Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 435 Filed 04/12/19 Page 1 of 24
`
`IRELL & MANELLA LLP
`Jonathan S. Kagan (SBN 166039)
`jkagan@irell.com
`Alan Heinrich (SBN 212782)
`aheinrich@irell.com
`Joshua Glucoft (SBN 301249)
`jglucoft@irell.com
`1800 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 900
`Los Angeles, California 90067-4276
`Telephone: (310) 277-1010
`Facsimile: (310) 203-7199
`Rebecca Carson (SBN 254105)
`rcarson@irell.com
`Kevin Wang (SBN 318024)
`kwang@irell.com
`Ingrid M. H. Petersen (SBN 313927)
`ipetersen@irell.com
`840 Newport Center Drive, Suite 400
`Newport Beach, California 92660-6324
`Telephone: (949) 760-0991
`Facsimile: (949) 760-5200
`Attorneys for Defendant
`JUNIPER NETWORKS, INC.
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
`FINJAN, INC., a Delaware Corporation,
`)
`Case No. 3:17-cv-05659-WHA
`)
`DEFENDANT JUNIPER NETWORKS,
`Plaintiff,
`)
`INC.’S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF
`)
`FINJAN, INC.’S MOTION FOR RELIEF
`)
`FROM JUDGMENT PURSUANT TO FED.
`)
`R. CIV. P. 60(B)
`)
`)
`)
`Date:
`May 9, 2019
`)
`Time:
`8:00 a.m.
`)
`Courtroom: Courtroom 12, 19th Floor
`Hon. William Alsup
`)
`Before:
`
`vs.
`
`JUNIPER NETWORKS, INC., a Delaware
`Corporation,
`
`Defendant.
`
`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’S OPPOSITION TO FINJAN’S
`MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT
`Case No. 3:17-cv-05659-WHA
`
`REDACTED VERSION OF DOCUMENT SOUGHT TO BE SEALED
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 435 Filed 04/12/19 Page 2 of 24
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................... 1
`FACTUAL BACKGROUND ............................................................................................. 2
`ARGUMENT ...................................................................................................................... 3
`A.
`Finjan Is Not Entitled To Relief Under Rule 60(b)(2). ........................................... 3
`1.
`Finjan Knew About The “Joe Sandbox Database” And
`Chose Not To Conduct Discovery On It Because It Was Not
`Relevant. ...................................................................................................... 4
`The Joe Security Documents Are Not Relevant To Finjan’s
`’494 Patent Infringement Theory. ............................................................. 11
`Finjan Is Not Entitled To Relief Under Rule 60(b)(3). ......................................... 16
`1.
`Juniper Did Not Engage In Misconduct. ................................................... 16
`2.
`Finjan Was Not Prevented From Fully And Fairly Presenting
`Its Case. ..................................................................................................... 18
`Finjan’s Prejudice Allegations Are Unfounded. ................................................... 19
`C.
`CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................. 20
`
`B.
`
`2.
`
`I.
`II.
`III.
`
`IV.
`
`10663015.12 09
`
`- i -
`
`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
`IRELL & MANELLA LLP
`A Registered Limited Liability
`Law Partnership Including
`Professional Corporations
`
`REDACTED VERSION OF DOCUMENT SOUGHT TO BE SEALED
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 435 Filed 04/12/19 Page 3 of 24
`
`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
`IRELL & MANELLA LLP
`A Registered Limited Liability
`Law Partnership Including
`Professional Corporations
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page(s)
`
`Cases
`
`Anderson v. Cryovac, Inc.,
`862 F.2d 910 (1st Cir. 1988) ......................................................................................................19
`
`Belinda K. v. Baldovinos,
`No. 10-CV-02507-LHK, 2012 WL 3249481 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 7, 2012) ....................................15
`
`Berger v. Rossignol Ski Co., Inc.,
`No. C 05-2523 CR B, 2006 WL 2038324 (N.D. Cal. July 17, 2006) ........................................15
`
`Casey v. Albertson’s Inc.,
`362 F.3d 1254 (9th Cir. 2004) ....................................................................................................18
`
`Cusano v. Klein,
`485 Fed. Appx. 175 (9th Cir. 2012) .............................................................................................8
`
`De Saracho v. Custom Food Machinery, Inc.,
`182 F.R.D. 601 (N.D. Cal. 1998) ...............................................................................................17
`
`DeVera v. Japan Airlines,
`No. 92 Civ. 6698 (JES), 1994 WL 698330 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 13, 1994) ........................................8
`
`Fed. Deposit Ins. Corp. v. Meyer,
`781 F.2d 1260 (7th Cir. 1986) ....................................................................................................15
`
`Immersion Corp. v. Sony Computer Entertainment Am., Inc.,
`2006 WL 618599 (N.D. Cal. March 8, 2006) ............................................................................16
`
`Jones v. Aero/Chem Corp.,
