Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 634-1 Filed 11/30/20 Page 1 of 17
`
`
`
`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
`Jonathan S. Kagan (SBN 166039)
`jkagan@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
`Ingrid M. H. 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
`
`)
`
`DECLARATION OF JONATHAN S.
`Plaintiff,
`)
`KAGAN IN SUPPORT OF JUNIPER
`
`)
`NETWORKS, INC.’S MOTION FOR
`vs.
`
`)
`ATTORNEYS’ FEES PURSUANT TO
`
`)
`35 U.S.C. § 285
`JUNIPER NETWORKS, INC., a Delaware
`)
`
`Corporation,
`)
`
`)
`Hearing Date: January 7, 2021
`)
`Hearing Time: 8:00 a.m.
`)
`Judge: Hon. William Alsup
`)
`Courtroom: 12
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`10893843
`
`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF JONATHAN S. KAGAN
`ISO MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS' FEES
`Case No. 3:17-cv-05659-WHA
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 634-1 Filed 11/30/20 Page 2 of 17
`
`
`
`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
`
`DECLARATION OF JONATHAN S. KAGAN
`I, Jonathan S. Kagan, declare as follows:
`1.
`I am a partner at the law firm of Irell & Manella LLP, counsel of record for Defendant
`Juniper Networks, Inc. (“Juniper”) in the above-captioned action. I am a member in good standing
`of the State Bar of California. I submit this Declaration in support of Juniper’s Motion for
`Attorneys’ Fees Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 285. I have personal knowledge of the facts set forth in
`this Declaration and, if called as a witness, could and would testify competently to such facts under
`oath.
`
`Overview of Persons for Whose Services Fees Are Claimed
`2.
`Juniper retained Irell & Manella LLP (“Irell & Manella”) to represent it in the above
`captioned matter. Irell has represented Juniper throughout the entirety of the case, including through
`trial and appeal.
`3.
`Irell & Manella is a California-based law firm serving clients worldwide that
`specializes in intellectual property and other complex litigation, among other practice areas. Irell &
`Manella has achieved significant recognition for its exceptional track record of successful outcomes
`for its clients, including being named the 2018 Intellectual Property Litigation Department of the
`Year by the American Lawyer, being recognized by Chambers USA’s 2020 guide as a leading firm
`in intellectual property, and receiving recognition for its intellectual property practice in the 2020
`editions of Benchmark Litigation, IAM Patent 1000, MIP IP Stars and WTR1000: The World's
`Leading Trademark Professionals, among other publications. Irell & Manella attorneys have also
`recently received numerous awards and honors, including being named to the 2020 Top IP Lawyers
`in California and Top 100 Lawyers in California (Daily Journal), 2019 Top Litigators by the Los
`Angeles Business Journal, and 2018 Trials MVP by Law360, as well as additional honors from
`LMG Life Sciences, the PTAB Bar Association, The National Law Journal, The Recorder, and BTI
`Client Service All-Stars, among others. Irell & Manella has significant experience in trying complex
`patent cases through trial and appeal and has an excellent track record of success in such cases,
`including not only the verdict obtained for Juniper in this case, but also significant jury verdicts for
`other clients (including, for example, over $1 billion in jury verdicts in 2019-2020 alone).
`
`10893843
`
`
`- 1 -
`
`DECLARATION OF JONATHAN S. KAGAN
`ISO MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS' FEES
`Case No. 3:17-cv-05659-WHA
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 634-1 Filed 11/30/20 Page 3 of 17
`
`
`
`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
`
`4.
`Over the three-plus years of litigating this case, at least eight Irell & Manella
`attorneys provided legal services to Juniper in connection with this matter. Irell & Manella billed
`Juniper for the legal services of its attorneys on an hourly basis, with each attorney recording billable
`time spent on the matter on a daily basis (down to the tenth of an hour), along with a specific
`description of the work performed for each billing entry.
`5.
`As detailed further below, Juniper voluntarily limits its request for fees to
`approximately $ 8.66 million. The actual fees paid by Juniper in connection with this matter were
`well in excess of this number.
`6.
