Pages 1-9
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
`
`PALO ALTO NETWORKS, INC.,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`PACKET INTELLIGENCE LLC,
`
`)
`Defendant.
`_______________________________)
`
`TRANSCRIPT OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE
`BEFORE THE HONORABLE WILLIAM H. ORRICK
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE
`
`APPEARANCES:
`
`For Plaintiff:
`
`For Defendant:
`
`JAMES R. BATCHELDER, ESQ.
`ANDREW T. RADSCH, ESQ.
`Ropes & Gray LLP
`1900 University Avenue, Sixth Floor
`East Palo Alto, California 94303-2284
`(650) 617-4763
`
`BRIAN A.E. SMITH, ESQ.
`Bartko Zankel Bunzel & Miller
`One Embarcadero Center, 8th Floor
`San Francisco, California 94111
`(415) 956-1900
`
`CORBY R. VOWELL, ESQ.
`Friedman, Suder & Cooke, PC
`604 East 4th Street, Suite 200
`Fort Worth, Texas 76102
`(817) 334-0400
`
`Proceedings recorded by electronic sound recording; transcript
`produced by transcription service.
`
`) Case No. 19-cv-02471-WHO
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`San Francisco, California
`Courtroom 2, 17th Floor
`Tuesday, August 20, 2019
`
`))
`
`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
`
`Juniper Exhibit 1084
`Juniper Networks, Inc. v. Packet Intelligence LLC
`Page 00001
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
`
`PALO ALTO NETWORKS, INC.,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`PACKET INTELLIGENCE LLC,
`
`)
`Defendant.
`_______________________________)
`
`TRANSCRIPT OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE
`BEFORE THE HONORABLE WILLIAM H. ORRICK
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE
`
`APPEARANCES:
`
`For Plaintiff:
`
`For Defendant:
`
`JAMES R. BATCHELDER, ESQ.
`ANDREW T. RADSCH, ESQ.
`Ropes & Gray LLP
`1900 University Avenue, Sixth Floor
`East Palo Alto, California 94303-2284
`(650) 617-4763
`
`BRIAN A.E. SMITH, ESQ.
`Bartko Zankel Bunzel & Miller
`One Embarcadero Center, 8th Floor
`San Francisco, California 94111
`(415) 956-1900
`
`CORBY R. VOWELL, ESQ.
`Friedman, Suder & Cooke, PC
`604 East 4th Street, Suite 200
`Fort Worth, Texas 76102
`(817) 334-0400
`
`Proceedings recorded by electronic sound recording; transcript
`produced by transcription service.
`
`) Case No. 19-cv-02471-WHO
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`San Francisco, California
`Courtroom 2, 17th Floor
`Tuesday, August 20, 2019
`
`))
`
`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
`
`Juniper Exhibit 1084
`Juniper Networks, Inc. v. Packet Intelligence LLC
`Page 00001
`
`
`
`APPEARANCES:
`
`(Cont’d.)
`
`Transcription Service:
`
`2
`
`Peggy Schuerger
`Ad Hoc Reporting
`2220 Otay Lakes Road, Suite 502-85
`Chula Vista, California 91915
`(619) 236-9325
`
`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
`
`Page 00002
`
`
`
`3
`
`SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA TUESDAY, AUGUST 20, 2019 2:25 P.M.
`
`--oOo--
`
`THE CLERK:
`
`Calling Civil Matter 19-2471, Palo Alto
`
`Networks, Inc. v. Packet Intelligence LLC. Counsel, please come
`
`forward and state your appearance.
`
`MR. BATCHELDER:
`
`Good afternoon, Your Honor. For Palo
`
`Alto Networks, James Batchelder from Ropes & Gray. With me is my
`
`partner, Andrew Radsch.
`
`And from Palo Alto Networks, we have
`
`senior counsel Rachita Aguilar (ph).
`
`THE COURT:
`
`All right.
`
`Welcome.
`
`MR. SMITH:
`
`For the Plaintiff (sic), Brian Smith and
`
`Corby Vowell.
`
`MR. VOWELL:
`
`Good afternoon, Your Honor.
`
`THE COURT:
`
`Good afternoon. All right. So, first, is
`
`there any question about relating the case that was filed against
`
`Juniper Networks?
`
`MR. SMITH:
`
`From the Plaintiff’s perspective, we think
`
`it makes total sense to do that, Your Honor.
`
`THE COURT:
`
`Okay.
`
`MR. BATCHELDER:
`
`We have no objection to having those
`
`cases
`
`be
`
`related,
`
`Your
`
`Honor.
`
`But
`
`we
`
`would
`
`object
`
`to
`
`consolidation. My understanding is that Complainant has not even
`
`been served yet.
