to trial on a patent case with more than two
`claims.” See Straight Path IP Group, Inc. v. Apple Inc., Case No. 3:16-cv-03582-WHA, Dkt. No. 78
`at p. 2 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 13, 2017) (Alsup, J.).
`6 A “ground” comprises one or more prior art references in combination. For example, anticipation
`under reference A would be one ground, obviousness under the combination of references A and B is
`another ground, and obviousness under the combination of A, B, and C is another different grounds.
`
`11
`JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT Case No.: 3:17-cv-05659-WHA
`& [PROPOSED] ORDER
`
`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 31 Filed 02/15/18 Page 13 of 31
`
`
`
`Cal. Apr. 13, 2017) (Alsup, J.); Federal Circuit Advisory Board’s Model Order Limiting Excess Patent
`
`Claims and Prior Art.
`
`Upon a showing of diligence, and with due consideration for prejudice, a party may seek to
`
`modify the above limits on asserted claims and prior art grounds for good cause shown. Any request
`
`to increase these limits must specifically show why the inclusion of additional asserted claims or prior
`
`art references is warranted. See In re Katz Interactive Call Processing Patent Litig., 639 F.3d 1303,
`
`1312–13 (Fed. Cir. 2011). A failure to seek such a modification will constitute acquiescence to the
`
`above limits on asserted claims and prior art references.
`16.
`The parties do not propose that this case proceed under the Expedited Trial Procedure of
`
`Expedited Trial Procedure
`
`Scheduling
`
`General Order 64 Attachment A.
`17.
`The parties’ scheduling proposals are set forth in the chart attached hereto as Appendix A.
`18.
`The parties have requested trial by jury. The parties expect that the trial will last at least 10
`
`Trial
`
`court days in light of the complexity of the case and the number of patents asserted.
`19.
`The parties have filed Certifications of Interested Entities or Persons pursuant to Civil Local
`
`Disclosure of Non-party Interested Entities or Persons.
`
`Rule 3-16.
`
`Finjan certifies that the following listed persons, associations of persons, firms, partnerships,
`
`corporations (including parent corporations) or other entities (i) have a financial interest in the subject
`
`matter in controversy or in a party to the proceeding, or (ii) have a non-financial interest in that subject
`
`matter or in a party that could be substantially affected by the outcome of this proceeding:
`
`Finjan, Inc. is a wholly owned subsidiary of Finjan Holdings, Inc. Additionally, CybeRisk
`
`Security Solutions LLC, Finjan Mobile, Inc., and Finjan Blue, Inc. are also wholly owned subsidiaries
`
`of Finjan Holdings, Inc. No other entities have a financial interest in the subject matter in controversy
`
`or Finjan, Inc., or a non-financial interest in that subject matter or Finjan, Inc. that could be
`
`12
`JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT Case No.: 3:17-cv-05659-WHA
`& [PROPOSED] ORDER
`
`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 31 Filed 02/15/18 Page 14 of 31
`
`
`
`substantially affected by the outcome of this proceeding.
`
`Juniper certifies that there is no interest to report.
`20.
`The attorneys of record confirm that they have reviewed the Guidelines for Professional
`
`Professional Conduct
`
`Conduct for the Northern District of California.
`21.
`Pursuant to Patent Local Rule 2-1(b), the parties have also met and conferred regarding the
`
`Patent Local Rule 2-1(b)
`
`following additional matters:
`
`(1)
`
`Proposed modification of the obligations or deadlines set forth in the Patent Local
`Rules
`
`The parties’ proposed modified timeline for Patent Local Rule 4 is set forth in Appendix A
`
`below. In essence, it proposes delaying claim construction briefing by 3-4 months. This delay would
`
`be more efficient for both the parties and the Court, particularly in light of the fact that this Court
`
`typically delays hearing argument or issuing an order on claim construction until the summary
`
`judgment phase. Accordingly, the parties jointly propose deferring the typical claim construction
`
`briefing schedule until closer to summary judgment when this Court is anticipated to actually consider
`
`the issues.
`
`Juniper also asserts that because several of the patents-in-suit are currently subjec