`The names, qualifications, and total hours for which Juniper claims fees for each Irell
`& Manella attorney rendering billable services to Juniper in connection with this matter are
`summarized below, along with the hourly rate for which Juniper is seeking fees for services rendered
`by that attorney. The hourly rates actually charged by Irell & Manella and paid by Juniper exceed
`the below rates for which Juniper seeks reimbursement, however, Juniper has voluntarily reduced
`the hourly rates upon which it seeks fees to conform to decisions in this district regarding reasonable
`lodestar rates. Juniper has also excluded hours spent on tasks for which, in the exercise of reasonable
`judgment, it is not seeking fees.
`Jonathan S. Kagan: I am a partner at Irell & Manella and a member of the
`a.
`firm’s Executive Committee. I have nearly thirty years of experience as an intellectual property
`litigator, including significant experience in cases involving cyber security technology, and have
`been recognized as a leading intellectual property litigator by the Daily Journal, the Legal 500, Best
`Lawyers of America, and the Southern California Super Lawyers List. I have also achieved
`significant defense victories for defendants accused of patent infringement, including three that were
`recognized by the Daily Journal on its annual list of top defense victories. I am a former president
`of the Century City Bar Association and serve on the Editorial Advisory Board of the National
`Institute for Trial Advocacy. I served as co-lead counsel for Juniper from the beginning of the case
`through appeal. I spent over 1,639 hours on this matter (excluding tasks for which Juniper is not
`seeking fees), and Juniper paid in excess of $1,095 per hour for my legal services. A copy of my
`firm bio is attached hereto as Exhibit 1.
`
`10893843
`
`
`- 2 -
`
`DECLARATION OF JONATHAN S. KAGAN
`ISO MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS' FEES
`Case No. 3:17-cv-05659-WHA
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 634-1 Filed 11/30/20 Page 4 of 17
`
`
`
`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
`
`Alan J. Heinrich: Mr. Heinrich is a partner at Irell & Manella and previously
`b.
`served on the firm’s Executive Committee. Mr. Heinrich has thirty years of experience as an
`intellectual property litigator, and has participated in trials that have obtained multi-hundred million-
`dollar judgments on behalf of patent owners and has also successfully defended against multi-
`hundred million-dollar damages claims on behalf of accused infringers. Mr. Heinrich has been
`recognized as a top intellectual property litigator by Southern California Super Lawyers.
`Mr. Heinrich is also an adjunct faculty member at the University of California, Los Angeles, where
`he teaches Patent Intensive, an advanced patent law seminar, and has also taught Patent Law and
`Federal Courts at Loyola Law School. Mr. Heinrich was a core member of the December 2018 trial
`and post-trial teams. Mr. Heinrich spent over 265 hours on this matter (excluding tasks for which
`Juniper is not seeking fees), and Juniper paid in excess of $1,000 per hour for Mr. Heinrich’s legal
`services. A copy of Mr. Heinrich’s firm bio is attached hereto as Exhibit 2.
`Rebecca Carson: Ms. Carson is a partner at Irell & Manella and has over
`c.
`thirteen years of experience as an intellectual property litigator, including extensive experience in
`cases involving network security and computer software technology. Ms. Carson was recognized
`by the Daily Journal as one of the Top 40 Lawyers Under 40 in 2018 and one of the 75 Top
`Intellectual Property Lawyers in California in 2019. She was also recognized nationally in 2018 as
`one of three “Rising Stars” in technology law by Law360. Ms. Carson has significant trial
`experience, and has been a member of five trial teams for patent cases in various federal courts over
`the past three years, each of which has resulted in a favorable jury verdict for her client. Ms. Carson
`served as co-lead counsel from the beginning of this case through appeal. The December 2018 trial
`in this matter was the first trial in which she served as co-lead trial counsel. Ms. Carson spent over
`2,317 hours on this matter (excluding tasks for which Juniper is not seeking fees), and Juniper paid
`in excess of $950 per hour for Ms. Carson’s legal services. A copy of Ms. Carson’s firm bio is
`attached hereto as Exhibit 3.
`Josh Glucoft: Mr. Glucoft is currently a partner at Kirkland & Ellis LLP, and
`d.
