Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 500-1 Filed 05/30/19 Page 1 of 18
`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 500-1 Filed 05/30/19 Page 1 of 18
`
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT 4
`EXHIBIT 4
`
`UNREDACTED VERSION OF
`UNREDACTED VERSION OF
`DOCUMENT SOUGHT TO BE
`DOCUMENT SOUGHT TO BE
`SEALED
`SEALED
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 500-1 Filed 05/30/19 Page 2 of 18
`
`Transcript
`
`Repor.:ed -:iy Charlotte Lacey
`RPR, CSR ~14224
`
`[UI]: Unintelligible
`
`[PH]: Phonetic
`
`[NS]: Noise
`
`[OV]: Overlapping Voices
`
`[Recording Begins - 00:00:00)
`
`Speaker ID
`
`Time Code
`
`Transcription
`
`John
`
`Scott
`
`John
`
`Scott
`
`00:15
`
`00:05
`
`00:17
`
`00:18
`
`John
`
`00:32
`
`Scott
`
`01:07
`
`-- for making a decision about these things.
`
`I appreciate that overture. Yeah, I mean actually, Ivan
`and I had a pretty good relationship. I don't know the
`circumstances of his departure but --
`
`Okay.
`
`-- so I don't really know what you're referring to, in
`terms of different styles.
`
`But I guess what you're saying is he was a heavier
`hammer, and you're a lighter hammer or something like
`that. But -- is that -- is that basically what you're saying?
`
`I don't -- I don't know. I thought he was light -- I think I
`tend to just be kind of fact-based, and just trying to
`kinda cut to the chase. Yeah, I don't know.
`
`I have my own style. I've been doing this for 20 plus
`years. And I -- I just think there's a way to do it where
`two parties can be respectful and can exchange some
`information. And I'm not saying there's not gonna be a
`debate, or it might get heated here or there, but, you
`know, I think there's a way to exchange information,
`that you can make a -- each party can kinda make a
`decision about whether this is proceeding on a path that
`makes sense.
`
`Well, I think if you -- you probably have access, at least,
`to the email trends -- correspondence that's gone back
`and forth. And I think one thing that can be said is that it
`has been respectful. It's been respectful in a
`disagreement way, but that's fine. And we'll continue to
`
`CONFIDENTIAL
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`Trial Exhibit 256
`
`Case No. 17-CV-05659-WHA
`
`Date Entered: _ _ _ _ By: - - -~ -
`Deputy Clerk
`
`JNPR-FNJN 29011 00960575
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 500-1 Filed 05/30/19 Page 3 of 18
`
`I
`
`John
`
`Scott
`
`John
`
`Scott
`
`John
`
`Scott
`
`John
`
`Scott
`
`John
`
`Scott
`
`John
`
`Scott
`
`John
`
`01:39
`
`01:44
`
`01:49
`
`01:50
`
`01:56
`
`02:16
`
`02:22
`
`02:27
`
`02:34
`
`03:35
`
`02:36
`
`02:37
`
`02:46
`
`Scott
`
`03:10
`
`have that dialogue, and I'm happy to have that dialogue
`with you.
`
`So are you -- is -- is Finjan just purely a licensing
`company now or do you actually make anything?
`
`There's some stuff we're making like a web browser for
`mobile and there's some other things that are in
`development.
`
`But you're not suing us on those. You're not -- you're
`not asserting those patents, right?
`
`Correct.
`
`Okay. So you're non-practicing in terms of the patents
`that are being asserted.
`
`Yes. I mean Finjan's got this -- I don't know if it's -- I
`thought Ivan might have gone through it. But I mean
`Finjan started in 1997. Finjan's now kind of-- some of
`Finjan is now buried under M86 Security. So it's kind of
`like been splintered and resold . So --
`
`So did you have like a-- did you have a standards
`position?
`
`I -- no, I have not. I don't want to cause any issues with
`standards or declarations of standards or anything like
`that.
`
`So you -- you're not claiming you own a standard or
`have a position in a standard?
`
`Correct.
`
`Okay.
`
`It's all implementation.
`
`Yeah. So how much are you up to speed on -- on the
`previous dialogue between Juniper and Finjan?
