Juniper Exhibit 1096
`Juniper Networks, Inc. v. Packet Intelligence LLC
`Page 00001
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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 3:19-cv-02471-WHO Document 27 Filed 08/13/19 Page 2 of 14
`
`Pursuant to Civil L.R. 16-9, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(f), Patent Local Rule 2-
`1(b), the Standing Order for All Judges of the Northern District of California – Contents of Joint
`Management Statement, and Judge Orrick’s Case Management Conference Order (Dkt. No. 14),
`Plaintiff and Counter-Defendant Palo Alto Networks, Inc. (“Palo Alto Networks”) and Defendant
`and Counterclaimant Packet Intelligence LLC (“Packet Intelligence”) (collectively, the “Parties”),
`having met and conferred, submit this Joint Case Management Conference Statement.
`Jurisdiction, Venue, and Service
`1.
`
`This is an action for declaratory judgment of patent non-infringement arising under the
`patent laws of the United States, 35 U.S.C. § 101 et seq. Packet Intelligence asserts
`counterclaims of patent infringement. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
`§§ 1331, 1338(a), and 2201-2202. No issues exist regarding personal jurisdiction or venue. All
`Parties have been served.
`Facts
`2.
`
`On May 7, 2019, Palo Alto Networks filed a Complaint against Packet Intelligence
`seeking declaratory judgment of non-infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,651,099, 6,665,725,
`6,771,646, 6,839,751, and 6,954,789 (“Patents-in-Suit”). See Dkt. No. 1. On July 2, 2019,
`Packet Intelligence filed an Answer and Counterclaims alleging that Palo Alto Networks infringes
`one or more claims of the Patents-in-Suit. Packet Intelligence seeks relief in the form of damages
`and an injunction enjoining Palo Alto Networks from infringement of the Patents-in-Suit. See
`Dkt. No. 18. On July 23, 2019, Palo Alto Networks filed an Answer to Packet Intelligence’s
`Counterclaims alleging several defenses, including non-infringement, invalidity, estoppel, and
`unenforceability by unclean hands of the Patents-in-Suit, and denying that Packet Intelligence is
`entitled to the requested relief. See Dkt. No. 20.
`Legal Issues
`3.
`Subject to and without waiving their respective positions and arguments, the Parties
`believe that some of the disputed issues the Court may need to resolve include, but are not limited
`to, the following:
`
`
`-1-
`
`JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT
`
`
`
`CASE NO. 3:19-CV-02471-WHO
`
`Page 00002
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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 3:19-cv-02471-WHO Document 27 Filed 08/13/19 Page 3 of 14
`
` Whether Palo Alto Networks has infringed and/or is infringing, directly or by
`inducement of infringement, asserted claims of the Patents-in-Suit;
` Whether the claims of the Patents-in-Suit are patent-eligible under 35 U.S.C.
`§ 101;
` Whether the claims of the Patents-in-Suit are invalid, including under 35 U.S.C. §§
`102, 103, 112, and/or 116;
` Whether Packet Intelligence is barred by estoppel or unclean hands from asserting
`the claims of the Patents-in-Suit;
` Whether Packet Intelligence is estopped from construing the claims of the Patent-
`in-Suit to cover or include, in whole or in part, subject matter disclaimed and/or
`dedicated to the public;
` Whether Packet Intelligence is entitled to seek and obtain injunctive relief;
`
`If liability and damages are established, whether any such damages to Packet
`Intelligence are limited by 35 U.S.C. §§ 286-288 and/or 28 U.S.C. § 1498, and if
`so, to what extent; and
` Whether this case is exceptional under 35 U.S.C. § 285.
`Motions
`4.
`There are no motions currently pending before the Court. The Parties expect that one or
`more dispositive motions may be filed, in addition to discovery and pre-trial motions in limine,
`should they become necessary.
`Palo Alto Networks expects that it may file an early motion for summary judgment of no
`pre-notice damages, based on Packet Intelligence’s (and/or its licensees’) failure to mark under 35
`U.S.C. § 287(a). That motion would be based on, among other things, sales by Packet
`Intelligence’s licensees of products that Packet Intelligence has asserted practice claims of the
`Patents-in-Suit, but that have not been marked with the Patents-in-Suit.
