throbber
Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 376-4 Filed 02/19/19 Page 1 of 3
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT 9
`
`Redacted Version of Document Sought
`to be Sealed
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 376-4 Filed 02/19/19 Page 2 of 3
`
`·1· · · · · ·IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`·2· · · · ·FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`·3
`
`·4· ·FINJAN, INC., a Delaware
`· · ·Corporation,
`·5
`· · · · · · · ·Plaintiff,· · · · · · · ·Case No.
`·6· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · 3:17-cv-05659-WHA
`· · · · ·vs.
`·7
`· · ·JUNIPER NETWORKS, INC., a
`·8· ·Delaware Corporation,
`
`·9
`· · · · · · · ·Defendant.
`10· ·_________________________________
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13· · *** HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY ***
`
`14
`
`15· · · · VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION OF JULIE MAR-SPINOLA
`
`16· · · · · · · · Tuesday, October 30, 2018
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23· ·Reported by:
`· · ·Tavia Manning, CSR No. 13294, CLR, CCRR, RPR
`24
`
`25· ·Job No. LA-197250
`
`REDACTED VERSION OF DOCUMENT SOUGHT TO BE SEALED
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 376-4 Filed 02/19/19 Page 3 of 3
`
`Page 86
`
`·1· ·those patents?
`·2· · · · · · MR. KASTENS:· Objection; form.
`·3· · · · · · THE WITNESS:· Yes.· I think so.
`·4· ·BY MS. CARSON:
`·5· · · · Q.· Do you know whether Finjan Mobile practices
`·6· ·any of the patents that have been asserted against
`·7· ·Juniper?
`·8· · · · · · MR. KASTENS:· Objection; form.
`·9· · · · · · THE WITNESS:· I don't know that offhand. I
`10· ·know that Finjan Mobile practices some patents that
`11· ·are owned by Finjan, Inc., but I -- you know,
`12· ·there's too many for me to remember in terms of
`13· ·Juniper versus Finjan Mobile.
`14· ·BY MS. CARSON:
`15· · · · Q.· Does Finjan Mobile mark its Vital Security
`16· ·browser product?
`17· · · · A.· Yes.
`18· · · · Q.· How does it mark?
`19· · · · A.· We do it on the -- virtually, virtual
`20· ·notice on the website, and I believe on our
`21· ·marketing materials.
`22· · · · Q.· The Vital Security product is an app;
`23· ·correct?
`24· · · · A.· It is.
`25· · · · · · MR. KASTENS:· Objection; form.
`
`·1· ·licenses contain marking provisions?
`·2· · · · · · MR. KASTENS:· Objection; form.
`·3· · · · · ·
`
`Page 88
`
`·5· ·BY MS. CARSON:
`·6· · · · Q.· Do you know whether of any Finjan's
`·7· ·licensees practice the patents that have been
`·8· ·asserted against Juniper in this case?
`·9· · · · · · MR. KASTENS:· Objection; form.
`10· · · · · · THE WITNESS:· Would you say that again?
`11· ·BY MS. CARSON:
`12· · · · Q.· Do you know whether any of Finjan's
`13· ·licensees practice the patents that have been
`14· ·asserted against Juniper in this case?
`15· · · · · · MR. KASTENS:· Objection; form.
`16· · · · · · THE WITNESS:· I don't remember what patents
`17· ·we asserted against Juniper right now, and it would
`18· ·take a lot of time for me to answer that question
`19· ·and to get the answer to your question.· I can't
`20· ·answer it now.· I would be guessing.
`21· ·BY MS. CARSON:
`22· · · · Q.· Does Finjan believe that its licensees
`23· ·actually use its patents?
`24· · · · A.· Of course.
`25· · · · · · MR. KASTENS:· Objection; form.
`
`Page 87
`·1· · · · · · THE WITNESS:· It is an app, the mobile
`·2· ·device app.
`·3· ·BY MS. CARSON:
`·4· · · · Q.· When you pull up the Finjan Mobile product
`·5· ·in the app store, does Finjan list its -- the
`·6· ·patents that cover it there?
`·7· · · · · · MR. KASTENS:· Objection; form.
`·8· · · · · · THE WITNESS:· I don't know.· I didn't check
`·9· ·that.· To the extent that it is doable and
`10· ·permissible in those stores, because I know both the
`11· ·Google Play and -- what's Apple's -- Apple Store,
`12· ·they have certain restrictions and requirements.
`13· · · · · · So if it's not there, that's why we do the
`14· ·virtual, just because we know there we can -- we can
`15· ·consistently provide our notices, like a lot of
`16· ·companies in the Valley.
`17· ·BY MS. CARSON:
`18· · · · Q.· Does the Finjan Mobile product list any
`19· ·patent numbers on the info page for the app once you
`20· ·download it?
`21· · · · A.· I don't know.
`22· · · · Q.· Do you know whether any of Finjan's
`23· ·licenses contain marking provisions?
`24· · · · A.· Finjan?· Which entity?
`25· · · · Q.· Do you know whether any of Finjan, Inc.'s
`
`Page 89
`
`·1· ·BY MS. CARSON:
`·2· · · · Q.· One of Finjan's licensees is Trustwave;
`·3· ·correct?
`·4· · · · A.· Yes.· It's not just a licensee.· Well, I
`·5· ·guess, yeah, it's under a license.
`·6· · · · Q.· Why do you say "it's not just a licensee"?
`·7· · · · · · MR. KASTENS:· Objection; form.
`·8· · · · · · THE WITNESS:· Trustwave had acquired
`·9· ·Finjan's product division, what I am going to call a
`10· ·"product division," for our gateway products back
`11· ·before I joined the company.
`12· · · · · · And so they continue to manufacture the
`13· ·gateways -- I don't know if they call it "Vital
`14· ·Security" anymore, but it's still incorporates -- I
`15· ·believe it still incorporates portions of Finjan's
`16· ·protocols and source code, and their license is
`17· ·still in existence, yeah.
`18· ·BY MS. CARSON:
`19· · · · Q.· Finjan recently sued Trustwave; correct?
`20· · · · · · MR. KASTENS:· Objection; form.
`21· · · · · · THE WITNESS:· Yes.
`22· ·BY MS. CARSON:
`23· · · · Q.· What was the basis for that lawsuit?
`24· · · · · · MR. KASTENS:· Objection; form.
`25· · · · · · THE WITNESS:· It was so much more fun when
`
`REDACTED VERSION OF DOCUMENT SOUGHT TO BE SEALED
`
`

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

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.

throbber

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.

Become a Member

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

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket