Upload
markman-advisors
View
225
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
8/14/2019 JNPR SJM Infringement
1/38
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTFOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
JUNIPER NETWORKS, INC.,
Plaintiff,
v.
PALO ALTO NETWORKS, INC.,
Defendant.
))))))))
C.A. No. 11-1258 (SLR)
PLAINTIFF JUNIPER NETWORKS, INC.S OPENING BRIEF
IN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
AND PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT REGARDING INFRINGEMENT
MORRIS, NICHOLS, ARSHT & TUNNELL LLP
Jack B. Blumenfeld (#1014)Jennifer Ying (#5550)
1201 North Market StreetP.O. Box 1347
Wilmington, DE 19801(302) 658-9200
[email protected]@mnat.com
OF COUNSEL: Attorneys for Plaintiff Juniper Networks, Inc.
Morgan ChuJonathan S. Kagan
IRELL & MANELLA LLP1800 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 900
Los Angeles, CA 90067-4276(310) 277-1010
Lisa S. Glasser
David C. McPhieRebecca L. Clifford
IRELL & MANELLA LLP
840 Newport Center Drive, Suite 400Newport Beach, CA 92660(949) 760-0991
REDACTED -
PUBLIC VERSION
Original Filing Date: August 20, 2013
Redacted Filing Date:
Case 1:11-cv-01258-SLR Document 212 Filed 09/19/13 Page 1 of 38 PageID #: 9160
September 19, 2013
8/14/2019 JNPR SJM Infringement
2/38
- i -
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
I. NATURE AND STAGE OF PROCEEDINGS ............................................................. 1II. SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT .................................................................................... 1III. FACTUAL BACKGROUND ....................................................................................... 3IV. APPLICABLE LEGAL PRINCIPLES.......................................................................... 6V. PAN INFRINGES THE 612 PATENT ........................................................................ 7VI. PAN INFRINGES THE 347 PATENT ...................................................................... 10VII. PAN INFRINGES THE 459 PATENT ...................................................................... 14VIII. PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF INFRINGEMENT IS
APPROPRIATE FOR PARTICULAR ELEMENTS OF THE ASSERTEDCLAIMS .................................................................................................................... 20A. PAN Infringes The Two Or More Security Devices Element Of
The 634 Patent ............................................................................................... 22B. PAN Infringes The Engine Elements Of The 723 Patent ............................. 26 C. Partial Summary Judgment Is Appropriate For Independent Claim
Elements That Are Undisputed As To Infringement ........................................ 27 D. Partial Summary Judgment Is Appropriate For Certain Dependent
Claim Elements ............................................................................................... 32IX. CONCLUSION .......................................................................................................... 34
Case 1:11-cv-01258-SLR Document 212 Filed 09/19/13 Page 2 of 38 PageID #: 9161
8/14/2019 JNPR SJM Infringement
3/38
- ii -
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Page(s)
CasesAcco Brands, Inc. v. PC Guardian Anti-Theft Products, Inc.,
2008 WL 753899 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 18, 2008) .................................................................. 21
American Medical Systems, Inc. v. Biolitec, Inc.,
618 F.3d 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2010) ...................................................................................... 29
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.,
477 U.S. 242 (1986) ........................................................................................................6
Belden Techs. Inc. v. Superior Essex Communs. LP,
733 F. Supp. 2d 517 (D. Del. 2010) .........................................................................18, 22
Bell Commcns Research, Inc. v. Vitalink Commcns Corp.,
55 F.3d 615 (Fed. Cir. 1995) .......................................................................................... 19
Kegel Co. v. AMF Bowling, Inc.,
127 F.3d 1420 (Fed. Cir. 1997) ........................................................................................6
Kenexa Brassring, Inc. v. Taleo Corp.,
751 F. Supp. 2d 735 (D. Del. 2010) .........................................................................22, 29
Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp.,
475 U.S. 574 (1986) ........................................................................................................6
NTP, Inc. v. Research in Motion, Ltd.,
418 F.3d 1282 (Fed. Cir. 2005) ...................................................................................... 16
Philips Elecs. N. Am. Corp. v. Contec Corp.,
411 F. Supp. 2d 470 (D. Del. 2006) ...............................................................................19
SynQor, Inc. v. Artesyn Technologies, Inc.,
709 F. 3d 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2013) .....................................................................................21
SynQor, Inc. v. Artesyn Technologies, Inc.,
2011 WL 3625036 (E.D. Tex. Aug. 17, 2011) ...............................................................21
RulesFed. R. Civ. P. 56(a) .............................................................................................................. 6, 21
Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e) ....................................................................................................................6
Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(g) ................................................................................................................. 21
Case 1:11-cv-01258-SLR Document 212 Filed 09/19/13 Page 3 of 38 PageID #: 9162
8/14/2019 JNPR SJM Infringement
4/38
- 1 -
I. NATURE AND STAGE OF PROCEEDINGS
Plaintiff Juniper asserts infringement by Defendant PAN of seven patents. D.I. 1, 70.1
Discovery in this case has concluded, and trial is set to begin on February 24, 2014.
Juniper has moved for summary judgment and partial summary judgment to resolve
several issues relating to infringement by Defendant PAN in advance of trial. This is Junipers
opening brief in support of that motion.
II. SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT
As in most complex patent cases, the infringement analysis in this case presents a number
of issues involving a classic battle of experts or other fact-intensive determinations that a jury
will ultimately resolve. However, the discrete issues that Juniper raises in this motion donot
present any such factual conflict because PAN has either admitted the material facts or failed to
present any facts in opposition to Junipers claims of infringement.
Junipers infringement case against PAN is supported by the expert opinions of Dr. Aviel
D. Rubin, Professor of Computer Science at Johns Hopkins University. Dr. Rubin conducted an
exhaustive analysis of the operation of the accused PAN products (including PANs source
code), culminating in a detailed report describing how PAN infringes each element of the
asserted claims of the Juniper patents-in-suit. By contrast, PANs responsive expert report did
not contest most of Dr. Rubins analysis, but rather addressed only a handful of elements from
some of the asserted claims.
1 These patents are: U.S. Patent Nos. 6,772,347 (the 347 patent), 7,107,612 (the 612
patent), 7,302,700 (the 700 patent), 7,779,459 (the 459 patent), 7,734,752 (the752 patent), 8,077,723 (the 723 patent), and 7,650,634 (the 634 patent)
(collectively, the patents-in-suit).
Case 1:11-cv-01258-SLR Document 212 Filed 09/19/13 Page 4 of 38 PageID #: 9163
8/14/2019 JNPR SJM Infringement
5/38
- 2 -
Based on PANs admissions during discovery and its failure to oppose numerous
elements of Junipers infringement case, there are now at least five issues that can be resolved in
Junipers favor at the summary judgment stage:
1. Infringement of the 612 patent. PANs sole non-infringement argument for the 612
patent requires adding a litigation-inspired negative limitation to the claim term rule: as
distinct from a lookup table. There is no support for PANs constructionit is inconsistent
with even PANs own expert testimonyand no factual basis to find non-infringement even if it
were adopted.
2. Infringement of the 347 patent. PAN contests infringement of the 347 patent solely
based on an argument that, in the accused products, packets are never initially denied subject
to possible later allowance. At deposition, however, PANs expert admitted
PANs
expert further admitted
These admissions conclusively establish infringement of the 347 patent.
3. Infringement of the 459 patent. PAN likewise contests only one element of the 459
patent claims. This patent involves comparing the source and destination zones for a packet, and
then either applying or bypassing certain security screening based on a determination of whether
the packet is inter-zone or intra-zone. PAN bases its non-infringement argument on
preliminary checks that PAN admits arenotsecurity policies, andnotbased on a determination
of inter-zone or intra-zone statusindeed, they occur wellbeforethe PAN system compares the
source and destination zone. Because PANs non-infringement argument does not address, much
Case 1:11-cv-01258-SLR Document 212 Filed 09/19/13 Page 5 of 38 PageID #: 9164
8/14/2019 JNPR SJM Infringement
6/38
- 3 -
less controvert, Junipers evidence of infringement, summary judgment should be granted as to
this patent.
4. Security device and engine claim elements from the 634 and 723 patents.
PAN has proposed that the claim terms security device (in the 634 patent) and engine (in
the 723 patent) be narrowed by importing aspects of certain hardware-based implementations
into the claims. But assuming PANs improper claim constructions are rejected (as they should
be), then there is no dispute that the accused PAN products satisfy the security devices and
engines elements of the asserted claims. Thus, partial summary judgment of infringement
should be granted as to those elements.
5. Other uncontroverted claim elements. Finally, there are a number of claim elements
that PAN has not contested and thus PAN has failed to raise any genuine dispute between the
parties for these elements. As such, partial summary judgment should be granted as to these
claim elements as well.
Accordingly, Juniper respectfully requests that the Court grants its motion for summary
judgment and partial summary judgment, as detailed below.
III. FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Juniper has asserted seven patents against PANs firewall and network security products,
including the PA-5000, PA-4000, PA-3000, PA-2000, PA-500, and PA-200 series of products.
All of the accused products run a common PAN software operating system, PAN-OS. Ex. A
(6/4/2010 Zuk Depo.) at 17:14-20 (
); see also Rubin Ex. A 45-49.2
2 Ex. __ refers to exhibits attached to the Declaration of Rebecca L. Clifford, submitted
herewith. Rubin Ex. __ refers to exhibits attached to the Declaration of Aviel D.
Rubin, submitted herewith.
Case 1:11-cv-01258-SLR Document 212 Filed 09/19/13 Page 6 of 38 PageID #: 9165
8/14/2019 JNPR SJM Infringement
7/38
- 4 -
During fact discovery, Juniper served an interrogatory asking PAN to [s]tate the full
basis for [its] denial that PAN infringes any of the claims of the patents-in-suit, including by
identifying all relevant facts, documents, source code (by file name and line number) and persons
with relevant knowledge. Ex. R (PAN 3rd Supp. Resp. to Rog. No. 2) at 4. PAN responded
with claim charts setting forth its non-infringement contentions. However, for most elements of
the asserted claims, PANs claim charts identified no substantive basis for disputing Junipers
claims of infringement. For some elements, PAN simply left the corresponding row in its claim
chart blank. See, e.g., id.at Ex. A at 4, Ex. C at 1. For other elements, PAN claimed it
based on a purported
failure to understand Junipers preliminary contentions. See, e.g., id.at Ex. A at 1-5. For still
other elements, PAN did not dispute that the accused products possessed the technical attributes
accused of infringement but instead presented legal arguments regarding the standard for
infringement of a method claim. See, e.g., id.at Ex. A at 8, Ex. B at 1.
