`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 415-5 Filed 04/05/19 Page 1 of 4
`
`
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT 4
`EXHIBIT 4
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 415-5 Filed 04/05/19 Page 2 of 4
`
`
`
`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
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`Juniper also objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is overbroad, unduly
`
`burdensome, oppressive, vague and ambiguous, not proportional to the needs of the case, and
`
`seeks irrelevant information.
`
`Juniper also specifically objects to this Interrogatory as seeking information that is not
`
`proportional to the needs of the case to the extent it seeks information beyond “major” releases.
`
`Juniper will respond to this Interrogatory only with respect to “major” releases and will not
`
`provide information related to minor, beta, or testing revisions.
`
`Subject to these specific objections and the general objections incorporated herein, Juniper
`
`further responds as follows:
`
`Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(d), Juniper directs Finjan to ATP Appliance’s source code,
`
`which is currently available for review. Additional relevant, responsive, and non-privileged
`
`documents related to the ATP Appliance will be produced on a rolling basis and Juniper will
`
`supplement this response in due course.
`
`INTERROGATORY NO. 3:
`
`For the source code that You produced or made available for inspection or will produce
`
`and make available for inspection, identify the products that correspond to the source code
`
`including the name and version number of each product, the directories and subdirectories of the
`
`source code corresponding to the active source code incorporated into each of the products, the
`
`last date the source code was modified for each of the products, and which portion, if any, of the
`
`code You contend is prior art to the Asserted Patents.
`
`RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 3:
`
`Juniper incorporates herein by reference all General Objections set forth above.
`
`Juniper also specifically objects to this Interrogatory because Finjan’s Interrogatories were
`
`improperly served as set forth in the General Objections above. Juniper provides this specific
`
`objection and response in an abundance of caution and in order to facilitate discovery, although
`
`this Interrogatory is moot and no response is required.
`
`Juniper also specifically objects to this Interrogatory to the extent that it seeks information
`
`or documents that are subject to the attorney-client privilege, that evidence or constitute attorney
`
`IRELL & MANELLA LLP
`A Registered Limited Liability
`Law Partnership Including
`Professional Corporations
`
`10496077
`
`
`- 19 -
`
`JUNIPER’S SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO
`FINJAN’S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES
`(Case No. 3:17-cv-05659-WHA)
`
`
`
`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 415-5 Filed 04/05/19 Page 3 of 4
`
`
`
`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
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`allowed or expedited until plaintiff successfully amends the complaint.”); see also Richtek Tech.
`
`Corp. v. uPi Semiconductor Corp., 2016 WL 1718135, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 29, 2016) (Alsup, J.).
`
`Contrail is not alleged to infringe any Asserted Patent. Juniper interprets this Interrogatory as
`
`excluding Advanced Threat Protection Appliance and Contrail. Juniper also specifically objects to
`
`the definition of “Accused Instrumentalities” as including “all previous or currently contemplated
`
`versions, revision, releases, or continuations of said Juniper products and services, and all
`
`additional products accused of infringement by Finjan in this action in infringement contentions or
`
`similar pleadings.” This definition is objectionable at least because it is overbroad and unduly
`
`burdensome and may include instrumentalities released outside of the statutory damages period.
`
`Juniper will interpret this Interrogatory as limited to only those instrumentalities properly
`
`identified in both the operative complaint and Finjan’s infringement contentions and also made,
`
`used, sold, offered for sale, or imported into the U.S. within the statutory damages period.
`
`Juniper also specifically objects to this Interrogatory as compound. This Interrogatory
`
`constitutes at least three distinct questions and will be treated as such with respect to limits on
`
`interrogatories under Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(a).
`
`Juniper also specifically objects to this Interrogatory as seeking discovery that is not
`
`proportional to the needs of the case, considering the importance of the issues at stake in the
`
`action, the amount in controversy, the parties’ relative access to relevant information, the parties’
`
`resources, the importance of the discovery in resolving the issues, and whether the burden or
`
`expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit.
`
`Juniper also objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is overbroad, unduly
`
`burdensome, oppressive, vague and ambiguous, not proportional to the needs of the case, and
`
`seeks irrelevant information.
