`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`Before The Honorable WILLIAM H. ALSUP, Judge
`
`FINJAN, INC., a Delaware ) Motions for Judgment as a
`Corporation, ) Matter of Law
` )
` Plaintiff, )
` )
` vs. ) NO. C 17-05659 WHA
` )
`JUNIPER NETWORKS, INC., A ) Pages 1 - 33
`Delaware Corporation, )
` ) San Francisco, California
` Defendant. )
`____________________________) Thursday, February 21, 2019
`
`
`
`REPORTER'S TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS
`
`
`APPEARANCES:
`
`For Plaintiff: Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel LLP
` 990 Marsh Road
` Menlo Park, California 94025
` BY: PAUL ANDRE,
` KRISTOPHER B. KASTENS,
` LISA KOBIALKA, ATTORNEYS AT LAW
`
`
`For Defendant: Irell & Manella
` 840 Newport Center Drive, Suite 500
` Newport Beach, California 92660-6324
` BY: REBECCA L. CARSON, ATTORNEY AT LAW
`
` Irell & Manella LLP
` 1800 Avenue of the Stars
` Suite 900
` Los Angeles, California 90067-4275
` BY: JONATHAN S. KAGAN, ATTORNEY AT LAW
`
`
`
`Reported By: Raynee H. Mercado, CSR No. 8258
`
`
`Proceedings reported by electronic/mechanical stenography;
`transcript produced by computer-aided transcription.
`
`
`
`RAYNEE H. MERCADO, CSR, RMR, CRR, FCRR, CCRR (510) 565-7228
`
`ORIGINAL
`
`
`
` 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
`
`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 382 Filed 03/01/19 Page 2 of 33
`
`2
`
`Thursday, February 21, 2019 9:02 a.m.
`
`P R O C E E D I N G S
`
`THE CLERK: Calling civil action 17-5659, Finjan,
`
`Inc. versus Juniper Network, Inc.
`
`Counsel, please step forward and state your appearances
`
`for the record.
`
`(Pause in the proceedings.)
`
`MR. ANDRE: Good morning, Your Honor. Paul Andre for
`
`Finjan.
`
`MS. KOBIALKA: Lisa Kobialka for Finjan.
`
`THE COURT: Welcome back.
`
`MS. KOBIALKA: Thank you.
`
`MR. KASTENS: Kristopher Kastens for Finjan, Your
`
`Honor.
`
`THE COURT: Okay.
`
`MS. CARSON: Good morning, Your Honor. Rebecca
`
`Carson for Juniper.
`
`MR. KAGAN: Jonathan Kagan of Irell & Manella for
`
`Juniper.
`
`THE COURT: All right.
`
`Well, first on the motion -- renewed motions for judgment
`
`as a matter of law, we're not going to go through all of
`
`these. I'll let each of you pick one that you want to
`
`address, and then we'll give that some time.
`
`But I want the world to know how burdensome these cases
`
`RAYNEE H. MERCADO, CSR, RMR, CRR, FCRR, CCRR (510) 565-7228
`
`
`
` 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
`
`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 382 Filed 03/01/19 Page 3 of 33
`
`3
`
`are. We've gone through a trial and hit at every turn,
`
`everyone has got to litigate everything to the nth degree.
`
`And there's just not time in the universe for all of that.
`
`I could have decided this on the papers and just either
`
`granted it or denied it, but I'm giving you each a shot at
`
`something.
`
`And then we got to -- we got case management to talk about
`
`after that. You all want to certify it to the Court of
`
`Appeals. Then you're going to want to go to the International
`
`Court of the Hague. At some point, this has got to stop.
`
`All right. So who wants to go first?
`
`MR. KASTENS: Your Honor --
`
`THE COURT: Let's hear from you, Finjan.
`
`MR. KASTENS: Finjan would like to discuss its JMOL
`
`request for a finding of infringement. We've -- we've --
`
`THE COURT: What's your point?
