Case 5:17-cv-04467-BLF Document 276-1 Filed 08/07/20 Page 1 of 16
`Case 5:17-cv-04467-BLF Document 276-1 Filed 08/07/20 Page 1 of 16
`
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT 1
`
`EXHIBIT 1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 5:17-cv-04467-BLF Document 276-1 Filed 08/07/20 Page 2 of 16
`
`Matthew C. Gaudet (Admitted Pro Hac Vice)
`mcgaudet@duanemorris.com
`Robin L. McGrath (Admitted Pro Hac Vice)
`rlmcgrath@duanemorris.com
`David C. Dotson (Admitted Pro Hac Vice)
`dcdotson@duanemorris.com
`John R. Gibson (Admitted Pro Hac Vice)
`jrgibson@duanemorris.com
`Jennifer H. Forte (Admitted Pro Hac Vice)
`jhforte@duanemorris.com
`Alice E. Snedeker (Admitted Pro Hac Vice)
`aesnedeker@duanemorris.com
`DUANE MORRIS LLP
`1075 Peachtree NE, Suite 2000
`Atlanta, GA 30309-3929
`Telephone: 404.253.6900
`Facsimile: 404.253.6901
`
`D. Stuart Bartow (CA SBN 233107)
`dsbartow@duanemorris.com
`Nicole E. Johnson (CA SBN 307733)
`negrigg@duanemorris.com
`DUANE MORRIS LLP
`2475 Hanover Street
`Palo Alto, CA 94304-1194
`Telephone: 650.847.4150
`Facsimile: 650.847.4151
`
`Joseph A. Powers
`Admitted Pro Hac Vice
`japowers@duanemorris.com
`Jarrad M. Gunther
`jmgunther@duanemorris.com
`Admitted Pro Hac Vice
`DUANE MORRIS LLP
`30 South 17th Street
`Philadelphia, PA 19103
`Telephone: 215.979.1000
`Facsimile: 215.979.1020
`
`Attorneys for Defendant
`SONICWALL INC.
`
`(Complete list of counsel for Defendant on
`signature page)
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`SAN JOSE DIVISION
`FINJAN, INC., a Delaware Corporation,
`Case No.: 5:17-cv-04467-BLF-VKD
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`DEFENDANT SONICWALL INC.’S
`v.
`RESPONSE TO FINJAN, INC.’S FIRST
`SET OF REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION
`SONICWALL INC., a Delaware Corporation,
`TO DEFENDANT SONICWALL, INC.
`
`(NOS. 1-30)
`
`
`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
`
`SONICWALL’S RESPONSE TO FINJAN’S FIRST SET OF REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION (NOS. 1-30);
`5:17-CV-04467-BLF-VKD
`
`