`
`I have not read it recently. I did review it at one time,
`and it looked like, you know, there was a debate over an
`NDA -- not an NDA. It's more like to kind of get to your
`process, in terms of how do you usually handle it. I
`mean Finjan is usually an NDA and a mutual stand-still
`agreement to allow the parties over some period of
`time that's agreed upon to have kind of a forthright
`exchange.
`
`Yeah . So it -- so that's -- yeah, I think Ivan presented
`that to us, and we -- we declined to sign it. Basically,
`
`CONFIDENTIAL
`
`JNPR-FNJN 29011 00960576
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 500-1 Filed 05/30/19 Page 4 of 18
`
`John
`
`03:55
`
`Scott
`
`04:09
`
`John
`
`Scott
`
`John
`
`Scott
`
`John
`
`Scott
`
`John
`
`04:41
`
`04:47
`
`04:47
`
`04:53
`
`05:01
`
`05:10
`
`05:12
`
`what -- what the model we would like to employ is for
`you to share whatever information you think is relevant;
`a teaser or whatever you call it, to get us interested, to
`get us thinking that we should engage in a discussion
`with you, and then we will.
`
`But we're not necessarily going to commit to an NOA.
`We may, but that's not my call. So it's -- it's just a little
`bit of a kind of a dance here.
`
`Okay. So I mean we have identified patents. We have
`identified products. I mean are you looking for - do you
`really want like a formal letter of Notice of Infringement
`or are you -- what do you -- what do you call a teaser?
`
`Well, you've identified -- well, let me -- I have to go
`back. I'm not going to acknowledge that you've
`identified patents and products. But with any
`specificity, I think it's been at a fairly high level. But I
`would have to go back and familiarize myself with that
`again.
`
`But I know you've provided some information. And we
`have reviewed that information, but it's been probably
`six months since we've heard from you, so I would have
`to go back and refresh my recollection.
`
`I could just help you. We would just restart, 'cause,
`yeah, but I think that information's dated --
`
`Okay.
`
`-- you know, there's new patents, different patents and
`probably different products.
`
`The products are probably not that different, but if you
`have new patents, then all right, we would love to hear
`about that.
`
`Yes, so I mean the products that we're focused on is the
`-- the SRX Series, including the virtual firewall, and --
`
`And why have you focused on that?
`
`Because that's what the patents have led us to, I mean
`there's new security products, and so we don't think --
`you know, really with your Junos operating system. But
`it looks like some of the modules that are supported in
`those products and the Next Generation firewall, which
`is your UTM, your antivirus, and your web filtering are
`three modules that we think about using three new
`
`CONFIDENTIAL
`
`JNPR-FNJN 29011 00960577
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 500-1 Filed 05/30/19 Page 5 of 18
`
`Scott
`
`John
`
`Scott
`
`John
`
`Scott
`
`John
`
`Scott
`
`John
`
`Scott
`
`•
`
`05:33
`
`0535
`
`05:37
`
`05:50
`
`05:55
`
`05:55
`
`05 :56
`
`06:02
`
`06:06
`
`John
`
`06:24
`
`Scott
`
`John
`
`07:18
`
`07:27
`
`patents.
`
`And how'd you get to that?
`
`Claim charts.
`
`I
`
`Oh, no, no. Before you get to the claim chart part. So
`how did you -- Were you using like Juniper
`documentation or were you using engineers assessing
`the situation? What -- what were you using?
`
`Our engineers looking at your product documentation.
`
`So you have engineers?
`
`Yes.
`
`Okay. And they have networking and security
`backgrounds?
`
`Correct.
`
`And so, when you engage with other targets, you -- how
`do you like to engage? Do you like to present your
`engineers with the target's engineers and -- and have a
`dialogue or what do you -- what do you like to do?
`
`I'd do it any way you want. I mean we could - we'd
`would be happy to come over and share, you know, our
`analysis and why we -- why we think the patents are
`being used and our -- our read on the specific products.
`You're welcome to include your engineers. That would
`be useful, if -- if that helps.
`
`I can share, you know, some of the success we've had in
`licenses and some of the background of the company,
`and we can go through where we see a possible solution
`or we can just wait, and, you know, we could stay in the
`technical realm and just wait for your feedback before
`we advance to that.
