`
`
`
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`____________
`
`JUNIPER NETWORKS, INC. & PALO ALTO NETWORKS, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`PACKET INTELLIGENCE LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`
`____________
`
`Case IPR2020-00337
`U.S. Patent No. 6,771,646
`
`____________
`
`
`PETITIONER JUNIPER NETWORKS, INC.’S MOTION TO DISQUALIFY
`PATENT OWNER’S EXPERT DR. KEVIN ALMEROTH
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
`IPR2020-00337
`U.S. Patent No. 6,771,646
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I. DR. ALMEROTH’S PRIOR WORK AS AN EXPERT WITNESS FOR
`PETITIONER JUNIPER WARRANTS HIS DISQUALIFICATION. ............ 3
`
`A. Dr. Almeroth and Juniper Had a Confidential Relationship. ............... 3
`
`B. Dr. Almeroth Received Confidential Juniper Information Relevant to
`These Proceedings. ............................................................................... 4
`
`II. DISQUALIFICATION WOULD BE FAIR TO PATENTEE AND WOULD
`PROMOTE THE INTEGRITY OF THE LEGAL PROCESS. ........................ 9
`
`III. CONCLUSION ............................................................................................... 10
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`i
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`Cases
`
`IPR2020-00337
`U.S. Patent No. 6,771,646
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Asphalt Prods. Unlimited, Inc. v. Blacklidge Emulsions, Inc.,
`IPR2017-01241 (Paper 30) (P.T.A.B. Oct. 20, 2017) ............................... 10
`
`Fujifilm Corp. v. Sony Corp.,
`IPR2017-01267 (Paper 9) (P.T.A.B. July 10, 2017) ................................. 10
`
`Hewlett-Packard Co. v. EMC Corp.,
`330 F. Supp. 2d 1092 (N.D. Cal. 2004) ........................................... 1, 3, 4, 5
`
`Mayer v. Dell,
` 139 F.R.D. 1 (D.D.C. 1991) ....................................................................... 5
`
`Nike, Inc. v. Adidas America Inc.,
`2006 WL 5111106 (E.D. Tex. Sept. 29, 2006) ....................................... 5, 9
`
`Sanofi-Aventis U.S. LLC v. Immunex Corp.,
`IPR2017–01884 (Paper 70) (P.T.A.B. Aug. 19, 2015) ........................... 1, 4
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`IPR2020-00337
`U.S. Patent No. 6,771,646
`
`
`EXHIBITS
`
`Description
`Exhibit
`U.S. Patent No. 6,651,099 (“the ’099 Patent”)
`1001
`1002 U.S. Patent No. 6,665,725 (“the ’725 Patent”)
`1003 U.S. Patent No. 6,771,646 (“the ’646 Patent”)
`1004 U.S. Patent No. 6,839,751 (“the ’751 Patent”)
`1005 U.S. Patent No. 6,954,789 (“the ’789 Patent”)
`1006 Declaration of Dr. Jon B. Weissman
`1007
`Curriculum vitae of Dr. Weissman
`1008 U.S. Patent No. 6,412,000 (“Riddle”)
`1009
`PCT Publication WO 92/19054 (“Ferdinand”)
`1010
`RFC 1945 - Hypertext Transfer Protocol -- HTTP/1.0 (“RFC1945”)
`1011 U.S. Patent No. 6,625,150 (“Yu”)
`1012
`Provisional Patent Application No. 60/112,859 (“the ’859 Provi-
`sional”)
`PCT Publication WO 97/23076 (“Baker”)
`1013
`1014 U.S. Patent No. 5,740,175 (“Wakeman”)
`1015 U.S. Patent No. 5,805,808 (“Hasani”)
`1016
`Provisional Patent Application No. 60/141,903 (“the ’903 Provi-
`sional”)
`File History for U.S. Patent No. 6,651,099
`File History for U.S. Patent No. 6,665,725
`File History for U.S. Patent No. 6,771,646
`File History for U.S. Patent No. 6,771,646 – February 10, 2004, Re-
`sponse to Office Action
`File History for U.S. Patent No. 6,839,751
`File History for U.S. Patent No. 6,954,789
`Certified Translation of German Federal Patent Court Nos. 2Ni 26/16
`(EP) and 2(Ni 46/16) (July 12, 2018)
`Provisional Patent Application No. 60/066,864 (“the ’864 Provi-
`sional”)
`Redline showing a comparison of Riddle to Provisional Patent Appli-
`cation No. 60/066,864
`
`1017
`1018
`1019
`1020
`
`1021
`1022
`1023
`
`1024
`
`1025
`
`iii
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2020-00337
`U.S. Patent No. 6,771,646
`
`
`Exhibit
`1026
`
`1042
`1043
`
`1044
`1045
`
`1046
`
`Description
`Claim Chart comparing claims 1, 8, and 11 of Riddle to the specifica-
`tion of Provisional Patent Application No. 60/066,864
`1027 U.S. Patent Application 08/977,642 (“Packer Application”)
`1028 U.S. Patent Application 09/198,051 (“the ’051 Application”)
`1029 U.S. Patent No. 5,802,106
`1030 U.S. Patent No. 6,038,216
`1031 U.S. Patent No. 6,046,980 (“Packer”)
`1032
`PointCast Inc. is Testing a New Screen-Saver Product, The Wall
`Street Journal (April 15, 1996)
`1033 Gillin, Paul. Editorial, Computer World (May 13, 1996)
`1034
`Sneider, Daniel. Redefining News in the Era of Internet By Blending
`Print and Television, Silicon Valley Start-up Shakes up Traditional
`View of News, The Christian Science Monitor (June 26, 1996)
`PointCast Inc. 1998 SEC Filings
`1035
`1036 U.S. Patent No. 6,807,558
`1037
`RFC 765 – File Transfer Protocol (“RFC765”)
`1038
`RFC 791 – Internet Protocol (“RFC791”)
`1039
`RFC 793 – Transmission Control Protocol (“RFC793”)
`1040
`RFC 1543 – Instructions to RFC Authors (“RFC1543”)
`1041
`RFC 2026 – The Internet Standards Process – Revision 3
`(“RFC2026”)
`RFC 2616 – Hypertext Transfer Protocol – HTTP/1.1 (“RFC2616”)
`International Standard ISO/IEC 7498 – Information Processing Sys-
`tems – Open Systems Interconnection – Basic Reference Model –
`Part 4: Management Framework (Nov. 15, 1989)
`Internet Archive Affidavit for RFC1945
`Internet Archive Affidavit for RFC 1889 – RTP: A Transport Proto-
`col for Real-Time Applications (“RFC1889”)
`Internet Archive Affidavit for RFC 2326 – Real Time Streaming Pro-
`tocol (RTSP) (“RFC2326”)
`Chart comparing Yu to Provisional Patent Application No.
`60/112,859
`Claim Chart comparing Yu’s claim 1 to the Provisional Patent Appli-
`cation No. 60/112,859
`
`1047
`
`1048
`
`iv
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Exhibit
`1049
`
`1050
`
`1051
`
`1052
`
`1053
`
`1054
`
`1055
`
`1056
`
`1057
`
`1058
`
`1059
`
`1060
`
`1061
`
`1062
`
`1063
`
`1064
`
`1065
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00337
`U.S. Patent No. 6,771,646
`
`
`Description
`Sandvine Corp. v. Packet Intelligence, LLC, No. IPR2017-00769, Pa-
`per No. 10 (Opposition to Request for Rehearing) (September 15,
`2017)
`Sandvine Corp. v. Packet Intelligence, LLC, No. IPR2017-00450, Pa-
`per No. 6 (Preliminary Response) (April 28, 2017)
`Sandvine Corp. v. Packet Intelligence, LLC, No. IPR2017-00451, Pa-
`per No. 6 (Preliminary Response) (April 28, 2017)
`Sandvine Corp. v. Packet Intelligence, LLC, No. IPR2017-00629, Pa-
`per No. 6 (Preliminary Response) (April 28, 2017)
`Sandvine Corp. v. Packet Intelligence, LLC, No. IPR2017-00630, Pa-
`per No. 6 (Preliminary Response) (April 28, 2017)
`Sandvine Corp. v. Packet Intelligence, LLC, No. IPR2017-00769, Pa-
`per No. 6 (Preliminary Response) (April 28, 2017)
`Sandvine Corp. v. Packet Intelligence, LLC, No. IPR2017-00862, Pa-
`per No. 6 (Preliminary Response) (June 5, 2017)
`Sandvine Corp. v. Packet Intelligence, LLC, No. IPR2017-00450, Pa-
`per No. 8 (Decision) (July 26, 2017)
`Sandvine Corp. v. Packet Intelligence, LLC, No. IPR2017-00451, Pa-
`per No. 8 (Decision) (July 26, 2017)
`Sandvine Corp. v. Packet Intelligence, LLC, No. IPR2017-00629, Pa-
`per No. 8 (Decision) (July 26, 2017)
`Sandvine Corp. v. Packet Intelligence, LLC, No. IPR2017-00630, Pa-
`per No. 9 (Decision) (July 26, 2017)
`Sandvine Corp. v. Packet Intelligence, LLC, No. IPR2017-00769, Pa-
`per No. 8 (Decision) (July 26, 2017)
`Sandvine Corp. v. Packet Intelligence, LLC, No. IPR2017-00862, Pa-
`per No. 8 (Decision) (July 26, 2017)
`Sandvine Corp. v. Packet Intelligence, LLC, No. IPR2017-00863, Pa-
`per No. 6 (Decision) (August 31, 2017)
`Sandvine Corp. v. Packet Intelligence, LLC, No. IPR2017-00863, Pa-
`per No. 8 (Notice of Abandonment) (Dec. 1, 2017)
`Sandvine Corp. v. Packet Intelligence, LLC, No. IPR2017-00863, Pa-
`per No. 9 (Adverse Judgment) (Dec. 20, 2017)
`Nokia Corp. v. Packet Intelligence, LLC, No. IPR2019-01289,
`EX1006 (Declaration of Dr. Kevin Jeffay)
`
`v
`
`
`

`

`Exhibit
`1066
`
`1067
`
`1068
`
`1069
`
`1070
`
`1071
`
`1072
`
`1073
`
`1074
`
`1075
`
`1076
`
`1077
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00337
`U.S. Patent No. 6,771,646
`
`
`Description
`Packet Intelligence LLC, v. NetScout Systems, Inc. et al., E.D. Tex.
