`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 412-22 Filed 03/29/19 Page 1 of 4
`
`
`
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT 20
`EXHIBIT 20
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 412-22 Filed 03/29/19 Page 2 of 4
`
` Pages 1 - 137
`
`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. )
` )
`___________________________________)
`
` Tuesday, December 4, 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.
` AUSTIN MANES, 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.
` KEVIN X. WANG, 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 412-22 Filed 03/29/19 Page 3 of 4
`
` 16
`
` 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
`
`cross-examine him so skillfully that the jury will award
`
`$70 million.
`
`MR. KAGAN: Your Honor, given that they're stuck with
`
`a $1.8 million base, I think that's unlikely.
`
`THE COURT: Yeah, I think so, too. But I'm -- that's
`
`why I enjoy this. Because he's going to get maybe a shot,
`
`shot to try.
`
`MR. KAGAN: Your Honor --
`
`THE COURT: No, I'm not going to be talked out of
`
`this. You're not going to just get to the end of the case
`
`because I exclude their expert. There's other ways to prove
`
`damages. And I'm not prepared to say he doesn't have a
`
`damages case at all.
`
`MR. KAGAN: I wasn't going to argue that. What I was
`
`going to ask, though, is if we could get a formal offer of
`
`proof --
`
`THE COURT: He has. He went through each section
`
`that he wants to prove.
`
`That's the offer of proof, right?
`
`MR. ANDRE: Your Honor, it is for Mr. Arst. That's
`
`what he will testify to. And Your Honor is absolutely
`
`correct. We will put on a fact-based case.
`
`I've tried several cases the last two days without a
`
`damages expert.
`
`THE COURT: That's good. Actually, it heartens me to
`
`
`
`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 412-22 Filed 03/29/19 Page 4 of 4
`
` 76
`
` 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
`
`THE COURT: All right, look. Here's the problem. I
`
`don't -- I'm not going to rule on this right now. But if you
`
`want to take another deposition on the 17,000 between now and
`
`the day of trial, I will let you did do that. At their
`
`expense. They will would have to pay for it. And -- but I'm
`
`not going to decide this just yet, because it does trouble me
`
`that this was produced so late.
`
`But on the other hand, the theory that your expert came up
`
`with was swinging for the fences on a different theory,
`
`altogether. And I don't see how this information would have
`
`helped or hurt him. So I am troubled by that, too.
`
`And so I'm not going to rule on this yet. But I -- if you
`
`-- if you want to even use this at all in your defense case, if
`
`Mr. Andre by the end of today asks for a deposition this week
`
`or over the weekend, you had better, at your expense, let him
`
`have that.
`
`MS. CURRAN: Understood.
`
`THE COURT: All right. The court reporter is going
`
`to need a break. She's been going an hour and a half.
`
`Let me just see where we are on this list.
`
`Non-infringing alternative, Dr. Rubin's report. Is that
`
`moot now?
`
`MS. CURRAN: The non-infringing alternatives point is
`
`moot now. I believe Dr. Rubin's report and demonstratives is
`
`still in play.
`
`
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