PAN produced its PAN-OS software source code to Juniper, as a static snapshot on a
stand-alone computer. Juniper expert Dr. Rubin spearheaded an in-depth review of this code,
which PAN represented is
Ex. B (PAN Resp. to Rog. No. 17) at 12. Dr. Rubin also reviewed other technical documents
and discovery materials relating to the operation of the accused products. These efforts
culminated in a detailed report in which Dr. Rubin provided his conclusions and supporting
evidence regarding PANs infringement on a claim-by-claim and element-by-element basis. Dr.
Rubin found numerous claims from each of the seven patents-in-suit that were infringed, both
directly and indirectly, literally and (in the alternative) under the doctrine of equivalents. Dr.
Rubins analysis applies to all of the accused PAN products. SeeRubin Ex. A 43-48.
Case 1:11-cv-01258-SLR Document 212 Filed 09/19/13 Page 7 of 38 PageID #: 9166
8/14/2019 JNPR SJM Infringement
8/38
- 5 -
PAN served a rebuttal report on non-infringement from its expert, Dr. Mitzenmacher.
Consistent with PANs non-infringement contentions, Dr. Mitzenmacher did not substantively
address most elements of the asserted independent claims. For ease of reference, the uncontested
elements of the independentclaims are shown in shaded boxes of the charts below:
752 Claim1 1pre 1a 1b 1c 1d 1e 1f 1g 1h 1i 1jClaim13 13a 13b 13c 13d 13e 13f 13g 13h
634 Claim1 1pre 1a 1b 1c 1d 1e 1f 1g 1h 1i 1j 1k Claim19 19pre 19a 19b 19c 19d 19e 19f 19g 19h 19i 19j 19k
723 Claim1 1pre 1a 1b 1c 1d 1e 1f Claim9 9pre 9a 9b 9c 9d 9e 9f 9g 9h
347 Claim1 1pre 1a 1b Claim14 1pre 14a 14b 14c Claim24 24pre 24a 24b 24c
612 Claim1 1a 1b 1c Claim13 13a 13b Claim22 22a 22b 22c Claim27 27a 27b 27c 27d 27e
700 Claim2 2pre 2a 2b 2c 2d 2e Claim3 3pre 3a 3b 3c Claim4 4pre 4a 4b Claim5 5pre 5a 5b 5c
Claim19 19pre 19a 19b 19c 19d 459 Claim1 1a 1b 1c 1d
Claim12 12pre 12a 12b 12c 12d
Moreover, PANs report did not present any additional non-infringement arguments with respect
to the asserteddependentclaims analyzed in Dr. Rubins report.
During his deposition, PANs expert
Ex.
Case 1:11-cv-01258-SLR Document 212 Filed 09/19/13 Page 8 of 38 PageID #: 9167
8/14/2019 JNPR SJM Infringement
9/38
- 6 -
C (7/3/2013 Mitzenmacher Depo.) at 149:13 153:5 (
).
Following the close of expert discovery, Juniper identified several patentsthe 612,
347, and 459as to which PANs admissions had eliminated any material dispute of fact
regarding PANs infringement. SeeSections V-VII, below. Juniper also identified a number of
claim limitations in the 634 and 723 patents for which PANs only non-infringement defenses
depend on PANs flawed claim construction proposals. SeeSections VIII.A & VIII.B, below.
Finally, as noted above, Juniper identified several elements of the asserted claims (including
elements of certain dependent claims) for which PANs expert had presented no opposition
whatsoever. SeeSections VIII.C & VIII.D, below.
IV. APPLICABLE LEGAL PRINCIPLES
The court shall grant summary judgment if the movant shows that there is no genuine
dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed.
R. Civ. P. 56(a). In ruling on a motion for summary judgment, the judge must view the
evidence presented through the prism of the substantive evidentiary burden. Anderson v.
Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 254 (1986). On the issue of infringement, the plaintiff bears
the burden under a preponderance of the evidence standard. See Kegel Co. v. AMF Bowling,
Inc., 127 F.3d 1420, 1425 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (affirming summary judgment of infringement).
Once the moving party has demonstrated an absence of material fact, the nonmoving party must
come forward with specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial. Matsushita
Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587 (1986) (quotingFed. R. Civ. P. 56(e)).
Case 1:11-cv-01258-SLR Document 212 Filed 09/19/13 Page 9 of 38 PageID #: 9168
8/14/2019 JNPR SJM Infringement
10/38
- 7 -
V. PAN INFRINGES THE 612 PATENT
The 612 patent describes a dynamic approach to network security (e.g., for a firewall)
where new rules are added to a set of rules based on a sequence of data packets received.
Independent claims 1 and 13 of the 612 patent provide as follows:
1. A method, comprising:
[1a] establishing a set of rules for controlling access to and from anetwork device for incoming and outgoing data units;
[1b] receiving, at the network device, a first sequence of data units;
and
[1c] adding one or more first rules to the set of rules based on data
extracted from the received first sequence of data units.