`
`The way we usually do it is, yeah, we never usually want
`it in an NDA. We really want your -- we don't want our
`inform;ition being in public -- publicly shared, and we
`don't think your information or responses or mailed
`information or something like that is also should be
`public.
`
`But the difficulty here is that your -- your engineers
`probably did not create the products. Is that correct?
`
`Correct.
`
`CONFIDENTIAL
`
`JNPR-FNJN 29011 00960578
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 500-1 Filed 05/30/19 Page 6 of 18
`
`Scott
`
`07:28
`
`John
`
`Scott
`
`07:42
`
`07:46
`
`John
`
`08:06
`
`Scott
`
`John
`
`Scott
`
`John
`
`Scott
`
`John
`
`Scott
`
`John
`
`Scott
`
`John
`
`08:23
`
`08:24
`
`08:45
`
`08:54
`
`09:05
`
`09:24
`
`09:25
`
`09:33
`
`09:58
`
`10:02
`
`And you're asking for us to -- to talk about the products
`that we create, and those are the actual engineers who
`created the products. So there seems to be an inequity
`there that I can't really get around.
`
`I don't quite follow. I mean you could bring whatever
`engineer you -- you want but --
`
`Well, you don't -- you don't want an unknowledgeable
`engineer, right? You want somebody knowledgeable
`about the product. And how -- how can I assure myself
`and the company that your engineer is actually
`knowledgeable about the patented technology, 'cause
`they didn't create it?
`
`Okay. That's funny. I mean when I was at Bell Labs, you
`know the guys I used that supported me in my licensing
`discussions were not the inventors of my patent, but
`clearly understood semiconductor processing and
`manufacturing.
`
`Uh-huh.
`
`Same exact situation here. So except it's around
`security. Right? I mean we can have an opening
`conversation dialogue if you just have her go through
`the three patents at a high level with one of your
`technologists, and you can get comfortable that she's --
`she's "of quality", meets your quality standard.
`
`I would love -- I would love to talk to the inventor. Is
`that an option?
`
`I don't think so, but -- and it -- and it wasn't an option
`when I --when I did licensing at Lucent or A&T either.
`So, no, I'm gonna reject that.
`
`Okay. Well, so you're -- you're -- you mentioned three
`patents. So you're -- you're focusing on three patents, is
`that correct?
`
`Yes.
`
`And are those the three patents that I'd been noticed on
`previously?
`
`Let me look at that. Two of them. Two of them, 968,
`154
`
`Can you give me the full numbers?
`
`Sure. 6965968. You've seen that one.
`
`CONFIDENTIAL
`
`JNPR-FNJN 29011 00960579
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 500-1 Filed 05/30/19 Page 7 of 18
`
`Scott
`
`John
`
`Scott
`
`John
`
`Scott
`
`John
`
`Scott
`
`John
`
`Scott
`
`John
`
`Scott
`
`John
`
`Scott
`
`John
`
`Scott
`
`John
`
`Scott
`
`John
`
`Scott
`
`John
`
`Scott
`
`John
`
`Scott
`
`10:08
`
`10:11
`
`10:13
`
`10:18
`
`10:20
`
`10:22
`
`10:32
`
`10:35
`
`10:37
`
`10:47
`
`10:48
`
`10:53
`
`11:06
`
`11:21
`
`11:35
`
`11:43
`
`11:48
`
`11:51
`
`11:57
`
`12:00
`
`12:02
`
`12:04
`
`12:06
`
`69 --
`
`65968.
`
`6965968. Okay ...
`
`6965968, yeah.
`
`Yeah .
`
`All right. You've seen that one, although I think we have
`an updated chart. There's the 8141154.
`
`Give me that one again. 814 --
`
`1154.
`
`1 -- okay. 814155 -- 1-- 84 -- I'm sorry. 8141154.
`
`Right.
`
`Got it, okay.
`
`And there's a newer one, one you haven't seen before.
`8677494
`
`Okay. All right. And that's significant, because it's -- is it
`-- is it a continuation?
`
`I don't know. I don't know. It's reads on your advanced
`malware modules.
`
`Because your engineers, who didn't invent the product
`or the patent or the invention, say so?
`
`Just stop that shit. Just stop it.
`
`I think it's funny.