`Case No. 2:16-CV-230-JRG, Docket Item 55-21 (Packet Intelligence
`Technology Tutorial) (January 20, 2017)
`Packet Intelligence LLC, v. NetScout Systems, Inc. et al., E.D. Tex.
`Case No. 2:16-CV-230-JRG, Docket Item 66 (Claim Construction
`Memorandum and Order) (March 14, 2017)
`Packet Intelligence LLC, v. NetScout Systems, Inc. et al., E.D. Tex.
`Case No. 2:16-CV-230-JRG, Docket Item 244 (Transcript of Pro-
`ceedings held Oct. 10, 2017 AM Session) (October 17, 2017)
`Packet Intelligence LLC, v. NetScout Systems, Inc. et al., E.D. Tex.
`Case No. 2:16-CV-230-JRG, Docket Item 250 (Transcript of Pro-
`ceedings held Oct. 12, 2017 PM Session) (October 17, 2017)
`Packet Intelligence LLC, v. NetScout Systems, Inc. et al., E.D. Tex.
`Case No. 2:16-CV-230-JRG, Docket Item 314 (NetScout’s JMOL of
`No Infringement) (October 5, 2018)
`Packet Intelligence LLC, v. NetScout Systems, Inc. et al., E.D. Tex.
`Case No. 2:16-CV-230-JRG, Docket Item 314-1 (Declaration of Mi-
`chael Lyons) (October 5, 2018)
`Packet Intelligence LLC, v. NetScout Systems, Inc. et al., E.D. Tex.
`Case No. 2:16-CV-230-JRG, Docket Item 314-4 (Excerpts of Russell
`Dietz’s Demonstrative Slides) (October 5, 2018)
`Packet Intelligence LLC, v. NetScout Systems, Inc. et al., E.D. Tex.
`Case No. 2:16-CV-230-JRG, Docket Item 323-1 (Declaration of Ste-
`ven Udick) (October 26, 2018)
`Packet Intelligence LLC, v. NetScout Systems, Inc. et al., E.D. Tex.
`Case No. 2:16-CV-230-JRG, Docket Item 323-2 (Excerpts from Dr.
`Kevin Almeroth’s Direct Testimony Demonstrative Slides) (October
`26, 2018)
`Packet Intelligence LLC, v. NetScout Systems, Inc. et al., E.D. Tex.
`Case No. 2:16-CV-230-JRG, Docket Item 324-1 (Declaration of Sa-
`daf R. Abdullah) (October 26, 2018)
`Packet Intelligence LLC, v. NetScout Systems, Inc. et al., E.D. Tex.
`Case No. 2:16-CV-230-JRG, Docket Item 324-2 (Dr. Kevin Alme-
`roth’s Rebuttal Testimony Demonstrative Slides) (October 26, 2018)
`Packet Intelligence LLC, v. Ericsson Inc. et al., E.D. Tex. Case No.
`2:18-CV-00381-JRG, Docket Item 74 (Joint Claim Construction and
`Prehearing Statement) (June 7, 2019)
`
`vi
`
`

`

`IPR2020-00337
`U.S. Patent No. 6,771,646
`
`
`Exhibit
`1078
`
`1079
`
`1080
`
`1081
`
`Description
`Packet Intelligence LLC, v. Cisco Systems, Inc., E.D. Tex. Case No.