13. A network device, comprising:
[13a] an access control engine configured to establish a set of rules
for controlling access to and from the network device for incomingand outgoing data units; and
[13b] a dynamic filter configured to add one or more first rules to
the set of rules based on data extracted from a first sequence ofdata units received at the network device.
PANs documents and source code conclusively establish that PAN infringes claims 1
and 13. Rubin Ex. A 922-1091. As Junipers infringement expert Dr. Rubin explains,
. See, e.g., id. 955-986. For example,
Id. 940, 958. The PAN product
Id. 985. The
Case 1:11-cv-01258-SLR Document 212 Filed 09/19/13 Page 10 of 38 PageID #: 9169
8/14/2019 JNPR SJM Infringement
11/38
- 8 -
accused products also
. Id. 932-941 (
), 957-958.
Id. 942-945, 947-948.
PAN has raised no genuine dispute of fact in response to Junipers detailed evidence of
infringement. As an initial matter, PANs expert fails to offerany non-infringement analysis
whatsoever with respect to the two of the three PAN accused features (
).
3
SeeRubin Ex. A 968-986. PANs only non-
infringement argument is its contention that the new rules added by the accused products
somehow are not rules, as that term is used in the 612 patent (see, e.g.,claim elements 1c,
13b).4 This argument fails to present any genuine factual dispute as to PANs infringement, for a
number of reasons.
To begin, PANs argument depends on its unfounded proposed construction of rules,
which involves inserting the negative limitation as distinct from a lookup table into the claims.
3 PANs expert erroneously states that Dr. Rubin did notEx. D (Mitzenmacher Report) 236. PANs
argument is mistaken, as Dr. Rubins analysis separately identified support for hisconclusion of infringement by these two features, including as to individual elements
when needed in addition to the information already provided. See, e.g., Rubin Ex. A 940-941, 945, 947, 949, 958, 984-985.
4 PAN has not challenged the other elements of these claims, which Juniper expert Dr.
Rubin analyzed in detail and found were satisfied as part of his infringement analysis.See Rubin Ex. A 955-963 (element 1a), 964-967 (element 1b), 1047-1049(element 13a). As further explained in Section VIII.C below, partial summary judgment
is therefore warranted at a minimum on these claim elements.
Case 1:11-cv-01258-SLR Document 212 Filed 09/19/13 Page 11 of 38 PageID #: 9170
8/14/2019 JNPR SJM Infringement
12/38
- 9 -
SeeD.I. 148 (Juniper Markman Br.) at 9-12. In other words, according to PAN, something that
otherwise qualifies as a rule for purposes of the 612 patent would no longer satisfy that claim
element if placed in a lookup table. Based on its proposed construction, PAN argues that it
does not infringe because the accused Block IP entries in PANs products are maintained in a
data structure that PAN contends can be characterized as a lookup table. Because PANs non-
infringement argument rests entirely on its proposed construction of rules, it follows that if the
Court rejects that construction, PANs non-infringement argument fails. And as Juniper
explained in its opening Markman brief (D.I. 148 at 9-12), PANs construction shouldbe
rejected, as there is neither intrinsic nor extrinsic support for PANs proposed lookup table
carve-out.
PANs admissions during discovery also conclusively demonstrate that the rules
element of the 612 patent is satisfied. PANs technical experts both admit that rulescanbe
maintained in the very manner in which PAN
D.I. 149 at Ex. B (Mitchell Depo.) at 140:24 141:5
(PAN expert testimony: Q. [C]an you store rules in a hash table? A. Yeah. . . . You can treat
rules as data and store them in a hash table.); D.I. 149 at Ex. E (Mitzenmacher Article) at 207-
208 (describing hash table lookups for a hash table that will provide the packet classification
rules); D.I. 149 at Ex. A (7/3/2013 Mitzenmacher Depo.) at 21:14 22:5. Moreover, PAN co-
founder (and 612 patent inventor) Yuming Mao admitted that
D.I. 149 at Ex. C (Mao Depo.) at 132:3 134:13. As discussed
above, there is no dispute that the accused products contain precisely this functionality. Thus,
these admissions are independently dispositive of infringement, regardless of claim construction.
Case 1:11-cv-01258-SLR Document 212 Filed 09/19/13 Page 12 of 38 PageID #: 9171
8/14/2019 JNPR SJM Infringement
13/38
- 10 -
In any event, even if the claim term rules were construed to exclude rules in a lookup
table, the term lookup table in the 612 patent is used solely to refer to a particular data
structure known as a session table or flow table. SeeRubin Ex. A 961. As PANs expert
put it, PANs proposed claim construction talk[s] about rules and distinguish[s] them from[a]
session or lookup table. Ex. E (Mitchell Depo.) at 90:13-15. Indeed, PANs expert admitted to
using the term lookup table to mean a session table or flow table in his report and
confirmed the operation of a flow table using language mirroring the 612 patents discussion
of a lookup table. D.I. 149 at Ex. B (Mitchell Depo.) at 80:10 81:14, 82:3 83:25; Ex. E
(Mitchell Depo.) at 88:1-8. Thus, even PANs claim construction would not provide a defense to
infringement, as it is undisputed that the Block IP entries in PANs accused products arenot
kept in a flow table or session table; PAN has never even suggested any such argument.
Accordingly, PANs infringement theory for the 612 patent fails based upon PANs
admissions under either claim construction. Because PAN has thus failed to present any genuine
dispute in response to Junipers evidence of infringement, summary judgment of infringement
should be granted as to the 612 patent.
VI. PAN INFRINGES THE 347 PATENT
The 347 patent describes a multi-phase approach to packet processing where packets are
first sorted or processed into initially allowed and initially denied packets, and then further
sorted or processed into allowed and denied packets. PAN contends that it does not infringe
the 347 patent based solely on its experts assertion that
Ex. D (Mitzenmacher Report) 181. Shown below are the three
asserted independent claims, formatted to highlight the contested initially denied limitation:
Case 1:11-cv-01258-SLR Document 212 Filed 09/19/13 Page 13 of 38 PageID #: 9172
8/14/2019 JNPR SJM Infringement
14/38
- 11 -
1. An apparatus comprising: a firewall engine including:
[1a] a first engine including a first set of rules for sorting incoming
IP packets into initially allowed packets and initially denied
packets; and
[1b] a filter including a second set of rules for receiving and furthersorting the initially deniedpackets into allowed packets and denied
packets.
14. A method for providing network computer security, comprising:
[14a] receiving incoming packets at a firewall;
[14b] sorting the incoming packets into initially allowed packets
and initially deniedpackets; and
[14c] further sorting the initially denied packets into allowed and
denied packets using rules.
24. A method for providing network computer security, comprising:
[24a] receiving incoming packets at a firewall;
[24b] processing the incoming packets into initially allowed
packets and initially deniedpackets; and
[24c] further processing the initially denied packets into allowed
and denied packets using rules.
In his report, Junipers expert Dr. Rubin explained in detail how PAN satisfies each
element of these claims, including the initially denied limitation. Rubin Ex. A 838-921.
As noted above, PANs expert purported to opine in his non-infringement report that the accused
products do not initially deny packets. At deposition, however, PANs expertagreedwith Dr.
Rubin on the material facts which satisfy that sole contested limitation.
For example, PANs expert admitted that
Ex. C
(7/3/2013 Mitzenmacher Depo.) at 62:4-9
.
Id. at 92:8-10. As PANs expert admits,
Case 1:11-cv-01258-SLR Document 212 Filed 09/19/13 Page 14 of 38 PageID #: 9173
8/14/2019 JNPR SJM Infringement
15/38
- 12 -
Id. at 121:12-23, 122:7-16. Thus,
.5
PANs expert further admitted that,
Id. at 122:17-25; see alsoEx. D
(Mitzenmacher Report) 181 (
). For example,
. Ex. C (7/3/2013 Mitzenmacher Depo.) at 120:3-11.
Id.at 120:12-15
.
PANs expert admissions thus establish that there is no material dispute regarding PANs
infringement of the 347 patent. The only aspect of the 347 patent that PAN contests is whether
any packets are initially denied by the PAN system. And PANs own expert confirmed that
As PANs expert
acknowledged,
For example,
. Ex. C (7/3/2013 Mitzenmacher Depo.) at 125:9-14.
Case 1:11-cv-01258-SLR Document 212 Filed 09/19/13 Page 15 of 38 PageID #: 9174
8/14/2019 JNPR SJM Infringement
16/38
- 13 -
Id. at 126:3-17.
Id.
at 120:12-15
).
To summarize, these unequivocal admissions from PANs infringement expert establish
the absence of any genuine dispute that the accused PAN products initially deny packets in
accordance with the 347 patent claims. It is undisputed that,
Therefore, the only previously contested
issue of infringement is established by PANs admissions and Dr. Rubins report.6
Finally, as to claim 1 only, PANs expert makes one additional point: namely, that it is
6 PAN has asked the Court to construe sorting packets . . . into initially denied packets as
applying rules to make a first determination that identified packets to be dropped. D.I.
164 (PAN Markman Response Br.) at 22. This phrase is applicable at most to claims 1and 14, as claim 24 does not even mention sorting. Moreover, this construction isimproper for the reasons discussed in Junipers Markman brief. D.I. 148 at 12-14. Even
if PANs construction governed these claims, however, summary judgment ofinfringement would still be proper. Based on PANs expert testimony discussed above,
there is no material dispute that PANs products apply rules to make a first determinationthat identifies packets to be dropped, for example when the accused PAN products match
packets to the default deny rule.
Case 1:11-cv-01258-SLR Document 212 Filed 09/19/13 Page 16 of 38 PageID #: 9175
8/14/2019 JNPR SJM Infringement
17/38
- 14 -
Ex. D (Mitzenmacher Report) 186. But as shown above, Dr. Rubin
and PAN has offered no factual evidence to the contrary. E.g., Rubin Decl. 865-868.
Indeed, PANs expert himself describes
Ex. D (Mitzenmacher Report) 181; see also Rubin Ex. A at 867
).7
Accordingly, because PANs admissions establish that the only previously contested
claim element is, in fact, met, summary judgment should be granted as to PANs infringement of
claims 1, 14, and 24 of the 347 patent.