`
`What's the -- what's the problem? You just don't like
`Finjan's business model or what -- what's the issue?
`
`Do you like Juniper's business model?
`
`Yeah, I think it's pretty cool.
`
`What is it?
`
`It's network equipment.
`
`Okay. I'm just wondering -- I'm trying to ascertain what
`analysis has been done to determine that these
`products that you say infringe do indeed infringe.
`
`CONFIDENTIAL
`
`JNPR-FNJN 29011 00960580
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 500-1 Filed 05/30/19 Page 8 of 18
`
`John
`
`12:30
`
`Scott
`
`John
`
`Scott
`
`John
`
`Scott
`
`John
`
`Scott
`
`John
`
`Scott
`
`John
`
`Scott
`
`John
`
`12:45
`
`12:47
`
`12:49
`
`12:52
`
`12:53
`
`12:57
`
`13:01
`
`13:05
`
`13:08
`
`13:09
`
`13:12
`
`13:13
`
`--has claim charts on all three that map, are based on
`your -- your product documentation that's sufficient
`enough to map all three of these patents to the
`products.
`
`Okay. You have claim charts.
`
`Correct.
`
`Okay. So what went into the claim charts?
`
`Excuse me?
`
`What went into the claim charts?
`
`Happy to show 'em to you whenever you wanna see
`'em.
`
`Well, I actually have seen a couple, I think. So --
`
`That's not -- it's much better today.
`
`Much better.
`
`It's much better format, yeah.
`
`The format is better.
`
`The format, support -- supporting information. Yeah.
`
`CONFIDENTIAL
`
`JNPR-FNJN 29011 00960581
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 500-1 Filed 05/30/19 Page 9 of 18
`
`John
`
`Scott
`
`16:46
`
`16:53
`
`So what information are you willing to share in the
`absence of an NOA -- I'm not gonna sign one -- that
`would -- that would help me decide what at do, that
`would help my company, Juniper Networks, decide
`what to do?
`
`So you've never -- you've never made a license? Never
`licensed a patent before?
`
`Oh, that's absolutely not true. That is absolutely not
`true. I have deposition testimony over and over again
`that says we do. We have. It's not a common situation,
`but it has happened. When we see merit in a case, we
`take a license.
`
`John
`
`17:16
`
`Okay. And how do you determine merit?
`
`CONFIDENTIAL
`
`JNPR-FNJN 29011 00960582
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 500-1 Filed 05/30/19 Page 10 of 18
`
`Scott
`
`John
`
`Scott
`
`17:19
`
`17:31
`
`17:41
`
`Well, that's kind of a trade secret. And we're not going
`to share that right now over this call.
`
`Okay. So how does somebody get in the front door?
`
`Oh, I thought you were already in the front door. I
`mean we're kind of in the -- through the second door,
`and just trying to figure out whether there's -- there's
`anything worth discussing.
`
`So, you know, I don't -- you haven't shown us anything,
`John, to take this to the next level. So please, you know,
`every kind of assertion like this requires a ton of
`resources, and I have to decide how to spend those
`resources, other people decide how to spend those
`resources, and we want to do the right thing.
`
`CONFIDENTIAL
`
`JNPR-FNJN 29011 00960583
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 500-1 Filed 05/30/19 Page 11 of 18
`
`Scott
`
`John
`
`21:07
`
`21:23
`
`So exactly why do I have to honor a meeting? Honor a
`meeting? Why are you worthy of a meeting?
`
`I just prefer to do it in another realm. You don't wanna
`
`CONFIDENTIAL
`
`JNPR-FNJN 29011 00960584
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 500-1 Filed 05/30/19 Page 12 of 18
`
`Scott
`
`John
`
`Scott
`
`John
`
`Scott
`
`John
`
`Scott
`
`John
`
`Scott
`
`John
`
`Scott
`
`John
`
`Scott
`
`John
`
`Scott
`
`John
`
`Scott
`
`21:29
`
`21:34
`
`21:36
`
`21:52
`
`21:53
`
`21:59
`
`22:02
`
`22:04
`
`22:05
`
`22:19
`
`22:23
`
`33:38
`
`22:45
`
`22:49
`
`22:53
`
`22:18
`
`23:30
`
`do it in a conference room?
