Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 410-8 Filed 03/28/19 Page 1 of 3
`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 410-8 Filed 03/28/19 Page 1 of 3
`
`E X HI BI T H
`EXHIBIT
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 410-8 Filed 03/28/19 Page 2 of 3
`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 410-8 Filed 03/28/19 Page 2 of 3
`
`From: John Garland [john.garland@finjan.com]
`Sent: Tuesday, November 24, 2015 3:12:33 PM
`To: Julie Mar-Spinola
`Subject: Confidential: Juniper Networks Licensing Discussions update |ATTORNEY-WORK-
`PRODUCT/ATTORNEY-CLIENT-PRIVILEGED| internal purposes only
`
`Julie
`
`| had my 30 minutecall with Scott Coonan & | need to type it now because of how poor| think it went. he’s not a charmer
`
`Told him | wanted to work on a method that works for Juniper & that permits an even exchangeof information.
`
`He (Scott or “S:”} complimented me on my overture & then asked howdid wefind the information?
`ohn (“J”) J:
`: Juniper productliterature and analysis by our engineers.
`S: Wow, you have engineers?
`J: yes.
`Scott, ” | didn’t know that.” And they understand security products and have workedin the industry?
`J: Yes
`
`S: How do | know you have worthy engineers?
`J: 1am happy to arrange a call or meeting and we can provide a high level overview of the patents to your engineers.
`S; Can | speak with investor? A: No
`S: Why not?
`J: because it’s not necessary; when | was AT&T and Lucent we licensed companies around the world using engineers that
`weren’t the inventors of the patents; they were extremely knowledgeable on semiconductor processing and methods,etc.
`So no,
`| reject that request and given it’s not necessary .
`S; | am sure you know thereis an incredibly unified defense group and the defendantsare pretty unified
`and are going to drain you guys.
`J: How are you aware ofit? Is Juniper in the group?
`S: No
`S: it’s simply defendants and possible future targets
`J: if you are not in the group, then, how did you becomeawareofit?
`S: we talk to the defendants; don’t you talk to the other plaintiffs suing Juniper?
`J: No
`
`J: how do you know ofthis group; this seemsincredible
`S: lam in the industry, | see people and ask around.
`J: but this is sensitive information — whyis it shared?
`
`S: So how do wegetto the truth absent an NDA because | won’t sign one.
`J: has Juniper ever taken a license?
`S: when | am deposed | will answer we have taken a license, when there his merit in the case we sign a license.
`J: how do you determine merit?
`S: it’s a trade secret; it takes a ton of resources and we want to do the right thing. The targets all talk.
`J: that seems anti-competitive
`S: why would you say that?
`J: companies, including your competitors, working closely against Finjan; colluding with others in the industry.
`
`** sidebar: at somepoint Scot did go through the meetings w/Finjan at Finjan where he was willing to share information re:
`one defendant.
`| stated | was aware ofthat just not the meetings. & Julie rejected it. So, | said, are you hurt ? Is that the
`only acceptable solution.you trade information and “it let’s Juniper was-away” as you put it? How did you value that
`offer?
`
`CONFIDENTIAL
`
`FINJAN-JN 398451
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 410-8 Filed 03/28/19 Page 3 of 3
`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 410-8 Filed 03/28/19 Page 3 of 3
`
`S: It’s up to you to value it.
`J: So, Okay, Julie valued it and was not interested. So, does that event carryover to your attitude toward Finjan
`now/today? Why do you think that was a fair trade? How can you assumethat addresses your potential royalties? You
`nee dot assess that information & place a price on it.
`soe
`
`Scott then goes thru a meaningless sports analogy of football Patriots virus Bills on MNF (Monday Night Football).
`J:
`| told him it’s a ridiculous analogy becauseit’s public; it’s on television; anyone can see it. The NDA permits the parties
`to talk with an ability of company to company(private) exchange whichis certainly the way | have seen it done over the last
`23 years.
`S: I’d love to put Finjan on television
`J: you seem to haveabias in these discussion; whenever | mention Finjan you substitute ‘patent holder.’ Would Juniper
`ever consider paying royalties to Finjan or does Juniper find that objectionable?
`S: if there are valid, merit based claims
`J: there are. whatif | publish the claim charts of Juniper’s infringement on our website? Don’t you see howridiculous this
`is; this information isn’t public
`S: | want you to do it. Okay, so your next step is to publish the claim charts and then if you don’t you can contact me.
`J: AssumeJulie rejects that idea, so now where do we go? _I|send you the claim charts. Do you share them with the
`“incredibly unified defense group” ? What happens next. My analysis and information is good, so what’s next.
`S: | want to be transparent; if you send me the claim charts | will shareit.
`J: 1 told him , this is exactly why | wanted a business person to bein these discussions.It’s a business decision and it
`requires a risk assessment, but you don’t wantto solve this in a conference room. You used words describing Finjan as
`“plaintiff” or “patent holder” and phraseslike "when | am deposed”, etc. You arealitigator, you carry litigation in your title
`and you’re taughtin law schoolthat it’s a black and white world when it really has 32 shades of gray.
`S: do you have anything else to say?
`J: No
`
`End of call
`
`CONFIDENTIAL
`
`FINJAN-JN 398452
`
`