`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 429-5 Filed 04/11/19 Page 1of5
`
`
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT 5
`EXHIBIT 5
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 429-5 Filed 04/11/19 Page 2 of 5
`
`From: "Petersen, Ingrid" <ipetersen@irell.com>
`Date: April 6, 2019 at 10:59:19 AM GMT+10
`To: "~Caire, Yuridia" <ycaire@kramerlevin.com>, "Glucoft, Josh" <JGlucoft@irell.com>,
`"Carson, Rebecca" <RCarson@irell.com>, "Heinrich, Alan" <AHeinrich@irell.com>,
`"Holland, Eileen" <EHolland@irell.com>, "Isaac, Shawana" <SIsaac@irell.com>, "Kagan,
`Jonathan" <JKagan@irell.com>, "Manzano, Jim" <JManzano@irell.com>, "Quarnstrom,
`Brian" <BQuarnstrom@irell.com>, "Theilacker, Leah" <LTheilacker@irell.com>, "Wang,
`Kevin" <kwang@irell.com>
`Cc: "~Andre, Paul" <pandre@kramerlevin.com>, "~Hannah, James"
`<jhannah@kramerlevin.com>, "~Kobialka, Lisa" <lkobialka@kramerlevin.com>,
`"~Manes, Austin" <amanes@kramerlevin.com>, "~Kastens, Kristopher"
`<kkastens@kramerlevin.com>
`Subject: [EXTERNAL] RE: Finjan v. Juniper
`
`Dear Yuri:
`
`
`Thank you for your email. I do not agree with your summary of the call, and refer you to
`my original email. Nevertheless, I am writing to follow up on a few of the items in your
`email in the hopes that we can resolve some of the outstanding issues.
`
`
`As an initial matter, I note that your email did not provide a response as to whether
`Finjan intends to call Mr. Touboul as a witness at the July trial. Unless Finjan either (1)
`confirms that it will not call Mr. Touboul as a witness (either in person or via
`deposition), or (2) provides a date for Mr. Touboul’s deposition in the United States, we
`will need to raise this issue with the Court.
`
`
`With regard to the financial data responsive to Interrogatory No. 16, we think it make
`sense for you to review supplemental data once we produce it, and then we can further
`discuss if you believe it is insufficient to answer the interrogatory. As I noted during our
`call, Finjan’s requests concerning Juniper’s financial data are overly broad and in many
`instances irrelevant. While Juniper maintains its objections, it is willing to work with
`Finjan to appropriately narrow the requests so that Finjan can get the information it
`needs without imposing an undue burden on Juniper.
`
`
`With regard to bundled products and customer‐support licenses, we are unable to find
`any references to these on Page 15 of your damages contentions. Could you please
`provide a more specific reference so that we can evaluate your request?
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 429-5 Filed 04/11/19 Page 3 of 5
`
`For documents related to Carbon Black, Cisco, and Palo Alto Networks, we are not
`aware of any licenses with these entities that involve comparable technology and/or
`economic circumstances, and thus we do not see how they would be relevant to the
`damage inquiry. Indeed, I note that neither Juniper, nor Finjan, has identified any of
`these licenses in their damages contentions. Please explain why you believe that these
`licenses are comparable, such that they would be relevant to damages.
`
`
`With regard to deposition transcripts, we have repeatedly asked you to explain the
`relevance of your request and you have yet to do so. Sky ATP and ATP Appliance have
`not been the subject of any prior patent lawsuit and Finjan is not accusing any SRX
`devices from before the time Sky ATP was released, so it is not clear that there would
`even be any transcripts responsive to the portion of your request concerning the
`accused instrumentalities. As to any prior transcripts from Juniper witnesses in matters
`concerning unrelated products, we do not see how this would be relevant. Please
`explain the relevance, and we will consider your request.
`
`
`For your request regarding documents sufficient to identify all servers that interact with
`Sky ATP and SRX, we have already provided information about the servers that are
`relevant to the accused features (e.g., Amazon and iWeb). But as we have repeatedly
`told you, your request as‐written essentially encompasses all servers that end
`users/customers communicate with, which is incredibly broad. We are trying to work
`with you on this request, but we obviously cannot agree to produce documents we
`cannot identify based on your request.
`
`
`Best wishes,
`
`Ingrid
`
`
`
`From: Caire, Yuridia <YCaire@KRAMERLEVIN.com>
`Sent: Friday, April 5, 2019 5:27 PM
`To: Petersen, Ingrid <ipetersen@irell.com>; Glucoft, Josh <JGlucoft@irell.com>; Carson,
`Rebecca <RCarson@irell.com>; Heinrich, Alan <AHeinrich@irell.com>; Holland, Eileen
`<EHolland@irell.com>; Isaac, Shawana <SIsaac@irell.com>; Kagan, Jonathan
`<JKagan@irell.com>; Manzano, Jim <JManzano@irell.com>; Quarnstrom, Brian
`<BQuarnstrom@irell.com>; Theilacker, Leah <LTheilacker@irell.com>; Wang, Kevin
`<kwang@irell.com>
`Cc: ~Andre, Paul <pandre@kramerlevin.com>; ~Hannah, James
`<jhannah@kramerlevin.com>; ~Kobialka, Lisa <lkobialka@kramerlevin.com>; ~Manes,
`Austin <amanes@kramerlevin.com>; ~Kastens, Kristopher
`<kkastens@kramerlevin.com>
`Subject: RE: Finjan v. Juniper
`
`Ingrid,
`
`
`Please provide a response regarding the issues raised below.
