Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 562 Filed 06/26/19 Page 1 of 36
`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 562 Filed 06/26/19 Page 1 of 36
`
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT 2
`EXHIBIT 2
`
`UNREDACTED VERSION OF
`UNREDACTED VERSION OF
`DOCUMENT SOUGHT TO BE
`DOCUMENT SOUGHT TO BE
`SEALED
`SEALED
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 562 Filed 06/26/19 Page 2 of 36
`
`HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY
`
`PAUL J. ANDRE (State Bar No. 196585)
`pandre@kramerlevin.com
`LISA KOBIALKA (State Bar No. 191404)
`lkobialka@kramerlevin.com
`JAMES HANNAH (State Bar No. 237978)
`jhannah@kramerlevin.com
`KRISTOPHER KASTENS (State Bar No. 254797)
`kkastens@kramerlevin.com
`KRAMER LEVIN NAFTALIS & FRANKEL LLP
`990 Marsh Road
`Menlo Park, CA 94025
`Telephone: (650) 752-1700
`Facsimile: (650) 752-1800
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff
`FINJAN, INC.
`
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
`
`FINJAN, INC., a Delaware Corporation,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`
`JUNIPER NETWORKS, INC., a Delaware
`Corporation,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`Case No.: 3:17-cv-05659-WHA
`
`HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL –
`ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY
`
`PLAINTIFF FINJAN, INC.’S OBJECTIONS
`AND RESPONSES TO DEFENDANT
`JUNIPER NETWORKS, INC.’S FIRST SET
`OF INTERROGATORIES (NOS. 1-10)
`
`
`
`FINJAN’S OBJECTIONS & RESPONSES TO JUNIPER’S
`FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES (NOS. 1-10)
`
` CASE NO.: 3:17-cv-05659-WHA
`
`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 562 Filed 06/26/19 Page 3 of 36
`
`
`
`Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26 and 33, Plaintiff Finjan, Inc. (“Finjan”) responds to Defendant,
`
`Juniper Networks, Inc.’s (“Juniper” or “Defendant”) First Set of Interrogatories (“Interrogatories”).
`
`Finjan makes these objections and responses herein (collectively “Responses”) based solely on its
`
`current knowledge, understanding, and belief as to the facts and information reasonably available to it
`
`as of the date of the Responses.
`
`Additional discovery and investigation may lead to additions to, changes in, or modifications of
`
`these Responses. The Responses, therefore, are given without prejudice to Finjan’s right to
`
`supplement these Responses pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(e), or to provide subsequently discovered
`
`information and to introduce such subsequently discovered information at the time of any trial or
`
`proceeding in this action.
`
`GENERAL OBJECTIONS
`
`1.
`
`Finjan hereby incorporates by reference each and every general objection set forth
`
`below into each and every specific Response. From time to time, a specific Response may repeat a
`
`general objection for emphasis or for some other reason. The failure to include a general objection in a
`
`specific Response shall not be interpreted as a waiver of that general objection to that Response.
`
`2.
`
`Finjan objects to each and every Interrogatory, Definition, and Instruction to the extent
`
`that they are vague, ambiguous, unintelligible, or compound.
`
`3.
`
`Finjan objects to each and every Interrogatory, Definition, and Instruction to the extent
`
`that they are overly broad, unduly burdensome, seek information not relevant to the claim or defense of
`
`any party, and are not proportional to the needs of this case.
`
`4.
`
`Finjan objects to each and every Interrogatory, Definition, and Instruction to the extent
`
`that they are not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible information.
`
`5.
`
`Finjan objects to each and every Interrogatory, Definition and Instruction to the extent
`
`they are not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence because they are not
`
`properly limited in time.
`
`1
`FINJAN’S OBJECTIONS & RESPONSES TO JUNIPER’S CASE NO.: 3:17-cv-05659-WHA
`FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES (NOS. 1-10)
`
`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 562 Filed 06/26/19 Page 4 of 36
`
`
`
`6.
`
`Finjan objects to each and every Interrogatory, Definition, and Instruction to the extent
`
`that they are unduly burdensome and oppressive, to the extent they subject Finjan to unreasonable and
`
`undue effort or expense.