`
`MR. KASTENS: The point is that the arguments that
`
`their expert made of -- regarding non-infringement are legally
`
`irrelevant, contradicted by their own documents, and did not
`
`address --
`
`THE COURT: Not true. That is not true. I want you
`
`to know this: It is true that along the way, I thought
`
`that -- I thought that you had a strong case on infringement.
`
`I was wrong about that.
`
`Mr. Kagan gave one of the best closing arguments, and it
`
`RAYNEE H. MERCADO, CSR, RMR, CRR, FCRR, CCRR (510) 565-7228
`
`
`
` 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
`
`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 382 Filed 03/01/19 Page 4 of 33
`
`4
`
`was not theatrics, but it was just calm, dispassionate
`
`explanation of a -- of points that I had not focused on that
`
`were your burden of proof, but he pointed it out. And I was
`
`very convinced at the end of that that he was right and that
`
`you had been wrong from the get-go on infringement.
`
`So those statements that I made along the way about how
`
`I -- that was just -- I was just drawn in by your smoke and
`
`mirrors. That's all that happened on that.
`
`And Mr. Kagan, I compliment him for an excellent closing
`
`argument. I thought he was -- he was -- his one of the best
`
`I've heard in the U. S. District Court in a long time. And it
`
`wasn't because it was emotional. It was just good, calm
`
`explanation of something that was complicated. And then
`
`finally the scales fell from my eyes. So I don't agree with
`
`you on that point.
`
`I am not going to grant that motion. I'm just going to
`
`save you some time. You're not going to win that motion.
`
`All right. What is the point you want to raise.
`
`MS. CARSON: Sure, Your Honor.
`
`So we're asking a judgment as a matter of law on the
`
`notice issue. The notice issues that were tried were not
`
`decided by verdict because the jury found no infringement.
`
`However, the notice issue implicates many of the other patents
`
`in this case.
`
`THE COURT: Yeah, but we only tried the one patent.
`
`RAYNEE H. MERCADO, CSR, RMR, CRR, FCRR, CCRR (510) 565-7228
`
`
`
` 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
`
`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 382 Filed 03/01/19 Page 5 of 33
`
`5
`
`MS. CARSON: We believe that Your Honor's ruling on
`
`the notice issue would help the parties to evaluate --
`
`THE COURT: No. I want to tell you, both sides,
`
`something here. At every turn, I have been told -- I said,
`
`why can't this case settle? Why won't these lawyers settle
`
`the case?
`
`All right. The word comes back to me, "Oh, judge, just go
`
`through this one last thing -- the summary judgment -- this is
`
`months ago -- go through the summary judgment, and then that
`
`will help the lawyers -- everybody see where things stand."
`
`So I did. We put a lot of work into it. I would say,
`
`"good. Now it's going to settle."
`
`Did it? No.
`
`Then you say, "We have to have a trial," so we had a
`
`trial. The word came back, "Oh, just have that trial, and
`
`then they will see where they stand and they will settle the
`
`case."
`
`Did they? We had the trial. You won and -- but now the
`
`case won't settle either. It's -- I don't believe this
`
`business.
`
`Now I'm being told -- I won't say by who -- that you want
`
`me to let you go up to the Court of Appeals on a Rule --
`
`interlocutory appeal. Both sides want that. And then the
`
`case will settle. No, I don't believe that. I've heard it
`
`too much. I've heard it too much. We're going to push ahead
`
`RAYNEE H. MERCADO, CSR, RMR, CRR, FCRR, CCRR (510) 565-7228
`
`
`
` 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
`
`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 382 Filed 03/01/19 Page 6 of 33
`
`6
`
`in this case.
`
`All right. That doesn't mean you don't win on the -- your
`
`point. It's just that it's not going to help. I don't
`
`believe that for a second when you tell me it's going to cause
`
`the case to settle. It's not. You people can't -- you know,
`
`your firm is making millions of dollars off this case.
`
`They're making millions of dollars off this case. There's
`
`no -- there's no incentive to settle this thing.