`2:14-CV-252-JRG, Docket Item 89 (Packet Intelligence LLC’s Open-
`ing Claims Construction Brief) (January 26, 2015)
`Palo Alto Networks, Inc. v. Packet Intelligence LLC, N.D. Cal. Case
`No. 3:19-cv-02471, Joint Claim Construction and Prehearing State-
`ment (December 17, 2019)
` Patent Trial and Appeal Board Consolidated Trial Practice Guide
`(November 2019)
`Chart of third-parties’ previously-proposed terms subject to §112(6)
`and corresponding structure
`Table Comparing Claims 1, 10, and 17 of the ’725 Patent
`1082
`1083 Declaration of Joseph Edell
`1084
`Palo Alto Networks, Inc. v. Packet Intelligence LLC, N.D. Cal. Case
`No. 3:19-cv-02471, August 20, 2019 Case Management Conference
`Transcript
`Palo Alto Networks, Inc. v. Packet Intelligence LLC, N.D. Cal. Case
`No. 3:19-cv-02471, Docket Item 35 (Pretrial Order) (September 3,
`2019)
`Palo Alto Networks, Inc. v. Packet Intelligence LLC, N.D. Cal. Case
`No. 3:19-cv-02471, Packet Intelligence LLC’s Disclosure Of As-
`serted Claims And Infringement Contentions To Palo Alto Networks,
`Inc. (September 24, 2019)
`Packet Intelligence LLC v. Juniper Networks, Inc., N.D. Cal. Case
`No. 3:19-cv-04741, Packet Intelligence LLC’s Disclosure Of As-
`serted Claims And Infringement Contentions To Juniper Networks,
`Inc. (January 23, 2020)
`Palo Alto Networks, Inc. v. Packet Intelligence LLC, N.D. Cal. Case
`No. 3:19-cv-02471, Docket Item 49 (Joint Subsequent Case Manage-
`ment Statement) (December 31, 2019)
`Palo Alto Networks, Inc. v. Packet Intelligence LLC, N.D. Cal. Case
`No. 3:19-cv-02471, Docket Item 50 (Civil Minutes) (January 7, 2020)
`Palo Alto Networks, Inc. v. Packet Intelligence LLC, N.D. Cal. Case
`No. 3:19-cv-02471, January 8, 2020 Docket Entry
`Packet Intelligence LLC v. Juniper Networks, Inc., N.D. Cal. Case
`No. 3:19-cv-04741, Docket Item 38 (Civil Minutes) (January 7, 2020)
`
`1085
`
`1086
`
`1087
`
`1088
`
`1089
`
`1090
`
`1091
`
`vii
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00337
`U.S. Patent No. 6,771,646
`
`
`Exhibit
`1092
`
`1093
`
`1094
`1095
`
`1096
`
`Description
`Packet Intelligence LLC v. Juniper Networks, Inc., N.D. Cal. Case
`No. 3:19-cv-04741, Docket Item 48 (Stipulated First Amended
`Scheduling Order) (March 29, 2020)
`Palo Alto Networks, Inc. v. Packet Intelligence LLC, N.D. Cal. Case
`No. 3:19-cv-02471, Docket Item 62 (Order Granting Palo Alto Net-
`works’ Proposed Modification to the Scheduling Order) (May 15,
`2020)
`Packet Intelligence Letter to Palo Alto Networks (January 18, 2019)
`Palo Alto Networks, Inc. v. Packet Intelligence LLC, N.D. Cal. Case
`No. 3:19-cv-02471, Docket Item 18 (Defendant and Counterclaimant
`Packet Intelligence LLC’s Answer and Counterclaims) (July 2, 2019)
`Palo Alto Networks, Inc. v. Packet Intelligence LLC, N.D. Cal. Case
`No. 3:19-cv-02471, Docket Item 27 (Joint Case Management State-
`ment) (August 13, 2019)
`Packet Intelligence LLC v. Juniper Networks, Inc., N.D. Cal. Case
`No. 3:19-cv-04741, Complaint (August 13, 2019)
`J&K IP Assets, LLC v. Armaspec, Inc., No. 17-cv-07308-WHO, Dkt.
`No. 45 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 24, 2019)
`J&K IP Assets, LLC v. Armaspec, Inc., No. 17-cv-07308-WHO, Dkt.
`No. 61 (N.D. Cal. September 12, 2019)
`Packet Intelligence, LLC v. Sandvine Corp., E.D. Tex. Case No. 2:16-
`cv-00147, Docket Item 1 (Packet Intelligence LLC’s Complaint For
`Patent Infringement) (February 17, 2016)
`Packet Intelligence, LLC v. Sandvine Corp., E.D. Tex. Case No. 2:16-
`cv-00147, Docket Item 39 (Verdict Form) (November 9, 2017)
`Packet Intelligence, LLC v. Sandvine Corp., E.D. Tex. Case No. 2:16-
`cv-00147, Docket Item 66 (Final Judgment) (February 9, 2018)
`Packet Intelligence, LLC v. Juniper Networks, Inc., N.D. Cal. Case
`No. 3:19-cv-04741, Docket Item 66 (Order Regarding Motion to Dis-
`qualify) (July 15, 2020)
`1104 Declaration of David McPhie (“McPhie Decl.”)
`1105 Dr. Kevin Almeroth Retention Agreement, executed December 13,
`2013
`Palo Alto Networks, Inc. v. Juniper Networks, Inc., No. IPR2013-
`00369 (Confidential version of Ex. 2095, Declaration of Kevin C.