`
`7.
`
`Finjan objects to each and every Interrogatory, Definition, and Instruction to the extent
`
`that they seek information beyond Finjan’s actual knowledge, custody, or control.
`
`8.
`
`Finjan objects to each and every Interrogatory, Definition, and Instruction to the extent
`
`they are unreasonably cumulative or duplicative.
`
`9.
`
`Finjan objects to each and every Interrogatory, Definition, and Instruction to the extent
`
`they seek information that is obtainable from some other source that is more convenient, less
`
`burdensome, or less expensive.
`
`10.
`
`Finjan objects to each and every Interrogatory, Definition, and Instruction to the extent
`
`that they seek information within Defendant’s possession, custody or control.
`
`11.
`
`Finjan objects to each and every Interrogatory, Definition, and Instruction to the extent
`
`they seek information in the public domain, information equally available to Defendant from another
`
`source and/or information that can be obtained more efficiently by Defendant through other means of
`
`discovery. Defendant can ascertain such information from its own records or from other sources at
`
`least as readily as Finjan.
`
`12.
`
`Finjan objects to each and every Interrogatory, Definition, and Instruction to the extent
`
`that they seek confidential, business, financial, proprietary or sensitive information, or trade secrets of
`
`third parties, which may be subject to pre-existing protective order(s) and/or confidentiality
`
`agreements or in which any third party has an expectation of privacy. Such information shall not be
`
`provided absent an express order to the contrary from a court of competent jurisdiction, or an
`
`authorization from the third party having the interest in the information’s confidentiality.
`
`13.
`
`Finjan objects to each and every Interrogatory, Definition, and Instruction to the extent
`
`they seek information protected by the attorney-client privilege, the work product doctrine, or any
`
`other applicable law, privilege, doctrine or immunity. Finjan will not disclose any information so
`
`2
`FINJAN’S OBJECTIONS & RESPONSES TO JUNIPER’S CASE NO.: 3:17-cv-05659-WHA
`FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES (NOS. 1-10)
`
`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 562 Filed 06/26/19 Page 5 of 36
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`protected, and the inadvertent disclosure or identification of any such information is not intended as,
`
`and will not constitute, a waiver of such privilege, doctrine, or immunity.
`
`14.
`
`Finjan objects to each and every Interrogatory, Definition, and Instruction to the extent
`
`they call for a legal conclusion. Finjan’s responses shall not be construed as providing legal
`
`conclusions concerning the meaning or application of any terms used in Defendant’s Interrogatories.
`
`15.
`
`Finjan objects to each and every Interrogatory, Definition, and Instruction to the extent
`
`that they are premature, as they seek documents that are set to be disclosed on scheduled dates directed
`
`by the Court or the Northern District of California Patent Local Rules.
`
`16.
`
`Finjan objects to each and every Interrogatory, Definition, and Instruction to the extent
`
`that they are premature as the Court has not yet entered a claim construction order in this action.
`
`17.
`
`Finjan objects to each and every Interrogatory, Definition, and Instruction as premature
`
`to the extent they seek information that will be the subject of expert testimony.
`
`18.
`
`Finjan objects to each and every Interrogatory, Definition, and Instruction to the extent
`
`that they impose obligations inconsistent with the Amended Case Management Order entered at Dkt.
`
`No. 35 or the protective order or ESI order to be entered in this case.
`
`19.
`
`Finjan objects to each and every Interrogatory, Definition, and Instruction to the extent
`
`they assume or mischaracterize any facts. Finjan’s responses shall not be construed as agreeing to any
`
`facts or characterizations contained in Defendant’s Interrogatories.
`
`20.
`
`Finjan objects to each and every Interrogatory, Definition, and Instruction to the extent
`
`that they purport to impose any requirement or discovery obligation greater than or different from
`
`those imposed by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Local Rules of this Court, or orders of the
`
`Court governing these proceedings.
`
`21.