`Palo Alto Networks also expects that it may file an early motion for summary judgment of
`no indirect infringement prior to Packet Intelligence providing notice of alleged infringement, as
`indirect infringement requires scienter.
`
`
`-2-
`
`JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT
`
`
`
`CASE NO. 3:19-CV-02471-WHO
`
`Page 00003
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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 3:19-cv-02471-WHO Document 27 Filed 08/13/19 Page 4 of 14
`
`Amendment of Pleadings
`5.
`There have been no amendments of pleadings. No additional parties are expected to be
`added prior to the deadline for amending the pleadings. Discovery will dictate whether any
`additional claims, defenses, or counterclaims are needed. The Parties propose the deadline in
`Section 17 (Scheduling), as the deadline for amending the pleadings.
`Evidence Preservation
`6.
`
`The Parties certify that they have reviewed the Guidelines Relating to the Discovery of
`Electronically Stored Information (“ESI Guidelines”) and the Court’s Checklist for ESI Meet and
`Confer. The Parties have met and conferred pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f) regarding
`reasonable and proportionate steps to preserve evidence relevant to the issues in this action.
`Disclosures
`7.
`
`The Parties will have served their Rule 26 Initial Disclosures on August 13, 2019. The
`Parties intend for those disclosures to include the information required under Rules 26(a)(1).
`Discovery
`8.
`A.
`Discovery taken to date
`The Parties served written discovery requests.
`B.
`The scope of anticipated discovery
`The Parties expect the scope of discovery to be generally commensurate with an ordinary
`patent infringement case, including discovery relating to the asserted patents and the accused
`products, and the records from Packet Intelligence’s prior litigations and all proceedings before
`the United States Patent and Trademark Office concerning the Patents-in-Suit.
`Palo Alto Networks anticipates that discovery will include at least the following: (1) the
`factual bases for Palo Alto Networks’ and Packet Intelligence’s claims and defenses; (2) the
`proper claim constructions of the claims of the Patents-in-Suit; (3) the Patents-in-Suit, including,
`but not limited to prior art, invalidity analyses, unenforceability, conception, reduction to practice,
`prosecution history, assignment history, financial or ownership interests, and alleged infringement
`analyses; (4) any proposed or consummated licenses to the Patents-in-Suit; (5) comparable
`
`
`-3-
`
`JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT
`
`
`
`CASE NO. 3:19-CV-02471-WHO
`
`Page 00004
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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 3:19-cv-02471-WHO Document 27 Filed 08/13/19 Page 5 of 14
`
`licenses; (6) Packet Intelligence’s efforts to monetize, enforce, and license the Patents-in-Suit or
`related patents; and (7) Packet Intelligence’s allegations of damages.
`Packet Intelligence intends to pursue discovery relating to (1) the design, structure, and
`operation of Palo Alto Networks’ accused products (2) the proper claim constructions of the
`claims of the Patents-in-Suit; (3) Palo Alto Networks’ affirmative defenses and claims regarding
`the Patents-in-Suit, including, but not limited to prior art, validity analyses, and enforceability; (6)
`Palo Alto Networks’ sales, revenue, and cost information related to the accused products (5) and
`any comparable licenses.
`The Parties reserve the right to amend the subjects for discovery subject to further
`discovery in this matter.
`C.
`Any proposed limitations or modifications of the discovery rules
`The Parties agree that documents created, and communications occurring, on or after
`January 18, 2019, that are subject to a claim of attorney-client privilege, work product immunity,
`or any other privilege or immunity, do not need to be included in the Parties’ privilege logs.
`The Parties agree to the following limits on written discovery:
` Each Party is limited to 25 interrogatories.