`

`Case 5:17-cv-04467-BLF Document 276-1 Filed 08/07/20 Page 3 of 16
`
`Defendant SonicWall Inc. (“SonicWall” or “Defendant”), pursuant to Rules 26 and 36 of the
`Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, hereby serves the following written objections and responses to
`Plaintiff Finjan, Inc.’s First Set of Requests for Admission to Defendant SonicWall Inc. (Nos. 1-30)
`(“Finjan” or “Plaintiff”) (each, a “Request,” collectively, the “Requests”).
`OBJECTIONS TO DEFINITIONS AND INSTRUCTIONS
`The following Objections to Finjan’s Definitions and Instructions are made with respect to
`each and every one of Finjan’s Requests:
`1.
`Defendant objects to these Requests as overly broad, unduly burdensome, and not
`reasonably tailored to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence to the extent they seek information
`covered by the Parties’ May 11, 2017 Non-Disclosure Agreement.
`2.
`Defendant objects to the definition of the term “Accused Instrumentalities” as vague,
`ambiguous, overly broad, unduly burdensome, and not proportional to the needs of this case,
`including its statement that the definition includes “any and all versions, updates, releases, or
`continuations of said SonicWall products and services” and including to the extent this definition
`purports to encompass SonicWall products, services, instrumentalities and/or functionality thereof
`not identified by Finjan in its operative infringement contentions.
`3.
`Defendant objects to the definition of “Finjan” as overly broad, ambiguous, and
`inconsistent with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to the extent it incorporates individuals and
`entities that have no relationship to this action.
`4.
`Defendant objects to Plaintiff’s definitions of “Dell Inc.”, “Dell Technologies Inc.”,
`and “Dell Software Group” as vague, ambiguous, overly broad, unduly burdensome, and not
`proportional to the needs of this case to the extent it includes individuals and/or entities other than
`Dell Inc.
`5.
`Defendant objects to the term “SonicWall Gateway Security Products” as vague,
`ambiguous, overly broad, unduly burdensome, and not proportional to the needs of this case,
`including its statement that the definition includes “any and all versions, updates, releases, or
`
`
`
`-1-
`SONICWALL’S RESPONSE TO FINJAN’S FIRST SET OF REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION (NOS. 1-30);
`5:17-CV-04467-BLF-VKD
`
`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 5:17-cv-04467-BLF Document 276-1 Filed 08/07/20 Page 4 of 16
`
`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
`
`continuations of said SonicWall products and services” and including to the extent this definition
`purports to encompass hardware or software platforms that do not perform the accused functionality.
`6.
`Defendant objects to the term “SonicWall Email Products” as vague, ambiguous,
`overly broad, unduly burdensome, and not proportional to the needs of this case, including its
`statement that the definition includes “any and all versions, updates, releases, or continuations of said
`SonicWall products and services” and including to the extent this definition purports to encompass
`hardware or software platforms that do not perform the accused functionality.
`7.
`Defendant objects to the term “SonicWall Capture Client Products” as vague,
`ambiguous, overly broad, unduly burdensome, and not proportional to the needs of this case,
`including its statement that the definition includes “any and all versions, updates, releases, or
`continuations of said SonicWall products and services” and including to the extent this definition
`purports to encompass hardware or software platforms that do not perform the accused functionality.
`8.
`Defendant objects to the term “SonicWall Secure Mobile Access Products” as vague,
`ambiguous, overly broad, unduly burdensome, and not proportional to the needs of this case,
`including its statement that the definition includes “any and all versions, updates, releases, or
`continuations of said SonicWall products and services” and including to the extent this definition
`purports to encompass hardware or software platforms that do not perform the accused functionality.
`9.
`Defendant objects to the definition of “document(s)” as overbroad and unduly
`burdensome to the extent it exceeds the definition set forth in Fed. R. Civ. P. 34, and to the extent it
`purports to encompass email in contravention of the Court’s ESI Order governing email requests.
`10.
`Defendant objects to the definition of “communication” as overbroad and unduly
`burdensome to the extent it purports to encompass email in contravention of the Court’s ESI Order
`governing email requests.
`11.
`Defendant objects to Plaintiff’s definitions of “You,” Your,” “Defendant,” and
`“SonicWall” as vague, ambiguous, overly broad, unduly burdensome, and not proportional to the
`needs of this case to the extent it includes individuals and/or entities other than the named defendant,
`SonicWall Inc.
`
`
`
`-2-
`SONICWALL’S RESPONSE TO FINJAN’S FIRST SET OF REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION (NOS. 1-30);
`5:17-CV-04467-BLF-VKD
`
`

