Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 424-1 Filed 04/11/19 Page 1 of 5
`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 424-1 Filed 04/11/19 Page 1of5
`REDACTED VERSION OF DOCUMENT SOUGHT TO BE SEALED
`
`DKT. 130-3
`DKT. 130-3
`(REDACTED)
`(REDACTED)
`
`REDACTED VERSION OF DOCUMENT SOUGHT TO BE SEALED
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 424-1 Filed 04/11/19 Page 2 of 5
`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 424-1 Filed 04/11/19 Page 2 of 5
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT 29
`EXHIBIT 29
`
`UNREDACTED VERSION OF
`UNREDACTED VERSION OF
`DOCUMENT SOUGHT TO BE
`DOCUMENT SOUGHT TO BE
`SEALED
`SEALED
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 424-1 Filed 04/11/19 Page 3 of 5
`
`HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY
`
`Finjan’s response. First, Finjan initiated discussions with Juniper in 2014 by providing a claim chart
`
`for how the ‘968 Patent relates to Juniper. FINJAN-JN 193514-517. Finjan continued discussions
`
`with Juniper, notified Juniper of Finjan’s patent portfolio, and stated that a license discussions were
`
`related to a license of Finjan’s patent portfolio. In 2014, 2015, and 2016, Finjan reached out to Juniper
`
`for discussions related to licensing Finjan’s patents, including the Patents-In-Suit. FINJAN-JN
`
`192859-861. FINJAN-JN 193526-527; FINJAN-JN 193539-541; FINJAN-JN 193499-3500. Finjan
`
`requested that Juniper enter an non-disclosure agreement (“NDA”) so that Finjan can provide already
`
`prepared confidential claim charts on other Patents-in-Suit, including the ‘494 Patent, as part of the
`
`licensing discussions and Juniper’s infringement. FINJAN-JN 193526-527; FINJAN-JN 193539-541;
`
`FINJAN-JN 193499-3500. Juniper refused to enter an NDA, stated all communications were not
`
`subject to FRE 408, and also indicated its intent to share any information Finjan shared with third
`
`parties. FINJAN-JN 193535-538. Juniper’s refusal to enter an NDA, statements that none of the
`
`communications were under FRE 408, and that it could publicly disclose any material that Finjan
`
`provided hampered discussions between the parties and limited the information that Finjan could share
`
`with Juniper. Finjan notified Juniper that it was its established practice to limit the information shared
`
`unless under an NDA, and that it was not willing to declassify its confidential information to non-
`
`confidential for Juniper’s unfettered disclosures. FINJAN-JN 193526-527.
`
`Furthermore, Finjan notified Juniper on several occasions that Finjan had additional claim
`
`charts that Finjan could share with Juniper that described its infringement of at least the ‘494 and ‘154
`
`Patents. By October 9, 2015, Finjan had created claim charts for the ‘494 Patent that it offered to share
`
`with Juniper. Furthermore, by October 30, 2015, Finjan had completed a claim chart for the ‘154
`
`Patent that it offered to share with Juniper. However, because of Juniper’s refusal to enter an NDA
`
`and threats to publicly publish any claim charts provided, Finjan could not and did not provide these
`
`charts to Juniper.
`
`As previously provided in Finjan’s incorporated response to Interrogatory No. 2, documents
`
`related to these discussions between Finjan and Juniper include: FINJAN-JN 192859-865, 192859-
`
`192865, 192866-193543, 193544-193575.
`
`4
`FINJAN’S SECOND SUPP. OBJ. & RESP. TO JUNIPER’S
`FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES (NO. 6)
`
` CASE NO.: 3:17-cv-05659-WHA
`
`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
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 424-1 Filed 04/11/19 Page 4 of 5
`
`HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY
`
`Furthermore, Finjan notified Cyphort, Inc. (acquired by Juniper) of its infringement on several
`
`occasions.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 6:
`
`Subject to and without waiving the foregoing general and specific objections, Finjan responds
`
`as follows:
`
`By 2015, Finjan also notified Juniper that it had charts prepared and ready to share with Juniper
`
`for U.S. Patent Nos. 8,225,408; 8,141,154; and 7,418,731. Finjan did not share these charts because of
`
`Juniper’s unwillingness to enter an NDA.
`
`Finjan provided further notice of Finjan’s patents and Juniper’s infringement of those patents
`
`during a November 2015 phone call between John Garland of Finjan and Mr. Coonan of Juniper.
`
`During this call, Mr. Garland stated that Finjan had at least six patents that Finjan believed Juniper
`
`infringed and had claim charts directed to Juniper’s security products, including the SRX Gateways
`
`5
`FINJAN’S SECOND SUPP. OBJ. & RESP. TO JUNIPER’S
`FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES (NO. 6)
`
` CASE NO.: 3:17-cv-05659-WHA
`
`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
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 424-1 Filed 04/11/19 Page 5 of 5
`
`HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY
`
`and Sky ATP, and could share them with Juniper, so long as Juniper treated the charts as confidential.
`
`Mr. Coonan stated on this call that he would not treat the charts as confidential and would publicly
`
`share any charts provided by Finjan to Juniper.
`
`Additional evidence of notice to Juniper is that the ‘968 Patent includes references to the ‘844
`
`Patent and U.S. Patent No. 6,092,194 (“the ‘194 Patent”). The ‘194 Patent is a parent to the ‘780,
`
`‘494, and ‘633 Patents. The ‘780 Patent is a parent to the ‘926 Patent. Juniper would have been put on
`
`notice of these patents when it performed invalidity analysis of the ‘968 Patent, and also through its
`
`knowledge of the ‘780, ‘926, ‘633, ‘154, and ‘494 Patents being asserted against Palo Alto Networks,
`
`which was discussed between Finjan and Juniper.
`
`Finjan’s investigation of this matter is ongoing and it will comply with Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(e)
`
`should additional information become known to it.
`
`
`
`
`Dated: May 23, 2018
`
`
`
`
`By: /s/ Kristopher Kastens
`Paul J. Andre
`Lisa Kobialka
`James Hannah
`Kristopher Kastens
`KRAMER LEVIN NAFTALIS
`& FRANKEL LLP
`990 Marsh Road
`Menlo Park, CA 94025
`Telephone: (650) 752-1700
`Facsimile: (650) 752-1800
`pandre@kramerlevin.com
`lkobialka@kramerlevin.com
`jhannah@kramerlevin.com
`kkastens@kramerlevin.com
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff
`FINJAN, INC.
`
`6
`FINJAN’S SECOND SUPP. OBJ. & RESP. TO JUNIPER’S
`FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES (NO. 6)
`
` CASE NO.: 3:17-cv-05659-WHA
`
`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
`
`