`921 F.2d 875 (9th Cir. 1990) ......................................................................................3, 15, 16, 19
`
`Prism Techs., LLC v. Spring Spectrum L.P.,
`No. 8:12CV123, 2015 WL 12803695 (D. Neb. Dec. 9, 2015) ..................................................15
`
`Srinivasan v. DeVry Institute of Tech.,
`No. 93-56413, 1995 WL 242307 (9th Cir. 1995) .......................................................................15
`
`Venture Industries Corp. v. Autoliv ASP, Inc.,
`457 F.3d 1322 (Fed. Cir. 2006) ..................................................................................................18
`
`Willis v. Mullins,
`809 F. Supp. 2d 1227 (E.D. Cal. 2011) ......................................................................................15
`
`Rules
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 34 .............................................................................................................................10
`
`10663015.12 09
`
`- ii -
`
`REDACTED VERSION OF DOCUMENT SOUGHT TO BE SEALED
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 435 Filed 04/12/19 Page 4 of 24
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 60 ..................................................................................................................... passim
`
`10663015.12 09
`
`- iii -
`
`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
`IRELL & MANELLA LLP
`A Registered Limited Liability
`Law Partnership Including
`Professional Corporations
`
`REDACTED VERSION OF DOCUMENT SOUGHT TO BE SEALED
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 435 Filed 04/12/19 Page 5 of 24
`
`
`
`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
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`The lone jury issue in the December 2018 trial in this matter was whether Juniper’s accused
`products store what Finjan had identified as the “security profile” in a “database,” as those terms
`are used in Finjan’s ’494 Patent. At trial, Juniper did not dispute that its products contained a
`“database,” as that term is used in the ’494 Patent; rather, Juniper argued (successfully) that the
`location where it stored the “security profile”—within part of the “Results Database”—is not a
`“database” under the agreed construction. Discovery and litigation of other issues in the case
`remained ongoing.
`Before trial, Juniper had provided Finjan with discovery on Joe Sandbox that Juniper
`obtained from its technical document repositories and from the specific custodians that Finjan
`identified under the ESI Order (including documents demonstrating that Joe Sandbox contained a
`database), but Juniper explained that it did not have source code for Joe Sandbox and from Juniper’s
`perspective it is a “black box” that takes a sample and returns results. Finjan elected not to seek
`technical discovery from Joe Security before trial, or request further discovery from Juniper. After
`trial, however, Finjan requested additional information from Juniper on Joe Sandbox, and Juniper
`was able to obtain twelve additional Joe Sandbox documents from a third-party server. These
`documents, like the documents Juniper had previously produced, indicated that Joe Sandbox used
`some type of database.
`Based on the Joe Sandbox documents Juniper produced in response to Finjan’s post-trial
`requests, Finjan now argues that it is entitled to a new trial. Had it known about these documents
`pre-trial, Finjan argues, it could have argued that the Joe Sandbox database satisfied the “database”
`requirement of the ’494 Patent, and it could not have discovered this information through its own
`diligence.
`As discussed below, there are two main flaws in Finjan’s argument: (1) Juniper did produce
`numerous documents pre-trial demonstrating that Joe Sandbox contained a database, and explained
`that it did not have the Joe Security source code required to analyze that database, but Finjan elected
`not to seek further information from Joe Security; and (2) even if the database in Joe Sandbox does
`satisfies the requirements for a “database” in the ’494 Patent (and Juniper does not know whether it
`
`
`
`
`- 1 -
`
`JUNIPER’S OPPOSITION TO FINJAN’S
`MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT
`Case No. 3:17-cv-05659-WHA
`
`REDACTED VERSION OF DOCUMENT SOUGHT TO BE SEALED
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 435 Filed 04/12/19 Page 6 of 24
`
`
`
`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
`
`does), it would make no difference to the outcome of the trial because it is undisputed that Juniper
`does not store the accused “security profile” in Joe Sandbox. Rather, as Finjan itself admits,
`Juniper stores the “security profile” in part of “Results Database,” which is an independent and
`distinct data storage solution. Finally, and although not technically a requirement for the relief
`Finjan is seeking, Juniper did not conceal or hide any information relating to Joe Sandbox, nor
`engage in any other misconduct. Finjan’s Motion contains a shocking number of misstatements on
`this point, which Juniper corrects below.