`
`So what -- how would the conference room differ from
`this setting?
`
`What setting?
`
`I mean just the conversation we're having right now. I
`mean how would the in-person differ? Because I did
`the in-person. I tried to bridge the gap with your people
`and it didn't work.
`
`I wasn't aware of that. When was that?
`
`I was in your offices two times.
`
`Okay. Who participated in it.
`
`Julie and Ivan.
`
`Okay.
`
`Okay. Now it was related to a different subject. It was
`related to this subject, but it was related to a particular
`approach that I was proposing, and they declined it.
`And that's fine.
`
`Okay. I don't know. I'd have to try to talk to Julie.
`
`Well, I'm sorry that you're coming into this late, and
`that they have not advised you about what has gone on.
`There's a history here, and we're kind of at that -- at
`that point.
`
`And can you just explain the approach or you want me
`to just talk to Julie first?
`
`Why don't you talk to Julie?
`
`All right. Can you give me like a snippet?
`
`So we were offering you some information that would
`be advantageous in other litigations that you have. And
`It was considered to not be valuable enough to - to
`have a walk-away with Juniper, so, you know, here we
`are.
`
`Okay. So there's an offer and a rejection, so that ends
`it?
`
`Well, I mean I don't know. You've -- you've come back,
`so it didn't end it for your -- on your side. As far as we
`were concerned, that ended it.
`
`CONFIDENTIAL
`
`JNPR-FNJN 29011 00960585
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 500-1 Filed 05/30/19 Page 13 of 18
`
`John
`
`23:46
`
`Scott
`
`John
`
`Scott
`
`John
`
`Scott
`
`John
`
`Scott
`
`John
`
`Scott
`
`John
`
`Scott
`
`John
`
`Scott
`
`23:59
`
`24:13
`
`24:21
`
`24:25
`
`24:40
`
`24:45
`
`24:59
`
`25:05
`
`25:24
`
`25:27
`
`25:31
`
`25:41
`
`25:48
`
`Okay. What if Finjan didn't think -- this is all
`hypothetical -- didn't think it needed the information or
`how did you value -- how would you expect Finjan to
`value that information?
`
`You know what, that's up to you . I'm not in the game of
`deciding how you value your information. I was offering
`information, and you were deciding to not take it, so --
`
`So -- but it was your information, and it's an exchange.
`It was a trade. It was like and then -- and we walk away.
`I think is what -- how you phrased it.
`
`I think that's basically at a high level accurate.
`
`So that kind of has an intrinsic value associated with it.
`So how is that achieved by Juniper? I mean how is that -
`- how can I -- you know, how do I know it's a fair offer.
`What do you think the information is worth?
`
`Well, John, it sounds like you don't even know the
`history of this, so we --
`
`Certainly. I know the history of this. I talked to
`Meredith about it, I said I think it's a strange way for --
`you know, in my -- in my experience in 23 years of
`licensing, I think it's a strange way to do it. But, you
`know, but you have to value it.
`
`Wait. You said you don't know about the previous
`discussions between Finjan and Juniper, right?
`
`I wasn't aware there was a couple of meetings that
`were held at Finjan. I was aware that you were offering
`some information around Palo Alto Networks. I wasn't
`aware that there was a meeting that took place, and
`that maybe Julie participated and rejected it. I just
`know that the information that was -- I know it was
`offered.
`
`Correct.
`
`Unilaterally offered by Juniper.
`
`Well, an offer is, you know, by definition, unilateral. So,
`yes, we unilaterally offered it.
`
`I'm just saying it wasn't like Finjan saying is there any
`other things you can give us if you help us, right? It was
`unsolicited.
`
`Unsolicited. I don't know. I don't know that it would be
`unsolicited. I thought it was in the context of a litigation
`
`CONFIDENTIAL
`
`JNPR-FNJN 29011 00960586
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 500-1 Filed 05/30/19 Page 14 of 18
`
`John
`
`Scott
`
`John
`
`Scott
`
`John
`
`26:11
`
`26:17
`
`26:25
`
`26:26
`
`26:44
`
`discussion, negotiation, and you rejected it, so we're
`back at square one.
`
`Okay. You seem offended by that, but --
`
`I'm not offended. Not offended at all. I've been doing
`this for 17 years, not 23 years.