`Almeroth) (March 28, 2014)
`
`1097
`
`1098
`
`1099
`
`1100
`
`1101
`
`1102
`
`1103
`
`1106
`
`vii
`i
`
`

`

`Exhibit
`1107
`
`IPR2020-00337
`U.S. Patent No. 6,771,646
`
`
`Description
`Palo Alto Networks, Inc. v. Juniper Networks, Inc., No. IPR2013-
`00369 (Public version of Ex. 2096, Declaration of Kevin C. Alme-
`roth) (March 28, 2014)
`1108 Palo Alto Networks, Inc. v. Juniper Networks, Inc., No. IPR2013-
`00466 (excerpt of Ex. 2014, Declaration of Kevin C. Almeroth)
`(April 25, 2014)
`Palo Alto Networks, Inc. v. Juniper Networks, Inc., No. IPR2013-
`00369, Paper No. 46 (Patent Owner’s Contingent Motion to Amend
`Under 37 C.F.R. §42.121) (March 29, 2014)
`Excerpts of draft Declaration of Kevin C. Almeroth for IPR2013-
`00369, subject to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(4)(B)-(C)
`1111 April 30, 2020 letter sent to Packet Intelligence’s counsel from Juni-
`per’s counsel regarding Dr. Almeroth
`
`
`1109
`
`1110
`
`ix
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
`IPR2020-00337
`U.S. Patent No. 6,771,646
`
`Patentee’s expert, Dr. Kevin Almeroth, served as an expert witness for Juni-
`
`per in previous IPRs and litigations that are related to these proceedings. As a re-
`
`sult, he received privileged and confidential Juniper information directly relevant
`
`to these proceedings. Because Dr. Almeroth is now in a position to use that privi-
`
`leged and confidential information against Juniper, disqualification is warranted.
`
`Last week, in the underlying district court case, the Northern District of Cal-
`
`ifornia found that Juniper would be prejudiced if Dr. Almeroth served as an expert
`
`on validity and infringement issues, and disqualified him.1 The Board uses the
`
`same two-factor test for disqualification as the Northern District: the Hewlett-
`
`Packard test. Under that standard, disqualification is warranted if “(1) the adver-
`
`sary had a confidential relationship with the expert and; (2) the adversary disclosed
`
`confidential information to the expert that is relevant to the current litigation.”2 The
`
`Board and Northern District have each also identified that since disqualification is
`
`a drastic measure, they consider whether it “would be fair to the affected party and
`
`would promote the integrity of the legal process.”3
`
`Here, the application of the same test should result in the same outcome. At
`
`the district court, it was undisputed that Juniper had a confidential relationship with
`
`
`1 Ex. 1103, 1 (district court’s disqualification order).
`2 Sanofi-Aventis U.S. LLC v. Immunex Corp., IPR2017–01884 (Paper 70), 4-5
`(P.T.A.B. Aug. 19, 2015) (citing Hewlett-Packard Co. v. EMC Corp., 330 F. Supp.
`2d 1092 (N.D. Cal. 2004)).
`3 Sanofi-Aventis at 5 (quoting Hewlett-Packard, 330 F. Supp. 2d at 1093).
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`
`
`
`IPR2020-00337
`U.S. Patent No. 6,771,646
`
`Dr. Almeroth—indeed, Dr. Almeroth has a contractual obligation defining this,
`
`which has not been terminated. So the first Hewlett-Packard factor is met. As to
`
`the second factor, the evidence here shows (as it did in the district court) that Dr.
`
`Almeroth received confidential, relevant Juniper information. This included privi-
`
`leged and confidential information on the strengths and weaknesses of the same
`
`technical arguments at issue here, the commercial success of Juniper’s products,
`
`and how to amend Juniper’s patents to distinguish over U.S. Patent No.
`
`6,651,099—which is the parent of, or incorporated-by-reference into, each of the
`
`challenged patents. So both Hewlett-Packard factors are met.
`
`And disqualification would be fair and promote the integrity of the legal pro-
`
`cess. The parties agreed at the district court that Juniper notified Patentee of its ob-
`
`jection to Dr. Almeroth on April 30. That was 43 days before Patentee submitted
`
`Dr. Almeroth’s declaration in these IPRs. To be sure, Packet Intelligence chose to
`
`file that declaration despite Juniper’s pending motions to disqualify in the underly-
`
`ing case and another district court case. Further, allowing Dr. Almeroth to partici-
`
`pate here would likely lead to more motions and evidentiary disputes, as it would
`
`be impossible to wall off his consulting here from the district court case. And as
`
`the district court concluded, permitting Dr. Almeroth to serve as an expert would
`
`“not simply pose a risk to Juniper, but would also create an appearance of impro-
`
`priety.”4 Thus, Dr. Almeroth should be disqualified and his declaration stricken.
`
`
`4 Ex. 1103, 8.
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`
`
`
`I.
`
`IPR2020-00337
`U.S. Patent No. 6,771,646
`
`DR. ALMEROTH’S PRIOR WORK AS AN EXPERT WITNESS FOR
`PETITIONER JUNIPER WARRANTS HIS DISQUALIFICATION.
`
`A. DR. ALMEROTH AND JUNIPER HAD A CONFIDENTIAL RELATIONSHIP.
