Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 521-1 Filed 06/07/19 Page 1 of 4
`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 521-1 Filed 06/07/19 Page 1 of 4
`UNREDACTED VERSION OF DOCUMENT SOUGHT TO BE SEALED
`
`EXHIBIT 6
`EXHIBIT 6
`(FILED UNDER SEAL)
`(FILED UNDERSEAL)
`
`UNREDACTED 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
`
`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 521-1 Filed 06/07/19 Page 2 of 4
`
`HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL - OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
`--oOo--
` FINJAN, Inc., a Delaware
` corporation
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`Case No. 3:17-cv-05659-WHA
`
`vs.
` JUNIPER NETWORKS, INC., a
` Delaware corporation
`Defendant.
` _____________________________
`
` HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL, OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS EYES ONLY
`
`30(b)(6) VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION OF
`JOHN GARLAND
`Thursday, May 24, 2018
`
` Reported by:
` COREY W. ANDERSON
` CSR No. 4096
` Job No. 2923791
` Pages 1 - 258
`
`Page 1
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`866 299-5127
`
`UNREDACTED VERSION OF DOCUMENT SOUGHT TO BE SEALED
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 521-1 Filed 06/07/19 Page 3 of 4
`
`HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL - OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY
`
`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
`
`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
`
` THE WITNESS: It's really outside my 09:50:51
` scope. 09:50:52
` BY MS. CARSON: 09:50:52
` Q. Before Finjan filed those lawsuits, did 09:50:58
` Finjan do anything to confirm it had a reasonable 09:51:00
` basis for asserting infringement of the patents that 09:51:02
` were at issue in those lawsuits? 09:51:05
` MS. KOBIALKA: Objection, form. 09:51:07
` THE WITNESS: Yeah, I think that's outside 09:51:09
` my scope where I'm handling licensing. But I can 09:51:10
` say that Finjan complies with everything it's 09:51:14
` required to comply with. 09:51:17
` BY MS. CARSON: 09:51:18
` Q. Is it Finjan's policy to only maintain 09:51:26
` patent infringement claims in a lawsuit when it has 09:51:28
` a reasonable basis for maintaining those claims? 09:51:30
` MS. KOBIALKA: Objection, form. 09:51:33
` THE WITNESS: I'm not sure, I -- I mean, I 09:51:36
` can continue to answer these questions, but I'm 09:51:38
` really questioning how we are talking about notice 09:51:40
` for marking. The topic of the deposition is notice 09:51:45
` and marking and I'm getting questions about 09:51:49
` litigation where I'm a licensing executive. 09:51:51
` BY MS. CARSON: 09:51:54
` Q. Can you answer the question? 09:51:54
`Page 46
`
` MS. KOBIALKA: I'm going to object to 09:51:56
` form. 09:51:57
` THE WITNESS: I need the question 09:51:58
` repeated. 09:51:58
` (Whereupon, the reporter read back 09:51:58
` the record as follows: 09:51:58
` "Is it Finjan's policy to only 09:51:59
` maintain patent infringement claims 09:51:59
` in a lawsuit when it has a 09:51:59
` reasonable basis for maintaining 09:51:59
` those claims?") 09:51:59
` MS. KOBIALKA: I object to the form of 09:52:16
` that question. 09:52:18
` THE WITNESS: I -- I can't answer the 09:52:21
` question. 09:52:21
` BY MS. CARSON: 09:52:22
` Q. You don't know one way or another? 09:52:22
` MS. KOBIALKA: Objection to form. 09:52:24
` THE WITNESS: I think, you know, you are 09:52:26
` starting to get into privilege and we are starting 09:52:29
` to get into, you know, beyond my scope of 09:52:30
` responsibilities. 09:52:34
` BY MS. CARSON: 09:52:35
` Q. Does Finjan have standard terms for its 09:52:44
` licenses? 09:52:48
`
`Page 47
`
`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
`
`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