`
`And so I'm going to do my job. We're going to push
`
`forward to the goal line.
`
`All right. Now with that little thing, don't tell me --
`
`give me that argument. What you should tell me is why you
`
`should win on the notice issue.
`
`MS. CARSON: Sure, Your Honor.
`
`So on constructive notice, we believe that there was
`
`absolutely no evidence in the record that Finjan complied with
`
`the requirements to mark the products.
`
`We identified the -- the evidence in the record identifies
`
`several licensees who practice the '494 patent. And Finjan's
`
`own witnesses admitted that its licensees do not mark their
`
`products and that Finjan has no policy of policing --
`
`THE COURT: All right. Let's stop just on that
`
`before we get to the telephone call part.
`
`Why isn't that right? Why isn't that right that you
`
`didn't carry your burden of proof to show that the licensees,
`
`RAYNEE H. MERCADO, CSR, RMR, CRR, FCRR, CCRR (510) 565-7228
`
`
`
` 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
`
`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 382 Filed 03/01/19 Page 7 of 33
`
`7
`
`or most of them, marked.
`
`MS. KOBIALKA: So it's an improper issue altogether
`
`to be raised. And it is based on the fundamental legal
`
`premise which is contrary to over 25 years of Federal Circuit
`
`law that either you have to do actual notice or constructive
`
`notice, that -- they're insisting that the construct of the
`
`marking statute is that you must first look at constructive
`
`notice, and then you can turn to actual notice.
`
`And they're requiring this court to do a ruling on an
`
`issue that, frankly, is moot.
`
`Because they won the jury's verdict in -- with respect to
`
`infringement, their defense of marking, which is actually a
`
`defense to damages, which was never reached, isn't even
`
`appropriate or ripe for us to be addressing at this point.
`
`And all it's going to do is invite great judicial
`
`inefficiencies of this court saying, I'm going to require the
`
`parties on Rule 50(b) motions to raise every possible issue
`
`that could come up even if you won on that case because then I
`
`have to go through and look at all these various issues, so
`
`that -- fundamentally it's not even --
`
`(Simultaneous colloquy.)
`
`THE COURT: Maybe that's true.
`
`Okay. I accept that -- that's maybe good wisdom, maybe
`
`not. I don't know. Depends on the circumstances.
`
`But I have myself on occasion done exactly what you're
`
`RAYNEE H. MERCADO, CSR, RMR, CRR, FCRR, CCRR (510) 565-7228
`
`
`
` 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
`
`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 382 Filed 03/01/19 Page 8 of 33
`
`8
`
`saying. I say you won on a different round. That second
`
`ground is moot. We don't to have reach that. I -- okay. I
`
`see that.
`
`But if -- if I -- if I do reach it --
`
`MS. KOBIALKA: I'll address it.
`
`THE COURT: Then -- there are two branches. There's
`
`the actual. There's the constructive. And what I wanted to
`
`know is what -- what do you say on the marking part of it?
`
`MS. KOBIALKA: On the marking part of it, we
`
`identified the products that were practicing the patents,
`
`which was the vital security mobile application, and showed
`
`evidence that, in fact, it was marked.
`
`At no point during trial did they meet their burden of
`
`production, which is identifying specific products that
`
`practiced the '494 patent during -- or prior to it being
`
`expired.
`
`All they pointed to is there's these licenses that are out
`
`there. There's general information. But they don't say,
`
`"this specific product by company A, version 4.2, infringes
`
`the '494 -- the '494 patent and therefore should have been
`
`marked." They have that burden of production.
`
`Otherwise, as the Arctic Cats (sic) case notice -- the
`
`case itself notes, it says it would be unbounded. A party --
`
`an accused infringer could come to court and say there's these
`
`2,000 products that we're telling you we think should have
`
`RAYNEE H. MERCADO, CSR, RMR, CRR, FCRR, CCRR (510) 565-7228
`
`
`
` 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
`
`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 382 Filed 03/01/19 Page 9 of 33
`
`9
`
`been marked. And then at trial we have to somehow rebut all
`
`2,000 of those products, which is essentially the -- the type
`
`of notification they've provided without any specifics during
`
`discovery.
