Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 57 Filed 04/16/18 Page 1 of 4
`
`
`
`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
`AUSTIN MANES (State Bar No. 284065)
`amanes@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
`
`PLAINTIFF FINJAN, INC.’S OPPOSITION
`TO DEFENDANT JUNIPER NETWORKS
`INC.’S ADMINSTRATIVE MOTION TO
`DEFER PATENT LOCAL RULE 4
`
`
`
`
`
`FINJAN’S OPPOSITION TO JUNIPER’S
`MOTION TO DELAY CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`
`
`
`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 57 Filed 04/16/18 Page 2 of 4
`
`
`
`Plaintiff Finjan Inc. (“Finjan”) opposes Defendant Juniper Networks Inc.’s (“Juniper”)
`
`Administrative Motion to Defer Compliance with Patent Local Rule 4, filed April 11, 2018 at Dkt. No.
`
`52 (the “Motion”).
`
`I.
`
`THE COURT ALREADY DENIED THIS REQUEST AND THE PARTIES
`SHOULD FOLLOW THE COURT’S CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER
`This is Juniper’s second attempt to delay claim construction under Patent Local Rule 4. The
`
`Case Management Order expressly denied this request and ordered the parties to follow the Patent
`
`Local Rules, so the Court should not entertain Juniper’s attempt to renew its request here.
`
`Early in this case, Finjan proposed a schedule to Juniper with claim construction dates that
`
`were in line with the Patent Local Rules. In response, Juniper requested to delay the start of claim
`
`construction from May 2018 to September 2018. As a compromise, Finjan acquiesced and the parties
`
`filed a Joint Case Management Conference Statement proposing to start claim construction under
`
`Patent Local Rule 4-1 on September 4, 2018 – four months delayed. See Dkt. No. 31 at Appx. A, p. ii.
`
`At the Case Management Conference the Court outlined a schedule denying Juniper’s request
`
`to delay claim construction, holding the proposed schedule was “too leisurely” over the argument of
`
`Juniper’s counsel:
`
`THE COURT: . . . So that’s the overall case schedule. Do you have any
`heartburn on this?
`
`[JUNIPER’S COUNSEL]: Your Honor, one comment. The parties had
`actually worked together to come to an agreed schedule.
`
`THE COURT: I know. It was too leisurely. It would call for a trial in
`2020. That would be the -- I won’t even be alive probably in 2020. I’ve
`never set a case that far out in my entire career. You lawyers are going
`to have to get going. This is plenty of time.
`
`[FINJAN’S COUNSEL]: Your Honor, it’s fine for plaintiff. Works for
`us.
`
`[JUNIPER’S COUNSEL]: Your Honor, we think it’s a little advanced
`given the number of patents at issue in the case and then –
`
`THE COURT: Too bad. You can do this. That’s where the shoot-out
`comes in.
`
`FINJAN’S OPPOSITION TO JUNIPER’S
`MOTION TO DELAY CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`
`1
`
`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 57 Filed 04/16/18 Page 3 of 4
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`See February 22, 2018 Hearing Transcript at 3-4 (emphasis added). The Court followed these
`
`comments with a Case Management Order that specifically ordered the parties to follow the claim
`
`construction schedule under patent Local Rule 4:
`
`Although claim construction will only be done in the context of
`summary judgment (or settling the jury instructions), the infringement
`and invalidity procedures of our Patent Local Rules must still be
`followed, including Rules 3-1 to 3-6, and 4-1 to 4-4 (except that the
`Court prefers six terms rather than ten). Claim construction briefs
`must still be filed under the schedule provided by Rule 4-5 but on
`summary judgment, the pertinent parts of the claim construction briefs
`shall be extracted out and/or cited as relevant.
`See Dkt. No. 35, Amended Case Management Order at 7 (emphasis added).
`
`Thus, the Court already denied this request from Juniper – twice – and did so both times with
`
`the early summary judgment schedule specifically in mind. Yet Juniper cites the “accelerated”
`
`summary judgment schedule as its only grounds for this Motion. See Motion at 2-3. Notably, Juniper
`
`offers no concrete scheduling conflict or any other good cause to ignore the Court’s rulings and delay
`
`claim construction. Any burden that Juniper ascribes to briefing claim construction while preparing
`
`for trial will be equally shared by Finjan. Id. at 3.
`
`Further, if these dates are moved as requested by Juniper, the Court will not know what
`
`constructions are being put forth by the parties and which terms the parties have actually selected for
`
`claim construction. To the extent that the Court considers delaying claim construction under Patent
`
`Local Rule 4, Finjan requests that the dates for: the Exchange of Proposed Terms for Construction
`
`(currently scheduled for May 7, 2018, under Patent L.R. 4-1); the Exchange of Preliminary Claim
`
`Construction and Extrinsic Evidence (currently scheduled for May 29, 2018, under Patent L.R. 4-2);
`
`and the Joint Claim Construction and Prehearing Statement (currently scheduled for June 22, 2018,
`
`under Patent L.R. 4-3) remain as currently scheduled under the Patent Local Rules. These deadlines
`
`will all occur before the early summary judgment hearing on June 7, 2018, and will inform the Court
`
`and the parties on any claim construction disputes relevant to the early summary judgment motions.
`
`Finjan respectfully requests that the Court follow its prior orders and deny this Motion.
`
`
`
`
`
`FINJAN’S OPPOSITION TO JUNIPER’S
`MOTION TO DELAY CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`
`2
`
`CASE NO.: 3:17-cv-05659-WHA
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 57 Filed 04/16/18 Page 4 of 4
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`Dated: April 16, 2018
`
`
`
`
`
`
`By: /s/ Austin Manes
`Paul J. Andre
`Lisa Kobialka
`James Hannah
`Kristopher Kastens
`Austin Manes
`KRAMER LEVIN NAFTALIS
`& FRANKEL LLP
`990 Marsh Road
`Menlo Park, CA 94025
`Telephone: (650) 752-1700
`Facsimile: (650) 752-1800
`pandre@kramerlevin.com
`lkobialka@kramerlevin.com
`jhannah@kramerlevin.com
`kkastens@kramerlevin.com
`amanes@kramerlevin.com
`
`Counsel for Plaintiff
`FINJAN, INC.
`
`
`
`
`
`FINJAN’S OPPOSITION TO JUNIPER’S
`MOTION TO DELAY CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`
`3
`
`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
`
`
`
`