`
`I think it’s represented in the complaint that
`
`Packet Intelligence had accused Juniper of infringement before our
`
`complaint was even filed, and so they waited over three months to
`
`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
`
`Page 00003
`
`
`
`4
`
`actually file suit.
`
`So consolidating at this stage would slow us down in ways
`
`that we’re not --
`
`THE COURT:
`
`Okay. Well, so let’s see. I know nothing
`
`about the cases other than that they were filed and they seem to
`
`be on the same paths and represented to be the same clients. And
`
`so figuring out what the schedule should be, we’ll wait until
`
`Juniper Networks is in gear. And I think what I’ll probably do is
`
`try to have a case management conference that has both -- both
`
`cases together in about four months or so, and then we’ll see --
`
`we’ll see how they ought to be handled.
`
`MR. BATCHELDER:
`
`Thank you, Your Honor.
`
`MR. SMITH:
`
`Thank you, Your Honor.
`
`THE COURT:
`
`Okay.
`
`Now, you indicated that you’re
`
`basically ready for mediation now; right? -- in October?
`
`MR. BATCHELDER:
`
`We targeted September, Your Honor.
`
`That was on page 9 of our statement in Section 12, and you’ll see
`
`that it was -- and the parties agreed that that timing would work,
`
`provided
`
`that
`
`the September
`
`3rd deadline for infringement
`
`contentions is met.
`
`So we have those in hand and we think that
`
`would then give us the basis that we feel that some kind of
`
`mediation -- we have agreed to use a magistrate judge if one is
`
`available.
`
`THE COURT:
`
`Oh, that was nice of you to agree to that.
`
`I’m not going to appoint a magistrate judge at this point to do
`
`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
`
`Page 00004
`
`
`
`5
`
`that. We have a -- if you want to use one of the panel attorneys
`
`from the ADR Unit, they are knowledgeable and -- and if you’re
`
`ready to talk seriously, I think they do a good job.
`
`Down the road, you will definitely be able to have a
`
`magistrate judge.
`
`But they’ve got a lot on their plates and I
`
`just -- I don’t appoint people that early.
`
`MR. BATCHELDER:
`
`I understand.
`
`I know how busy they
`
`are.
`
`MR. SMITH:
`
`And I would just add, Your Honor, that the
`
`parties met informally on a couple of occasions prior to -- prior
`
`to setting the schedule, and we essentially agreed amongst
`
`ourselves that we would -- we needed this additional information
`
`-- some early discovery. Both sides have served written discovery
`
`and I think those are due within the next two to three weeks and
`
`we plan on, as the Plaintiff -- well, as the Counter-Claimant here
`
`-- producing
`
`a
`
`significant number of documents from past
`
`litigations.
`
`So -- which would include things like all the
`
`documents that were collected in those earlier cases from the
`
`original owners of the patents, the deposition transcripts of each
`
`of the inventors, things like that.
`
`So they’ll get all that information early and the parties
`
`thought it made sense, once we exchange this initial information
`
`and
`
`infringement
`
`contentions,
`
`to
`
`then
`
`see
`
`if
`
`there’s
`
`an
`
`opportunity to resolve it.
`
`THE COURT:
`
`Okay. So instead -- so I’m happy to refer
`
`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
`
`Page 00005
`
`
`
`6
`
`you to the ADR Unit if you would like that referral now. I’m also
`
`happy to wait, let you do the disclosures that you want to do.
`
`And when we have Juniper in the room at the same time in four
`
`months or so, we’ll -- we can talk about it again if you haven’t
`
`been able to resolve things.
`
`MR. BATCHELDER:
`
`I think it makes sense to wait, Your
`
`Honor.
`
`MR. SMITH:
`
`I agree.
`
`THE COURT: All right. So let’s do that. And -- let’s
`
`see. So why don’t we set December 10th -- has Juniper been served
`
`yet?
`
`service.
`
`MR. SMITH:
`
`I don’t know precisely.
`
`It’s out for
`
`THE COURT:
`
`Okay.
`
`MR. SMITH:
`
`It will be within the next couple of days.
`
`THE COURT:
`
`Okay.
`
`So let’s set the case management
`
`conference for both of those cases on December 10th. And one of
`
`the things that you should include is the -- what you want to do
`
`with respect to ADR -- besides to ask for a magistrate judge.
`
`So in the -- when we get to the time of claim construction,
`
`are -- am I going to need a tutorial in advance of the hearing?
`
`And let me just add, in case you don’t know and my reputation
`
`hasn’t preceded me -- I have like a second-grade understanding of
`
`any patent that comes before me.