`
`At trial, however -- and this is where the Arctic Cats
`
`case comes into play. They have to actually present this
`
`specific product. The only thing they are able to point to is
`
`an -- close to a hundred page document where there was no
`
`testimony elicited on the pages of the document referring to
`
`licenses related to the '494 product.
`
`So they're trying to do basically a lawyer's trick here,
`
`where they're saying, "Hey, we happen to put this one large
`
`document into evidence." Right? "And there's a page at the
`
`end of that document that we didn't provide any testimony on,
`
`and that's our basis for saying we met our burden of
`
`production."
`
`So the only evidence at trial -- and if we're going to be
`
`looking at this as a 50(b) motion -- was that the products
`
`that were identified as practicing, aside from our
`
`infringement claims for Juniper's products, were in fact
`
`marked. And that was the evidence that was before the court.
`
`THE COURT: All right. Why isn't that right?
`
`MS. CARSON: So, Your Honor, two points. One is that
`
`the Arctic Cat case does not specify how the burden of
`
`production must be met. Juniper served Finjan with a notice
`
`RAYNEE H. MERCADO, CSR, RMR, CRR, FCRR, CCRR (510) 565-7228
`
`
`
` 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
`
`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 382 Filed 03/01/19 Page 10 of 33
`
`10
`
`prior to trial that specifically identified the products that
`
`Juniper believed embodied the '494 patent and were not marked.
`
`The parties had a discussion with Your Honor at trial, and
`
`on the record, Finjan's counsel acknowledged that we had met
`
`that burden of production with the notice. And Your Honor
`
`suggested that we didn't need to try that to the court.
`
`But even if that wasn't true, Trial Exhibit 1760 was
`
`admitted into evidence and is a document that Finjan filed in
`
`the PTAB. It contains express admissions from Finjan that at
`
`least four specific licensees were selling products that
`
`embodied the '494 patent.
`
`So counsel's suggestion that just because there wasn't a
`
`witness who specifically testified about those portions of the
`
`documents during the trial means that that evidence doesn't
`
`count is just not right.
`
`THE COURT: What did the PTAB document -- this was a
`
`statement in the PTAB by Finjan?
`
`MS. CARSON: Correct, Your Honor.
`
`THE COURT: And what did it say again?
`
`MS. CARSON: So we quoted several portions on page
`
`3 --
`
`THE COURT: Is that in the trial record?
`
`MS. CARSON: It's in the trial record.
`
`THE COURT: All right. What did it say?
`
`MS. CARSON: So some examples are Avast's Endpoint
`
`RAYNEE H. MERCADO, CSR, RMR, CRR, FCRR, CCRR (510) 565-7228
`
`
`
` 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
`
`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 382 Filed 03/01/19 Page 11 of 33
`
`11
`
`Protection and its connection with Avast Research Labs to
`
`identify new malicious threats utilized the inventions
`
`disclosed in the '494 patent.
`
`They also --
`
`THE COURT: Wait. Went by me too fast. Read it
`
`again.
`
`MS. CARSON: Sure. So the statement by Finjan in its
`
`PTAB filing in 2016 before the patent filed and after Avast
`
`had taken a license states Avast's endpoint --
`
`THE COURT: What's the name, Avast?
`
`MS. CARSON: Avast.
`
`THE COURT: How do you spell that?
`
`MS. CARSON: A-V-A-S-T.
`
`THE COURT: Avast. Okay.
`
`Read it much slower so I can get it now.
`
`MS. CARSON: Sure. "Avast's Endpoint Protection and
`
`its connection with Avast Research Labs to identify new
`
`malicious threats utilized the inventions disclosed in the
`
`'494 patent."