`Having lost at trial on what it designated as its strongest patent, Finjan is now struggling to
`keep this patent in play. It is unfortunate that Finjan has reverted to making false statements about
`Juniper’s conduct in this case to do so. Simply put, there is no basis in fact or law for Finjan’s
`Motion.
`II.
`FACTUAL BACKGROUND
`Though not strictly relevant for the relief Finjan is seeking, Finjan purports to provide
`“Factual Background” in its motion that suggests Juniper made false or misleading statements to
`Finjan in discovery. While Juniper responds to most of these “facts” as part of its substantive
`arguments below, there are certain statements Finjan made that are so false and inflammatory that
`Juniper will address them before turning to the substantive arguments. Because these allegations
`are not necessary requirements for Finjan’s Motion, however, Juniper will attempt to address them
`in summary form.
`Finjan’s Misrepresentation
`“[O]n November 6, 2018, in the midst of
`preparations for the December trial and
`well after expert reports were served and
`depositions were taken, Juniper belated
`[SIC] produced an email in which its
`employee had attached a document that
`referenced the installation of Joe
`Sandbox.” Dkt. 412 at 5-6.
`
`The Truth
`Finjan provided Juniper with search terms on
`October 16, 2018 for the relevant custodians that
`led to identification of this document. Juniper’s
`production of the document was not “well after”
`expert depositions, as the expert depositions on
`infringement for both parties took place after
`production, nor was Juniper’s production
`“belated,” as the document was produced within
`21 days of receiving Finjan’s search terms
`pursuant to the ESI Order in this matter. See Dkt.
`87 at ¶ 8.d; Ex. 4 at 1-2 (Finjan selecting search
`terms on October 16, 2018); Glucoft ¶ 16.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- 2 -
`
`JUNIPER’S OPPOSITION TO FINJAN’S
`MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT
`Case No. 3:17-cv-05659-WHA
`
`REDACTED VERSION OF DOCUMENT SOUGHT TO BE SEALED
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 435 Filed 04/12/19 Page 7 of 24
`
`
`
`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
`
`Finjan’s Misrepresentation
`Finjan could not have presented evidence
`regarding the Joe Sandbox database at the
`December 2018 trial because it did not
`know about it until after the trial. Dkt. 412
`at 8.
`
`“Juniper’s response to [the RFPs on Joe
`Security] was the false assertion that
`Juniper had completed its Sky ATP
`production and there was nothing further
`that was responsive to produce.” Dkt. 412
`at 4.
`
`Juniper must have intentionally withheld
`the Joe Security documents produced in
`February 2019 because they contain
`“simple keywords” that a “basic search”
`would have revealed. Dkt. 412 at 8.
`
`The Truth
`Juniper produced at least eight documents
`specifically referencing a database in Joe Sandbox
`well in advance of the December 2018 trial.
`Juniper also informed Finjan that it did not have
`source code for Joe Sandbox. Finjan elected not
`to pursue discovery from Joe Security. See
`Sections III.A.1.a and b, infra.
`
`As Juniper does not have access to Joe Sandbox
`source code, Juniper specifically stated that its
`production was limited to “Sky ATP source
`code,” “technical specifications, design and
`development documents, and administration
`guides,” and “licenses with Joe Security.” Dkt.
`412-8 at 8-14. Juniper expressly told Finjan it did
`not have source code for Joe Sandbox.
`
`Juniper could not have located the “Joe Security
`documents” produced in February 2019 by doing
`a “basic search” of its technical repository
`because those documents were not located in
`Juniper’s technical document repositories; rather,
`the documents were located on a remote, third-
`party iWeb server that hosts the Joe Sandbox
`binary code. Aquino ¶¶ 3-6; Islah ¶¶ 5-8.
`
`
`
`III. ARGUMENT
`A.
`Finjan Is Not Entitled To Relief Under Rule 60(b)(2).
`Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(2) provides that a court may relieve a party from a
`final judgment on account of “newly discovery evidence that, with reasonable diligence, could not
`have been discovered in time to move for a new trial under Rule 59(b).” In order to qualify, the
`“movant must show the evidence (1) existed at the time of the trial, (2) could not have been
`discovered through due diligence, and (3) was ‘of such magnitude that production of it earlier would
`have been likely to change the disposition of the case.’” Jones v. Aero/Chem Corp., 921 F.2d 875,
`878 (9th Cir. 1990) (quoting Coastal Transfer Co. v. Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., 833 F.2d 208, 211
`(9th Cir. 1987)).
`There are two primary reasons Finjan cannot satisfy its burden: (1) Finjan was on notice that
`Joe Security incorporated its own database as early as July 2018, but chose not to conduct any follow
`up discovery on this issue until after the December 2018 trial, and (2) the Joe Sandbox database has
`
`
`
`
`- 3 -
`
`JUNIPER’S OPPOSITION TO FINJAN’S
`MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT
`Case No. 3:17-cv-05659-WHA
`
`REDACTED VERSION OF DOCUMENT SOUGHT TO BE SEALED
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 435 Filed 04/12/19 Page 8 of 24
`
`nothing to do with Finjan’s infringement theory for the ’494 Patent, as it is not located in the “Results
`Database”—the location where Juniper stores the “security profile.” (As the Court may recall, the
`’494 Patent does not simply require a “database”; it requires the “security profile” to be stored in
`that “database” by a “database manager.” See U.S. Patent No. 8,677,494 at Claim 10.)
`Finjan’s accusation that Juniper purposefully “concealed” the Joe Security documents or that
`Finjan exercised due diligence in taking discovery on Joe Sandbox are demonstrably false, as
`Juniper produced its initial set of Joe Sandbox documents from its document repositories and
`custodians pre-trial (within 21 days of receiving a request from Finjan), and it was able to locate
`and produce additional documents shortly after receiving follow-up requests from Finjan after the
`trial. Moreover, the handful of Joe Security documents produced by Juniper in early February 2019
`are cumulative of documents Juniper produced pre-trial, which simply indicate that Joe Sandbox
`uses some type of database. While Finjan now contends that the Joe Sandbox database is the
`“smoking gun” for its infringement theory, it provides no explanation for why it did not present
`evidence of it at the December 2018 trial, given that it was in possession of documents identifying
`the Joe Sandbox database long before that trial. Nor does it offer any explanation for why it did not
`raise the issue with the Court at the hearing on Finjan’s post-trial motions, which was weeks after
`Juniper produced the additional Joe Security documents in early February 2019.
`1.
`Finjan Knew About The “Joe Sandbox Database” And Chose Not To
`Conduct Discovery On It Because It Was Not Relevant.
`Because Finjan’s infringement theory for its ’494 Patent requires the “security profile” to be
`stored within a “database” in the “Results Database,” and because Joe Sandbox is a third-party
`product not located in “Results Database,” it is understandable why Finjan did not seek discovery
`from Joe Security (the provider of Joe Sandbox) before trial on the ’494 Patent. Having made the
`decision not to pursue that discovery, however, Finjan cannot now claim it has satisfied Rule
`60(b)(2)’s requirement of due diligence.
`(a)
`Finjan Knew That The “Joe Sandbox Database” Existed.
`As an initial matter, Finjan falsely claims that Juniper did not provide any discovery
`identifying the Joe Sandbox database prior to trial. This statement is inaccurate. For example, on
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`- 4 -
`
`JUNIPER’S OPPOSITION TO FINJAN’S
`MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT
`Case No. 3:17-cv-05659-WHA
`
`REDACTED VERSION OF DOCUMENT SOUGHT TO BE SEALED
`
`

`

`
`
`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 435 Filed 04/12/19 Page 9 of 24
`
`July 12, 2018, Juniper produced a license that expressly states that the version of Joe Sandbox
`licensed by Juniper uses an
`:
`
`Ex. 1 (JNPR-FNJN_29035_00962471) at 490; Glucoft ¶ 2.