`
`
`Thanks,
`
`
`Yuri
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 429-5 Filed 04/11/19 Page 4 of 5
`
`
`
`
`
`Yuridia Caire
`Associate
`
`
`Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel LLP
`990 Marsh Road, Menlo Park, California 94025
`T 650.752.1717 F 650.752.1817
`
`This communication (including any attachments) is intended solely for the recipient(s) named above and
`may contain information that is confidential, privileged or legally protected. Any unauthorized use or
`dissemination of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error,
`please immediately notify the sender by return e-mail message and delete all copies of the original
`communication. Thank you for your cooperation.
`
`
`
`From: Caire, Yuridia
`Sent: Monday, April 01, 2019 12:56 PM
`To: Petersen, Ingrid; Glucoft, Josh; Carson, Rebecca; Heinrich, Alan; Holland, Eileen;
`Isaac, Shawana; Kagan, Jonathan; Manzano, Jim; Quarnstrom, Brian; Theilacker, Leah;
`Wang, Kevin
`Cc: Andre, Paul; Hannah, James; Kobialka, Lisa; Manes, Austin; Kastens, Kris
`Subject: RE: Finjan v. Juniper
`
`
`Thanks for your email, Ingrid. I write to correct a few statements in your email and
`clarify our understanding of the call.
`
`
`We confirm our understanding that Juniper will serve supplemental sales and financial
`information. As we discussed on the call, we also request that Juniper provide
`information to identify the SKU’s related to all accused instrumentalities so that
`Juniper’s 33(d) response to Interrogatory No. 16 complies with the requested
`information. Please confirm you will produce this information with the supplemental
`information and update your interrogatory response appropriately.
`
`In addition, with respect to products and services sold with the Accused
`Instrumentalities, Juniper represented that it would notify Finjan within 2‐3 weeks
`whether or not it tracks this information, and would produce this information to the
`extent it is tracked. Your representation below changes that understanding and
`Juniper’s statement regarding the damages contentions is not accurate as I gave you a
`specific citation to at least page 15 of Finjan’s Damages Contentions that sets forth
`damages related to convoy sales and the Georgia‐Pacific factors. Please confirm that
`you will produce this information.
`
`
`Similarly, Finjan outlined that the requests related to Juniper’s licenses with third
`parties, including at least Cisco, Carbon Black and Palo Alto Networks, regarding the
`accused instrumentalities and technology that is comparable to the technology
`disclosed in the Patents‐in‐Suit, is relevant to a damages analyses, as disclosed in
`Finjan’s damages contentions. At no point on the call did Juniper disagree with the
`citations that Finjan provided and there is no basis to withhold these documents. While
`Juniper pointed to the public exhibit of the agreement with Palo Alto Networks, Juniper
`was unable to confirm that the public version was the full version of the agreement and
`that no additional documents accompanied that agreement. Nor did Juniper explain its
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 429-5 Filed 04/11/19 Page 5 of 5
`
`basis for withholding the actual executed agreement between the parties. In addition,
`Finjan’s requests for productions also seek all communications related to the
`agreements that Juniper has entered into with third‐parties and instances where Juniper
`has communicated with others regarding Finjan. Juniper was unable to confirm that it
`had searched for hard copies of those communications, as it was required to do. In
`addition, Juniper was unable to confirm that it will produce the joint defense group
`agreement that it claims affords Juniper the right to assert a common interest
`privilege. Please confirm that you have searched for hard copies of the communications
`and that you will produce the responsive agreements and the joint defense group
`agreement.
`
`
`With respect to prior deposition transcripts, as we explained on the call it is not
`appropriate to request that Finjan identify the witnesses that have testified regarding
`the accused instrumentalities as that information that is in Juniper’s possession and less
`burdensome for Juniper to identify. On the call, Juniper provided no basis for
`withholding this information and Finjan provided information regarding the transcripts
`it seeks, mainly that the requests are narrowly tailored to individuals that provided
`testimony regarding the accused instrumentalities or that Juniper disclosed as being
`relevant to this litigation. Please confirm that Juniper will produce these transcripts.
`
`
`Finally with respect to the identification of the servers that interact with Sky ATP and
`SRX devices, Juniper did not take the position that this information was relevant but
`instead claimed that this information could be found on the source code that Juniper
`made available. Finjan disagrees that the source code provides this information. As
`Juniper knows, this information is relevant to infringement and damages. Please
`confirm you will produce this information without delay.
`
`
`By Friday, 4/5/19, please confirm whether Juniper will produce the items outlined
`above and as further detailed in my March 22nd email, all of which we discussed on
`Friday. If Juniper refuses to produce any of the requested information, please provide
`the specific basis for doing so.
`
`
`Best regards,
`
`
`Yuri
`
`
`
`
`
`Yuridia Caire
`Associate
`
`
`Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel LLP
`990 Marsh Road, Menlo Park, California 94025
`T 650.752.1717 F 650.752.1817
`
`This communication (including any attachments) is intended solely for the recipient(s) named above and
`may contain information that is confidential, privileged or legally protected. Any unauthorized use or
`dissemination of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error,
`please immediately notify the sender by return e-mail message and delete all copies of the original
`communication. Thank you for your cooperation.
`
`
`4
`
`