`
`Finjan objects to each and every Interrogatory, Definition, and Instruction to the extent
`
`that they are unduly burdensome and oppressive on the grounds that they purport to require Finjan to
`
`search its facilities and inquire of its employees other than those facilities and employees that would
`
`reasonably be expected to have responsive information. Finjan’s Responses and productions are based
`
`upon: (1) a search of facilities and files that could reasonably be expected to contain responsive
`
`3
`FINJAN’S OBJECTIONS & RESPONSES TO JUNIPER’S CASE NO.: 3:17-cv-05659-WHA
`FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES (NOS. 1-10)
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 562 Filed 06/26/19 Page 6 of 36
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`information and (2) inquiries of Finjan’s employees and/or representatives who could reasonably be
`
`expected to possess responsive information.
`
`22.
`
`Finjan objects to each and every Definition, Instruction, and Interrogatory to the extent
`
`it is compound and/or contains multiple subparts. Finjan will count each subpart as a separate
`
`interrogatory pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 33(a). Finjan will not respond to
`
`interrogatories in excess of the allotted number of interrogatories established in the Court’s scheduling
`
`order.
`
`23.
`
`Finjan’s written responses and production of documents are not intended to waive, and
`
`do not constitute waiver of, any objection that Finjan may have to the admissibility, authenticity,
`
`competency, relevance, or materiality of any documents produced or referred to in response to an
`
`Interrogatory. For any and all written responses and production of documents, Finjan reserves all
`
`objections or other questions regarding the admissibility, authenticity, competency, relevance, or
`
`materiality of any documents produced or referred to in response to an Interrogatory, as evidence in
`
`this Litigation or any other proceeding, action, or trial.
`
`24.
`
`Finjan’s written responses and production of documents are based upon information and
`
`writings available to and located by its attorneys as of service of these Responses. Finjan has not
`
`completed its investigation of the facts relating to this case, has not completed discovery in this action,
`
`and has not completed preparation for trial. All the information supplied and documents and things
`
`produced are based only on such information and documents that are reasonably available and
`
`specifically known to Finjan and its attorneys as of the date of service of these Responses. Therefore,
`
`Finjan’s written responses and production of documents are without prejudice to its right to
`
`supplement and/or amend its written responses and production of documents and to present at trial or
`
`other proceeding evidence discovered hereafter.
`
`OBJECTIONS TO DEFINITIONS AND INSTRUCTIONS
`
`1.
`
`In addition to the objections set forth below, Finjan hereby specifically incorporates
`
`each and every general objection set forth above in its objections to Defendant’s definitions and
`
`instructions.
`
`4
`FINJAN’S OBJECTIONS & RESPONSES TO JUNIPER’S CASE NO.: 3:17-cv-05659-WHA
`FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES (NOS. 1-10)
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 562 Filed 06/26/19 Page 7 of 36
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`2.
`
`Finjan objects to Defendant’s Definitions of the terms “Plaintiff,” “Finjan,” “you,” and
`
`“your,” and to each Interrogatory that incorporates any of these terms, to the extent they are overly
`
`broad and burdensome and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
`
`Finjan further objects to these definitions, and to each Interrogatory that incorporates any of these
`
`terms, to the extent that they call for a legal conclusion or seek documents or information protected
`
`from discovery by the attorney-client privilege, the work product doctrine, or any other applicable law,
`
`privilege, doctrine or immunity. Finjan further objects to these definitions, and to each Interrogatory
`
`that incorporates any of these terms, to the extent they include entities and persons over whom Finjan
`
`has no control.
`
`3.
`
`Finjan objects to Defendant’s Definition of the term “Asserted Claims,” and to each
`
`Interrogatory that incorporates this term, to the extent it is vague, ambiguous and/or unintelligible,
`
`particularly as to the phrase “permitted to assert in this Action.”
`
`4.