`
`They also stated, "F-Secure's multi-layered approach to
`
`security is comprised of five modules, each designed to
`
`address a particular aspect of the threat landscape and work
`
`together to provide a complete solution using the technology
`
`of the '494 patent."
`
`THE COURT: Is this -- Was Avast a party in the PTAB?
`
`RAYNEE H. MERCADO, CSR, RMR, CRR, FCRR, CCRR (510) 565-7228
`
`
`
` 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
`
`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 382 Filed 03/01/19 Page 12 of 33
`
`12
`
`MS. CARSON: No, Your Honor.
`
`So the submission that Finjan was making was to try to
`
`establish that the commercial success of the product evidenced
`
`secondary considerations of non-obviousness.
`
`THE COURT: Was Avast a licensee?
`
`MS. CARSON: Yes, Your Honor.
`
`THE COURT: How do we know that?
`
`MS. CARSON: Because they state in the PTAB filing
`
`that these are four examples of licensees that they have who
`
`have successfully sold products that implement the '494
`
`patent.
`
`THE COURT: Where does it say that? Read that to me.
`
`MS. CARSON: So the -- one of the introductory
`
`statements to the section in the PTAB filing states, "after
`
`the '494 issued, several licensees entered into license
`
`agreements which included a license to the '494 patent to
`
`avoid litigation and to obtain a license to continue to make,
`
`use, offer to sell, and sell products that embodied the
`
`inventions disclosed in the '494 patent."
`
`And then they provide these specific examples, which we
`
`have a coded in our brief of Avast, F-Secure and Websense,
`
`and --
`
`THE COURT: And was that -- does that categorically
`
`cover the time period of the damages sought in this case?
`
`MS. CARSON: So, Your Honor, this filing was in 2016,
`
`RAYNEE H. MERCADO, CSR, RMR, CRR, FCRR, CCRR (510) 565-7228
`
`
`
` 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
`
`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 382 Filed 03/01/19 Page 13 of 33
`
`13
`
`and the patent did not expire until January 2017, so yes.
`
`THE COURT: So -- but is there -- was that -- were
`
`damages in our case being sought prior to that date? Prior to
`
`2016?
`
`MS. CARSON: No, Your Honor.
`
`THE COURT: What was the damage period for our case?
`
`MS. CARSON: So actually I misspoke. So the damages
`
`period began in 2015. Some of these licenses -- I don't have
`
`the specific dates memorized, but I believe that these
`
`licenses spanned in 2016 and perhaps late 2015.
`
`THE COURT: Well, but --
`
`(Simultaneous colloquy.)
`
`THE COURT: -- here's the point I'm asking: Let's
`
`say I take your argument at face value and you win on the --
`
`as for the dates that the PTAB covered, so that there were
`
`products on the market in 2016 that should have been marked
`
`and weren't, however, they're seeking damages for an earlier
`
`period in our case.
`
`So how would you -- what's your proof on the earlier
`
`period?
`
`MS. CARSON: So, Your Honor, the way that the marking
`
`statute works is once there's an obligation to mark during
`
`six-year statutory period, which goes back to 2012 in this
`
`case, then the only way that the plaintiff can recover damages
`
`is by showing actual notice.
`
`RAYNEE H. MERCADO, CSR, RMR, CRR, FCRR, CCRR (510) 565-7228
`
`
`
` 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
`
`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 382 Filed 03/01/19 Page 14 of 33
`
`14
`
`So there's no allotment for obtaining damages before the
`
`obligation to mark if at the point of when they had the
`
`obligation to mark, they did not mark.
`
`THE COURT: Right. So there's a six-year statute.
`
`You're saying that if you can show that in any one day in that
`
`six-year period, there were products out there that should
`
`have been marked and weren't, that you -- I didn't -- I don't
`
`get -- I want to make sure I understand your point.
`
`MS. CARSON: The requirement is that if during the
`
`six-year period, statutory period of damages, there are
`
`products that have been sold in the marketplace that embodied
`
`the patent, substantially all of those products needed to be
`
`marked with the patent.
