`
`RadI/are Exhibit 1024
`Radware Exhibit 1024
`
`
`
`
`
`I, Gadi Meroz, declare as follows:
`
`I.
`
`I am Vice President and General Counsel of Radware Ltd. (“LTD”).
`
`1
`
`am also the in-house counsel of Radware, lnc. (“INC”).
`
`1 make this declaration
`
`based upon my personal knowledge of the facts stated herein.
`
`2.
`
`[NC is a wholly-owned subsidiary of LTD. However, the two
`
`companies are separate, have separate budgets, maintain separate business record,
`
`pay spate taxes, and are measured based upon different business targets. By way of
`
`example, [NC is the only Radware entity doing business and selling the Radware
`
`products and services in the USA and Canada, while LTD sells the Radware
`
`products worldwide, other than in the USA and Canada.
`
`3.
`
`While I have counsel positions with both entities, each entity has
`
`separate interests and goals, and I separately represent those interest and goals.
`
`4.
`
`In April of 2016, F5 Networks, Inc. (“PS”) sued INC — but not LTD —
`
`in the US. District Court for the Western District of Washington for allegedly
`
`infringing U.S. Patent Nos. 6,311,278, 7,472,413, and 8,676,955 (“FS’S asserted
`
`patents”).
`
`5.
`
`LTD laterjoined the lawsuit in December of 2016 as a necessary party
`
`for the sole purpose of asserting a counter-claim of infringement for US. Patent
`
`9,231,853 (the “’853 Patent”). LTD is the owner ofthe ’853 Patent, and thus, was
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`required to join the suit to allow its exclusive licensee, TNC, to asscrt the ’853
`
`Patent against F5.
`
`6.
`
`To date, F5 has not accused LTD of, or sued LTD for, infringement of
`
`the asserted patents. This is likely due to the fact that LTD has no US. operations.
`
`7.
`
`Accordingly, LTD did not seek to invalidate F5’s asserted patents and
`
`has no independent interest in invalidating F5’s asserted patents, apart from being
`
`lNC’s parent company,
`
`8.
`
`LTD is not directing, controlling, the IPR petitions in these
`
`proceedings; rather, INC is. Furthermore, INC is hearing the cost of these
`
`proceedings, including: (i) legal fees, (ii) filing fees, and (iii) expert fees,
`
`associated with the proceedings.
`
`9.
`
`INC exercised direction and control over these petitions, including: (i)
`
`interviewing and negotiating for expert services, (ii) approving the filing of
`
`multiple petitions challenging the F5 asserted patents, and (iii) signing the power
`
`of attorney for these petitions.
`
`10.
`
`I personally signed the power of attorney forms for these petitions.
`
`Although I am general counsel for LTD, I am the only TNC representative
`
`responsible for signing such legal documents. As I mentioned, while I have
`
`counsel positions with both entities, each entity has separate interests and goals,
`
`and I separately represent those interests and goals. When signing legal documents
`
`
`
`on behalf of INC, such as the power of attorney forms, I am exclusively
`
`representing the interests and goals of INC, which is stated in the power of attorney
`
`filed with the petitions.
`
`1 I. With regards to the related Washington patent litigation, INC has
`
`identified some third—party witnesses in its initial disclosures, including witnesses
`
`from both LTD and F5, as persons who “may have knowledge.” INC, for
`
`example, identified Michael Groskop from LTD for information regarding the
`
`accused products, and Richard Masters from F5, for information regarding
`
`products that allegedly practice the asserted patents; while Arnir Peles of INC is
`
`designated as having knowledge of aspect of the accused products, as well as prior
`
`art to the asserted patents.
`
`INC’s identification of certain LTD employees as
`
`having knowledge on topics related to the litigation is not reflective of LTD having
`
`control over INC, just as INC ’5 identification of certain F5 employees as having
`
`knowledge on topics related to the litigation is not reflective of F5 having control
`
`over INC.
`
`I. declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of
`
`America that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed this 1st of June, 2017, at
`
`Tel-Aviv, Israel
`
` Gadi Meroz
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