`
`Finjan objects to Defendant’s Definition of the term “Related Patent”, and to each
`
`Interrogatory that incorporates this term, to the extent it is overbroad, unduly burdensome and not
`
`reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, to the extent it calls for legal
`
`conclusions, and to the extent it seeks to impose obligations greater or different than those imposed by
`
`the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Federal Rules of Evidence, the Local Rules of this Court,
`
`and/or orders of the Court governing these proceedings. Finjan further objects to this definition, and to
`
`each Interrogatory that incorporates this term, to the extent it is vague, ambiguous and/or
`
`unintelligible, particularly as to the phrase “all patent claiming priority on or in common with any of
`
`the foregoing.” Finjan will interpret “Related Patent” as used herein as patents that claim priority to
`
`the Patents-in- Suit or patents in the priority chain of the Patents-in-Suit.
`
`5.
`
`Finjan objects to Defendant’s Definition of the term and “Accused Product or Service”
`
`and “Accused Products or Services” to the extent they are vague, overbroad and include
`
`instrumentalities beyond those accused of infringement in this action.
`
`6.
`
`Finjan objects to Defendant’s Definitions of the terms “Communication,”
`
`“Communications,” and “Document,” and to each Interrogatory that incorporates any of these terms, to
`
`5
`FINJAN’S OBJECTIONS & RESPONSES TO JUNIPER’S CASE NO.: 3:17-cv-05659-WHA
`FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES (NOS. 1-10)
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 562 Filed 06/26/19 Page 8 of 36
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`the extent they seek to impose obligations greater or different than those imposed by the Federal Rules
`
`of Civil Procedure, the Federal Rules of Evidence and/or ESI order or protective order entered in this
`
`action. Finjan further objects to these Definitions, and to each Interrogatory that incorporates any of
`
`these terms, to the extent that they call for the production of information that the parties have agreed
`
`not to preserve or produce. Finjan further objects to these definitions, and to each Interrogatory that
`
`incorporates any of these terms, to the extent they are vague, overbroad, unduly burdensome and not
`
`reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
`
`7.
`
`Finjan objects to Defendant’s Definitions of the terms “Referring to,” “Relating to,”
`
`“Regarding,” and “Concerning,” and to each Interrogatory that incorporates these terms, to the extent
`
`they are overbroad, unduly burdensome and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of
`
`admissible evidence, and to the extent they call for legal conclusions. Finjan further objects to these
`
`definitions, and to each Interrogatory that incorporates them, to the extent that they are vague,
`
`ambiguous and/or unintelligible.
`
`8.
`
`Finjan objects to Defendant’s Definition of the phrase “Describe in detail,” and to each
`
`Interrogatory that incorporates this phrase, to the extent they seek to impose obligations greater or
`
`different than those imposed by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and/or the Federal Rules of
`
`Evidence. Finjan further objects to this Definition, and to each Interrogatory that incorporates this
`
`phrase, to the extent it is overbroad, unduly burdensome and not reasonably calculated to lead to the
`
`discovery of admissible evidence, and to the extent it calls for legal conclusions. Finjan further objects
`
`to this Definition, and to each Interrogatory that incorporates this term, to the extent that it is vague,
`
`ambiguous and/or unintelligible.
`
`9.
`
`Finjan objects to Defendant’s Definition of the terms “any,” “all,” and “including,” and
`
`to each Interrogatory that incorporates either of these terms, to the extent they are overly broad, unduly
`
`burdensome, not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence and not
`
`proportional to the needs of the case.
`
`10.
`
`Finjan objects to each of Defendant’s Definitions and Instructions Nos. 1-31 to the
`
`extent that they seek to impose any requirement or obligation greater or different than those imposed
`
`6
`FINJAN’S OBJECTIONS & RESPONSES TO JUNIPER’S CASE NO.: 3:17-cv-05659-WHA
`FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES (NOS. 1-10)
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 562 Filed 06/26/19 Page 9 of 36
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Local Rules of this Court, and/or orders of the Court
`
`governing these proceedings.
`
`11.
`
`Finjan objects to each of Defendant’s Definitions and Instructions Nos. 1-31 to the
`
`extent that they impose obligations inconsistent with the Amended Case Management Order entered at
`
`Dkt. No. 35 or the protective order or ESI order to be entered in this case.
`
`12.
