`
`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.
`
`50 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 te you
`
`and your clients. Actually, it’s up to your clients, not to you.
`
`ME. BATCHELDER:
`
`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
`
`Peqaqy 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. BATCHELDER:
`
`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.
`
`Signature of Approved Transcriber
`
`October 20, 2019
`Date
`
`Page 00009
`
`Page 00009
`
`