Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 52 Filed 04/11/18 Page 1 of 3
`
`IRELL & MANELLA LLP
`
`
`Jonathan S. Kagan (SBN 166039)
`jkagan@irell.com
`Joshua P. Glucoft (SBN 301249)
`jglucoft@irell.com
`Casey Curran (SBN 305210)
`ccurran@irell.com
`1800 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 900
`Los Angeles, California 90067-4276
`Telephone: (310) 277-1010
`Facsimile: (310) 203-7199
`
`Rebecca L. Carson (SBN 254105)
`rcarson@irell.com
`Kevin Wang (SBN 318024)
`kwang@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.,
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`
`
`
`JUNIPER NETWORKS, INC.,
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. 3:17-cv-05659-WHA
`
`DEFENDANT JUNIPER NETWORKS,
`INC.’S ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO
`DEFER PATENT LOCAL RULE 4
`
`
`Hon. William H, Alsup
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`10487239
`
`
`- 1 -
`
`JUNIPER’S ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO DEFER
`PATENT LOCAL RULE 4
`Case No. 3:17-cv-05659-WHA
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 52 Filed 04/11/18 Page 2 of 3
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`NOTICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION AND ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION
`
`TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR COUNSEL OF RECORD:
`
`PLEASE TAKE NOTICE THAT pursuant to Civil Local Rules 7-11 and 6-3, Defendant
`
`Juniper Networks, Inc. (“Juniper”) respectfully moves the Court for an Order deferring the start of
`
`Patent Local Rule 4 until January 11, 2019.
`
`This motion is based on this Notice of Motion, the Memorandum of Points and Authorities
`
`below, the Declaration of Joshua Glucoft (“Glucoft Dec.”) filed herewith, all documents in the
`
`Court’s file, and such other written or oral argument as may be presented at or before the time this
`
`motion is heard or considered by the Court.
`
`10
`
`The parties have met and conferred regarding this issue but were unable to reach
`
`11
`
`agreement. See Glucoft Dec. at ¶ 3.
`
`12
`
`13
`
`MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
`
`To improve efficiency, the Court has set a unique schedule for this matter, setting the case
`
`14
`
`for early summary judgment with a trial on any remaining factual issues to follow shortly after the
`
`15
`
`early summary judgment hearing. Dkt. No. 35 at ¶ 11 (Case Management Order). On the current
`
`16
`
`schedule, two patent claims will be fully adjudicated (by summary judgment or trial) by August of
`
`17
`
`2018, with any remaining patent claims adjudicated on or before the larger trial set for July of
`
`18
`
`2019. Id. at ¶¶ 11, 14. This accelerated schedule makes it impossible for the parties to follow the
`
`19
`
`Court’s usual procedure of citing portions of the claim construction briefing in summary judgment
`
`20
`
`papers because all of the early summary judgment papers will be filed before opening claim
`
`21
`
`construction briefing is due under Patent L.R. 4. See Dkt. No. 35 at ¶¶ 11, 20. The parties will
`
`22
`
`therefore need to brief claim construction issues for the first two patent claims as part of early
`
`23
`
`summary judgment briefing, not in separate claim construction briefs per Patent L.R. 4.
`
`24
`
`Claim construction issues for the remaining claims, however, will be presented in separate
`
`25
`
`claim construction briefs pursuant to Patent L.R. 4. The question presented by this motion is
`
`26
`
`simply whether it would be more efficient to: (A) simultaneously prepare for trial on any fact
`
`27
`
`issues remaining after early summary judgment on the first two patent claims while also briefing
`
`28
`
`claim construction on all other patent claims, or (B) defer claim construction on all other patent
`
`IRELL & MANELLA LLP
`A Registered Limited Liability
`Law Partnership Including
`Professional Corporations
`
`10487239
`
`
`- 2 -
`
`JUNIPER’S ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO DEFER
`PATENT LOCAL RULE 4
`Case No. 3:17-cv-05659-WHA
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 52 Filed 04/11/18 Page 3 of 3
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`claims until after the first two claims are adjudicated and the parties have had the opportunity to
`
`consider the outcome of that adjudication in settlement discussions. Juniper suggests that the
`
`latter approach is more efficient. Under the current schedule, the parties will prepare claim
`
`construction briefs in August of 2018 on four patents not at issue in early summary judgment, just
`
`as they are preparing for trial on any issues not resolved by early summary judgment. See Dkt.
`
`No. 35 at ¶ 11. Even in the best of circumstances, claim construction briefing is involved and time
`
`consuming; it will be particularly burdensome if (as under the current schedule) the parties are
`
`expected to prepare briefs while in the midst of trial preparation.
`
`In addition, the claim construction briefing might be rendered completely unnecessary if,
`
`10
`
`as is likely, the outcome of early summary judgment on the first two patent claims impacts the
`
`11
`
`parties’ opinions of the strength of their positions and thus their appetite for settlement. Giving
`
`12
`
`the parties a “reality check” will almost certainly increase prospects for settlement. Indeed, one of
`
`13
`
`the primary motivations underlying the early adjudication procedure in this case was to defer work
`
`14
`
`that might not be necessary after the parties received feedback on the strength of their claims. See
`
`15
`
`Dkt. No. 35 at ¶ 11 (early summary judgment will serve to “indicat[e] the relative strengths (or
`
`16
`
`weaknesses) of both sides’ positions”). Conducting claim construction briefing before the parties
`
`17
`
`have received this feedback—much less digested it and had the opportunity to participate in
`
`18
`
`meaningful settlement discussions—would undermine these efficiency advantages.
`
`19
`
`In light of the above, Juniper proposes deferring the start of Patent Local Rule 4 until
`
`20
`
`January 11, 2019, a date that would cause claim construction discovery to close on the same date
`
`21
`
`as fact discovery. See Dkt. No. 35 at ¶ 4.
`
`22
`
`Dated: April 11, 2018
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`IRELL & MANELLA LLP
`
`By:
`
`
`
`
`
` /s/ Joshua Glucoft
`Joshua Glucoft
`Attorneys for Defendant
`Juniper Networks, Inc.
`
`
`
`IRELL & MANELLA LLP
`A Registered Limited Liability
`Law Partnership Including
`Professional Corporations
`
`10487239
`
`
`- 3 -
`
`JUNIPER’S ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO DEFER
`PATENT LOCAL RULE 4
`Case No. 3:17-cv-05659-WHA
`
`