`
`Finjan objects to each of Defendant’s Definitions and Instructions Nos. 1-31 to the
`
`extent that they are they are overbroad, unduly burdensome, not reasonably calculated to lead to the
`
`discovery of admissible evidence and not proportional to the needs of the case.
`
`13.
`
`Finjan objects to each of Defendant’s Definitions and Instructions Nos. 1-31 to the
`
`extent that they are vague, ambiguous and/or unintelligible.
`
`INTERROGATORY RESPONSES
`
`Subject to and without waiving its general objections and objections to Definitions and
`
`Instructions set forth above, each of which is specifically incorporated into the specific Responses
`
`contained below, Finjan hereby responds to Defendant’s Interrogatories as follows:
`
`INTERROGATORY NO. 1:
`
`For each Patent-in-Suit, identify all entities or persons which have or ever have had a direct or
`
`indirect ownership interest, license interest, or other interest in the Patents-in-Suit, including all dates
`
`of ownership, transfer of ownership, or license.
`
`RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 1:
`
`Finjan objects to this Interrogatory as overbroad, unduly burdensome, and oppressive to the extent
`
`it seeks information not relevant to any claim or defense of any party and/or not reasonably calculated
`
`to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Finjan objects to this Interrogatory to the extent it is
`
`compound because it is comprised of multiple discrete subparts. Finjan objects to this Interrogatory to
`
`the extent it calls for a legal conclusion. Finjan objects to this Interrogatory to the extent that it seeks
`
`confidential, business, financial, proprietary or sensitive information or trade secrets of third parties,
`
`which is subject to pre-existing protective order(s) and/or confidentiality agreements; Finjan will not
`
`disclose any information subject to a confidentiality agreement without the express consent of the
`
`7
`FINJAN’S OBJECTIONS & RESPONSES TO JUNIPER’S CASE NO.: 3:17-cv-05659-WHA
`FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES (NOS. 1-10)
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 562 Filed 06/26/19 Page 10 of 36
`
`HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY
`
`concerned third party. Finjan also objects to this Interrogatory as vague and ambiguous, including the
`
`terms “direct or indirect ownership interest” or “other interest.”
`
`Subject to and without waiving the foregoing general and specific objections, Finjan responds as
`
`follows:
`
`
`
`Finjan is the owner of each of the Patents-in-Suit. The following parties have licensed the
`
`Patents-in-Suit:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Finjan incorporates by reference the information set forth in Finjan’s Initial Disclosure of Asserted
`
`Claims and Infringement Contentions and Document Production Pursuant to Patent Local Rules 3-1
`
`and 3-2 (served on March 8, 2018), and in particular the disclosures made pursuant to Patent Local
`
`Rules 3-2(F) and 3-2(G).
`
`8
`FINJAN’S OBJECTIONS & RESPONSES TO JUNIPER’S CASE NO.: 3:17-cv-05659-WHA
`FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES (NOS. 1-10)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`• M86 Security
`• TrustWave
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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 562 Filed 06/26/19 Page 11 of 36
`
`
`
`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 investigation of this matter is ongoing and it will comply with Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(e) should
`
`additional information become known to it.
`
`INTERROGATORY NO. 2:
`
`Identify all negotiations related to and efforts to buy, sell, license, enforce, or investigate
`
`possible infringement of the Patents-in-Suit (including any pre-filing investigation, licensing
`
`negotiations, or correspondence) with respect to Juniper or any other party, including the dates of such
`
`efforts, the persons and entities involved, all offers made, the results of such negotiations or efforts to
`
`buy, sell, license, enforce, or investigate possible infringement, and the complete set of facts
`
`considered in such negotiation or evaluation of supposed infringement.