`
`As explained in Hewlett-Packard, the first factor is satisfied if “there was a
`
`relationship that would permit the litigant reasonably to expect that any communi-
`
`cations would be maintained in confidence.”5 Dr. Almeroth and Juniper had a con-
`
`fidential relationship starting in December 2013, as the District Court found.6 This
`
`confidential relationship arose from district court and IPR matters against Juniper’s
`
`competitor and current Co-Petitioner Palo Alto Networks.7 This included district
`
`court matters in California and Delaware, and PAN’s IPR petitions challenging
`
`two Juniper patents (collectively, the “underlying PAN matters”).8
`
`Juniper’s counsel in the underlying PAN matters, Irell & Manella, memori-
`
`alized Dr. Almeroth’s engagement in a retention letter, which Dr. Almeroth exe-
`
`cuted on December 13, 2013.9 The agreement established that Dr. Almeroth would
`
`likely receive Juniper “privileged or confidential information,” and that he would
`
`
`5 330 F. Supp. 2d at 1093; see also id., 1095 (this is analyzed “objectively”).
`6 Ex. 1103, 4.
`7 See, e.g., Declaration of David McPhie (“McPhie Decl.,” Ex. 1104) at ¶¶2-5.
`8 McPhie Decl., ¶5 (citing the PAN underlying matters).
`9 Ex. 1105, 1 (letter stating its intent to formalize Dr. Almeroth’s retention in con-
`nection with the underlying PAN matters).
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`
`
`
`IPR2020-00337
`U.S. Patent No. 6,771,646
`
`not disclose such information “in connection with or during the course of this en-
`
`gagement, or any information derived therefrom.”10 Dr. Almeroth billed Juniper
`
`140.5 hours on the underlying PAN matters, submitted expert reports in two IPRs,
`
`and provided deposition testimony.11 All told, Juniper paid Dr. Almeroth
`
`$85,808.02 for his work in connection with the underlying PAN matters.12 These
`
`facts establish that Juniper’s relationship with Dr. Almeroth was sufficiently sub-
`
`stantial to make disqualification appropriate, as the law requires.13
`
`B. DR. ALMEROTH RECEIVED CONFIDENTIAL JUNIPER INFORMATION
`RELEVANT TO THESE PROCEEDINGS.
`
`As to Hewlett-Packard factor two, confidential information warranting dis-
`
`qualification includes both information “of particular significance or [that] which
`
`can be readily identified as either attorney work product or within the scope of at-
`
`torney-client privilege.”14 As Hewlett-Packard explained, such strategic and privi-
`
`leged information may include “discussion of the party’s ‘strategy in the litigation,
`
`the kinds of experts [the party] expected to retain, [the party’s] view of the
`
`strengths and weaknesses of each side, the role of each of the [party’s] experts to
`
`
`10 Ex. 1105 (Dr. Almeroth’s retention letter), 2.
`11 E.g., McPhie Decl., ¶¶6-7, 13; Ex. 1106 (Dr. Almeroth’s declaration filed in
`IPR2013-00369); Exs. 1107-1108 (redacted versions of Dr. Almeroth’s declaration
`filed in IPR2013-00369 (Ex. 2096) and IPR2013-00466 (excerpted Ex. 2014)).
`12 McPhie Decl., ¶13.
`13 See Sanofi-Aventis at 5.
`14 Id., 10 (citing Hewlett-Packard Co., 330 F. Supp. 2d at 1094).
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`
`
`
`IPR2020-00337
`U.S. Patent No. 6,771,646
`
`be hired and anticipated defenses.”15 And for purposes of disqualification, such in-
`
`formation communicated to an expert is especially relevant where the subject mat-
`
`ter of a prior case is substantially similar to a subsequent case.16
`
`Here, Dr. Almeroth received both types of information that warrant disquali-
`
`fication. His prior work involved the same technology at issue here, including
`
`some of the same products and one of the same patents. The technical subject mat-
`
`ter of Dr. Almeroth’s work with Juniper included flow/session technologies, intru-
`
`sion/detection prevention, the “JUNOS” proprietary operating system, and the
`
`SRX and MX Series products.17 And Dr. Almeroth also had numerous confidential
`
`and privileged communications with Juniper’s lawyers, including on topics such as
`
`litigation and IPR strategy, potential claim amendments, potential prior art, claim
`
`construction, strengths and weaknesses of potential arguments, and the inclusion or
`
`exclusion of items in his expert reports.18
`
`Indeed, Dr. Almeroth provided opinions to the Board on claim construction,
`
`proposed claim amendments, and validity, including secondary considerations of
`
`
`15 330 F. Supp. 2d at 1094 (internal quotes omitted).
`16 See, e.g., Nike, Inc. v. Adidas America Inc., 2006 WL 5111106 at *2 (E.D. Tex.
`Sept. 29, 2006) (finding confidential information relevant “because the subject
`matter in the [prior] case is substantially similar”); Ex. 1103, 4-7.