`The Parties further agree to the following limits on depositions:
` Each Party is limited to 7 total hours of expert witness deposition testimony for each
`expert retained by the opposing Party. However, should an expert issue more than one
`expert report on separate topics, the opposing Party is entitled to 7 additional hours of
`expert witness deposition testimony for each such additional expert report issued by
`the particular expert;
` Each Party is limited to 70 total hours of fact witness deposition testimony (30(b)(6)
`deposition is included within the 70 total hours, and the 30(b)(6) testimony shall be
`limited to 21 hours per side);
` No deposition of a witness shall exceed 7 total hours on the record, with the exception
`that expert witnesses may be deposed for 7 hours per report provided, and Rule
`30(b)(6) witnesses may be deposed pursuant to the 21-hour limitation above;
`
`
`-4-
`
`JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT
`
`
`
`CASE NO. 3:19-CV-02471-WHO
`
`Page 00005
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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 3:19-cv-02471-WHO Document 27 Filed 08/13/19 Page 6 of 14
`
` Notwithstanding the preceding provisions, no deposition of a witness shall exceed 7
`hours on the record in a single day; and
` The limits on deposition testimony set forth above may be modified by mutual written
`agreement of the Parties and, where necessary, the witness.
`D.
`Electronically Stored Information
`The Parties have considered and anticipate entering into a stipulated e-discovery order.
`E.
`Proposed discovery plan pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f)
`The Parties’ proposed schedule for completing discovery is set forth in Section 17
`(Scheduling) below.
`F.
`Any identified discovery disputes
`No discovery disputes have been identified at this time.
`G.
`Topics Required Under Patent Local Rule 2-1 (b)
`
`1.
`
`Proposed modification of the obligations or deadlines set forth in these Patent
`
`Local Rules to ensure that they are suitable for the circumstances of the particular
`
`case (see Patent L.R. 1-3).
`The Parties do not propose any modification of the obligations or deadlines set forth in the
`Patent Local Rules. The timing of disclosures is set forth in Section 17 (“Scheduling”).
`2.
`The scope and timing of any claim construction discovery including disclosure of
`
`and discovery from any expert witness permitted by the Court.
`The Parties have agreed to the scope and timing of claim construction discovery as set
`forth below in Section 17 (“Scheduling”).
`3.
`The format of the Claim Construction Hearing, including whether the Court will
`
`hear live testimony, the order of presentation, and the estimated length of the
`
`hearing.
`The Parties do not believe that live testimony will be necessary. Nevertheless, the case is
`in a preliminary stage, and the Parties reserve the right to offer live testimony at the claim
`construction hearing, subject to the discretion of the Court. In addition, the Parties believe that
`the Claim Construction Hearing should be conducted on a claim term by claim term basis, with
`
`
`-5-
`
`JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT
`
`
`
`CASE NO. 3:19-CV-02471-WHO
`
`Page 00006
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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 3:19-cv-02471-WHO Document 27 Filed 08/13/19 Page 7 of 14
`
`the Parties alternating in their presentation of the terms. The Parties believe that about three
`hours would be sufficient for the Claim Construction hearing, with time evenly split between the
`Parties.
`How the Parties intend to educate the Court on the technology at issue.
`4.
`The Parties propose presenting to the Court a technology tutorial at the beginning of the
`Claim Construction Hearing, before the individual terms are addressed. The Parties believe that
`about one hour would be sufficient for the tutorial, with time evenly split between the Parties.
`5.
`Non-binding, good faith estimate of the damages range
`Palo Alto Networks: Palo Alto Networks is unable to provide a good-faith estimate of
`damages at this time because: (1) Palo Alto Networks does not infringe the Patents-in-Suit and
`any damages consist of its attorney’s fees and costs, which would be speculative; (2) Packet
`Intelligence’s failure to comply with 35 U.S.C. § 287(a)’s marking requirement may alter the
`recoverable scope of damages, if any, due to Packet Intelligence; and (3) Packet Intelligence has
`not provided a claim chart for any claim of the Patents-in-Suit and, therefore, Palo Alto Networks
`does not have knowledge of Packet Intelligence’s theory of infringement and cannot
`appropriately apportion allegedly patented features from the unpatented features in Palo Alto
`Networks’ accused products. Palo Alto Networks expects that it may be able to provide an
`estimate when its respective damages contentions are due, after Palo Alto Networks has received
`Packet Intelligence’s infringement contentions, and Packet Intelligence has provided its
`contention as to whether lack of marking limits damages and discovery of Packet Intelligence’s
`settlement and license agreements covering the Patents-in-Suit.
