`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 543-3 Filed 06/20/19 Page 1 of 3
`
`
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT 1
`EXHIBIT 1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 543-3 Filed 06/20/19 Page 2 of 3
`
`From:
`Sent:
`To:
`Cc:
`
`Subject:
`
`Williams, Daniel
`Friday, June 14, 2019 11:52 AM
`Carson, Rebecca
`Kastens, Kris; Kobialka, Lisa; Andre, Paul; Hannah, James; Glucoft, Josh; Heinrich, Alan;
`Holland, Eileen; Isaac, Shawana; Kagan, Jonathan; Manzano, Jim; Mittleman, Harry;
`Quarnstrom, Brian; Theilacker, Leah; Wang, Kevin; Petersen, Ingrid
`Follow-Up on Lead Counsel Meet and Confer
`
`Rebecca,
`
`
`We write confirming points discussed and following up on a few items from the lead counsel meet and confer last Friday
`regarding the various issues raised in Juniper’s letters.
`
`
`With respect to our discussion of the Interrogatories, Finjan will supplement its responses to the extent there is anything
`to add or update. For example, we will supplement Interrogatory No. 1 to reflect a recent license agreement and
`Interrogatory No. 5 regarding the ‘731 Patent. With respect to our discussion of Finjan’s responses to Juniper’s requests
`for production, we will confirm in writing that documents have been produced (i.e., in response to, for example, Request
`Nos. 3 and 6). You agreed that Juniper would not make any allegations regarding compliance with Judge Alsup’s various
`orders regarding responding to written discovery.
`
`Also, as promised, here are the non‐privileged/ work product documents that were requested that contain third party
`confidential information and have been designated as confidential. Infringement contentions are in: (1) the two Blue
`Coat lawsuits, (2) Check Point, (3) FireEye, (4) Eset, (5) Palo Alto Networks, (6) Proofpoint, (7) Rapid7, (8) Sophos, (9)
`Symantec, (10) SonicWall, and (11) Zscaler. Invalidity contentions marked with confidentiality are in: (1) Bitdefender, (2)
`Cisco, (3) Check Point, (4) Sophos, and (5) SonicWall. We confirmed during the call that there are no additional
`documents to produce for Request Nos. 17‐20 related to inventorship, Request Nos. 34‐36 related to prosecution, and
`Request Nos. 25‐26 related to research reports on products Finjan sold. We will confirm whether there are any non‐
`privileged/ work product documents responsive to the discussion we had regarding Request for Production Nos. 8‐
`12. We have been searching and thus far, we have not located any such documents. We stated that Juniper’s request
`for documents related to Finjan’s breach of contract case against Trustwave are not relevant and we will not produce
`such documents.
`
`
`Separately, as we discussed on the call (and we subsequently confirmed), Finjan sent emails to nearly 30 third parties
`notifying them that Juniper’s Requests for Production sought their confidential information. We confirmed that these
`emails went to Finjan’s licensees, parties from other Finjan litigations and companies seeking to discuss Finjan’s patent
`portfolio. These emails were sent around March/April of 2018, shortly after receiving Juniper’s Requests. Juniper was
`included on those emails so that it could engage with the third parties about the scope and the terms of any production
`of their confidential information. Subsequently, Juniper did engage with many of these third parties about the scope of
`Juniper’s Requests, and negotiated the scope of production and certain confidentiality terms with them as a condition of
`obtaining their consent to production. For example, in response to McAfee’s concerns about the breadth and burden of
`reviewing responsive documents, Juniper narrowed its requests to McAfee. To the extent Juniper seeks email
`communications between Finjan and any third parties, Finjan stated in its responses that these are subject to Juniper’s
`ESI requests and subject to third party permission, the terms of which are in the process of being finalized. To the
`extent that Juniper negotiated with any third parties and did not provide us with the communications, you will need to
`let us know.
`
`
`Additionally, we discussed constructive notice, as Finjan is not alleging constructive notice for the upcoming trial. You
`stated you wanted to think about it and get back to us. Let us know what Juniper’s position is on this issue.
`
`1
`
`
`
`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 543-3 Filed 06/20/19 Page 3 of 3
`
`
`
`Finally, we discussed the search tools for the source code computer, which we were not able to resolve and is the
`subject of briefing to the Court.
`
`
`Regards,
`Dan
`
`
`
`
`Daniel Williams
`Associate
`
`
`Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel LLP
`990 Marsh Road, Menlo Park, California 94025
`T 650.752.1735 F 650.752.1800
`ddwilliams@kramerlevin.com
`
`
`Bio
`
`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.
`
`
`2
`
`