`was formerly an associate at Irell & Manella.. At the time of his work on this matter, Mr. Glucoft
`had four or more years of experience as an intellectual property litigator, including experience with
`
`10893843
`
`
`- 3 -
`
`DECLARATION OF JONATHAN S. KAGAN
`ISO MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS' FEES
`Case No. 3:17-cv-05659-WHA
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 634-1 Filed 11/30/20 Page 5 of 17
`
`
`
`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
`
`patents covering a variety of technologies within the fields of electrical engineering and computer
`science. Mr. Glucoft also has significant experience practicing before the Patent and Trademark
`Office in post-grant proceedings. Mr. Glucoft obtained his M.S. in Electrical Engineering from
`Stanford University, and his J.D. from Stanford Law School. Mr. Glucoft spent over 1,921 hours on
`this matter (excluding tasks for which Juniper is not seeking fees), and Juniper paid in excess of
`$750 per hour for Mr. Glucoft’s legal services.
`Casey Curran: Ms. Curran is a former associate at Irell & Manella. At the
`e.
`time of her work on this matter, Ms. Curran had at least four years of patent litigation and federal
`courts experience, including multiple patent trials in federal courts. Ms. Curran was a core member
`of the Irell team during the first round of the “patent showdown” and at the December 2018 trial,
`where she handled oral argument on a number of evidentiary motions and did the direct examination
`of Juniper’s damages expert. Prior to joining Irell, Ms. Curran served as a law clerk for the Hon.
`Garland E. Burrell of the Eastern District of California, and obtained her J.D. from UCLA Law
`School where she was elected to the Order of the Coif. Ms. Curran left Irell in early 2019, and
`currently works for the California Department of Justice. Ms. Curran spent over 1,167 hours on this
`matter (excluding tasks for which Juniper is not seeking fees), and Juniper paid in excess of $750
`per hour for Ms. Curran’s legal services.
`Sharon Song: Ms. Song is a former associate at Irell & Manella. At the time
`f.
`of her work on this matter, Ms. Song had at least two years of experience as an intellectual property
`and commercial litigator, including experience successfully defending patents in inter partes review
`proceedings. Ms. Song was a core member of the Irell team during the first round of the “patent
`showdown” and at the December 2018 trial. She handled the oral argument for Finjan’s motion to
`dismiss various affirmative defense in this case, which was her first oral argument. Ms. Song
`obtained her J.D. from Harvard Law School. Ms. Song spent over 834 hours on this matter
`(excluding tasks for which Juniper is not seeking fees), and Juniper paid in excess of $650 per hour
`for Ms. Song’s legal services.
`Ingrid Petersen: Ms. Petersen is an associate at Irell & Manella. At the time
`g.
`of her work on this matter, Ms. Petersen had at least three years of litigation and federal courts
`
`10893843
`
`
`- 4 -
`
`DECLARATION OF JONATHAN S. KAGAN
`ISO MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS' FEES
`Case No. 3:17-cv-05659-WHA
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 634-1 Filed 11/30/20 Page 6 of 17
`
`
`
`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
`
`experience. Prior to joining Irell, Ms. Petersen served as a law clerk to the Honorable James V.
`Selna on the District Court for the Central District of California, and to the Honorable Karen Nelson
`Moore on the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. Ms. Petersen obtained her J.D.
`from the University of California Irvine, summa cum laude. Ms. Petersen spent over 506 hours on
`this matter (excluding tasks for which Juniper is not seeking fees), and Juniper paid in excess of
`$700 per hour for Ms. Petersen’s legal services. A copy of Ms. Petersen’s firm bio is attached hereto
`as Exhibit 4.
`
`Kevin Wang: Mr. Wang is a former associate at Irell. At the time of his work
`h.
`on this matter, Mr. Wang had at least one year of experience as an intellectual property litigator.
`Mr. Wang was a core member of the Irell team through both rounds of the “patent showdown,” the
`December 2018 trial, and the preparations for the October 2019 trial (before Finjan dismissed its
`claims with prejudice). Mr. Wang argued his first motion during the December 2018 trial, and also
`took his first deposition in this case. Mr. Wang obtained his J.D. from the University of Chicago
`Law School. Mr. Wang spent over 1,968 hours on this matter (excluding tasks for which Juniper is
`not seeking fees), and Juniper paid in excess of $600 per hour for Mr. Wang’s legal services.
`7.
`The hourly billing rates identified in the foregoing paragraphs for which Juniper
`seeks reimbursement, which range from $950 to $1,095 for partners and $600 to $750 for associates,
`are comparable to prevailing hourly rates for intellectual property litigation in the Northern District
`of California. For example, the American Intellectual Property Law Association (“AIPLA”)
`conducts a semi-annual economic survey of approximately 10,000 AIPLA members regarding
`hourly billing rates, litigation costs, and other economic data, which has been cited in this district as
`a basis for determining a reasonable lodestar fee. See, e.g., Big Baboon, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., No.