`Packet Intelligence: Packet Intelligence will be seeking damages for infringement based
`on a reasonable royalty to be applied to Palo Alto Networks’ sales of infringing products along
`with recovery of Packet Intelligence’s costs, attorney’s fees, and any enhanced damages, such as
`damages for willful infringement. Packet Intelligence does not yet have any sales or revenue
`information from Palo Alto Networks and is, therefore, unable to provide a good faith estimate of
`its damages at this time. However, Packet Intelligence previously obtained a final judgment
`(currently on appeal) against NetScout Systems, Inc. in the Eastern District of Texas for
`
`
`-6-
`
`JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT
`
`
`
`CASE NO. 3:19-CV-02471-WHO
`
`Page 00007
`
`

`

`Case 3:19-cv-02471-WHO Document 27 Filed 08/13/19 Page 8 of 14
`
`infringement of some of the Patents-in-Suit. Based on the jury’s verdict, Judge Gilstrap ordered
`an ongoing royalty of 1.55% of the revenue for the accused products in that case. This ongoing
`royalty rate may be a significant data point in calculating a reasonable royalty in the present case.
`Class Actions
`9.
`
`This case is not a class action.
`Related Cases
`10.
`
`There are no related cases in this District. There are currently two cases pending in the
`Eastern District of Texas in which Packet Intelligence is asserting the Patents-in-Suit against
`other defendants: Packet Intelligence LLC v. Ericsson Inc., 2:18-cv-381 (E.D. Tex.) and Packet
`Intelligence LLC v. Nokia Corporation of America, 2:18-cv-382 (E.D. Tex.). The two cases were
`consolidated for all pretrial issues except venue. On August 1, 2019, the court granted second a
`30-day stay of all deadlines in the action against Ericsson pending settlement between the Parties;
`the action against Nokia is proceeding. Claim construction briefing has been completed, and the
`claim construction hearing is currently set for August 30, 2019. Currently pending before that
`court is Nokia’s motion for partial summary judgment to limit damages based on Packet
`Intelligence’s failure to mark.
`Currently pending at the PTAB are five petitions for inter partes review (IPRs) of the
`Patents-in-Suit, filed by Nokia on July 1, 2019: IPR2019-01289 (challenging claims 1, 2, 5, 10,
`14, and 15 of the ’751 Patent); IPR2019-01290 (challenging claims 1, 2, 4, and 5 of the ’099
`Patent); IPR2019-01291 (challenging claims 10, 12, 13, 16, and 17 of the ’725 Patent); IPR2019-
`01292 (challenging claims 1, 2, 3, 7, 16, and 18 of the ’646 Patent); and IPR2019-01293
`challenging (claims 1, 2, 13-17, 19, 20, 31, 33, 34, 42, 44, 48, and 49 of the ’789 Patent).
`Currently pending at the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals is Packet Intelligence LLC v
`NetScout Systems, Inc., Case No. 19-2041, docketed on June 12, 2019. This appeal stems from
`prior litigation in the Eastern District of Texas involving the same Patents-in-Suit, Case No. 16-
`cv-00230. Appellant’s opening brief is due on August 19, 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
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`-7-
`
`JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT
`
`
`
`CASE NO. 3:19-CV-02471-WHO
`
`Page 00008
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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 3:19-cv-02471-WHO Document 27 Filed 08/13/19 Page 9 of 14
`
`Relief
`11.
`Palo Alto Networks requests the Court to enter judgment as follows: (1) a declaratory
`judgment that Palo Alto Networks does not infringe, and has not infringed, directly, or indirectly,
`contributorily, by inducement, or jointly, literally or under the doctrine of equivalents, willfully or
`otherwise, any claim of each of the Patents-in-Suit; (2) a judgment preliminarily and permanently
`enjoining Packet Intelligence and/or any of its successors and its officers, agents, servants,
`employees, and attorneys, and those persons in active concert or participation with any of them,
`from asserting or threatening to assert against Palo Alto Networks or its customers, potential
`customers, end-users, agents, suppliers, partners, contractors, consultants, successors and assigns,
`any charge of infringement of any claims of the Patents-in-Suit, (3) a judgment that the asserted
`claims of the Patents-in-Suit are invalid; (4) a judgment that Packet Intelligence’s Counterclaims
`be dismissed in their entirety with prejudice, and that Packet Intelligence takes nothing by its
`Counterclaims, including that Packet Intelligence is not entitled to an award of compensatory
`damages, attorneys fees, costs, prejudgment or post- judgment interest under 35 U.S.C. §§ 284 or
`285, or any applicable law; (5) an order awarding Palo Alto Networks its costs and fees incurrent
`in this action; and (7) an order that this case is “exceptional” pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 285,
`entitling Palo Alto Networks to an award of its reasonable and necessary attorneys’ fees,
`expenses, and costs, and pre- judgment interest thereon.
