Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 579 Filed 07/03/19 Page 1 of 3
`
`IRELL & MANELLA LLP
`Jonathan S. Kagan (SBN 166039)
`jkagan@irell.com
`Joshua Glucoft (SBN 301249)
`jglucoft@irell.com
`1800 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 900
`Los Angeles, California 90067-4276
`Telephone: (310) 277-1010
`Facsimile: (310) 203-7199
`
`Rebecca Carson (SBN 254105)
`rcarson@irell.com
`Dennis Courtney (SBN 307646)
`dcourtney@irell.com
`Ingrid Petersen (SBN 313927)
`ipetersen@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., a Delaware Corporation,
`)
`Case No. 3:17-cv-05659-WHA
`
`)
`
`OBJECTION TO ATTORNEY
`Plaintiff,
`)
`ARGUMENT IN FINJAN’S “NOTICE OF
`
`)
`SUPPLEMENTAL AUTHORITY”
`vs.
`
`)
`
`)
`JUNIPER NETWORKS, INC., a Delaware
`)
`Corporation,
`)
`
`)
`)
`)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`10706709
`
`
`
`
`OBJECTION TO
`NOTICE OF SUPPLEMENTAL AUTHORITY
`(Case No. 3:17-cv-05659-WHA)
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 579 Filed 07/03/19 Page 2 of 3
`
`
`
`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
`
`Juniper Networks, Inc. (“Juniper”) hereby objects to improper and inaccurate attorney
`argument contained in what Finjan, Inc. (“Finjan”) styles as a “Notice of Supplemental Authority”
`(Dkt. 572). Civil L.R. 7-3(d) provides that “[o]nce a reply is filed, no additional memoranda, papers
`or letters may be filed without prior Court approval,” although “counsel may bring to the Court’s
`attention a relevant judicial opinion published after [a] date [an] opposition or reply was filed by
`filing and serving a Statement of Recent Decision, containing a citation to and providing a copy of
`the new opinion—without argument” (emphasis added).
`Finjan’s recent “Notice of Supplemental Authority” (Dkt. 572) violates Civil L.R. 7-3(d) by
`containing the following argument (Dkt. 572 at 1:7-12):
`This decision is relevant because Juniper extensively relied on the
`PTAB obviousness determination with respect to Claim 1 to argue
`that there were no material difference between Claim 1 and Claim 10,
`and thus there is no inventive concept (Alice step 2) found in Claim
`10. Putting aside that Juniper’s position is not a correct statement of
`law, now the Federal Circuit has determined that Claim 10 is patently
`distinct from Claim 1, thus mooting Juniper’s argument and evidence
`presented at trial.
`
`This argument is not only in violation of the local rules; it is wrong. The Federal Circuit’s
`review of an IPR decision cannot “determine[]” any question as to whether claims are “patently
`distinct” from each other for purposes of a § 101 analysis, because the Patent Trial and Appeal
`Board does not engage in § 101 analysis in IPR proceedings—and, in fact is statutorily prohibited
`from doing so. 35 U.S.C. § 311(b) (scope of inter partes review is limited to grounds “that could
`be raised under section 102 or 103 . . . .”). Thus, as Juniper previously explained, although the
`PTAB’s finding (as affirmed by the Federal Circuit) that each element of Claim 1 is taught by the
`prior art (including those also found in Claim 10) is relevant to the § 101 analysis, its finding is not
`determinative of the § 101 inquiry. Dkt. 569 at 4:15-17 (“while it is not determinative of the § 101
`inquiry—the PTAB’s ruling that all of the functional elements of Claim 10 that overlap with Claim
`1 existed in the prior art [as subsequently affirmed by the Federal Circuit] is relevant to the § 101
`analysis in this case”) (emphasis added). In contrast, as Juniper explained, the PTAB’s conclusions
`about patentability pursuant to §§ 102-103 are not relevant to the § 101 analysis. Id. at 4:2-10
`(explaining that “§ 101 analysis is distinct from invalidity analysis under §§ 102-103”).
`
`IRELL & MANELLA LLP
`A Registered Limited Liability
`Law Partnership Including
`Professional Corporations
`
`10706709
`
`
`- 1 -
`
`OBJECTION TO
`NOTICE OF SUPPLEMENTAL AUTHORITY
`(Case No. 3:17-cv-05659-WHA)
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 579 Filed 07/03/19 Page 3 of 3
`
`
`
`Dated: July 3, 2019
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`10706709
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`IRELL & MANELLA LLP
`By: /s/ Dennis Courtney
`Dennis Courtney
`Attorneys for Defendant
`JUNIPER NETWORKS, INC.
`
`
`
`OBJECTION TO
`NOTICE OF SUPPLEMENTAL AUTHORITY
`(Case No. 3:17-cv-05659-WHA)
`
`- 2 -
`
`