`17-cv-02082-HSG, 2019 WL 5088784, at *8 (N.D. Cal. Sep. 9, 2019) (“In intellectual property
`cases, federal courts routinely rely on the American Intellectual Property Law Association
`(“AIPLA”) economic survey results published every other year.”); Therasense, Inc. v. Beckton,
`Dickinson, & Co., No. C 04-02123 WHA, 2009 WL 10736790, at *10 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 1, 2009) (“In
`determining a reasonable rate, a court may refer to American Intellectual Property Law Association
`(“AIPLA”) surveys.”). The 2019 AIPLA Report of the Economic Survey, relevant excerpts of
`
`10893843
`
`
`- 5 -
`
`DECLARATION OF JONATHAN S. KAGAN
`ISO MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS' FEES
`Case No. 3:17-cv-05659-WHA
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 634-1 Filed 11/30/20 Page 7 of 17
`
`
`
`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
`
`which are attached hereto as Exhibit 5, indicates that partner rates in the Bay Area averaged $665
`per hour in 2019, with at least 10 percent of rates exceeding $1,023 per hour. Ex. 5 at I-29. The
`AIPLA report also indicates that associate rates for the West region averaged $413 per hour, with
`at least 10 percent of rates exceeding $664 per hour. Id. at I-42.
`8.
`The hourly billing rates for which Juniper seeks reimbursement are also comparable
`to rates that have been previously approved as reasonable in this district. See, e.g., Banas v. Volcano
`Corp., 47 F.Supp.3d 957, 965 (N.D. Cal. 2014) (finding “hourly rates ranging from $355 to $1,095
`per hour for partners and associates” “within the prevailing market rates for similar cases in the
`Northern District”); Wynn v. Chanos, No. 14-cv-04329-WHO, 2015 WL 3832561, at *2 (N.D. Cal.
`Jun. 19, 2015) (finding reasonable hourly rates of up to $1,085 for partners and up to $710 for
`associates); AnTrader, Inc. v. Google LLC, No. 17-cv-07082-BLF, 2020 WL 1921774, at *8 (N.D.
`Cal. Mar. 24, 2020) (approving rates of “$1,000 per hour for senior partners” and “$855 per hour
`for junior partners”); In re High-Tech Employee Antitrust Litigation, No. 11-cv-02509-LHK, 2015
`WL 5158730, at *9 (N.D. Cal. Sep. 2, 2015) (finding reasonable “billing rates for partners [that]
`range from about $490 to $975” and “billing rates for non-partner attorneys, including senior
`counsel, counsel, senior associates, associates, and staff attorneys, [that] range from about $310 to
`$800”); Max Sound Corp. v. Google, Inc., No. 14-cv-04412, 2017 WL 4536342, at *12 (N.D. Cal.
`Oct. 11, 2017) (approving rates of up to $950 per hour for partners); Perfect 10, Inc. v. Giganews,
`Inc., CV 11-07098-AB (SHx), 2015 WL 1746484, at *20-21 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 24, 2015) (finding
`reasonable hourly fees in intellectual property case for partners from $610 to $930 and for associates
`from $360 to $690); Superior Consulting Servs., Inc. v. Steeves-Kiss, No. 17-cv-06059-EMC, 2018
`WL 2183295, at *5 (N.D. Cal. May 11, 2018) (noting that “district courts in Northern California
`have found that rates of $475-$975 per hour for partners and $300-$490 per hour for associates are
`reasonable”); Phigenix, Inc. v. Genentech, Inc., No. 15-cv-01238, 2019 WL 2579260, at *11 (N.D.
`Cal. Jun. 24, 2019) (approving hourly rates of up to $909 for partners, $459 for associates).
`9.