`Packet Intelligence requests the Court to enter judgment as follows: (1) judgment that
`one or more claims of the Patents-in-Suit have been infringed, either literally and/or under the
`doctrine of equivalents, by Palo Alto Networks; (2) judgment that Palo Alto Networks account
`for and pay to Packet Intelligence all damages to and costs incurred by Packet Intelligence
`because of Palo Alto Networks’ infringing activities and other conduct complained of herein; (3)
`that Palo Alto Networks, its officers, agents, servants and employees, and those persons in active
`concert and participation with any of them, be permanently enjoined from infringement of the
`Patents-in-Suit. In the alternative, if the Court finds that an injunction is not warranted, Packet
`Intelligence requests an award of post judgment royalty to compensate for future infringement;
`(4) that Packet Intelligence be granted pre-judgment and post-judgment interest on the damages
`
`
`-8-
`
`JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT
`
`
`
`CASE NO. 3:19-CV-02471-WHO
`
`Page 00009
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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 3:19-cv-02471-WHO Document 27 Filed 08/13/19 Page 10 of 14
`
`caused to it by reason of Palo Alto Networks’ infringing activities and other conduct complained
`of here; (5) that this Court declare this is an exceptional case and award Packet Intelligence its
`reasonable attorney’s fees and costs in accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 285; and (6) that Packet
`Intelligence be granted such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper under
`the circumstances.
`Settlement and ADR
`12.
`
`The Parties have had initial settlement discussions and remain open to settlement
`discussions. There have been no ADR efforts to date, but the Parties have agreed to a settlement
`conference before a magistrate judge for this case. The Parties believe that a settlement
`conference should be held in about September, provided that Packet Intelligence first serve its
`infringement contentions and produce its prior litigation materials and any licenses or covenants
`not to sue covering the Patents-in-Suit.
`Consent to Magistrate Judge for All Purposes
`13.
`
`The Parties have not consented to a Magistrate Judge for all purposes.
`14. Other References
`
`The Parties do not believe that this case is suitable for reference to binding arbitration, a
`special master, or the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation.
`Narrowing of Issues
`15.
`Palo Alto Networks: While this case is still at an early stage, Palo Alto Networks has
`identified several issues that can be narrowed by agreement or motion at this time. First, Palo
`Alto Networks’ expected motion for partial summary judgment on Packet Intelligence’s failure to
`mark and/or indirect infringement may result in limiting discovery and damages discovery to
`activities substantially occurring after notice of alleged infringement. Because several of the
`Patents-in-Suit are soon to expire, the resulting narrow damages window may provide the Parties
`a platform to further engage in substantive settlement discussions.
`Palo Alto Networks expects that issues may be narrowed based on (1) the indefiniteness
`of the term “conversational flow” under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), a claim term present in every claim
`of the Patents-in-Suit, and/or (2) the unenforceability of the claims of the Patent-in-Suit due to
`
`
`-9-
`
`JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT
`
`
`
`CASE NO. 3:19-CV-02471-WHO
`
`Page 00010
`
`

`

`Case 3:19-cv-02471-WHO Document 27 Filed 08/13/19 Page 11 of 14
`
`unclean hands. In particular, Packet Intelligence (or its predecessors) took contradictory positions
`on the scope of the claims and the meaning of “conversational flow” during prosecution (to get
`patent claims allowed), in litigation (to advance allegations of infringement), and at the Patent
`Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) (to fend off invalidity challenges), which renders the term
`“conversational flow” indefinite and the claims unenforceable due to unclean hands arising from
`litigation misconduct.
`Packet Intelligence: Packet Intelligence does not believe there are any issues that can be
`narrowed by agreement or motion at this time.
`Expedited Trial Procedure
`16.
`
`The Parties are not amenable to an Expedited Trial Procedure pursuant to General Order
`No. 64.