VII. PAN INFRINGES THE 459 PATENT
The 459 patent describes an approach for determining whether a packet is to remain
within one security domain (intra-zone) or is to pass between two distinct security domains
(inter-zone), and either applying or bypassing security screening based on that determination.
See D.I. 148 (Juniper Markman Br.) at 27-29. One premise underlying this approach is that
intra-zone communications (e.g., within a single office) may not implicate the same security
concerns associated with inter-zone communications (e.g., between the public Internet and an
office). Accordingly, a product which provides the capability to apply specialized security
screening for inter-zone packets while permitting intra-zone packets to bypass such screening
can be more efficient.
7 PANs expert likewise testified at his deposition that
Ex. C (7/3/2013
Mitzenmacher Depo.) at 119:12 120:15.
Case 1:11-cv-01258-SLR Document 212 Filed 09/19/13 Page 17 of 38 PageID #: 9176
8/14/2019 JNPR SJM Infringement
18/38
- 15 -
Claim 1 of the 459 patent is set forth below, with emphasis on the only element
contested by PAN (without performing the security screening):
1. In a network device, a method comprising:
[1a] receiving a packet via a network that includes a plurality of
distinct security domains;
[1b] determining whether the packet is to remain within a first one
of the distinct security domains or pass between two of the distinctsecurity domains;
[1c] performing, based on a first determination that the packet is topass between the two distinct security domains security, security
screening on the packet before routing the screened packet to anegress port of the network device for forwarding on the network;
and
[1d] routing, based on a second determination that the packet is to
remain within the first distinct security domain, the packet to anegress port of the network device for forwarding on the network
without performing the security screeningon the packet.
Claim 12 includes similar elements in the form of an apparatus claim.
There is no genuine dispute of material fact regarding PANs infringement of the 459
patent. Dr. Rubins expert report established each element of the 459 patent claims. SeeRubin
Ex. A 1241-1356. PANs expert did not even attempt to contest Dr. Rubins analysis or
conclusions as to the first three elements (a, b, and c) of claims 1 and 12. Thus, there is no
genuine dispute that the accused PAN products:
receive a packet via a network that includes a plurality of distinct securitydomains (e.g., element 1a, 12a);
determine whether the packet is to remain within one security domain (intra-zone) or pass between two security domains (inter-zone) (e.g., element 1b,
12b); and
based on a determination that a packet is inter-zone, perform a securityscreening on that packet (e.g., element 1c, 12c).
SeeRubin Ex. A 1255-1272, 1311-1328.
Case 1:11-cv-01258-SLR Document 212 Filed 09/19/13 Page 18 of 38 PageID #: 9177
8/14/2019 JNPR SJM Infringement
19/38
- 16 -
PANs sole non-infringement defense for the 459 patent relates to the security
screening portion of element 1d and 12d. As noted above, PAN acknowledges that the accused
products
However, PAN disputes whether the accused PAN products
.8 As discussed below,
there is no genuine dispute that this is exactly what the accused PAN products do.
Rubin Ex. A 1249, 1265, 1276; see also Ex. C
(7/3/2013 Mitzenmacher Depo.) at 92:3-10, 125:11-14.
Ex. H at 45; see alsoEx. I at 134 (By default, traffic between each pair of security zones is
blocked [but] . . . [i]ntra-zone traffic is allowed . . . .).
Rubin Ex. A 1261, 1275-78; see also Ex. C (7/3/2013 Mitzenmacher Depo.) at 119:12-
120:15.
8 The 459 patent emphasizes the inter-zone/intra-zone distinction by using the definite
article the (without performing the security screening), to refer to the antecedentsecurity screening of the preceding element. See NTP, Inc. v. Research in Motion, Ltd.,
418 F.3d 1282, 1306 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (describing settled law that the indefinite articlethe signals an antecedent basis). This point is elaborated in Junipers Markman Brief.
SeeD.I. 148 at 28-29.
Case 1:11-cv-01258-SLR Document 212 Filed 09/19/13 Page 19 of 38 PageID #: 9178
8/14/2019 JNPR SJM Infringement
20/38
- 17 -
Id.; see also id. at 120:3-15. Accordingly, in the default
configuration, intra-zone packets are processed without performing the security screening.
As a separate and independent example of infringement, the accused PAN products are
designed for
Rubin Ex. A 1106; Ex. J at 58
).
Rubin Ex. A 1111; Ex. K at 3, 7.
Id.
Id.; see also, e.g., Rubin Ex. A 1261
As another, independent example, PAN demonstrates use of the accused products
See Ex. L at 26-32; see also Ex. M at PAN001736581
Case 1:11-cv-01258-SLR Document 212 Filed 09/19/13 Page 20 of 38 PageID #: 9179
8/14/2019 JNPR SJM Infringement
21/38
- 18 -
Rubin Ex. A
1261 ( ); see also id. 1109-1110
(
); Ex. J at 3, 56-58 ( ).
There is no genuine issue of dispute regarding the above examples of infringement.9
Indeed, PANs expert did not address any of these examples in his report. Unable to dispute the
relevant facts, PAN and its expert instead contest infringement based on two cursory (and
irrelevant) assertions.
See Ex. D (Mitzenmacher Report) 297.
Id. Because PAN
provides no factual support or explanation for these conclusory statements, they should be given
no evidentiary weight. See, e.g., Belden Techs. Inc. v. Superior Essex Communs. LP, 733 F.
Supp. 2d 517, 539, n. 22 (D. Del. 2010) (conclusory statement by defense expert does not
rebut [the plaintiffs] evidence of record which demonstrates infringement). Nevertheless, even
if these conclusory assertions were admissible, they fail to create a material dispute.
PANs first argument is merely that a user theoretically could configure the accused
product to apply similar security screening to both intra-zone and inter-zone packets. The
9 These illustrative examples of infringement are presented for summary judgment becausethey are based on straightforward, undisputed facts. As set forth in Dr. Rubins report,
the accused PAN products also infringe the 459 patent in additional ways which involvemore complex factual issues.
E.g., Rubin Ex. A
643, 1266-1268.
Case 1:11-cv-01258-SLR Document 212 Filed 09/19/13 Page 21 of 38 PageID #: 9180
8/14/2019 JNPR SJM Infringement
22/38
- 19 -
example that PAN gives is that a hypothetical user could specially create a security policy that
denies all intra-zone traffic, thus artificially mimicking the actual inter-zone default deny
security screening for intra-zone packets as well.10
However, infringement is not defeated by
evidence that someone could specially configure the accused product to perform a non-infringing
method. See, e.g., Bell Commcns Research, Inc. v. Vitalink Commcns Corp., 55 F.3d 615, 622-
23 (Fed. Cir. 1995) ([A]n accused product that sometimes, but not always, embodies a claimed
method nonetheless infringes.); Philips Elecs. N. Am. Corp. v. Contec Corp., 411 F. Supp. 2d
470, 474 (D. Del. 2006). The material, undisputed fact is that infringement has occurred,
including through the specific examples outline above.
Dr. Mitzenmachers second argument
is simply irrelevant to infringement. Dr.
Mitzenmacher provides no citation or explanation for this assertion. However, in another section
of his report, Dr. Mitzenmacher explains that, by
Ex. D (Mitzenmacher Report) 263. Specifically,
Dr. Mitzenmacher contends that
Id.
PANs argument misses the mark because Juniper has never contended that PAN
infringes by checking for Indeed, these checks
could not be the security screening described in the 459 patent claims.
10 Notably, PAN does not contend that any user has ever used the configuration tested by
PANs expert. Configuring the system to deny all packets within a zone would render the
product useless for most applications, since it would prohibit any communication withinthat zone. Using the example of a zone being an office, it would mean that no employees
in the office would be able to send files to each other.
Case 1:11-cv-01258-SLR Document 212 Filed 09/19/13 Page 22 of 38 PageID #: 9181
8/14/2019 JNPR SJM Infringement
23/38
- 20 -
. Ex. C (7/3/2013 Mitzenmacher Depo.) at 75:14-76:7; Ex. D
(Mitzenmacher Report) 265
Moreover, PAN does not contend thatanycomparison of zones takes place before
the TCP flag and LAND attack checks, much less that the checks are based on any such
determination. PANs contention that the PAN product may discard a packet at ingress because
it is malformed, before any determination of inter-zone versus intra-zone is made, and before any
security screening based on that determination, is therefore irrelevant to the 459 patent claims.
11
Because PAN has thus failed to present any genuine issue of disputed fact as to
infringement of claims 1 and 12 of the 459 patent, summary judgment of infringement should be
granted with respect to those claims.
VIII. PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF INFRINGEMENT IS APPROPRIATEFOR PARTICULAR ELEMENTS OF THE ASSERTED CLAIMS
In an effort to narrow the issues for trial, Juniper has further moved for partial summary
judgment of infringement on numerous elements of the asserted claims that PAN either has not
contested and/or has provided admissions establishing those elements.
Courts have authority to grant summary judgment as to specific issues (including part
of a claim). SeeFed. R. Civ. P. 56(a) ([a] party may move for summary judgment, identifying
each claim or defenseor the part of each claimor defenseon which summary judgment is
sought). Rule 56 provides significant flexibility for courts to (for example) enter an order
11 The 459 patent specification explains that, consistent with the claimed invention, a
network device may implement many different checks for intra-zone packets as well as
inter-zone packets, noting as examples TCP stateful inspection, syn-attack guard,policy-based control, load balancing and other functionalities on each data stream. 459
patent at 4:48-51.
Case 1:11-cv-01258-SLR Document 212 Filed 09/19/13 Page 23 of 38 PageID #: 9182
8/14/2019 JNPR SJM Infringement
24/38
- 21 -
stating any material fact . . . that is not genuinely in dispute and treating the fact as established in
the case. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(g).
Courts have specifically approved partial summary judgment as a tool to streamline
patent cases where certain elements of a patent claim do not present a genuine dispute. See, e.g.,
SynQor, Inc. v. Artesyn Technologies, Inc., 709 F. 3d 1365, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (affirming
grant of partial summary judgment of infringement on [a particular claim] limitation). For
example, the district court in SynQorgranted partial summary judgment of infringement for
many of the limitations of the asserted claims as a mechanism for narrowing the issues to be
resolved at trial. SynQor, Inc. v. Artesyn Technologies, Inc., 2011 WL 3625036, at *26 (E.D.