`
`And sometimes that’s enough.
`
`But I really need things to be explained to me in the clearest and
`
`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
`
`Page 00006
`
`
`
`7
`
`simplest way that you can divine.
`
`That said, do we need a tutorial in advance of claim
`
`construction?
`
`MR. BATCHELDER:
`
`We would be pleased to provide one,
`
`Your Honor.
`
`I think it’s -- it rarely hurts and it often helps.
`
`MR. SMITH: We’re happy to do that as well. We’re also
`
`happy to do it, you know, at the time of claim construction as
`
`part of the same thing.
`
`THE COURT: Okay. I think we -- it probably makes sense
`
`to do it separately. So my idea, which is hopefully based on your
`
`idea or maybe I just came up with it by my- -- no, it will be
`
`based on your idea -- would be to have the tutorial on March 6th
`
`at 10:00 a.m. and the hearing on March 9th at 10:00 a.m.
`
`MR. BATCHELDER:
`
`Very good.
`
`MR. SMITH:
`
`Thank you, Your Honor.
`
`THE COURT: All right. And the rest of your calendar is
`
`fine with me.
`
`It may be adjusted, depending on what we do with
`
`Juniper, but it makes sense to me.
`
`The only -- so the trial date I think is March 29th is what
`
`I’d like to go with instead of the 22nd.
`
`But aside from that,
`
`it’s fine -- 2021.
`
`And then there are so many PTAB proceedings.
`
`Is -- are we
`
`going to need to stay this case as a result of what’s going on
`
`with the PTAB, or are they independent or what’s the story?
`
`MR. SMITH: Your Honor, so those cases are -- IPRs were
`
`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
`
`Page 00007
`
`
`
`8
`
`filed by Nokia in a related matter that’s pending in the Eastern
`
`District of Texas. They were filed in July of this year, so they
`
`are very in their infancy stages.
`
`And while there are five of them, they’re essentially one per
`
`patent and the patents are all related subject matter to claim
`
`priority back to the same provisional.
`
`So the subject matter’s
`
`related.
`
`While there are several of them, I think they’re
`
`probably likely to fall along the same track.
`
`I would also mention that in prior litigation in the Eastern
`
`District of Texas by Netsgal (ph), there were a number of other
`
`IPRs that were filed and all but one was denied, institution.
`
`THE COURT:
`
`Okay. But if they are instituted, then it
`
`sounds like they will relate.
`
`This will cause a stay in the
`
`proceedings.
`
`MR. SMITH:
`
`I understand that’s what courts typically
`
`do, but I would like to look at the circumstances at the time,
`
`Your Honor.
`
`THE COURT:
`
`Of course.
`
`Me, too.
`
`MR. SMITH:
`
`Yeah.
`
`THE COURT:
`
`All right.
`
`Okay.
`
`And I guess the final
`
`thing that I will offer to you, if you decided that there were --
`
`was one or more magistrate judges in our district that you would
`
`really prefer to have try this case because of their superior
`
`understanding and experience and wisdom in patent cases, you would
`
`not hurt my feeling in the least if that was -- if you made a
`
`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
`
`Page 00008
`
`
`
`request and I would then see whether I could honor your request.
`
`do if you want to do that, that’s fine.
`
`I make this offer at
`
`the beginning of every case.
`
`For some reason, people haven’t
`
`accepted it yet, but I think it‘s a really great offer.
`
`If I was
`
`trying cases,
`
`I would be thinking about it.
`
`But it’s up to you
`
`and your clients. Actually,
`
`it*s up to your clients, not to you.
`
`MR. BATOHELDER:
`
`Thank you.
`
`THE COURT: Okay.
`
`Is there anything else that we ought
`
`to talk about today?
`
`MR. BATCHELDER: Nothing from Plaintiffs, Your Honor.
`
`Northern District of California
`
`Peggy Schuerger
`Typed or Printed Name
`Ad Hoc Reporting
`Approved Transcription Provider
`for the U.S. District Court,
`
`MR. SMITH: Nothing from Packet Intel.
`
`COURT: Okay. Thanks very much.
`
`MR. SMITH:
`
`Thank you, Your Honor.
`
`MR. BATCHELOER:
`
`Thank you, Your Honor.
`
`{Proceedings adjourned at 2:34 p.m.]
`
`I, Peggy Schuerger, certify that the foregoing is a
`
`correct transcript from the official electronic sound recording
`
`provided to me of the proceedings in the above-entitled matter.
`
`signatu e of hp
`
`oved Transcriber
`
`.
`
`October 20, 2019
`Date
`
`Page00009
`
`Page 00009
`
`
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
