`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 412-20 Filed 03/29/19 Page 1 of 4
`
`
`
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT 18
`EXHIBIT 18
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 412-20 Filed 03/29/19 Page 2 of 4
`
`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
`
`CERTIFIED COPY
`
`
`
` 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 412-20 Filed 03/29/19 Page 3 of 4
`
`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 412-20 Filed 03/29/19 Page 4 of 4
`
`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
`
`