`

`Case 5:17-cv-04467-BLF Document 276-1 Filed 08/07/20 Page 5 of 16
`
`12.
`Defendant objects to Plaintiff’s definition of “and” and “or” as vague and ambiguous.
`Defendant will interpret these terms as they are used in common parlance.
`13.
`Defendant objects to Instruction Nos. 1-4 to the extent that they purport to place
`obligations on Defendant that exceed the requirements set forth in the Federal Rules of Civil
`Procedure, the Civil Local Rules or the Local Patent Rules of the Northern District of California, the
`Protective Order, the ESI Order, and/or any other Order entered by the Court in this case.
`14.
`Defendant objects to Instruction Nos. 1-4 to the extent they are overbroad, unduly
`burdensome, not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence and not
`proportional to the needs of this case.
`
`RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION
`REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 1:
`Admit that SonicWall does not track revenues for the Accused Instrumentalities on a product-
`by-product basis.
`RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 1:
`SonicWall objects to the undefined phrase “product-by-product basis,” which is vague and
`ambiguous. SonicWall further objects to this Request in that it purports to apply to all Accused
`Instrumentalities as opposed to a subset of particular products or services. SonicWall therefore is
`unable to admit or deny this Request.
`REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 2:
`During the time that SonicWall was a subsidiary of Dell, admit that each company obtained
`separate revenues and profits from the sales of the Accused Instrumentalities.
`RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 2:
`SonicWall objects to the terms “each company,” “obtained,” and “separate,” which are vague
`and ambiguous. SonicWall further objects to this Request to the extent that it seeks an admission
`from SonicWall related to what Dell (a third party) purportedly obtained. SonicWall therefore is
`unable to admit or deny this Request.
`
`
`
`-3-
`SONICWALL’S RESPONSE TO FINJAN’S FIRST SET OF REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION (NOS. 1-30);
`5:17-CV-04467-BLF-VKD
`
`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 5:17-cv-04467-BLF Document 276-1 Filed 08/07/20 Page 6 of 16
`
`REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 3:
`Admit that SonicWall is not in possession, custody, or control of any documents containing
`revenues, profits, costs, expenses, and/or forecasts of sales for the Accused Instrumentalities as part
`of diligence related to Dell’s acquisition of SonicWall.
`RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 3:
`SonicWall objects to the phrase “as part of diligence,” which is vague and ambiguous.
`SonicWall states that it was not a party to Dell’s agreement to acquire SonicWall and as such did not
`have access to the diligence documents. SonicWall is otherwise unable to admit or deny this Request.
`REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 4:
`Admit that SonicWall Gateway Products are made, offered for sale, and sold with source code
`that uses Capture ATP technology.
`RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 4:
`
`SonicWall incorporates by reference its objection to the term SonicWall Gateway Products.
`SonicWall objects to the undefined terms “source code,” “uses,” and “Capture ATP technology,”
`which are vague and ambiguous. The “SonicWall Gateway Products” are not made, offered for sale,
`and sold with the company’s source code as SonicWall understands that term. Further, it is unclear
`what is meant by “uses Capture ATP technology.” SonicWall therefore denies this Request.
`REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 5:
`Admit that SonicWall Gateway Products are made, offered for sale, and sold with source code
`that uses GAV technology.
`RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 5:
`SonicWall incorporates by reference its objection to the term SonicWall Gateway Products.
`SonicWall objects to the undefined terms “source code,” “uses,” and “GAV technology,” which are
`vague and ambiguous. The “SonicWall Gateway Products” are not made, offered for sale and sold
`with the company’s source code as SonicWall understands that term. Further, it is unclear what is
`meant by “uses GAV technology.” SonicWall therefore denies this Request.
`
`
`
`-4-
`SONICWALL’S RESPONSE TO FINJAN’S FIRST SET OF REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION (NOS. 1-30);
`5:17-CV-04467-BLF-VKD
`
`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 5:17-cv-04467-BLF Document 276-1 Filed 08/07/20 Page 7 of 16
`
`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
`
`REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 6:
`Admit that SonicWall Gateway Products are made, offered for sale, and sold with source code
`that uses WAN Acceleration technology.
`RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 6:
`SonicWall incorporates by reference its objection to the term SonicWall Gateway Products.
`SonicWall objects to the undefined terms “source code,” “uses,” and “WAN Acceleration
`technology,” which are vague and ambiguous. The “SonicWall Gateway Products” are not made,
`offered for sale, and sold with the company’s source code as SonicWall understands that term.
`Further, it is unclear what is meant by “uses WAN Acceleration technology.” SonicWall therefore
`denies this Request.
`REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 7:
`Admit that SonicWall Email Products are made, offered for sale, and sold with source code
`that uses Capture ATP technology.
`RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 7:
`SonicWall incorporates by reference its objection to the term SonicWall Email Products.
`SonicWall objects to the undefined terms “source code,” “uses,” and “Capture ATP technology,”
`which are vague and ambiguous. The “SonicWall Email Products” are not made, offered for sale,
`and sold with the company’s source code as SonicWall understands that term. Further, it is unclear
`what is meant by “uses Capture ATP technology.” SonicWall therefore denies this Request.
`REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 8:
`Admit that SonicWall Email Products are made, offered for sale, and sold with source code
`that uses GRID AV technology.
`RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 8:
`SonicWall incorporates by reference its objection to the term SonicWall Email Products.
`SonicWall objects to the undefined terms “source code,” “uses,” and “GRID AV technology,” which
`are vague and ambiguous. The “SonicWall Email Products” are not made, offered for sale and sold
`with the company’s source code as SonicWall understands that term. Further, it is unclear what is
`
`
`
`-5-
`SONICWALL’S RESPONSE TO FINJAN’S FIRST SET OF REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION (NOS. 1-30);
`5:17-CV-04467-BLF-VKD
`
`

