Case 3:18-cv-02621-WHO Document 264-6 Filed 03/27/20 Page 1 of 3
`
`
`
`Exhibit E
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-02621-WHO Document 264-6 Filed 03/27/20 Page 2 of 3
`
`Caridis, Alyssa
`
`From:
`Sent:
`To:
`Cc:
`Subject:
`
`Kastens, Kris <KKastens@KRAMERLEVIN.com>
`Monday, April 8, 2019 11:52 AM
`Caridis, Alyssa; Hannah, James; Andre, Paul; Kobialka, Lisa; Manes, Austin
`Roberts, Clement; Cheever, Frances; Brewer, Evan; Burleigh, Miwako
`RE: Finjan v Check Point -- Motion Practice re: Amended Infringement Contentions
`
`Hi Alyssa,
`
`We’re honestly confused by your claimed deficiencies. Are you available tomorrow afternoon to go over these in
`person? We’re having a hard time responding to your request to postpone claim construction and a 30(b)(6) deposition
`without more details on exactly what you actually believe is deficient.
`
`Additionally, Finjan would also like to go over the deficiencies in Check Point Invalidity Contentions during this meeting
`as well. In particular, Check Point has failed to: (1) identify what in the art it claims meets each element, (2) has not
`adequately identified its obviousness theories (insufficient identified of what and how art is combined), and (3) has not
`provided citations to source code for its products.
`
` I
`
` suggest that we meet sometime tomorrow afternoon at our office to go over these issues. We’ll bring a copy of Check
`Point Invalidity contentions tagged at the sections we want to discuss, and you can bring a copy of Finjan’s infringement
`contentions. Let us know if this works or if you have an alternative proposal.
`
` -
`
` Kris
`
`
`
`
`
`Kris Kastens
`Partner
`Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel LLP
`990 Marsh Road, Menlo Park, California 94025
`T 650.752.1715 F 650.752.1815
`kkastens@kramerlevin.com
`Bio
`This communication (including any attachments) is intended solely for the recipient(s) named above and may contain information that is
`confidential, privileged or legally protected. Any unauthorized use or dissemination of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received
`this communication in error, please immediately notify the sender by return e-mail message and delete all copies of the original communication.
`Thank you for your cooperation.
`From: Caridis, Alyssa
`Sent: Friday, April 5, 2019 4:52 PM
`To: Hannah, James ; Andre, Paul ; Kobialka, Lisa ; Kastens, Kris ; Manes, Austin
`Cc: Roberts, Clement ; Cheever, Frances ; Brewer, Evan ; Burleigh, Miwako
`Subject: [EXTERNAL] Finjan v Check Point -- Motion Practice re: Amended Infringement Contentions
`
`Counsel,
`
`Check Point is in receipt of Finjan’s Amended Infringement Contentions, dated April 1, 2019. Though our review is
`ongoing, it is already apparent that these contentions fail to comply with Patent Local Rule 3-1(c), the Court’s Order Re
`Case Narrowing and Infringement Contentions, and the Court’s Order requiring Finjan to amend its original infringement
`contentions. Examples of the deficiencies include:
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-02621-WHO Document 264-6 Filed 03/27/20 Page 3 of 3
`
` Failing to organize the contentions on an instrumentality-by-instrumentality or specifically identified
`combination-by-combination basis;
` The use of open ended contentions;
` Failing to cite any code for various purportedly accused instrumentalities; and
`Including new products without good cause.
`
`
`
`Check Point intends to seek relief from the Court. Given the upcoming claim construction deadlines (and in light of the
`Court’s recognition that claim construction should not proceed until appropriate contentions are exchanged (see 2.3.19
`Transcript at 17:11-13)), Check Point requests that Finjan agree to a stipulation extending the currently-set claim
`construction deadlines for 45 days to allow time for the Court to hear and rule on our anticipated motion. Please let us
`know by April 9, 2019 whether Finjan will agree to such a stipulation. If it does not, we will file an opposed motion with
`the Court while we seek to resolve the underlying issues.
`
`In addition, to the extent Finjan believes that it needs a 30(b)(6) deposition to correct the above identified deficiencies
`please provide a list of the 30(b)(6) questions that Finjan contends would be necessary and a date next week when we
`can meet and confer on that topic. As per the Court’s order (see 2.3.19 Transcript at 14:9-17), to the extent we cannot
`agree on either the specific questions or whether a 30(b)(6) deposition is relevant to the identified deficiencies, the
`Court has ordered us to submit a 5 page letter brief on the issue.
`
`Best,
`Alyssa Caridis
`
`Alyssa Caridis
`Intellectual Property
`Partner
`
`
`
`Orrick
`Los Angeles
`T 2136122372
`acaridis@orrick.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`NOTICE TO RECIPIENT | This e-mail is meant for only the intended recipient of the transmission, and may be a
`communication privileged by law. If you received this e-mail in error, any review, use, dissemination, distribution, or
`copying of this e-mail is strictly prohibited. Please notify us immediately of the error by return e-mail and please delete
`this message from your system. Thank you in advance for your cooperation.
`
`For more information about Orrick, please visit http://www.orrick.com.
`
`In the course of our business relationship, we may collect, store and transfer information about you. Please see our
`privacy policy at https://www.orrick.com/Privacy-Policy to learn about how we use this information.
`
`
`2
`
`