`Months later, on November 6, 2018, Juniper timely1 produced emails and attachments that
`again clearly reference the
` used by Joe Sandbox:
`
`
`
`
`Ex. 2 (JNPR-FNJN_29040_01280968) at 977; Glucoft ¶ 3. These emails and attachments also
`included a “Joe Sandbox Installation Guide,” which was an earlier and substantially similar version
`of the Installation Guide produced in February 2019 (that Juniper allegedly withheld from
`production). See Ex. 3 (JNPR-FNJN_29040_01462115); Glucoft ¶ 4. The Installation Guide
`Juniper produced pre-trial again made clear that Joe Sandbox includes a database:
`
`
`1 Finjan states that Juniper’s November 6 production was “belated” and “well after expert reports
`were served and depositions were taken.” Dkt. 412 at 5. As noted above, both allegations are false.
`Juniper produced these emails within 21 days of Finjan’s selection of final search terms, in
`accordance with the ESI Order in this matter. See Dkt. 87 at ¶ 8.d (ESI Order providing 21 days to
`produce emails after identification of final search terms); Ex. 4 at 1-2 (Finjan selecting search terms
`on October 16, 2018). Moreover, the expert depositions on infringement did not occur until
`November 9 (Rubin) and November 14 (Cole).
`
`
`
`
`- 5 -
`
`JUNIPER’S OPPOSITION TO FINJAN’S
`MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT
`Case No. 3:17-cv-05659-WHA
`
`REDACTED VERSION OF DOCUMENT SOUGHT TO BE SEALED
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 435 Filed 04/12/19 Page 10 of 24
`
`
`
`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
`
`Ex. 3 (JNPR-FNJN_29040_01462115) at 129. This pre-trial production also contained at least five
`additional emails and documents discussing the existence and use of the Joe Sandbox database. See,
`e.g., Ex. 10
`(JNPR-FNJN_29040_01455978) at 985
`
`; Ex. 11 (JNPR-FNJN_29040_01457211) at 211 (noting the Joe Sandbox “DB
`got errors”); Ex. 12
`(JNPR-FNJN_29040_01457124) at 133
`
`; Ex. 13 (JNPR-FNJN_29040_01464974) at 988 (discussing the Joe
`Sandbox “database specific settings”); Ex. 14 (JNPR-FNJN_29040_01462047) at 061 (also
`discussing Joe Sandbox’s
` Glucoft ¶¶ 11-15 (documents all produced
`on November 6, 2018). Thus, Finjan had received documents from Juniper indicating that Joe
`Sandbox used some type of database well in advance of the December trial.
`(b)
`Finjan Did Not Exercise Reasonable Diligence.
`
`If Finjan believed that the Joe Sandbox database was relevant to its infringement case, it
`could have—and should have—sought additional discovery from Juniper or Joe Security. Instead,
`Finjan made the strategic decision to delay such follow up discovery until after the December trial.
`Because Finjan’s infringement theory for the ’494 Patent requires that the “security profile” is stored
`in a “database” within “Results Database,” and Joe Sandbox is not a part of the “Results Database,”
`Finjan’s decision not to pursue this discovery before the ’494 Patent trial is entirely reasonable—
`but it cannot now seek a new trial on the basis of its own litigation decisions.
`Finjan admits that the Joe Sandbox Installation Guide produced by Juniper on November 6,
`2018 references the documents that Juniper ultimately produced in February 2019. Dkt. 412 at 5.
`This admission belies Finjan’s contention that it could not have known that additional Joe Security
`documents existed before the December trial. Moreover, Finjan admits that it did not reach out to
`
`
`
`
`- 6 -
`
`JUNIPER’S OPPOSITION TO FINJAN’S
`MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT
`Case No. 3:17-cv-05659-WHA
`
`REDACTED VERSION OF DOCUMENT SOUGHT TO BE SEALED
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 435 Filed 04/12/19 Page 11 of 24
`
`
`
`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 to request those specific documents until December 17, 2018, shortly after the jury returned
`its verdict of non-infringement. Finjan did not express any urgency in that letter—much less that
`these documents could have been relevant to the December trial—as it requested that Juniper
`produce the documents by January 28, 2019. Dkt. 412-16 at 3. Juniper promptly responded that it
`would investigate, and Juniper produced the documents that it was able to locate on February 4,
`2019, just a few days after Finjan’s requested production date. Dkt. 412-17; Glucoft ¶ 19. Finjan
`does not explain why it waited until after the December trial to ask Juniper about these documents,
`particularly if the storage mechanisms used by Joe Sandbox were relevant to its infringement theory.