`The total amount of fees for which Irell & Manella seeks reimbursement, $8,656,971,
`is also comparable to the cost of litigating comparable cases through trial. For example, the 2019
`AIPLA Report of the Economic Survey indicates that, in patent cases such as this one with over $25
`
`10893843
`
`
`- 6 -
`
`DECLARATION OF JONATHAN S. KAGAN
`ISO MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS' FEES
`Case No. 3:17-cv-05659-WHA
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 634-1 Filed 11/30/20 Page 8 of 17
`
`
`
`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
`
`million at risk, the total cost for litigation through trial averaged $5.1 million, with costs exceeding
`$9 million in at least 25 percent of cases. Ex. 5 at 56. Indeed, courts have approved fee awards of
`up to nearly $17 million for comparable patent cases litigated through trial and appeal. See, e.g.,
`Takeda Chem. Indus., Ltd. v. Mylan Labs., Inc., 549 F.3d 1381, 1390–91 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (affirming
`award of “$16,800,000 for attorney fees” for case litigated through trial); Gilead Sciences, Inc. v.
`Merck & Co., Inc., No. 13-cv-04057-BLF, 2017 WL 3007071, at *9 (N.D. Cal. July 14, 2017)
`(awarding $12.59 million in fees for case litigated through trial resulting in successful defense
`verdict); Therasense, Inc. v. Becton, Dickinson & Co., No. C 04–02123 WHA, 2012 WL 1877895,
`at *2-4 (N.D. Cal. May 22, 2012) (award of “six million dollars” in attorneys’ fees for case litigated
`through bench trial).
`10.
`The total amount of fees sought is also reasonable in light of the complexity of this
`case, which involved nine patents, multiple rounds of pleading motions, two rounds of summary
`judgment, a jury trial, and appeal.
`11.
`For example, the pleading phase of this case included several amendments to the
`pleadings, as well as multiple pleading motions. For example, Finjan filed multiple opposed
`motions for leave to amend—one to add the ATP Appliance to the case and one to add the ’731
`Patent, which was one of the patents that Finjan eventually agreed to dismiss with prejudice.
`12.
`As another example of the complexity and significant effort involved in litigating
`this case, during discovery Juniper took or defended at least 40 fact and expert depositions (of 28
`different witnesses), including the following witnesses: (1) Yuly Tenorio, deposed May 8, 2018; (2)
`Rakesh Manocha, deposed May 16, 2018; (3) John Garland, deposed May 24, 2018 and November
`2, 2018; (4) Raju Manthena, deposed May 30, 2018; (5) Chandra Nagarajan, deposed May 31, 2018;
`(6) Aviel Rubin, deposed June 12, 2018, July 6, 2018, November 9, 2018, March 9, 2019, and April
`2, 2019; (7) Dr. Eric Cole, deposed June 21, 2018 and November 14, 2018; (8) Michael
`Mitzenmacher, deposed July 3, 2018, March 4, 2019, March 28, 2019, and July 30, 2019; (9) Phil
`Hartstein, deposed October 23, 2018 and July 15, 2019; (10) Alessandro Orso, deposed October 26,
`2018; (11) Julie Mar-Spinola, deposed October 30, 2018; (12) Ivan Chaperot, deposed November
`6, 2018; (13) Dr. Harry Bims, deposed November 7, 2018; (14) Kevin Arst, deposed November 9,
`
`10893843
`
`
`- 7 -
`
`DECLARATION OF JONATHAN S. KAGAN
`ISO MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS' FEES
`Case No. 3:17-cv-05659-WHA
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 634-1 Filed 11/30/20 Page 9 of 17
`
`
`
`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
`
`2018; (15) Keith Ugone, deposed November 13, 2018; (16) Meredith McKenzie, deposed
`November 14, 2018; (17) Michael Bushong, deposed November 15, 2018 and July 10, 2019; (18)
`Scott Coonan, deposed November 16, 2018; (19) Shelly Gupta, deposed November 16, 2018 and
`December 7, 2018; (20) David Kroll, deposed November 16, 2018; (21) Michael Kim, deposed
`November 16, 2018; (22) Alexander Icasiano, deposed November 30, 2018; (23) Khurram Islah,
`deposed February 7, 2019; (24) Dawn-Marie Bey, deposed June 26, 2019; (25) Frank Jas, deposed
`July 2, 2019; (26) Nimrod Vered, deposed July 8, 2019; (27) Jay LePera, deposed July 11, 2019;
`(28) Frederick Cohen, deposed July 31, 2019.
`13.
