Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 353-17 Filed 01/10/19 Page 1 of 5
`
`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 353-17 Filed 01/10/19 Page 1of5
`
`EXHIBIT 15
`
`
`
`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 353-17 Filed 01/10/19 Page 1of5
`
`EXHIBIT 15
`
`
`
`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 353-17 Filed 01/10/19 Page 2 of 5
`
` Pages 1 - 38
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`BEFORE THE HONORABLE WILLIAM H. ALSUP, JUDGE
`
`FINJAN, INC., )
` )
` Plaintiff, )
` )
` VS. ) NO. C 17-5659 WHA
` )
`JUNIPER NETWORKS, INC., )
` ) San Francisco, California
` Defendant. )
` )
`___________________________________)
`
` Thursday, November 29, 2018
`
`TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS
`
`APPEARANCES:
`
`For Plaintiff:
` KRAMER LEVIN NAFTALIS & FRANKEL, LLP
` 990 Marsh Road
` Menlo Park, California 94025
` BY: PAUL ANDRE, ESQ.
` LISA KOBIALKA, ESQ.
` HANNAH LEE, ESQ.
` YURIDIA CAIRE, ESQ.
` KRISTOPHER B. KASTENS, ESQ.
`
`For Defendant:
`
` IRELL & MANELLA, LLP
` 840 Newport Center Drive
` Suite 400
` Newport Beach, California 92660
` BY: REBECCA L. CARSON, ESQ.
`
`
`Reported By: BELLE BALL, CSR 8785, CRR, RDR
` Official Reporter, U.S. District Court
`
`(Appearances continued, next page)
`
`
`
`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 353-17 Filed 01/10/19 Page 3 of 5
`
` 7
`
` 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
`
`one infringement -- that's one system.
`
`THE COURT: That's not -- your guy's using numbers
`
`that are SRX only.
`
`MS. KOBIALKA: Well, that's actually not correct.
`
`THE COURT: Well, then, we've been bamboozled.
`
`MS. KOBIALKA: Yes.
`
`THE COURT: We have been bamboozled by Juniper.
`
`MS. KOBIALKA: Yes. Absolutely.
`
`THE COURT: Then explain to me how we got bamboozled.
`
`MS. KOBIALKA: They made the statement in their reply
`
`brief that all we're asserting is SRX, itself. We've not
`
`asserted that.
`
`And throughout all of our pretrial filings which we've
`
`filed and we have stipulated, the issues here in this case for
`
`infringement -- and we are very specific -- is making, using,
`
`selling, right, and offering for sale SRX with Sky ATP.
`
`And then separately --
`
`THE COURT: That's only $1.8 million worth, right
`
`there.
`
`MS. KOBIALKA: It's not. It's $142 million --
`
`THE COURT: No, I'm telling you the numbers that they
`
`have for SRX sold in combination with Sky ATP is $1.8 million,
`
`base.
`
`MS. KOBIALKA: And so now you're only looking at part
`
`of the infringement case, which is just the selling. What
`
`
`
`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 353-17 Filed 01/10/19 Page 4 of 5
`
` 8
`
` 1
`
` 2
`
` 3
`
` 4
`
` 5
`
` 6
`
` 7
`
` 8
`
` 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`about they make, use, and offer for sale? There's lots of
`
`benefits in connection with respect to that.
`
`We dispute that it's 1.8 --
`
`THE COURT: They don't make -- they don't offer --
`
`they don't -- they're not selling anything that infringes
`
`unless it has Sky ATP as part of it. It has to be Sky ATP in
`
`there, or you lose. That was your whole theory. That's what
`
`you convinced me on, the first time. Now you're coming up
`
`with a new theory.
`
`MS. KOBIALKA: That's incorrect. Let's look at the
`
`statute separately. And I'm going to be very clear.
`
`You're only looking at one component of the infringement
`
`statute, which is selling. And they're saying: Okay, the
`
`value of the selling that component of that infringement is
`
`just worth -- they're claim egg it's 1.8. We're telling you
`
`that's incorrect. There's 142 -- over 142 million -- close to
`
`$143 million in sales in which this SRX is sold with Sky ATP.
`
`It's sold. The complete system is sold.
`
`Separate and apart from that, we have the fact that
`
`Juniper makes and uses and offers for sale. And there's
`
`significant benefits in connection with that infringement. And
`
`that infringement goes to -- and that is detailed in great
`
`detail both in Mr. Arst's report as well as Dr. Cole, includes
`
`the fact that it's able to have the most up-to-date threat
`
`25
`
`intelligence.
`
`
`
`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 353-17 Filed 01/10/19 Page 5 of 5
`
` 9
`
` 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
`
`So here you have this formerly router company that says:
`
`I need to be relevant still in the marketplace, because routers
`
`are being commoditized, by moving --
`
`THE COURT: Well, offer for sale is not the same.
`
`"Make, use or sell" is what the statute says.
`
`MS. KOBIALKA: And "offer for sale."
`
`THE COURT: Where does it say that?
`
`MS. KOBIALKA: I believe it's in 271 --
`
`THE COURT: Let's look that up right now.
`
`That would be only for injunctive relief, in my opinion,
`
`if -- an offer for sale. If it doesn't turn into a sale, how
`
`can there be any damages?
`
`MS. KOBIALKA: The benefits that Juniper gets for
`
`making and using are significant to Juniper, in and of itself.
`
`You can't just look at the revenues. And that's only a
`
`component of the infringement here.
`
`They, they build, they operate these systems. Dr. Cole's
`
`explained that. And in fact, he cites to quite a few
`
`documentation specific to Juniper, in which he says (As read):
`
`"Showing that the results of Sky ATP are shared
`
`throughout Juniper's threat-sharing ecosystem so its
`
`threat intelligence is mostly up to date, once it's
`
`identified, it's recorded in the look-up cache
`
`(Phonetic) and widely propagated to stop similar
`
`attacks in the future, the shared environment ensures
`
`
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