`
`If the plaintiff cannot show that, then it goes to the
`
`second step of the statute, which is actual notice.
`
`THE COURT: I understand that. We haven't gotten to
`
`that yet. But that wasn't answering my question.
`
`My question is, is it enough for you to show that at some
`
`point in the six-year period, the other side had licensees out
`
`there with unmarked goods that practiced the patent; that
`
`that's all you have to show to -- for the constructive notice
`
`part of it. Then burden shifts on that for the other side to
`
`show that those products were marked?
`
`MS. CARSON: Yes, Your Honor.
`
`THE COURT: Is that right; is that the way it works?
`
`RAYNEE H. MERCADO, CSR, RMR, CRR, FCRR, CCRR (510) 565-7228
`
`
`
` 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
`
`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 382 Filed 03/01/19 Page 15 of 33
`
`15
`
`MS. KOBIALKA: No, and -- and part of this is it's
`
`all premised on this concept which is contrary to over 25
`
`years of Federal Circuit law.
`
`Our damages period is based off of the actual notice. You
`
`don't need to look at constructive notice. It is -- even in
`
`their brief, they cite this law. You either look at actual
`
`notice or constructive notice --
`
`THE COURT: We're going to come to actual, but I'm
`
`just talking now about the constructive part.
`
`MS. KOBIALKA: So the constructive part is it would
`
`be applying the rule of reason from patentee standpoint
`
`whether or not they can reasonably determine whether or not
`
`there are products out there that -- required to be marked and
`
`that they were in fact marked. You don't have to have all of
`
`them marked. It is a substantial number.
`
`But for purposes of the Arctic Cat and what the defendant
`
`had the burden of doing was identifying the specific products.
`
`They have to identify the specific product, the specific time
`
`frame as to what needed to be marked with the '494 patent.
`
`And pointing to some portion of a document that was not
`
`testified about at all isn't evidence that supports the idea
`
`that there wasn't in fact -- or that they've met that burden
`
`of production. They have to actually do that at trial.
`
`Otherwise we'd be left guessing at any point, or we would say
`
`we could only enter into --
`
`RAYNEE H. MERCADO, CSR, RMR, CRR, FCRR, CCRR (510) 565-7228
`
`
`
` 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
`
`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 382 Filed 03/01/19 Page 16 of 33
`
`16
`
`THE COURT: But why wasn't that PTAB document enough?
`
`It was your own -- your own party who filed that document.
`
`MS. KOBIALKA: Because it's not the specific -- it's
`
`not specific enough.
`
`THE COURT: It's --
`
`MS. KOBIALKA: They say generally Endpoint products
`
`with some Avast Labs. That's the only thing that she's
`
`identified. She's not identified what Endpoint product are
`
`you referring to, what version are you saying at what period
`
`of time needed to in fact be marked.
`
`That wasn't presented. You have to --
`
`THE COURT: But your side is the one that filed that
`
`statement, so you presumably knew what you were talking about
`
`when you filed it, knew what -- what product you were talking
`
`about.
`
`MS. KOBIALKA: Well -- okay.
`
`THE COURT: I don't see how you can say you were
`
`misled by the generality of your own statement.
`
`MS. KOBIALKA: It wasn't identified during trial as
`
`being this is what we're presenting to the jury, to the court
`
`as being -- as relating to notice. In fact, that portion of
`
`the document wasn't discussed at all during trial. That was
`
`not presented. This is --
`
`THE COURT: I remember a discussion about it. It
`
`might have just been argument, but it was -- at least -- I do
`
`RAYNEE H. MERCADO, CSR, RMR, CRR, FCRR, CCRR (510) 565-7228
`
`
`
` 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
`
`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 382 Filed 03/01/19 Page 17 of 33
`
`17
`
`remember it being discussed, but --
`
`All right. Okay.