`
`Okay.
`
`And I don't get offended easily either.
`
`And then there's two, which is there's previous
`discussions, and you came up with maybe you thought
`was a clever idea and I'd love to hear about-- more
`about it. But it was rejected and now it's kind of left a
`small wound or where you're, you know, you're not
`really sure.
`
`But, you know, in terms of this paying royalties to
`Finjan, doesn't seem like an option, 'cause there might
`be some other kind of barter that's available.
`
`I think your characterizations are totally erroneous, so
`I'm not -- I'm going to, as you say, reject both of them.
`They're not -- they're not accurate. And I'm not gonna,
`you know, I'm not going to validate them in any way.
`They're wrong.
`
`Okay. So you don't find paying royalties to Finjan
`objectionable?
`
`We have paid -- no. When you say royalties versus lump
`sum, are you trying to distinguish between those two?
`
`No.
`
`Okay. So just a payment --
`
`Correct.
`
`-- to a patent holder, do I find that objectionable or does
`
`Scott
`
`27:34
`
`John
`
`Scott
`
`John
`
`Scott
`
`John
`
`Scott
`
`27:58
`
`28:04
`
`28:11
`
`28:12
`
`28:15
`
`28:16
`
`CONFIDENTIAL
`
`JNPR-FNJN 29011 00960587
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 500-1 Filed 05/30/19 Page 15 of 18
`
`John
`
`Scott
`
`John
`
`Scott
`
`John
`
`Scott
`
`John
`
`Scott
`
`John
`
`Scott
`
`John
`
`Scott
`
`John
`
`Scott
`
`John
`
`Scott
`
`John
`
`28:24
`
`28:32
`
`28:26
`
`28:39
`
`28:40
`
`28:47
`
`28:50
`
`28:51
`
`29:04
`
`29:06
`
`29:22
`
`29:23
`
`29:34
`
`29:38
`
`29:41
`
`29:42
`
`29:48
`
`Juniper find that objectionable?
`
`Yeah, I said to Finjan, and you inserted patent holders. I
`think that's -- that's kind of what I'm getting at with the
`bias, but go ahead. Continue.
`
`Are you a patent holder?
`
`Do you work for Juniper?
`
`Yes, I do.
`
`All right. This is awesome. All right. So go ahead with
`your question.
`
`So are you a patent holder?
`
`Yeah, we own patents.
`
`So if you're trying to say whether there's anything
`personal to Finjan, no. There's nothing personal
`involved in the decision to not take a license at this
`point.
`
`The business model though.
`
`No, the business model, we have -- we have absolutely
`paid patent holders who have valid, meritless claim -
`merit -- claims with merit -- we have paid them .
`
`Okay.
`
`Okay. It's not unprecedented. What we will not pay is
`meritless claims.
`
`Okay. And do you feel that these are meritless or?
`
`Well, no we have not gotten to that point.
`
`Okay.
`
`We have not had enough exchange of information to
`decide about that.
`
`So how do -- how do you wanna do it? I mean I have
`claim charts. I can share 'em with you. You want me to
`put them on the web? So how do you -- how do you
`want me to share the information with you in a way
`that's respectful?
`
`Scott
`
`30:02
`
`You can send them directly to me. I don't care.
`
`CONFIDENTIAL
`
`JNPR-FNJN 29011 00960588
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 500-1 Filed 05/30/19 Page 16 of 18
`
`Scott
`
`John
`
`Scott
`
`John
`
`Scott
`
`John
`
`Scott
`
`John
`
`31:26
`
`31:33
`
`31:48
`
`31:56
`
`31:59
`
`32:02
`
`32:05
`
`32:17
`
`So let me ask you this. Why is it confidential?
`
`So I can post it on the web. You prefer me to just post it
`on Finjan's web, and accuse Juniper of infringing the
`following three patents, and you just retrieve them from
`there? And you can decide if it's merit -- it has merit or
`it's meritless?
`
`I actually would like that. That would be great.
`
`Okay. We'll consider it.
`
`But you won't do it.
`
`I don't know. I'll talk to Julie about it.
`
`Okay. So that's our next step is for you to decide
`whether to post the infringement contentions on your
`website.