`
`RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 2:
`
`Finjan objects to this Interrogatory as overbroad, unduly burdensome, and oppressive to the extent
`
`it seeks information not relevant to any claim or defense of any party and/or not reasonably calculated
`
`to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Finjan objects to this Interrogatory as overbroad,
`
`unduly burdensome, and oppressive to the extent it is not proportional to the needs of the case,
`
`especially considering the importance of the discovery in resolving the issues, and whether the burden
`
`or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit. Finjan objects to this Interrogatory
`
`to the extent it is overbroad, unduly burdensome, and/or irrelevant because it is not properly limited in
`
`time. Finjan objects to this Interrogatory to the extent it is unreasonably cumulative, as it seeks
`
`disclosure of documents and information subject to the Northern District of California Patent Local
`
`Rules and the schedule in this action. Finjan objects to this Interrogatory to the extent that it seeks
`
`confidential, business, financial, proprietary or sensitive information or trade secrets of third parties,
`
`which is subject to pre-existing protective order(s) and/or confidentiality agreements; Finjan will not
`
`disclose any information subject to a confidentiality agreement without the express consent of the
`
`concerned third party. Finjan objects to this Interrogatory to the extent it seeks information beyond
`
`Finjan’s actual knowledge, custody, or control. Finjan objects to this Interrogatory to the extent it
`
`seeks information within Defendants’ possession, custody or control, or to the extent it seeks
`
`information in the public domain; Defendant can ascertain such information from its own records or
`
`9
`FINJAN’S OBJECTIONS & RESPONSES TO JUNIPER’S CASE NO.: 3:17-cv-05659-WHA
`FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES (NOS. 1-10)
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 562 Filed 06/26/19 Page 12 of 36
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`from other sources at least as readily as Finjan. Finjan objects to this Interrogatory to the extent it is
`
`compound because it is comprised of multiple discrete subparts. Finjan also objects to this
`
`Interrogatory as vague and ambiguous, including the terms “efforts to buy, sell, license, enforce, or
`
`investigate,” “results of such negotiations,” and a “complete set of facts considered.” Finjan objects to
`
`this Interrogatory to the extent it seeks information protected by the attorney-client privilege, the work
`
`product doctrine, or any other applicable law, privilege, doctrine, or immunity. Finjan objects to this
`
`Interrogatory as overly broad and unduly burdensome to the extent it requests information on
`
`negotiations that did not, or has yet to, result in a license for any of the patents-in-suit.
`
`Subject to and without waiving the foregoing general and specific objections, Finjan responds as
`
`follows:
`
`Finjan incorporates its response to Juniper’s Interrogatory No. 1. Finjan negotiated with the parties
`
`discussed in Interrogatory No. 1. Primarily, these negotiations took place in person, over phone calls,
`
`or via email.
`
`Finjan did not make any efforts to buy or sell the Asserted Patents with respect to Juniper. Finjan
`
`did an investigation of Juniper’s products relative to its patent portfolio, the subject matter of which is
`
`privileged and attorney work product. Thereafter, Finjan approached Juniper to engage in patent
`
`license negotiations. Finjan spoke with Scott Coonan, Juniper’s Senior Director of IP, Litigation, and
`
`Strategy and Juniper’s Deputy General Counsel, Meredith McKenzie, on different occasions. Finjan
`
`contacted Juniper on or about June 10, 2014, regarding a potential license to Finjan’s patent portfolio.
`
`On or about July 2, 2014, Finjan provided Juniper with an exemplary claim chart detailing how
`
`Defendant’s products SRX appliances infringe U.S. Patent Number 6,965,968 (the “‘968 Patent”). In
`
`the email attaching that exemplary claim chart, Finjan told Defendant: “We believe a license to
`
`Finjan’s patent portfolio could be beneficial to some [of] Juniper’s security products and services.
`
`Besides, we could also explore possible common interests relating to other patent collaborations such
`
`as co-investments or M&A activities in technology companies.” Finjan also offered to provide
`
`Defendant with additional exemplary claim charts, under a non-disclosure agreement, so that
`
`Defendant could evaluate Finjan’s patent portfolio. Defendant refused to enter into an NDA because
`
`10
`FINJAN’S OBJECTIONS & RESPONSES TO JUNIPER’S CASE NO.: 3:17-cv-05659-WHA
`FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES (NOS. 1-10)
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 562 Filed 06/26/19 Page 13 of 36
`
`HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY
`
`Mr. Coonan said that he intended to share the information with others, suggesting the existence of a
`
`joint defense collective. Finjan incorporates its response to Juniper’s Interrogatory No. 6 for further
`
`communications with Mr. Coonan.