`17.
`
`Scheduling
`
`The Parties propose the following schedule, which generally follow the limits as set out in
`the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Local Rules of this Court, and the Patent Local Rules,
`except as herein modified:
`
`
`
`
`
`PARTIES’ PROPOSED DATE
`August 13, 2019
`
`EVENT
`Last day for the Parties to exchange their Rule
`26(a)(1) Initial Disclosures
`1 Case Management Conference
`2 Disclosure of Asserted Claims and Infringement
`Contentions (and accompanying document
`production) pursuant to Patent L.R. 3-1 and 3-2
`Preliminary Invalidity Contentions (and
`accompanying document production) pursuant to
`Patent L.R. 3-3 and 3-4
`Exchange of claim terms for construction, Pat.
`L.R. 4-1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`August 20, 2019 at 2:00 pm
`September 3, 2019
`(≤14 days after Case Management
`Conference)
`October 18, 2019
`(≤45 days after Disclosure of
`Asserted Claims)
`November 1, 2019
`(≤ 14 days after Invalidity
`Contentions)
`November 22, 2019
`(≤ 21 days after Exchange of claim
`terms for construction)
`Preliminary Damages Contentions Patent L.R. 3-8 December 9, 2019
`(≤ 50 days after Invalidity
`Contentions)
`
`
`Exchange of Preliminary Claim Constructions
`pursuant to Patent L.R. 4-2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`
`-10-
`
`JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT
`
`
`
`CASE NO. 3:19-CV-02471-WHO
`
`Page 00011
`
`

`

`Case 3:19-cv-02471-WHO Document 27 Filed 08/13/19 Page 12 of 14
`
`
`7
`
`EVENT
`Joint Claim Construction and Prehearing Statement
`pursuant to Patent L.R. 4-3. The Joint Claim
`Construction and Pre-hearing Statement to include
`expert declaration concerning claim construction,
`if any
`8 Responsive damages contentions pursuant to
`Patent L.R. 3-9
`
`9 Completion of Claim Construction Discovery
`pursuant to Patent L.R. 4-4, including the
`deposition of any expert that submitted an expert
`declaration concerning claim construction, if any
`10 Packet Intelligence’s Opening Claim Construction
`Briefs pursuant to Patent L.R. 4-5(a)
`
`11 Palo Alto Networks’ Responsive Claim
`Construction Brief pursuant to Patent L.R. 4-5(b)
`12 Packet Intelligence’s Reply Claim Construction
`Brief pursuant to Patent L.R. 4-5(c)
`
`13 Claim Construction Hearing and Technical
`Tutorial pursuant to Patent L.R. 4.6
`
`14 Claim Construction Ruling
`15 Disclosure of Advice of Counsel and
`accompanying document production pursuant to
`Pat. L.R. 3-7
`16 Deadline to file amended pleadings
`17 Close of fact discovery
`18
`Initial expert reports
`19 Rebuttal expert reports
`20 Close of expert discovery
`21 Last Day to File Dispositive Motions (including
`Daubert Motions)
`22 Pretrial disclosures
`23 Objections to pretrial disclosures
`24 Final pretrial conference
`25 Trial
`
`PARTIES’ PROPOSED DATE
`December 17, 2019
`(≤ 60 days after Invalidity
`Contentions)
`
`January 8, 2020
`(≤ 30 days after Preliminary
`Damages Contentions)
`January 16, 2020
`(≤30 days after Joint Claim
`Construction and Prehearing
`Statement)
`January 31, 2020
`(≤ 45 days after Joint Claim
`Construction and Prehearing
`Statement)
`February 14, 2020
`(≤ 14 days after opening brief)
`February 21, 2020
`(≤ 7 days after service of responsive
`brief)
`February 28, 2020
`(≤ 14 days after service of responsive
`brief)
`To Be Determined By Court
`30 days after service of Court’s
`Claim Construction Ruling
`
`April 17, 2020
`July 31, 2020
`August 28, 2020
`September 25, 2020
`October 23, 2020
`November 20, 2020
`
`January 22, 2021
`February 12, 2021
`March 5, 2021
`March 22, 2021, or as set by the
`Court
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`-11-
`
`JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT
`
`
`
`CASE NO. 3:19-CV-02471-WHO
`
`Page 00012
`
`

`

`Case 3:19-cv-02471-WHO Document 27 Filed 08/13/19 Page 13 of 14
`
`Trial
`18.