`
`I'm just noodling.
`
`CONFIDENTIAL
`
`JNPR-FNJN 29011 00960589
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 500-1 Filed 05/30/19 Page 17 of 18
`
`Scott
`
`John
`
`Scott
`
`John
`
`Scott
`
`John
`
`Scott
`
`John
`
`Scott
`
`John
`
`Scott
`
`John
`
`Scott
`
`John
`
`Scott
`
`John
`
`Scott
`
`32:18
`
`32:22
`
`32:23
`
`32:31
`
`32:42
`
`32:45
`
`33:00
`
`33:05
`
`33:06
`
`33:08
`
`33:09
`
`33:12
`
`33:22
`
`33:27
`
`33:49
`
`33 :54
`
`33:54
`
`Okay. Well, noodle. I think that's our next step.
`
`It's not our next step.
`
`And then once you decide whether to do that, then we
`can go from there.
`
`Okay. So if I do it, then you post it from there. So what I
`if I don't do it, I call you back and then what? We play -
`we play this little Seinfeld game again by phone?
`
`No, I actually want you to do it. I want you to post that.
`
`Okay. This is -- so it's -- let's just -- humor me. So if Julie
`rejects it. She doesn't wanna do it that way. Now what?
`
`It's not my call. I'm not -- I'm not the plaintiff. I'm not
`the patentee.
`
`I'm not the Plaintiff either.
`
`It's your call. It's your call.
`
`I'm not the plaintiff.
`
`I'm not gonna make your call for you.
`
`But you asked me why -- why you want -- why does it
`have to be confidential and you could see the
`awkwardness in it.
`
`We are gonna be transparent in this, okay?
`
`You're telling me you're straight up. You got this trade
`secret process probably better than anyone I've ever
`seen in the -- in the industry today, and I wanna know
`how it works.
`
`Thank you for kissing my ass.
`
`You're saying trust me.
`
`Trust you. When did I say trust me? So all I said was
`we're transparent. Okay. So if you send that to me, I'm
`gonna share it. You have nothing to hide. You have a
`lockdown patent infringement lawsuit against Juniper,
`right? You got it. Go for it.
`
`CONFIDENTIAL
`
`JNPR-FNJN 29011 00960590
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 500-1 Filed 05/30/19 Page 18 of 18
`
`John
`
`Scott
`
`John
`
`Scott
`
`John
`
`Scott
`
`John
`
`Scott
`
`John
`
`Scott
`
`John
`
`Scott
`
`John
`
`Scott
`
`John
`
`Scott
`
`John
`
`Scott
`
`[Recording Ends 37:03]
`
`34:37
`
`34:51
`
`35:02
`
`35:06
`
`35:08
`
`35:09
`
`35:14
`
`35:23
`
`35:32
`
`35:42
`
`35:46
`
`35:47
`
`35:53
`
`35:53
`
`36:00
`
`36:26
`
`36:29
`
`36:30
`
`Okay. I think you only take licenses once you're sued.
`
`No. Not true. Not true.
`
`Has to be.
`
`What was that comment?
`
`Has to be.
`
`Has to be? No, I just told you not true.
`
`And I don't believe you. And I just don't believe it,
`based on your tenor and your tone and this discussion.
`
`Okay. Well, when I'm deposed, I will explain to you
`exactly the licenses we've taken. Okay?
`
`See, it's amazing. You use words like plaintiff, you use
`deposed. You got litigation in your title. This is the
`exact reason why I didn't wanna deal with you guys. I
`wanna just deal with the business guy.
`
`Because you -- because you want something in our -- in
`our products?
`
`I just wanna -- I just ---
`
`You think -- you think you have something valuable to
`put in our products?
`
`It's in your products.
`
`Then explain it. No. Oh. Well, that -- no, that's a legal
`discussion.
`
`But it's a business risk. Make the decision. Where do
`you wanna solve it? You wanna solve it in a conference
`room or do you wanna solve it in a courtroom?
`
`Somehow you think when you went to law school it
`became a black and white world, but, unfortunately, it's
`got 32 shades of grey.
`
`Okay, John. Anything else to say?
`
`No.
`
`Thank you.
`
`CONFIDENTIAL
`
`JNPR-FNJN 29011 00960591
`
`