`
`MS. KOBIALKA: It was mentioned only in closing. At
`
`that point, and they said, oh, and by the way, there's these
`
`other pages that we have no testimony on. And you look at
`
`the --
`
`THE COURT: But you don't have to have testimony on a
`
`document if it's self-explanatory.
`
`MS. KOBIALKA: But that's the issue. That was the
`
`other issue. It's not self-explanatory. These PTAB
`
`filings -- what goes on in the IPR's was not presented to the
`
`jury in any manner for them to understand what, in fact, that
`
`was, so --
`
`THE COURT: All right.
`
`I got to move on. I want to -- let's go to actual notice.
`
`MS. KOBIALKA: So, Your Honor, with respect to actual
`
`notice, we have the discussion -- that is the time frame by
`
`which we were saying damages started. That was the phone call
`
`between the senior director of IP litigation and strategy for
`
`Juniper and Mr. Garland. There had been preceding
`
`communications, but the whole point of this call was to
`
`discuss licensing.
`
`Mr. Garland specifically talked about the '494 patent, how
`
`it reads on Juniper's products. He specifically referred to
`
`the SRX Gateway, which was the product at issue, as well as
`
`RAYNEE H. MERCADO, CSR, RMR, CRR, FCRR, CCRR (510) 565-7228
`
`
`
` 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
`
`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 382 Filed 03/01/19 Page 18 of 33
`
`18
`
`some new products. He said there's some new product offerings
`
`that you have that came out. And he talked about the advanced
`
`malware module. And that was in reference to the press
`
`release that had just occurred several -- it was a few weeks
`
`earlier, which Juniper released talking about, we have our
`
`advanced anti-malware product line that they were announcing,
`
`and that was the SRX in combination with Sky ATP.
`
`Now, the law is very clear in the Federal Circuit. It is
`
`what actions the patentee has done. And in this case, Finjan
`
`went out of its way to reach out to Juniper to give them the
`
`patent numbers, to have the conversation, which is -- was all
`
`recorded. And you go back and look through the transcript,
`
`and he's talking about how it's reading on their particular
`
`products, their product lines.
`
`In addition, the whole point of the discussion was to get
`
`the licensing going. So there can't be any question that they
`
`were on notice of infringement, which is the requirement under
`
`the Amsted case, the -- there's a number of cases that -- that
`
`are pretty well established that have been cited in the briefs
`
`about what you need to actually present. And that notice can
`
`come in many different forms, so it can be oral. It does not
`
`have to be written. There is no requirement that in fact it
`
`needs to be written.
`
`And additionally, he talked about the new products, the
`
`next gen firewall, which we had testimony at trial,
`
`RAYNEE H. MERCADO, CSR, RMR, CRR, FCRR, CCRR (510) 565-7228
`
`
`
` 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
`
`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 382 Filed 03/01/19 Page 19 of 33
`
`19
`
`Mr. Nagarajan, who's a senior director at Juniper said, yeah,
`
`next gen, what that is, that's the SRX with Sky ATP. That was
`
`the whole reason why we developed it.
`
`So under the existing case law, as long as you identify
`
`the patents, say you need a license or there's some
`
`infringement here, it reads on your -- your products, you can
`
`identify a product or group of products, product lines, those
`
`technologies, and that's sufficient to provide actual notice
`
`of infringement.
`
`THE COURT: What do you say to that?
`
`MS. CARSON: So, Your Honor, we do not dispute that
`
`plaintiffs did identify the '494 patent. But under Federal
`
`Circuit law, that's not sufficient. So under the Amsted
`
`Industries vs. Buckeye Steel case that's cited in our brief,
`
`the requirement states "actual notice requires the affirmative
`
`communications of a specific charge of infringement by a
`
`specific accused product or device.
`
`THE COURT: Well, which part of that did they not
`
`meet?
`
`MS. CARSON: They did not meet the requirement to
`
`identify a specific accused product or to provide a specific
`
`charge of infringement as to that product.
`
`THE COURT: What -- but they did say those phrases
`
`that counsel just told me. That was in the phone call.