`
` A. Can you be more specific? 09:52:50
` Q. Does Finjan have a set of standard terms 09:52:58
` that it prefers to use in its licenses that it 09:53:01
` enters into with parties for the patents-in-suit? 09:53:04
` MS. KOBIALKA: Objection to form. 09:53:09
` THE WITNESS: So I mean, we have a -- we 09:53:12
` have a stand -- what I'll call maybe a standard 09:53:21
` license agreement. But you know, obviously it's a 09:53:24
` negotiation, so it gets adjusted and tweaked through 09:53:26
` the back and forth with the licensee. 09:53:29
` BY MS. CARSON: 09:53:32
` Q. Does Finjan's standard form include any 09:53:33
` provisions related to marking? 09:53:36
` MS. KOBIALKA: Objection to form. 09:53:40
` THE WITNESS: So most of the license 09:53:46
` agreements I'm unfamiliar with the licensee usually 09:53:47
` requires this no admission of liability whether they 09:53:51
` have been found to infringe by the Federal Circuit 09:53:55
` or not. I mean, they have -- it seems to be a 09:53:58
` common practice now at least in the industry or, you 09:54:01
` know, by licensees to have this no admission of 09:54:07
` liability clause. 09:54:11
` So it's -- I don't know if it's standard 09:54:12
` or not. But it's -- if it's -- if it's admitted by 09:54:15
` Finjan, it's usually added by the licensee. 09:54:19
`Page 48
`
` BY MS. CARSON: 09:54:21
` Q. Okay. So I don't know that that answers 09:54:23
` my question. I wasn't asking about a provision 09:54:25
` regarding whether the licensee admits liability. 09:54:27
` I was asking whether Finjan has any 09:54:32
` marking provisions in any of its licenses with its 09:54:35
` licensees. 09:54:39
` MS. KOBIALKA: Objection to form. 09:54:40
` THE WITNESS: Yeah, and I'm saying the 09:54:41
` practice is the companies -- you know, they wouldn't 09:54:42
` accept it. They are basically asking for no 09:54:45
` admission of liability versus an acceptance to mark 09:54:48
` their products and services. 09:54:52
` BY MS. CARSON: 09:54:53
` Q. So are you aware of any license that 09:54:54
` Finjan has with a licensee that includes a marking 09:54:55
` provision? 09:55:00
` MS. KOBIALKA: Objection to form. 09:55:04
` THE WITNESS: I'm not aware of any. 09:55:07
` BY MS. CARSON: 09:55:10
` Q. Does Finjan know whether any of its 09:55:13
` licensees practice the patents-in-suit? 09:55:17
` MS. KOBIALKA: Objection to form. 09:55:25
` THE WITNESS: It would depend. 09:55:27
` BY MS. CARSON: 09:55:29
`Page 49
`Pages 46 to 49
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`866 299-5127
`
`UNREDACTED VERSION OF DOCUMENT SOUGHT TO BE SEALED
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 521-1 Filed 06/07/19 Page 4 of 4
`
`HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL - OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY
`
`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
`
`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
`
` no or you don't know. 15:59:49
` I'm not trying to direct his answer, but 15:59:50
` I'm trying to work through the privilege. If you 15:59:52
` are going to object, Counsel, I'll just stop and 15:59:53
` I'll just make an instruction. 15:59:57
` MS. CARSON: So I'm just trying to think 16:00:02
` through the issue because if he took like 16:00:03
` contemporaneous notes with a phone call he had with 16:00:05
` Juniper, I'm not sure how that would fall within the 16:00:08
` scope of privilege. 16:00:11
` MS. KOBIALKA: If his question's for 16:00:13
` counsel, absolutely. I think absolutely if you 16:00:14
` would take notes for purposes of getting legal 16:00:17
` advice, I do think that those notes -- 16:00:19
` MS. CARSON: Hmm. 16:00:24
` MS. KOBIALKA: -- would be privileged, 16:00:24
` especially like if these are the issues I need to 16:00:25
` talk about with counsel. 16:00:27
` MS. CARSON: Okay. Well, we'll just start 16:00:29