`

`Case 5:17-cv-04467-BLF Document 276-1 Filed 08/07/20 Page 8 of 16
`
`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
`
`meant by “uses GRID AV technology.” SonicWall therefore denies this Request.
`REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 9:
`Admit that SonicWall Capture Client Products are made, offered for sale, and sold with source
`code that uses Capture ATP technology.
`RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 9:
`SonicWall objects to the undefined terms “source code,” “uses,” and “Capture ATP
`technology,” which are vague and ambiguous. The “SonicWall Capture Client Products” are not
`made, offered for sale, and sold with the company’s source code as SonicWall understands that term.
`Further, it is unclear what is meant by “uses Capture ATP technology.” SonicWall therefore denies
`this Request.
`REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 10:
`Admit that SonicWall Secure Mobile Access Products are made, offered for sale, and sold
`with source code that uses Capture ATP technology.
`RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 10:
`SonicWall objects to the undefined terms “source code,” “uses,” and “Capture ATP
`technology” which are vague and ambiguous. The “SonicWall Secure Mobile Access Products” are
`not made, offered for sale, and sold with the company’s source code as SonicWall understands that
`term. Further, it is unclear what is meant by “uses Capture ATP technology.” SonicWall therefore
`denies this Request
`REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 11:
`Admit that Capture ATP sandbox is also referred to as SonicSandbox, sbox, or Cloud AV
`sandbox.
`RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 11:
`SonicWall objects to this Request and its use of the undefined terms “referred to” and
`“Capture ATP sandbox,” which are vague and ambiguous. SoncWall’s Capture ATP is a service, not
`a sandbox. Further, as it is not clear what is meant by “referred to,” SonicWall is unable to admit or
`deny this Request.
`
`
`
`-6-
`SONICWALL’S RESPONSE TO FINJAN’S FIRST SET OF REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION (NOS. 1-30);
`5:17-CV-04467-BLF-VKD
`
`