`Finjan’s failure to seek deposition testimony on the specifics of Joe Sandbox prior to the trial
`also demonstrates a lack of reasonable diligence. While Finjan chose to depose several Sky ATP
`engineers prior to the trial, none of those engineers were responsible for the Joe Sandbox component.
`See Ex. 6 at 7:23-8:3; Ex. 7 at 7:15-18; Ex. 8 at 10:15-20. And, Finjan did not seek a Rule 30(b)(6)
`deposition on any topics until October 16, 2018. Ex. 4 at 1. Even then, it agreed to defer the
`deposition on the Joe Security topic until after the December trial (Ex. 5), in response to Juniper’s
`observation that it did not appear to be relevant to the December trial. See Glucoft ¶ 5.
`Lastly, Finjan failed to exercise reasonable diligence in obtaining relevant discovery from
`Joe Security itself. Juniper made clear to Finjan that it did not have the Joe Sandbox source code
`and that it is essentially a “black box” to Juniper. See, e.g., Ex. 6 at 155:7-156:2. If those technical
`details were important to Finjan’s infringement theory, it could have (and should have) sought
`discovery directly from Joe Security. Finjan claims that its lack of diligence in seeking this third-
`party discovery should be excused because it would have “required going through the Hague
`Convention to obtain discovery from this foreign entity.” Dkt. 412 at 16. But foreign discovery is
`common in patent cases, and Finjan cites no authority for its contention that this is an appropriate
`excuse for failing to be diligent. Moreover, Finjan does not explain why it did not attempt to engage
`in informal discovery efforts, such as reaching out to Joe Security to ask for technical documents or
`purchasing its own license to Joe Sandbox. Instead, Finjan effectively took no steps to even try to
`obtain the relevant technical documents in discovery, and is now trying to suggest that Juniper must
`face a new trial based on this lack of diligence. Finjan’s excuse is insufficient, as reasonable
`
`
`
`
`- 7 -
`
`JUNIPER’S OPPOSITION TO FINJAN’S
`MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT
`Case No. 3:17-cv-05659-WHA
`
`REDACTED VERSION OF DOCUMENT SOUGHT TO BE SEALED
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 435 Filed 04/12/19 Page 12 of 24
`
`
`
`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
`
`diligence requires seeking discovery from third parties in possession of relevant evidence. See
`Cusano v. Klein, 485 Fed. Appx. 175, 179 (9th Cir. 2012) (upholding a denial of relief under Rule
`60 because plaintiff did not “show that he could not have discovered the alleged new evidence
`through timely third party discovery during the proceedings”); DeVera v. Japan Airlines, No. 92
`Civ. 6698 (JES), 1994 WL 698330, at *3 n. 1 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 13, 1994) (rejecting plaintiffs’ excuses
`for failure to discover evidence where “plaintiffs could have requested the Court to permit plaintiffs
`to serve a subpoena on a third party [but they] did not do so”).
`(c)
`Juniper Did Not “Conceal” The Joe Security Documents.
`Finjan’s Motion is fraught with accusations that Juniper “intentionally concealed” the Joe
`Security documents. While Finjan concocts an elaborate conspiracy theory about all the steps
`Juniper supposedly took to hide the existence of the Joe Security documents—including allegedly
`having its witnesses lie under oath and deliberately removing the Joe Security documents from its
`production—its allegations are pure fiction.
`First, Finjan alleges that Juniper “intentionally concealed the fact that it was refusing to
`produce responsive documents, like the Joe Sandbox User Guide and Interface Guide.” Dkt. 412 at
`10. In particular, Finjan claims that Juniper affirmatively represented “that it did not have in its
`possession the Joe Sandbox technical documents” and that “Juniper misled Finjan into believing
`that Juniper did not possess any of the Joe Security documents that Finjan sought in discovery”. See
`Dkt No. 412 at 12, 16. But this is simply not true. In response to Finjan’s requests for production
`regarding Joe Security documents, Juniper expressly stated:
`Juniper responds that it has already completed its technical production detailing the
`operation of Sky ATP, which includes both the complete Sky ATP source code as
`well as many thousands of pages of technical specifications, design and development
`documents, and administration guides. Juniper further response, subject to these
`specific objections and the General Objections incorporated herein, that it has
`already produced licenses with Joe Security for products used by Sky ATP.
