Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 661-6 Filed 06/10/21 Page 1 of 5
`Case 3:17-cv-05659—WHA Document 661-6 Filed 06/10/21 Page 1 of 5
`
`EXHIBIT 5
`
`EXHIBIT 5
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 661-6 Filed 06/10/21 Page 2 of 5
`
`Juanita R. Brooks (CA SBN 75934), brooks@fr.com
`Frank J. Albert (CA SBN 247741), albert@fr.com
`Oliver J. Richards (CA SBN 310972), ojr@fr.com
`FISH & RICHARDSON P.C.
`12860 El Camino Real, Suite 400
`San Diego, CA 92130
`Telephone: (858) 678-5070 / Fax: (858) 678-5099
`
`Robert Courtney (CA SBN 248392), courtney@fr.com
`FISH & RICHARDSON P.C.
`60 South Sixth Street, Suite 3200
`Minneapolis, MN 55402
`Tel: (612) 335-5070 / Fax: (612) 288-9696
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff, FINJAN, INC.
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
`
`FINJAN, INC.,
`
` Plaintiff,
`
`
`v.
`
`
`JUNIPER NETWORKS, INC.,
`
` Defendant.
`
`
`
`Case No. 3:17-cv-05659-WHA
`
`SUBMITTED TO
`THE SPECIAL MASTER
`
`
`
`
`FINJAN’S SUMMARY OF OBJECTIONS
`
`
`
`Case No. 3:17-cv-05659-WHA
`
`FINJAN’S SUBMISSION ON DEPOSITIONS
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 661-6 Filed 06/10/21 Page 3 of 5
`
`
`
`Finjan appreciates the special master’s time and attention in evaluating the parties’
`
`submissions on fees. As Finjan described in its written submissions and on teleconferences,
`
`Juniper’s fees submission is unreasonable in several respects. These are laid out in detail in Finjan’s
`
`written submissions, and are summarized here for the special master’s convenience:
`
` First, Juniper’s submission seeks fees incurred prior to the orders that were the basis
`for the Court’s exceptionality determination. Such fees are not appropriate because
`prior to those orders, neither Finjan nor Juniper were on notice that the Court would
`interpret the ’494 and ’780 patents in the manner that it did.
` Second, Juniper’s submission seeks fees on issues where there was no determination
`of exceptionality, including but not limited to fees on ’494 patent liability issues (the
`Court found exceptionality only on ’494 patent damages) and on various discovery
`and other case-general matters.
` Third, Juniper’s submission seeks an unreasonably high number of hours for projects
`that could and should have been performed more efficiently. The details of Juniper’s
`deficiency in this respect are in Finjan’s written submissions and were discussed on
`the teleconference calls convened by the Special Master.
` Fourth, Juniper’s submission seeks an unreasonably high dollar figure because
`Juniper’s litigation team gave excessive work to high-billing-rate lawyers, when
`lawyers with lower billing rates could and should have been used, as shown by
`comparison with billing records from Finjan’s trial counsel Kramer Levin. Finjan
`opposes Juniper’s contention the Kramer Levin records support Juniper’s
`submission, and opposes Juniper’s contention that lawyers are comparable whenever
`they graduated law school in the same year. Comparability is better established by
`the lawyer’s normal billing rate, as shown in Finjan’s submissions.
` Fifth, Juniper’s submission improperly seeks recovery of expert and travel fees that
`are improper under the Court’s orders and not awardable under § 285, as discussed
`on calls and in Finjan’s written submissions.
` Sixth, Juniper’s submission applies unreasonably high apportionments to activities
`not specifically related to the ’494 and ’780 patents. This particularly includes
`unreasonably high apportionments for fact discovery, but also unreasonably high
`apportionments for pleadings and general diligence. Such non-patent-specific
`activities should be apportioned according to the total number of patents in the case.
`
`This list is illustrative, and not exhaustive, and it supplements Finjan’s written submissions
`
`and the content of the calls. Finjan reserves all arguments that Juniper’s submission is incompatible
`
`with the Court’s orders, the law of exceptionality and fee-shifting, and reasonable practice. Finjan
`
`hopes this list is useful to the special master.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. 3:17-cv-05659-WHA
`1
`FINJAN’S SUMMARY OF OBJECTIONS
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 661-6 Filed 06/10/21 Page 4 of 5
`
`Dated: May 18, 2021
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully Submitted,
`
`By: /s/ Robert Courtney
`Juanita R. Brooks (CA SBN 75934) brooks@fr.com
`Frank J. Albert (CA SBN 247741) albert@fr.com
`Oliver J. Richards (CA SBN 310972) ojr@fr.com
`FISH & RICHARDSON P.C.
`12860 El Camino Real, Suite 400
`San Diego, CA 92130
`Phone: (858) 678-5070 / Fax: (858) 678-5099
`
`Robert Courtney (CA SBN 248392),
`courtney@fr.com
`FISH & RICHARDSON P.C.
`60 South Sixth Street, Suite 3200
`Minneapolis, MN 55402
`Tel: (612) 335-5070 / Fax: (612) 288-9696
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff FINJAN, INC.
`
`
`
`Case No. 3:17-cv-05659-WHA
`2
`FINJAN’S SUMMARY OF OBJECTIONS
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 661-6 Filed 06/10/21 Page 5 of 5
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`The undersigned hereby certifies that a true and correct copy of the above and foregoing
`
`document was served via email on May 18, 2021 on each of the following:
`
` Matthew Borden, BraunHagey & Borden (borden@braunhagey.com)
`
`Jonathan Kagan, Irell & Manella (jkagan@irell.com)
` Rebecca Carson, Irell & Manella (rcarson@irell.com)
` Alan Heinrich, Irell & Manella (aheinrich@irell.com)
` Alexis Federico, Irell & Manella (afederico@irell.com)
` Dennis Courtney, Irell & Manella (dcourtney@irell.com)
`
`Ingrid Peterson, Irell & Manella (ipeterson@irell.com)
` Philip Swain, Foley Hoag (pswain@foley.com)
`
`Juanita Brooks, Fish & Richardson (brooks@fr.com)
` Robert Courtney, Fish & Richardson (courtney@fr.com)
` Frank Albert, Fish & Richardson (albert@fr.com)
` Oliver Richards, Fish & Richardson (richards@fr.com)
` Paul Andre, Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel (pandre@kramerlevin.com)
`
`James Hannah, Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel (jhannah@kramerlevin.com)
` Lisa Kobialka, Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel (lkobialka@kramerlevin.com)
`
`
`/s/ Robert Courtney
`Robert Courtney
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. 3:17-cv-05659-WHA
`3
`FINJAN’S SUMMARY OF OBJECTIONS
`
`
`
`
`
`