`

`Case 5:17-cv-04467-BLF Document 276-1 Filed 08/07/20 Page 9 of 16
`
`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
`
`REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 12:
`Admit that the source code that SonicWall produced in this litigation is representative of the
`source code for each version of the Accused Instrumentalities.
`RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 12:
` SonicWall objects to the undefined terms “representative” and “each version,” which are
`vague and ambiguous. SonicWall admits that it complied with all relevant provisions of the
`Protective Order in making its source code available for inspection and that the source code was made
`available in the same format as maintained in the normal course of business. As it is not clear what
`is meant by “representative of the source code for each version,” SonicWall is unable to admit or
`deny this Request.
`REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 13:
`Admit that on June 10, 2014, Ivan Chaperot, Finjan’s VP of Licensing, identified Finjan’s
`patent portfolio to Dell in an email to Anthony Peterman, Dell’s Chief Patent Counsel.
`RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 13:
`SonicWall objects to the term “identified” and the undefined phrase “Finjan’s patent
`portfolio,” which is vague and ambiguous. SonicWall states that, apart from inadmissible
`communications expressly designated as subject to Fed. R. Evid. 408, SonicWall is unaware of any
`instance in which Finjan identified any of its patents to Dell. SonicWall therefore denies this Request.
`REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 14:
`Admit that Finjan and Dell had a meeting in June 2016 where Finjan identified U.S. Patent
`Nos. 6,154,844, 6,965,968, 8,677,494 and 7,975,305 and “Representative Impacted Products &
`Services” including Dell SONICWALL Advanced Threat Protection Service.. See, e.g., FINJAN-
`SW 047995.
`RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 14:
`SonicWall objects to the term “identified” and the undefined phrase “Representative Impacted
`Products and Services,” which are vague and ambiguous. SonicWall states that, apart from
`inadmissible communications expressly designated as subject to Fed. R. Evid. 408, SonicWall is
`
`
`
`-7-
`SONICWALL’S RESPONSE TO FINJAN’S FIRST SET OF REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION (NOS. 1-30);
`5:17-CV-04467-BLF-VKD
`
`

`

`Case 5:17-cv-04467-BLF Document 276-1 Filed 08/07/20 Page 10 of 16
`
`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
`
`unaware of any instance in which Finjan identified any of its patents to Dell or suggested that any
`SonicWall products or services infringed the Asserted Patents. SonicWall therefore denies this
`Request.
`REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 15:
`Admit that on October 12, 2016, Finjan delivered a presentation to Dell (FINJAN-SW
`047979-48008) that identified the Asserted Patents.
`RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 15:
`SonicWall objects to the term “identified,” which is vague and ambiguous. SonicWall states
`that, apart from inadmissible communications expressly designated as subject to Fed. R. Evid. 408,
`SonicWall is unaware of any instance in which Finjan identified any of the Asserted Patents to Dell.
`SonicWall therefore denies this Request.
`REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 16:
`Admit that SonicWall was aware of Finjan’s Vital Security product prior to the date of the
`Complaint.
`RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 16:
`SonicWall objects to the phrase “aware of,” which is vague and ambiguous. SonicWall
`further objects to this Request to the extent it requests information protected by the attorney-client
`privilege and/or work-product doctrine. As it is not clear what is meant by “aware of,” SonicWall is
`unable to admit or deny this Request.
`REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 17:
`Admit that SonicWall was aware of Finjan’s prior or pending patent litigations before the date
`of the Complaint.
`RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 17:
`SonicWall objects to the phrases “aware of” and “Finjan’s prior or pending patent litigations,”
`which are vague, ambiguous, and compound, such that SonicWall cannot reasonably admit or deny
`this request. SonicWall further objects to this Request to the extent it requests information protected
`by the attorney-client privilege and/or work-product doctrine. SonicWall states that, post divestiture
`
`
`
`-8-
`SONICWALL’S RESPONSE TO FINJAN’S FIRST SET OF REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION (NOS. 1-30);
`5:17-CV-04467-BLF-VKD
`
`