`17 E.g., McPhie Decl., ¶9.
`18 McPhie Decl., ¶¶8, 10-11.
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`
`
`
`IPR2020-00337
`U.S. Patent No. 6,771,646
`
`non-obviousness based on Juniper’s SRX Series products.19 And in those IPR pro-
`
`ceedings, Dr. Almeroth analyzed and opined on the teachings of Patentee’s ’099
`
`Patent20—one of the five related patents that Petitioners are currently challenging.21
`
`Dr. Almeroth stated in his report that he had “undertaken an independent attempt
`
`to identify related references to [Juniper’s] ‘612 patent,” and the “resulting set of
`
`closest known references that [he] considered as part of [his] analysis include[d],”
`
`Patentee’s ’099 Patent.22
`
`Juniper and Dr. Almeroth also had privileged and confidential strategic con-
`
`versations
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`.24 Dr. Almeroth then opined that none of the closest known art—including
`
`
`19 E.g., id., ¶¶5, 9-12.
`20 See, e.g., Ex. 1106, ¶353 (Dr. Almeroth discussing the ’099 Patent and stating:
`“For at least these reasons, the Dietz ‘099 patent does not disclose each and every
`limitation of any of the proposed amended claims of [Juniper’s] ‘612 patent.”).
`21 IPR2020-00335, -00485 (’099 Patent); -00336 (’725 Patent); -00337 (’646 Pa-
`tent); -00338 (’751 Patent); -00339, -00486 (’789 Patent).
`22 Ex. 1106, ¶¶334-335.
`23 McPhie Decl., ¶10; see e.g., Ex. 1109, 8-15; id., 11 (discussing ’099 Patent).
`24 McPhie Decl., ¶11; see also Ex. 1106, ¶¶388-389, 391.
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`
`
`
`IPR2020-00337
`U.S. Patent No. 6,771,646
`
`the ’099 Patent—“anticipates or renders obvious the proposed substitute claims.”25
`
`In addition, Dr. Almeroth analyzed and accessed confidential information re-
`
`garding
`
`
`
`26 For example, the challenged patents’ purported invention links
`
`multiple “connection flows” into a “conversational flow” based on software pro-
`
`gram activity.27 In fact, Dr. Almeroth construes “conversational flow” as “the se-
`
`quence of packets that are exchanged in any direction as a result of an activity—for
`
`instance, the running of an application on a server as requested by a client ….”28
`
`This parallels Dr. Almeroth’s prior declaration in which he opined Juniper’s ’612
`
`Patent’s claimed “rule” is different than “a single particular session (i.e., a set of
`
`related packets corresponding to a ‘current application or service.’”29 In differenti-
`
`ating the claimed “rule” from a single session, Dr. Almeroth opined that Juniper’s
`
`original and amended claims were patentable over the closest known art—includ-
`
`ing Patentee’s ’099 Patent.30 Further, Dr. Almeroth opined on Juniper’s ’612 Patent
`
`
`25 Ex. 1106, ¶¶388-389, 391.
`26 See, e.g., McPhie Decl., ¶12; notes 23 & 25 supra; notes 32-33, & 35 infra.
`27 E.g., Ex. 1001, 38 (’099 claim 1); Ex. 1002, 70 (’725 claim 10); Ex. 1003, 41
`(’646 claim 1); Ex. 1004, 44 (’751 claim 1); Ex. 1005, 38 (’789 claim 1).
`28 Ex. 2001, ¶65.
`29 Ex. 1106, ¶46 (emphasis added).
`30 Id., ¶¶92, 203, 301, 335, 352-353.
`
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`
`
`
`IPR2020-00337
`U.S. Patent No. 6,771,646
`
`in the context of FTP sessions, which is another issue being litigated here.31
`
`Further, Dr. Almeroth and counsel for Juniper had confidential communica-
`
`tions regarding the strategy and potential arguments involved with
`
`.32 For example, Dr. Almeroth provided a confi-
`
`dential draft report and stated:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`.33
`
`These confidential interactions with Juniper’s attorneys are relevant to the current
`
`proceedings. The current IPR petitions discuss FTP sessions in depth, including a
`
`German court’s finding that of a counterpart to the Challenged Patents was invalid
`
`because, inter alia, these well-known FTP sessions taught a “conversational flow.34
`
`And the text of Dr. Almeroth’s declarations in the current and past IPRs con-
`
`firm their overlap. Dr. Almeroth’s declaration in the current proceeding copied ver-
`
`batim 16 paragraphs from his declaration prepared for Juniper in IPR2013-00369.35
`
`
`31 Id., ¶47.
`32 McPhie Decl., ¶¶9, 12.
`33 Ex. 1110,
` (excerpt of Dr. Almeroth’s draft declaration for IPR2013-00369).
`34 E.g., IPR2020-00335 Petition (Paper 3) at 5, 30, 44, 48-51, 61, 65-66, 69-70, 75.