`As another example of the significant complexity of this case and the amount of work
`involved, this case also involved expansive expert discovery. For example, this case involved at
`least 27 different expert reports or declarations (15 from Finjan, 12 from Juniper), from at least 15
`different expert witnesses (9 from Finjan, 6 from Juniper), and 16 expert depositions. Further, a
`majority of expert reports and declarations were prepared after the jury trial on the ’494 Patent, and
`concerned claims addressed in the second round of summary judgment or that Finjan ultimately
`dismissed with prejudice. The below tables list each expert that provided a report and/or declaration,
`the subject of their report or declaration, and the date(s) they were deposed:
`Finjan
`
`Expert (Report or
`Declaration Date)
`Dr. Eric Cole (6/7/2018)
`
`Dr. Michael Mitzenmacher
`(6/28/18)
`Kevin Arst (9/11/18)
`
`Dr. Harry Bims (9/11/18)
`
`Dr. Eric Cole (9/10/18)
`
`Subject of Report or
`Declaration
`494 Infringement
`
`780 Infringement
`
`494 Damages
`
`Tech Tutorial
`
`494 Infringement
`
`Dr. Alessandro Orso (10/11/18)
`
`494 Validity
`
`Dr. Michael Mitzenmacher
`(2/14/19)
`Dr. Michael Mitzenmacher
`(3/14/19)
`Dr. Michael Mitzenmacher
`(5/13/19)
`
`154 Infringement
`
`780 Infringement
`
`154 Infringement
`
`Date of Deposition
`
`June 21, 2018
`
`July 3, 2018
`
`November 9, 2018
`
`November 7, 2018
`
`November 14, 2018
`
`October 26, 2018
`
`March 4, 2019
`
`March 28, 2019
`
`July 30, 2019
`
`10893843
`
`
`- 8 -
`
`DECLARATION OF JONATHAN S. KAGAN
`ISO MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS' FEES
`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 634-1 Filed 11/30/20 Page 10 of 17
`
`
`
`
`
`Expert (Report or
`Declaration Date)
`Dr. Eric Cole (7/18/19)
`
`Dr. Michael Mitzenmacher
`(7/18/19)
`
`Michael T. Goodrich (7/18/19)
`
`Nenad Medvidovic (7/18/19)
`
`
`Subject of Report or
`Declaration
`494 Infringement (ATP
`Appliance)
`731 and 154 Infringement
`
`Source Code Review
`
`633 Infringement
`
`Juniper
`
`Expert (Report or
`Declaration Date)
`Dr. Aviel Rubin (6/7/18)
`
`Subject of Report or
`Declaration
`780 Noninfringement
`
`Dr. Aviel Rubin (6/28/18)
`
`494 Noninfringement
`
`Dr. Aviel Rubin (9/11/18)
`
`494 Non-Infringement
`
`Dr. Aviel Rubin (10/11/18)
`
`494 Invalidity
`
`Dr. Aviel Rubin (11/7/18)
`
`Damages Rebuttal
`
`Keith Ugone (11/7/18)
`
`494 Damages
`
`Dr. Aviel Rubin (2/14/19)
`
`780 Noninfringement
`
`Dr. Aviel Rubin (3/14/19)
`
`154 Noninfringement
`
`Kevin Butler (7/19/19)
`Dr. Frederick Cohen (7/19/19)
`Sylvia Hall-Ellis (7/19/19)
`Robert Stoll (7/19/19)
`
`494, 844, 731 Invalidity
`633, 154 Invalidity
`Availability of Prior Art
`Inequitable Conduct
`
`Date of Deposition
`
`N/A
`
`N/A
`
`N/A
`
`N/A
`
`Date of Deposition
`
`June 12, 2018
`
`July 6, 2018
`
`November 9, 2018
`
`November 9, 2018
`
`November 9, 2018
`
`November 13, 2018
`
`March 9, 2019
`
`April 2, 2019
`
`N/A
`July 31, 2019
`N/A
`N/A
`
`
`
`14.
`Although the hourly rates sought by Juniper are toward the upper end of rates
`previously found reasonable in this District, the rates Juniper seeks are below the rates that Irell &
`Manella actually charged and that Juniper actually paid in this case. Further, the rates are justified
`by Irell & Manella’s experience, expertise, and success in handling similar complex patent cases
`(discussed further above), the complexity of this case and the significant amount of work involved,
`as well as the excellent outcome that Irell & Manella obtained for Juniper in this case, which
`involved Juniper prevailing on all patents and claims.