`Packet Intelligence and Palo Alto Networks have each demanded a jury trial. The Parties
`estimate that the trial can be completed in 7 court days, if no issues are resolved by agreement or
`summary judgment before trial.
`Disclosure of Non-Party Interested Entities or Persons
`19.
`Both Parties have filed their respective disclosure statements in accordance with Civil
`L.R. 3-15 and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 7.1.
`Packet Intelligence restates that no publicly held corporation owns more have a financial
`than 10% or more of its stock. Packet Intelligence Holdings LLC is the sole member of Packet
`Intelligence LLC.
`Palo Alto Networks restates that no parent corporation or publicly-held corporation owns
`10% or more of Palo Alto Networks’ common stock. No other persons, associations of persons,
`firms, partnerships, corporations (including parent corporations) or other entities (i) have a
`financial interest in the subject matter in controversy or in a party to the proceeding, or (ii) have a
`non-financial interest in that subject matter or in a party that could be substantially affected by the
`outcome of this proceeding.
`Professional Conduct
`20.
`All attorneys of record for the Parties have reviewed the Guidelines for Professional
`Conduct for the Northern District of California.
`21. Other Matters
`At this time, there are no other matters that the Parties anticipate that will facilitate a just,
`speedy, or inexpensive disposition of this matter.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`-12-
`
`JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT
`
`
`
`CASE NO. 3:19-CV-02471-WHO
`
`Page 00013
`
`

`

`Case 3:19-cv-02471-WHO Document 27 Filed 08/13/19 Page 14 of 14
`
`Dated: August 13, 2019
`
`By: /s/ Andrew T. Radsch
`
`
`James R. Batchelder (CSB # 136347)
`Mark D. Rowland (CSB # 157862)
`Andrew T. Radsch (CSB # 303665)
`ROPES & GRAY LLP
`1900 University Ave. Sixth Floor
`East Palo Alto, CA 94303-2284
`Tel: (650) 617-4000
`Fax: (650) 617-4090
`james.batchelder@ropesgray.com
`jark.rowland@ropesgray.com
`andrew.radsch@ropesgray.com
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff and Counter-Defendant
`PALO ALTO NETWORKS, INC.
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated: August 13, 2019
`
`By: /s/ Corby R. Vowell
`
`Brian A. E. Smith (SBN 188147)
`Alden KW Lee (SBN 257973)
`Jeffrey D. Chen (SBN 267837)
`Joseph J. Fraresso (SBN 289228)
`BARTKO ZANKEL BUNZEL & MILLER
`One Embarcadero Center, Suite 800
`San Francisco, California 94111
`T: 415-956-1900
`Email: bsmith@bzbm.com
`Email: alee@bzbm.com
`Email: jchen@bzbm.com
`Email: jfraresso@bzbm.com
`
`Jonathan T. Suder (Pro Hac Vice To Be
`Filed)
`Corby R. Vowell (Pro Hac Vice To Be Filed)
`Dave R. Gunter (Pro Hac Vice To Be Filed)
`FRIEDMAN, SUDER & COOKE
`604 East 4th Street, Suite 200
`Fort Worth, TX 76102
`T: 817-334-0400
`F: 817-334-0401
`jts@fsclaw.com
`vowell@fsclaw.com
`gunter@fsclaw.com
`
`Michael F. Heim (Pro Hac Vice To Be Filed)
`Robert Allan Bullwinkel (Pro Hac Vice To
`Be Filed)
`Christopher M. First (Pro Hac Vice To Be
`Filed)
`HEIM, PAYNE & CHORUSH, LLP
`1111 Bagby Street, Suite 2100
`Houston, Texas 77002
`T: 713-221-2000
`F: 713-221-2021
`mheim@hpcllp.com
`abullwinkel@hpcllp.com
`cfirst@hpcllp.com
`
`Counsel for Defendant and
`Counterclaimant
`PACKET INTELLIGENCE LLC
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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-
`
`JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT
`
`
`
`CASE NO. 3:19-CV-02471-WHO
`
`Page 00014
`
`