`

`Case 5:17-cv-04467-BLF Document 276-1 Filed 08/07/20 Page 11 of 16
`
`from Dell in 2016, SonicWall was generally aware of the fact that Finjan had filed multiple patent
`lawsuits, but SonicWall was not aware of the details of any particular lawsuit. SonicWall therefore
`denies this Request.
`REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 18:
`Admit that, prior to the date of the Complaint, SonicWall was aware that the Asserted Patents
`were also asserted in other patent litigations involving Finjan and third parties.
`RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 18:
`SonicWall objects to the phrases “aware that,” “other patent litigations,” and “third parties,”
`which are vague, ambiguous, and compound, such that SonicWall cannot reasonably admit or deny
`this request. SonicWall further objects to this Request to the extent it requests information protected
`by the attorney-client privilege and/or work-product doctrine. SonicWall states that, post divestiture
`from Dell in 2016, SonicWall was generally aware of the fact that Finjan had filed multiple patent
`lawsuits, but SonicWall was not aware of the details of any particular lawsuit. SonicWall therefore
`denies this Request.
`REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 19:
`Admit that, as of 2014, SonicWall was aware that the Asserted Patents were also asserted in
`other patent litigations involving Finjan and third parties.
`RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 19:
`SonicWall objects to the phrases “aware that,” “other patent litigations,” and “third parties,”
`which are vague, ambiguous, and compound, such that SonicWall cannot reasonably admit or deny
`this request. SonicWall further objects to this Request to the extent it requests information protected
`by the attorney-client privilege and/or work-product doctrine. SonicWall did not exist in 2014.
`SonicWall therefore denies this Request.
`REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 20:
`Admit that, prior to the date of the Complaint, SonicWall was aware of one or more of Finjan’s
`patent licenses.
`
`
`
`-9-
`SONICWALL’S RESPONSE TO FINJAN’S FIRST SET OF REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION (NOS. 1-30);
`5:17-CV-04467-BLF-VKD
`
`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 5:17-cv-04467-BLF Document 276-1 Filed 08/07/20 Page 12 of 16
`
`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
`
`RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 20:
` Defendant objects to this Request due to its use of the undefined phrases “aware of” and “one
`or more of Finjan’s patent licenses,” which are vague, ambiguous, and compound, such that
`SonicWall cannot reasonably admit or deny this request. As it is unclear what is meant by “aware
`of” and the terms of “Finjan’s patent licenses” are confidential, SonicWall denies this Request.
`REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 21:
`Admit that SonicWall was aware of one or more of Finjan’s patent licenses prior to the filing
`of this Complaint.
`RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 21:
`SonicWall objects to this Request as duplicative of Request for Admission No. 20 and
`incorporates by reference its response to same.
`REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 22:
`Admit that, as of 2014, SonicWall was aware of one or more of Finjan’s patent licenses.
`RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 22:
`Defendant objects to this Request due to its use of the undefined terms “aware of” and “one
`or more of Finjan’s patent licenses,” which are vague, ambiguous, and compound, such that
`SonicWall cannot reasonably admit or deny this request. SonicWall did not exist in 2014. SonicWall
`therefore denies this Request.
`REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 23:
`Admit that Dell agreed to indemnify SonicWall if it was found to liable for infringement of
`Finjan’s patents.
`RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 23:
`SonicWall denies this Request.
`REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 24:
`Admit that SonicWall has not attempted to design-around the Asserted Patents.
`RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 24:
`SonicWall objects to this Request due to its use of the undefined term “design-around,” which
`
`
`
`-10-
`SONICWALL’S RESPONSE TO FINJAN’S FIRST SET OF REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION (NOS. 1-30);
`5:17-CV-04467-BLF-VKD
`
`