` with a yes or no, do they exist. 16:00:30
` MS. KOBIALKA: She is just asking whether 16:00:32
` or not they exist. You can answer that yes or no if 16:00:33
` you know one way or the other, you don't know, and 16:00:35
` then we'll take from it there. I don't want you to 16:00:38
` expound on it, is -- because I think that does get 16:00:40
`Page 222
`
` into privilege issues. 16:00:43
` THE WITNESS: I documented the summary of 16:00:52
` that call -- 16:00:53
` MS. KOBIALKA: Well, okay, so now, I want 16:00:54
` you to very careful because it starts to get into 16:00:56
` privilege issues. 16:01:00
` So you can answer the question yes or no 16:01:00
` or if you don't know, one way or the other. But I 16:01:03
` don't want to get -- 16:01:06
` THE WITNESS: I'm not going to get into 16:01:08
` substance, but just -- 16:01:09
` MS. KOBIALKA: She is only asking does it 16:01:10
` exist. Otherwise I'm going to instruct you not to 16:01:11
` answer. 16:01:14
` THE WITNESS: Yes, it exists. 16:01:17
` MS. KOBIALKA: Okay. 16:01:18
` BY MS. CARSON: 16:01:18
` Q. Did you review it before your deposition 16:01:18
` today? 16:01:20
` MS. KOBIALKA: Objection to form. 16:01:26
` THE WITNESS: Uh-huh. 16:01:29
` BY MS. CARSON: 16:01:30
` Q. Did it refresh your recollection as to 16:01:30
` what occurred on the call? 16:01:31
` MS. KOBIALKA: Objection to form. 16:01:33
`Page 223
`
`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
`
`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
`
` THE WITNESS: That call's pretty bright. 16:01:37
` That call's pretty bright, unique. 16:01:39
` BY MS. CARSON: 16:01:41
` Q. So that wasn't an answer to the question. 16:01:41
` Did reviewing your notes from the call 16:01:43
` refresh your recollection as to what occurred on the 16:01:45
` call? 16:01:48
` MS. KOBIALKA: Objection to form. 16:01:48
` THE WITNESS: Yes. Given it's November of 16:01:52
` 2015, yes. 16:01:54
` MS. CARSON: Okay. So Counsel, we would 16:01:56
` request that that be produced given that it 16:01:57
` refreshed the recollection of the Rule 30(b)(6) 16:01:58
` witness. 16:02:01
` MS. KOBIALKA: He just said his memory was 16:02:02
` very bright from the call. He didn't say -- 16:02:04
` MS. CARSON: But he also said yes, it did 16:02:06
` refresh his recollection. We can take it up 16:02:08
` after -- after the deposition. 16:02:10
` Q. Are you aware of any evidence that Juniper 16:02:52
` had notice of the '780 patent prior to Finjan filing 16:02:54
` this lawsuit? 16:02:59
` MS. KOBIALKA: Objection to form. 16:03:00
` THE WITNESS: I need the question again, 16:03:06
` sorry. 16:03:07
`
`Page 224
`
` (Whereupon, the reporter read back 16:03:07
` the record as follows: 16:03:07
` "Are you aware of any evidence that 16:03:07
` Juniper had notice of the '780 16:03:07
` patent prior to Finjan filing this 16:03:07
` lawsuit?") 16:03:07
` THE WITNESS: Only Mr. Coonan's 16:03:23
` representation that he had done an invalidity 16:03:24
` analysis on the entire Finjan portfolio and as 16:03:29
` mentioned in the interrogatory about the '968 and 16:03:33
` the relationships of the patents. 16:03:35
` BY MS. CARSON: 16:03:40
` Q. You are not aware of any instance where 16:03:40
` Finjan told Juniper either orally or in writing 16:03:43
` about the '780 patent and its infringement 16:03:46
` contentions related to that. 16:03:48
` Correct? 16:03:51
` A. Correct. 16:03:52
` MS. KOBIALKA: Objection to form. 16:03:53
` BY MS. CARSON: 16:03:54
` Q. Are you aware of any evidence that Juniper 16:04:00
` had notice of the '926 patent prior to this lawsuit 16:04:01
` being failed? 16:04:04
` MS. KOBIALKA: Objection, form. 16:04:06
` THE WITNESS: Only what's in the 16:04:13
`Page 225
`Pages 222 to 225
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`866 299-5127
`
`UNREDACTED VERSION OF DOCUMENT SOUGHT TO BE SEALED
`
`