`
`10893843
`
`
`- 9 -
`
`DECLARATION OF JONATHAN S. KAGAN
`ISO MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS' FEES
`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 634-1 Filed 11/30/20 Page 11 of 17
`
`Summary of Time Spent by Each Attorney
`15.
`The below tables summarize the amount of time spent by each attorney for whose
`services fees are claimed on each phase of the case, the hourly rate sought for each attorney (which
`is in all cases lower than the hourly rates actually paid by Juniper), and the total fees claimed for
`that attorney.
`16.
`To ensure reasonableness of its request, Juniper has voluntarily reduced the fees
`sought by this motion by doing at least the following:
`a.
`Reducing the hourly rates sought for all attorneys below what Juniper
`
`actually paid;
`
`b.
`Excluding fees for attorneys who were not core members of the case team,
`such as attorneys who assisted with isolated tasks or projects in the case;
`c.
`Omitting fees charged by non-attorneys, such as paralegals and other Irell &
`Manella support staff, and seeking fees for attorney billers only;
`d.
`Excluding fees related to inter partes review proceedings regarding Finjan’s
`
`patents;
`
`(Dkt. 409);
`
`e.
`f.
`
`Excluding fees related to settlement and mediation efforts;
`Excluding fees related to preparing Juniper’s pending motion for sanctions
`
`g.
`Not seeking expert fees or any third party costs;
`h.
`Exercising reasonable judgment to exclude time spent on administrative or
`internal tasks, such as internal meetings between counsel; and
`i.
`Exercising reasonable judgment to exclude supervisory time associated with
`having junior attorneys take depositions and/or argue motions.
`17.
`The below time summaries are based on billing records maintained by Irell &
`Manella in the ordinary course of business. Each Irell & Manella attorney is required to enter their
`billable time into an electric billing system on a daily basis, including time spent (down to the tenth
`of an hour) and a description of services rendered. The attorney is also required to complete fields
`
`10893843
`
`
`- 10 -
`
`DECLARATION OF JONATHAN S. KAGAN
`ISO MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS' FEES
`Case No. 3:17-cv-05659-WHA
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 634-1 Filed 11/30/20 Page 12 of 17
`
`
`
`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
`
`concerning the case phase, task, and type of action performed. Electronic records of these entries
`are maintained in Irell & Manella’s electronic timekeeping program.
`18.
`Irell & Manella billed Juniper for its legal services on a monthly basis, with each bill
`containing a summary of all time entries for that period, including the billing attorney, hours, and
`description of work performed. Irell & Manella maintains records of all bills for this matter in its
`electronic billing system.
`19.
`Fee summary tables:
`Category 1. Initial Analysis of the Pleadings, Pleadings Motions, and Pleadings (including
`initial assessment of Finjan’s asserted patents and potential defenses)
`
`Hourly Rate
`$1,095
`
`Fees Claimed
` $110,267
`
`Attorney
`Jon Kagan
`
`Hours
`100.70
`
`Rebecca Carson
`
`Josh Glucoft
`
`Sharon Song
`
`Kevin Wang
`Total for
`Category
`
`200.80
`
`118.80
`
`86.70
`
`194.00
`
`701.00
`
`$950
`
`$750
`
`$650
`
`$600
`
`--
`
` $190,760
`
` $89,100
`
` $56,355
`
` $116,400
`
` $562,882