`

`Case 5:17-cv-04467-BLF Document 276-1 Filed 08/07/20 Page 13 of 16
`
`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
`
`is vague and ambiguous. SonicWall admits that because its products do not infringe the Asserted
`Patents, it has had no need to design around the Asserted Patents.
`REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 25:
`Admit that Dell has not offered for sale or sold the Accused Instrumentalities after SonicWall
`was spun-off from Dell in 2016.
`RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 25:
`SonicWall objects to this Request in that it seeks an admission from SonicWall related to what
`Dell (a third party) purportedly “offered for sale or sold” after SonicWall’s divestiture from Dell in
`2016. SonicWall therefore is unable to admit or deny this Request.
`REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 26:
`Admit that SonicWall, within its company, tests WAN Acceleration technology including
`with the SonicWall Gateway Security Products.
`RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 26:
` SonicWall incorporates by reference its objection to “SonicWall Gateway Security
`Products.” SonicWall objects to this Request and its use of the undefined terms “within its company,”
`“tests,” and “WAN Acceleration technology,” which are vague and ambiguous. SonicWall states
`that its products are largely tested in India and China where its quality assurance teams are located.
`SonicWall otherwise denies this Request.
`REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 27:
`Admit that SonicWall, within its company, tests Capture ATP, including with other products
`such as the SonicWall Gateway Products, the SonicWall Email Products, the SonicWall Capture
`Client Products, and the SonicWall Secure Mobile Access Appliance Products.
`RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 27:
`SonicWall incorporates by reference its objections to the terms “SonicWall Gateway
`Products,” “SonicWall Email Products,” “SonicWall Capture Client Products,” and “SonicWall
`Secure Mobile Access Products.” SonicWall objects to this Request and its use of the undefined
`terms “within its company,” “tests,” and “with other products,” which are vague, ambiguous and
`
`
`
`-11-
`SONICWALL’S RESPONSE TO FINJAN’S FIRST SET OF REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION (NOS. 1-30);
`5:17-CV-04467-BLF-VKD
`
`

`

`Case 5:17-cv-04467-BLF Document 276-1 Filed 08/07/20 Page 14 of 16
`
`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
`
`compound, such that SonicWall cannot reasonably admit or deny this request.. SonicWall states that
`its products are largely tested in India and China where its quality assurance teams are located.
`SonicWall otherwise denies this Request.
`REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 28:
`Admit that SonicWall, within its company, tests GAV technology including with the
`SonicWall Gateway Security Products.
`RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 28:
`SonicWall objects to the undefined terms and phrases “within its company,” “tests,”
`“including with,” and “GAV technology,” which are vague and ambiguous. SonicWall states that its
`products are largely tested in India and China where its quality assurance teams are located.
`SonicWall otherwise denies this Request
`REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 29:
`Admit that, prior to the date of the Complaint, SonicWall reviewed publicly available
`information regarding the Asserted Patents.
`RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 29:
`SonicWall objects to the term “reviewed,” and undefined phrase “publicly available
`information,” which are vague and ambiguous. Defendant further objects to this Request to the extent
`it requests information protected by the attorney-client privilege and/or work-product doctrine.
`SonicWall therefore is unable to admit or deny this Request.
`REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 30:
`Admit that SonicWall is part of a joint defense group with other companies related to litigation
`and/or interactions with Finjan.
`RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 30:
`SonicWall objects to this Request due to its use of the undefined terms “joint defense group”
`“other companies,” and “interactions with Finjan,” which are vague and ambiguous. SonicWall
`further objects to this Request to the extent it requests information protected by the common interest
`privilege. SonicWall further objects that this request is not reasonably calculated to lead to the
`
`
`
`-12-
`SONICWALL’S RESPONSE TO FINJAN’S FIRST SET OF REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION (NOS. 1-30);
`5:17-CV-04467-BLF-VKD
`
`