`35 Compare Ex. 1106, ¶¶55-70 with Ex. 2001, ¶¶25-34, 36, 39-43.
`
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`
`
`
`IPR2020-00337
`U.S. Patent No. 6,771,646
`
`Accordingly, the second Hewlett-Packard factor is satisfied because Dr. Al-
`
`meroth received confidential information, privileged information, and attorney
`
`work-product relating to litigation strategy and the same Challenged Patent, prior
`
`art, and technologies that are at issue here.
`
`II. DISQUALIFICATION WOULD BE FAIR TO PATENTEE AND
`WOULD PROMOTE THE INTEGRITY OF THE LEGAL PROCESS.
`
`Juniper first notified Patentee of its objection and Dr. Almeroth’s conflict on
`
`April 30, 2020, 43 days before Patentee filed its Preliminary Response.36 So Pa-
`
`tentee knew the risk of relying on Dr. Almeroth in its Preliminary Responses. And
`
`Patentee’s Response is due three months after institution, so Patentee has ample
`
`time to retain another expert. Thus, disqualification would be fair to Patentee. In-
`
`deed, courts find disqualification fair when the impacted party has an opportunity
`
`to hire another expert and other qualified experts are available.37
`
`And just as the district court determined, disqualifying Dr. Almeroth would
`
`promote the integrity of the judicial process by removing the appearance of impro-
`
`priety. The district court explained that “[p]ermitting Dr. Almeroth to serve as an
`
`expert for Packet on infringement and validity issues would not simply pose a risk
`
`to Juniper, but would also create an appearance of impropriety.”38 The court further
`
`
`36 Ex. 1111.
`37 E.g., Nike, 2006 WL 5111106 at *3.
`38 Ex. 1103, 8.
`
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`
`
`
`IPR2020-00337
`U.S. Patent No. 6,771,646
`
`ordered that Patentee “may not further discuss issues related to validity or infringe-
`
`ment” with Dr. Almeroth.39 So permitting Dr. Almeroth to participate in this forum
`
`will potentially lead to a violation of the district court’s order, placing the parties,
`
`the Board, and the district court in the difficult position of determining what work
`
`Dr. Almeroth undertook solely for these proceedings.40
`
`III. CONCLUSION
`
`The evidence here satisfies both Hewlett-Packard factors. And disqualifica-
`
`tion would be fair, protect Petitioner from having its privileged and confidential in-
`
`formation improperly used against it, and promote the integrity of the adversary
`
`process. Thus, Petitioner respectfully asks the Board to preclude Dr. Almeroth
`
`from serving as Patentee’s expert in these proceedings and strike his declaration.
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
` Dated: July 22, 2020 /Adam A. Allgood/
`Adam A. Allgood (Reg. No. 67,306)
`Counsel for Petitioner Juniper Net-
`works, Inc.
`
`
`39 Ex. 1103, 8 n.1.
`40 The district court’s order here, as well as the facts showing the confidential rela-
`tionship and receipt of confidential information, distinguish this case from those
`where the Board denied disqualification. Contra Sanofi-Aventis at 6-15 (no sub-
`stantial confidential relationship and expert didn’t receive movant’s confidential
`information); Fujifilm Corp. v. Sony Corp., IPR2017-01267 (Paper 9) 4-7
`(P.T.A.B. July 10, 2017) (movant didn’t show it provided confidential information
`to expert relevant to current IPR); Asphalt Prods. Unltd., Inc. v. Blacklidge Emul-
`sions, Inc., IPR2017-01241 (Paper 30) 7-9 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 20, 2017) (similar).
`
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00337
`U.S. Patent No. 6,771,646
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`The undersigned certifies that a copy of the foregoing PETITIONER JUNI-
`
`PER NETWORKS, INC.’S MOTION TO DISQUALIFY PATENT OWNER’S
`
`EXPERT DR. KEVIN ALMEROTH was served via electronic mail to the follow-
`
`ing attorneys of record listed below:
`
`
`
`R. Allan Bullwinkel – Lead Counsel
`Reg. No. 77,630
`Heim Payne & Chorush, LLP
`1111 Bagby Street, Suite 2100
`Houston, TX 77002
`Telephone: 713-221-2000
`Facsimile: 713-211-2021
`abullwinkel@hpcllp.com
`
`Michael F. Heim – Back-up Counsel
`Reg. No. 32,702
`Heim Payne & Chorush, LLP
`1111 Bagby Street, Suite 2100
`Houston, TX 77002
`Telephone: 713-221-2000
`Facsimile: 713-211-2021
`mheim@hpcllp.com
`
`
`
`Dated: July 22, 2020
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
` /Joseph F. Edell/
`Joseph F. Edell (Reg. No. 67,625)
`FISCH SIGLER LLP
`5301 Wisconsin Ave NW
`Fourth Floor
`Washington, DC 20015
`202.362.3524
` Email: Joe.Edell.IPR@fischllp.com
`
`