`
`Dkt. 412-8 at 8 (emphasis added); see also id. at 9-11 (same responses to RFP Nos. 88-89). Juniper
`also does not have access to the Joe Sandbox source code, which Juniper expressly told Finjan. See,
`e.g., Ex. 6 at 155:7-156:2. Thus, contrary to Finjan’s representation to the Court, Juniper told Finjan
`that its production of Joe Security documents was limited to the Joe Security licenses as well as Sky
`
`
`
`
`- 8 -
`
`JUNIPER’S OPPOSITION TO FINJAN’S
`MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT
`Case No. 3:17-cv-05659-WHA
`
`REDACTED VERSION OF DOCUMENT SOUGHT TO BE SEALED
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 435 Filed 04/12/19 Page 13 of 24
`
`
`
`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
`
`ATP source code, design and development documents, and administration guides.2
`Finjan also implies that Juniper purposefully omitted the Joe Security documents from its
`production. Dkt. 412 at 8 (“the Joe Sandbox documents all contain simple keywords that can be
`identified from Finjan’s discovery requests, such that any basic search within Juniper’s records from
`the documents that Finjan requested would have revealed the documents”). But Finjan’s allegation
`assumes that the documents Juniper located as a result of the investigation that it conducted in
`response to Finjan’s December 17 letter were stored in Juniper’s technical document repository.
`This is not correct. After receiving Finjan’s December 17 letter, Juniper promptly conducted a
`pointed investigation for the particular Joe Security documents that Finjan had requested. None of
`the “Joe Sandbox documents” were located in Juniper’s technical repositories for Sky ATP (i.e.,
`Confluence, Jira or GNATS). Aquino ¶¶ 3-4. Juniper was, however, able to locate a copy of the
`requested documents on a third-party iWeb server that is used to host the Joe Sandbox binary code.
`Islah ¶¶ 4-5. In particular, when Juniper receives an update to the Joe Sandbox software, it comes
`in a .zip folder that contains additional product-related literature. Islah ¶ 4. Juniper downloads this
`.zip file to the iWeb server so that it can run the binary as part of the Sky ATP deployment. Because
`the contents of the .zip file remain on the iWeb server, Juniper was able to locate the documents and
`produced them to Finjan. Islah ¶ 5. Notably, however, no other technical documents are stored on
`the remote iWeb servers, Juniper does not systematically retain copies of the documents it receives
`when it downloads a new version of Joe Sandbox, and the documents produced were not maintained
`in Juniper’s technical repositories on its network drives because the documents are so rarely used.
`Islah ¶¶ 6-7. Thus, Finjan’s pure speculation that Juniper collected these documents as part of a
`keyword search and then affirmatively chose to omit them from its production is baseless. See
`Aquino ¶ 5; Islah ¶ 8.3
`
`
`2 Juniper offered to meet and confer with Finjan if Finjan believed that the documents that Juniper
`had already produced were not sufficient and Finjan believed that additional documents were
`relevant. See Dkt. 412-8 at 8. Finjan chose not to take Juniper up on its offer to meet and confer
`regarding the relevance of any other Joe Security documents until after the jury returned its verdict
`of non-infringement. Glucoft ¶ 18.
`3 In its objections to Finjan’s RFPs, Juniper expressly noted that it would limit its search to its own
`network drives because those drives have sufficient documentation to fully specify the operation of
`the accused products (especially in combination with the complete Juniper source code, which
`
`
`
`
`- 9 -
`
`JUNIPER’S OPPOSITION TO FINJAN’S
`MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT
`Case No. 3:17-cv-05659-WHA
`
`REDACTED VERSION OF DOCUMENT SOUGHT TO BE SEALED
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 435 Filed 04/12/19 Page 14 of 24
`
`
`
`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
`
`Finjan next argues that Juniper’s witnesses “blocked Finjan from learning about the Joe
`Sandbox database in Sky ATP” and implies that those witnesses lied under oath about the extent of
`their knowledge regarding Joe Sandbox. Dkt. 412 at 11. Again, this is untrue. Rather, as one would
`expect given that Finjan’s infringement theory for the ’494 Patent has nothing to do with Joe
`Sandbox, the engineers Finjan chose to depose before trial have no responsibility for the Joe
`Sandbox component of Sky ATP. Ex. 6 (Tenorio Dep.) at 7:23-8:3 (“What features are you
`responsible for? A: It varies from time to time. At this moment, I’m responsible for the component
`called the Web API; the UI API; a product that we call Cascade; any related features