`

`Case 5:17-cv-04467-BLF Document 276-1 Filed 08/07/20 Page 15 of 16
`
`discovery of relevant or admissible information.
`
`Dated: July 30, 2020
`
`
`
`Respectfully Submitted,
`
`/s/ Jennifer H. Forte
`D. Stuart Bartow (CA SBN 233107)
`dsbartow@duanemorris.com
`Nicole E. Johnson (CA SBN 307733)
`NEGrigg@duanemorris.com
`DUANE MORRIS LLP
`2475 Hanover Street
`Palo Alto, CA 94304-1194
`Telephone: 650.847.4150
`Facsimile: 650.847.4151
`
`Matthew C. Gaudet (Admitted Pro Hac Vice)
`mcgaudet@duanemorris.com
`Robin L. McGrath (Admitted Pro Hac Vice)
`rlmcgrath@duanemorris.com
`David C. Dotson (Admitted Pro Hac Vice)
`dcdotson@duanemorris.com
`John R. Gibson( Admitted Pro Hac Vice)
`jrgibson@duanemorris.com
`Jennifer H. Forte (Admitted Pro Hac Vice)
`jhforte@duanemorris.com
`Alice E. Snedeker (Admitted Pro Hac Vice)
`aesnedeker@duanemorris.com
`DUANE MORRIS LLP
`1075 Peachtree NE, Suite 2000
`Atlanta, GA 30309-3929
`Telephone: 404.253.6900
`
`Joseph A. Powers (Admitted Pro Hac Vice)
`japowers@duanemorris.com
`Jarrad M. Gunther (Admitted Pro Hac Vice)
`jmgunther@duanemorris.com
`DUANE MORRIS LLP
`30 South 17th Street
`Philadelphia, PA 19103
`Telephone: 215.979.1000
`
`Attorneys for Defendant
`SONICWALL INC.
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-13-
`SONICWALL’S RESPONSE TO FINJAN’S FIRST SET OF REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION (NOS. 1-30);
`5:17-CV-04467-BLF-VKD
`
`

`

`Case 5:17-cv-04467-BLF Document 276-1 Filed 08/07/20 Page 16 of 16
`
`
`
`Counsel for Plaintiff Finjan, Inc.
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`I am a citizen of the United States, over the age of 18 years, and not a party to interested in
`the cause. I am an employee of Duane Morris LLP and my business address is 1075 Peachtree
`Street NE, Suite 2000, Atlanta, Georgia 30309. I am readily familiar with this firm’s practices for
`collecting and processing correspondence for mailing with the United States Postal Service and for
`transmitting documents by FedEx, fax, email, messenger and other modes. On the date stated
`below, I served the following document:
`DEFENDANT SONICWALL INC.’S RESPONSE TO FINJAN’S FIRST SET OF
`REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION TO DEFENDANT SONICWALL (NOS. 1-30)
`
`BY ELECTRONIC SERVICE: Based on a court order or an agreement of the
`parties to accept service by e-mail or electronic transmission, I caused the documents
`to be sent to the person(s) at the e-mail addresses listed below. I did not receive,
`within a reasonable time after the transmission, any electronic message or other
`indication that the transmission was unsuccessful.
`Paul J. Andre
`Lisa Kobialka
`James Hannah
`Kristopher Kastens
`Hannah Lee
`KRAMER LEVIN NAFTALIS
`& FRANKEL LLP
`990 Marsh Road
`Menlo Park, CA 94025
`Telephone: (650) 752-1700
`pandre@kramerlevin.com
`lkobialka@kramerlevin.com
`jhannah@kramerlevin.com
`kkastens@kramerlevin.com
`hlee@kramerlevin.com
`
`Aaron M. Frankel (pro hac vice)
`KRAMER LEVIN NAFTALIS
`& FRANKEL LLP
`1177 Avenue of the Americas
`New York, NY 10036
`Telephone: (212) 7793
`afrankel@kramerlevin.com
` declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing
`is true and correct. Executed on July 30, 2020 at Atlanta, Georgia.
`
`/s/ Jennifer H. Forte
`Jennifer H. Forte
`
` I
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-14-
`SONICWALL’S RESPONSE TO FINJAN’S FIRST SET OF REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION (NOS. 1-30);
`5:17-CV-04467-BLF-VKD
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24