`
`Subject to these specific objections and the general objections incorporated herein, Juniper
`
`responds as follows:
`
`Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(d), Juniper directs Finjan to the directory structure provided
`
`on the secured review computer to identify the products corresponding to the source code by
`
`product name and release and the directories and subdirectories of the source code corresponding
`
`IRELL & MANELLA LLP
`A Registered Limited Liability
`Law Partnership Including
`Professional Corporations
`
`10496077
`
`
`- 23 -
`
`JUNIPER’S SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO
`FINJAN’S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES
`(Case No. 3:17-cv-05659-WHA)
`
`
`
`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 415-5 Filed 04/05/19 Page 4 of 4
`
`to the active source code incorporated into each of the products. The table below shows the
`
`versions of Junos corresponding to specific SRX Gateways. Sky ATP is regularly updated;
`
`pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(d), Juniper directs Finjan to the Git log produced on the secured
`
`review computer showing the complete revision commit history of Sky ATP. At least the
`
`following versions of Space Security Director have been released in the U.S. since 2012: 17.2;
`
`17.1; 16.2; 16.1; 15.2; 15.1; 14.1; 13.3; 13.1; 12.2; 12.1.
`
`Juniper also incorporates by reference its Invalidity Contentions served on April 23, 2018,
`
`which identifies prior art.
`
`
`
`
`Release
`Date
`SRX110
`SRX220
`SRX3XX
`SRX550
`SRX1400
`SRX1500
`SRX3400
`SRX3600
`SRX4100
`SRX4200
`SRX5400
`SRX5600
`SRX5800
`vSRX
`cSRX
`
`
`
`Junos
`12.1
`
`Junos
`12.1X44
`
`Junos
`12.1X45
`
`Junos
`12.1X46
`
`Junos
`12.1X47
`
`Junos
`12.3X48
`
`Junos
`15.1X49
`
`Junos
`17.3
`
`Junos
`17.4
`
`3/28/12
`✓
`✓
`✕
`N/A
`✓
`✕
`✓
`✓
`✕
`✕
`✓
`✓
`✓
`✕
`✕
`
`1/18/13
`✓
`✓
`✕
`✓
`✓
`✕
`✓
`✓
`✕
`✕
`✓
`✓
`✓
`✕
`✕
`
`7/17/13
`✓
`✓
`✕
`✓
`✓
`✕
`✓
`✓
`✕
`✕
`✓
`✓
`✓
`✕
`✕
`
`12/30/13
`✓
`✓
`✕
`✓
`✓
`✕
`✓
`✓
`✕
`✕
`✓
`✓
`✓
`✓
`✕
`
`8/18/14
`✓
`✓
`✕
`✓
`✓
`✕
`✓
`✓
`✕
`✕
`✓
`✓
`✓
`✓
`✕
`
`3/6/15
`✓
`✓
`✕
`✓
`✓
`✕
`✓
`✓
`✕
`✕
`✓
`✓
`✓
`✓
`✕
`
`6/30/15
`✕
`✕
`✓
`✓
`✕
`✓
`✕
`✕
`✓
`✓
`✓
`✓
`✓
`✓
`✕
`
`8/25/17 12/21/17
`✕
`✕
`✕
`✕
`✓
`✓
`✓
`✓
`✕
`✕
`✓
`✓
`✕
`✕
`✕
`✕
`✓
`✓
`✓
`✓
`✓
`✓
`✓
`✓
`✓
`✓
`✓
`✓
`✕
`✕
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`DATED: June 18, 2018
`
`IRELL & MANELLA LLP
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`IRELL & MANELLA LLP
`A Registered Limited Liability
`Law Partnership Including
`Professional Corporations
`
`
`
`10496077
`
`
`By: /s/ Sharon Song___________
`Sharon Song
`Attorneys for Defendant
`Juniper Networks, Inc.
`
`- 24 -
`
`JUNIPER’S SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO
`FINJAN’S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES
`(Case No. 3:17-cv-05659-WHA)
`
`