`
`MS. CARSON: So the only product that was identified
`
`RAYNEE H. MERCADO, CSR, RMR, CRR, FCRR, CCRR (510) 565-7228
`
`
`
` 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
`
`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 382 Filed 03/01/19 Page 20 of 33
`
`20
`
`during the phone call was the SRX and the modules contained
`
`within the SRX. The SRX was not the subject of plaintiff's
`
`infringement theory.
`
`Plaintiff's infringement theory relied on Sky ATP, which
`
`is a separate cloud-based service that is not part of the SRX
`
`and is not a module of the SRX. So they relied on testimony
`
`from Mr. Garland that he subjectively believed that when he
`
`said "advanced malware module," he was referring to Sky ATP.
`
`But the relevant standard for actual notice is not subjective
`
`or what Mr. Garland thought he was saying. It's objective.
`
`And if we look at the transcript, which clearly lays out
`
`what exactly was said, there was no mention of Sky ATP. When
`
`Mr. Garland followed up with Juniper a couple months after the
`
`call, he sent a written correspondence. The only the product
`
`identified there was Sky A-T- -- or was SRX. There was no
`
`mention of Sky ATP, and so therefore the --
`
`THE COURT: All right. What -- Okay. Just a sec.
`
`There was a letter that followed up?
`
`MS. CARSON: Yes.
`
`THE COURT: What did it say?
`
`MS. CARSON: It only identified the SRX series.
`
`THE COURT: As I recall, SRX was the hardware module;
`
`is that right?
`
`MS. CARSON: It's a hardware appliance device that
`
`can be used on its own and in most use cases is used on its
`
`RAYNEE H. MERCADO, CSR, RMR, CRR, FCRR, CCRR (510) 565-7228
`
`
`
` 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
`
`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 382 Filed 03/01/19 Page 21 of 33
`
`21
`
`own.
`
`THE COURT: But it's hardware.
`
`MS. CARSON: It's hardware.
`
`THE COURT: And the cloud-based thing is software.
`
`MS. CARSON: It's a software service that an SRX
`
`customer can choose to sign up for and use in conjunction with
`
`the SRX device.
`
`THE COURT: In the letter, was there any call-out of
`
`the '494 and -- I know there was a '494, but was there any
`
`call-out of any particular claim?
`
`MS. CARSON: There were no patent numbers mentioned
`
`in the written correspondence. The only time -- or the only
`
`evidence they have of ever mentioning the '494 patent was the
`
`telephone call that --
`
`THE COURT: I thought it was -- the '494 was
`
`mentioned in the letter.
`
`MS. CARSON: It was not mentioned in the letter.
`
`They just generally referred to "patents."
`
`THE COURT: I see.
`
`Why didn't -- Here's one thing I don't -- it's -- I'm
`
`going to say I think it's fine for somebody to make a phone
`
`call and try to be courteous and -- and, you know, that's
`
`okay. I got that part.
`
`But -- but here, we -- is it really the way to run the
`
`United States of America in our patent system that you could
`
`RAYNEE H. MERCADO, CSR, RMR, CRR, FCRR, CCRR (510) 565-7228
`
`
`
` 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
`
`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 382 Filed 03/01/19 Page 22 of 33
`
`22
`
`dispense with the need of a simple letter that calls out the
`
`'494 so that there wouldn't be any doubt about it; instead, we
`
`have to have a trial over what -- how people -- and, remember,
`
`your guy testified falsely -- maybe "falsely" is too strong,
`
`but he testified that he specifically called out the cloud ATP
`
`or whatever it was. And it turned out they had recorded the
`
`whole phone call and that was just not true.
`
`So this just tells me, isn't it better to just have a rule
`
`you got to put it in writing -- you got to put it in writing
`
`or if you're going to do it verbally, it's got to be so clear
`
`that there's no room for doubt and debate later on.
`
`MS. KOBIALKA: I don't think that would be
`
`appropriate --
`
`THE COURT: Why?
`
`MS. KOBIAL