`
`Category 2. Fact and Expert Discovery Prior to December 2018 Trial
`Attorney
`Hours
`Hourly Rate
`Fees Claimed
`Jon Kagan
`217.70
`$1,095
` $238,382
`
`Rebecca Carson
`
`Josh Glucoft
`
`Casey Curran
`
`Sharon Song
`
`Kevin Wang
`Total for
`Category
`
`387.00
`
`336.80
`
`422.30
`
`193.50
`
`249.30
`
`1,806.60
`
`$950
`
`$750
`
`$750
`
`$650
`
`$600
`
`--
`
` $367,650
`
` $252,600
`
` $316,725
`
` $125,775
`
` $149,580
`
` $1,450,712
`
`- 11 -
`
`DECLARATION OF JONATHAN S. KAGAN
`ISO MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS' FEES
`Case No. 3:17-cv-05659-WHA
`
`
`
`
`
`
`10893843
`
`
`

`

`
`
`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 634-1 Filed 11/30/20 Page 13 of 17
`
`Category 3. Motion Practice Prior to December 2018 Trial
`
`Attorney
`Hours
`Hourly Rate
`Fees Claimed
`Jon Kagan
`319.30
`$1,095
` $349,634
`
`Rebecca Carson
`
`Josh Glucoft
`
`Casey Curran
`
`Sharon Song
`
`Kevin Wang
`Total for
`Category
`
`388.80
`
`350.20
`
`288.20
`
`180.00
`
`214.00
`
`1,740.50
`
`$950
`
`$750
`
`$750
`
`$650
`
`$600
`
`--
`
` $369,360
`
` $262,650
`
` $216,150
`
` $117,000
`
` $128,400
`
` $1,443,194
`
`
`Category 4. Pre-Trial Motions, Pre-Trial Prep, and Trial for December 2018, as well as Pre-
`Trial Prep for October 2019 Trial
`
`Attorney
`Jon Kagan
`
`Alan Heinrich
`
`Rebecca Carson
`
`Josh Glucoft
`
`Casey Curran
`
`Sharon Song
`
`Ingrid Petersen
`
`Kevin Wang
`Total for
`Category
`
`Hours
`331.20
`
`265.20
`
`532.90
`
`484.40
`
`457.20
`
`374.00
`
`37.80
`
`490.60
`
`2,973.30
`
`Hourly Rate
`$1,095
`
`Fees Claimed
` $362,664
`
`$1,000
`
`$950
`
`$750
`
`$750
`
`$650
`
`$700
`
`$600
`
`--
`
` $265,200
`
` $506,255
`
` $363,300
`
` $342,900
`
` $243,100
`
` $26,460
`
` $294,360
`
` $2,404,239
`
`Category 5. Fact and Expert Discovery After December 2018 Trial
`Attorney
`Hours
`Hourly Rate
`Fees Claimed
`Jon Kagan
`189.80
`$1,095
` $207,831
`
`Rebecca Carson
`
`Josh Glucoft
`
`Ingrid Petersen
`
`380.20
`
`306.50
`
`318.20
`
`$950
`
`$750
`
`$700
`
` $361,190
`
` $229,875
`
` $222,740
`
`- 12 -
`
`DECLARATION OF JONATHAN S. KAGAN
`ISO MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS' FEES
`Case No. 3:17-cv-05659-WHA
`
`
`
`10893843
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 634-1 Filed 11/30/20 Page 14 of 17
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`Kevin Wang
`Total for
`Category
`
`348.30
`
`1,543.00
`
`$600
`
`--
`
` $208,980
`
` $1,230,616
`
`Category 6. Motion Practice After December 2018 Trial
`Attorney
`Hours
`Hourly Rate
`Fees Claimed
`Jon Kagan
`232.20
`$1,095
` $254,259
`
`Rebecca Carson
`
`Josh Glucoft
`
`Kevin Wang
`Total for
`Category
`
`Attorney
`Jon Kagan
`
`Rebecca Carson
`
`Ingrid Petersen
`Total for
`Category
`
`Attorney
`Jon Kagan
`
`Alan Heinrich
`
`Rebecca Carson
`
`Josh Glucoft
`
`Casey Curran
`
`Sharon Song
`
`Ingrid Petersen
`
`Kevin Wang
`Total for Case
`
`386.20
`
`324.70
`
`472.10
`
`1,415.20
`
`$950
`
`$750
`
`$600
`
`--
`
`Category 7. Appeal
`Hours
`Hourly Rate
`248.90
`$1,095
`
`41.80
`
`150.20
`
`440.90
`
`$950
`
`$700
`
`--
`
`Overall Totals
`Hours
`Hourly Rate
`1,639.80
`$1,095
`
`265.20
`
`2,317.70
`
`1,921.40
`
`1,167.70
`
`834.20
`
`506.20
`
`1,968.30
`
`10,620.50
`
`$1,000
`
`$950
`
`$750
`
`$750
`
`$650
`
`$700
`
`$600
`
`--
`
` $366,890
`
` $243,525
`
` $283,260
`
` $1,147,934
`
`Fees Claimed
` $272,546
`
` $39,710
`
` $105,140
`
` $417,396
`
`Fees Claimed
` $1,795,581