Plaintiff Egenera, Inc. (“Egenera”) hereby moves to exclude Cisco’s lay witness Mr. Bhaskar Jayakrishnan from offering testimony or argument at trial on Exhibit 23 to Egenera’s expert Dr. Jones’ infringement report (PX-BJM).

P. 26, and goes beyond the evidence relating to “intent and knowledge for purposes of defending the willful infringement and indirect infringement” permitted by this Court (Dkt. 411).

Feb. 2, 2019) (finding that the plaintiff, who is a lay witness, is not “qualified to provide medical opinions to refute Dr. Waters’ expert opinions.”); Negrete v. Allianz Life Ins. Co. of.

Absent a stipulation or a court order, the disclosures must be made: (i) at least 90 days before the date set for trial or for the case to be ready for trial; or (ii) if the evidence is intended solely to contradict or rebut evidence on the same subject matter identified by another party under Rule 26(a)(2)(B) or (C), within 30 days after the other party's disclosure.

Although this Court denied Egenera’s motion in limine No. 3 to preclude Cisco from offering any lay witness opinion testimony attempting to opine on non-infringement of the accused products or otherwise comparing the accused products to the patent specification or claims, the Court allowed such lay witness opinion testimony because “the opinion testimony is relevant to intent and knowledge for purposes of defending the willful infringement and indirect infringement claims.” Dkt. 411.

On behalf of the Plaintiff: ROPES & GRAY LLP (By Andrew N. Thomases, Esq., and James R. Batchelder, Esq.) 1900 University Avenue, East Palo Alto, California 94303 - and - ROPES & GRAY LLP (By Josef B. Schenker, Esq. and Rachael S. Bacha, Esq.) 1211 Avenue of the Americas, New York, New York 10036-8704 - and - ROPES & GRAY LLP (By Scott Taylor, Esq., Emma Notis-McConarty, Esq. and Nicholas Bortz, Esq.) Prudential Tower, 800 Boylston Street, Boston, Massachusetts 02199

DESMARAIS LLP (By Tamir Packin, Esq., Peter C. Magic, Esq. and John M. Desmarais, Esq.) 230 Park Avenue, New York, New York 10169, on behalf of the Defendant

A. I'm vice president of intellectual property and deputy general counsel at Cisco Systems.

Q. What were your job responsibilities as senior director of intellectual property at Cisco beginning in 2010?

THE WITNESS: Well, there are a number of factors that we look at but they involve the incremental value of the reportedly patented technology, how much value it adds to our product, and focusing on which specific feature is covered, what value that feature adds to a product or more likely a component of the product, if the patented feature is found on a component.

You saw no trouble tickets about the UCS, about Cisco's system, none.

You may choose to believe everything that a witness 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 Case 1:16-cv-11613-RGS Document 540 Filed 02/07/23 Page 99 of 146 10-99 has said, or only part of it, or none of it.

... patent claim, you must then decide whether the 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 Case 1:16-cv-11613-RGS Document 540 Filed 02/07/23 Page 114 of 146 10-114 product or its method of use nonetheless ...

On behalf of the Plaintiff: ROPES & GRAY LLP (By Andrew N. Thomases, Esq., and James R. Batchelder, Esq.) 1900 University Avenue, East Palo Alto, California 94303 - and - ROPES & GRAY LLP (By Josef B. Schenker, Esq. and Rachael S. Bacha, Esq.) 1211 Avenue of the Americas, New York, New York 10036-8704 - and - ROPES & GRAY LLP (By Scott Taylor, Esq., Emma Notis-McConarty, Esq. and Nicholas Bortz, Esq.) Prudential Tower, 800 Boylston Street, Boston, Massachusetts 02199

Q. So is it fair to say that Mario Mazzola and Luke Caferio were part of the engineering group at Cisco?

A. Scott Johnston, Grace Koo, Ray Wu, Krish Sivakumar, Elango Ganesan, April Chou, Hitesh Patel, Geetha Dabir.

My -- my area of interest in terms of the technology business was more -- much more limited than when I was running corporate development because we were looking at the whole portfolio for the company.

Q. So yourself and Mario Mazzola would work together to identify specific markets you thought Cisco might be interested in?

A. You would have a belief the team could execute on the project and you knew the people involved and you believed that it was less speculative than an investment and more -- and not as fully developed as a company that you would want to buy right away.

Q. My question is is in the UCS system, is it always the case that a VLAN tag will be included in the Ethernet frame that's received by the Fabric Interconnect from the IOM or

Q. When an FCOE packet arrives with the properly configured VLAN in relationship to a VSAN, the Fabric Interconnect will translate the two in order to determine what port to send it out?

THE WITNESS: Every packet -- the user traffic when we forward it to the IOM or FEX, it has the VN-Tag, and that basically carried the destination virtual interface information.

Q. Do you know if between the fabric interconnects and the blade of the rack servers, if Fibre Channel over Ethernet frames are exchanged in the Raleigh, Allen and Richardson data centers?

... the exclusive or nonexclusive nature of the license ...

What is this about? A. License structure refers to the financial terms of the agreement that would result from the hypothetical negotiation in terms of the duration of the license agreement, whether it's exclusive or nonexclusive, and the ...

Q. Would that license have been exclusive or nonexclusive? A. Nonexclusive. And by being nonexclusive, that means that Egenera could continue to utilize the technology and that they would be able to have the benefits of the ...

This matter having come before the Court upon Plaintiff Egenera, Inc.’s Unopposed Motion to Correct Inventorship (“Motion”), and upon consideration of the Motion, and all related papers filed therewith, the Court is of the opinion that the Motion should be GRANTED.

WHEREFORE IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion is GRANTED and pursuant to Section 256(b) of Title 35 of the United States Code, the Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office shall issue an appropriate certificate identifying Peter Schulter as a co- inventor of U.S. Patent No. 7,231,430.

Boston, Massachusetts, this _4th_ day of _December_, 2020.

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts in No. 1:16-cv-11613-RGS, Judge Richard G. Stearns.

THIS CAUSE having been considered, it is