`
`On or about January 12, 2015, Finjan met with Mr. Coonan regarding Defendant’s products and
`
`how they relate to Finjan’s patents. Finjan again offered to enter into a non-disclosure agreement, so
`
`that Defendant could evaluate Finjan’s patent portfolio in detail, but Defendant declined to enter into a
`
`non-disclosure agreement at that time for the same reasons stated above.
`
`On or about February 13, 2015, Defendant sent a letter to Finjan listing ten patents that Defendant
`
`believed would be considered “prior art” to the ‘968 Patent. Finjan contacted Defendant again on
`
`February 18, 2015, and February 20, 2015, in an attempt to follow up on Defendant’s letter, but
`
`Defendant declined to respond to Finjan’s February 20, 2015, email. Having heard no response from
`
`Defendant, on or about September 30, 2015, Finjan sent a letter to Defendant distinguishing the ten
`
`patents that Defendant had identified and stating how they were not relevant to the ‘968 Patent.
`
`Juniper did not respond to Finjan’s letter.
`
`On or about October 15, 2015, Finjan contacted Meredith McKenzie, Defendant’s Deputy General
`
`Counsel to discuss Defendant’s products and how they read on Finjan’s patents. Ms. McKenzie
`
`referred Finjan back to Mr. Coonan to continue licensing discussions. On or about November 24,
`
`2015, Finjan spoke again with Mr. Coonan, to discuss Defendant’s products and how they relate to
`
`Finjan’s patents. On or about February 2, 2016, Finjan contacted Ms. McKenzie again. Documents
`
`related to these discussions between Finjan and Juniper include: FINJAN-JN 192859-865, 192859-
`
`192865, 192866-193543, 193544-193575.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`11
`FINJAN’S OBJECTIONS & RESPONSES TO JUNIPER’S CASE NO.: 3:17-cv-05659-WHA
`FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES (NOS. 1-10)
`
`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 562 Filed 06/26/19 Page 14 of 36
`
`HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Finjan’s investigation of this matter is ongoing and it will comply with Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(e) should
`
`
`
`additional information become known to it.
`
`INTERROGATORY NO. 3:
`
`For each of the Patents-in-Suit, describe in detail (including identification of all relevant facts,
`
`documents, evidence, and persons with knowledge) all efforts made by Finjan or any other party to
`
`comply with the provisions of 35 U.S.C. § 287, including whether each of the Finjan Products and
`
`Licensee Products was marked, the manner and extent to which it was marked, and any efforts by
`
`Finjan to ensure compliance by licensees with any marking obligations related to the Licensee
`
`Products.
`
`RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 3:
`
`Finjan objects to this Interrogatory as overbroad, unduly burdensome, and oppressive to the extent
`
`it seeks information not relevant to any claim or defense of any party and/or not reasonably calculated
`
`to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Finjan objects to this Interrogatory to the extent that it
`
`seeks confidential, business, financial, proprietary or sensitive information or trade secrets of third
`
`parties, which is subject to pre-existing protective order(s) and/or confidentiality agreements; Finjan
`
`will not disclose any information subject to a confidentiality agreement without the express consent of
`
`the concerned third party. Finjan objects to this Interrogatory to the extent it seeks information beyond
`
`Finjan’s actual knowledge, custody, or control. Finjan objects to this Interrogatory to the extent it
`
`12
`FINJAN’S OBJECTIONS & RESPONSES TO JUNIPER’S CASE NO.: 3:17-cv-05659-WHA
`FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES (NOS. 1-10)
`
`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 562 Filed 06/26/19 Page 15 of 36
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`seeks information protected by the attorney-client privilege, the work product doctrine, or any other
`
`applicable law, privilege, doctrine or immunity. Finjan objects to this Interrogatory to the extent it
`
`seeks information within Defendants’ possession, custody or control, or to the extent it seeks
`
`information in the public domain; Defendant can ascertain such information from its own records or
`
`from other sources at least as readily as Finjan. Finjan objects to this Interrogatory to the extent it