Tex. Aug. 17, 2011). Although the defendant challenged the courts ability to grant partial
summary judgment as to individual elements of a patent claim, the court found the approach
entirely proper as it focused the issues at trial to only those that were in dispute. Id. As
another example, inAcco Brands, Inc. v. PC Guardian Anti-Theft Products, Inc., the court
granted partial summary judgment of infringement as to one element of an asserted patent claim
while finding that, for a different element, factual questions remained that would need to be
decided by a jury. 2008 WL 753899, at *3-6 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 18, 2008).
Partial summary judgment as to particular claim elements is particularly appropriate
where parties have been able to identify through fact and expert discovery those elements of the
asserted patent claims that are genuinely disputed, and those that are not. For example, where an
accused infringer fails to identify any disputes with respect to certain elements of an asserted
claim during discovery, those elements are properly deemed satisfied at the summary judgment
stage for purposes of infringementas this Court has previously found. See, e.g., Kenexa
Case 1:11-cv-01258-SLR Document 212 Filed 09/19/13 Page 24 of 38 PageID #: 9183
8/14/2019 JNPR SJM Infringement
25/38
- 22 -
Brassring, Inc. v. Taleo Corp., 751 F. Supp. 2d 735 (D. Del. 2010).12
In Kenexa, the plaintiff
had served an interrogatory wherein defendants were requested to list each claim limitation of
the patents in suit that is not met by their products, and the defendants responded with respect to
somebut not allof the elements of the asserted claims. Id.at 748. This Court ruled that,
[b]y responding with a finite list that did not include every limitation of every claim,defendants
conceded that the remaining limitations are met by their products. Id.; see also Belden
Techs., 733 F. Supp. 2d at 539 (granting summary judgment of infringement; accused infringer
did not create a genuine issue of material fact by simply making conclusory statement
regarding non-infringement lacking any citation to the record that would indicate the presence
of a dispute).
As shown below, Junipers motion for partial summary judgment of infringement should
be granted as to certain claim elements where PAN has failed to present any genuine issue of
material fact.
A. PAN Infringes The Two Or More Security Devices Element Of The 634
Patent
The 634 patent describes technology that improves the efficiency of packet processing
by using a single flow record for two or more security devices that have been integrated into a
single product, e.g., a combination firewall and intrusion prevention system (IPS). 634 patent
at 2:20-22, 3:5-7, 7:30-31, Figs. 1 & 9. By intelligently integrating multiple devices together, the
634 patent achieves efficiencies that would not be possible with separate and independent
devices.
12 This Court further relied upon the fact that the plaintiffs expert had presented a report
detail[ing] why every claim limitation is met by defendants products. Id.
Case 1:11-cv-01258-SLR Document 212 Filed 09/19/13 Page 25 of 38 PageID #: 9184
8/14/2019 JNPR SJM Infringement
26/38
- 23 -
The parties have presented competing claim construction positions with respect to the
two or more security devices limitation of independent claims 1 and 19 of the 634 patent. See
D.I. 148 at 6. Assuming PANs proposed construction is ultimately rejected (as it should be), the
Court should grant partial summary judgment of infringement as to this limitation. That is
because PANs only non-infringement contention with respect to this element is wholly
dependent on its proposed construction.13
In his report, Juniper expert Dr. Rubin identified and analyzed at least two security
devices from the accused PAN products: the PAN Application Identification and Content
Inspection components. PAN documentation illustrates these two components as follows
(shown here alongside a third Fastpath component):
13 By contrast, should PANs construction of this term be adopted, there will remain a
number of factual disputes regarding satisfaction of the security devices limitation to be
resolved at trial. For example, the parties experts disagree about whether the accusedsecurity devices in the PAN products constitute two physically distinct structures
(per PANs proposed construction).
Case 1:11-cv-01258-SLR Document 212 Filed 09/19/13 Page 26 of 38 PageID #: 9185
8/14/2019 JNPR SJM Infringement
27/38
- 24 -
Ex. N (DLoP) at 4.14
Each of these two components serves a distinct purpose; as PAN co-
founder (and 634 patent inventor) testified:
Ex. A (6/4/2010 Zuk Depo.) at 138:17-25; see alsoD.I. 149 at Ex. F (6/4/2010 Zuk Depo.) at
146:12-19 151:17-21
Consistent with this testimony, PAN engineer Wilson Xu
Ex. O (Xu Depo.) at
236:17-24, 254:14 255:6, 277:14-19.
Based on these PAN admissions, there can be no dispute that both Application
Identification and Content Inspection constitute security devices under Junipers proposed
construction: hardware, firmware, software, or combinations thereof for performing security
functions. Both Application Identification (App-ID) and Content Inspection (which includes
signature matching) comprise PAN software code, and
. Ex. P (1/23/13 PAN 30(b)(6)/Zuk Depo.) at 163:2 165:6; see also
14
PAN authenticated this document and repeatedly confirmed its position that thedocument is accurate during discovery. SeeEx. B (PAN Resp. to Juniper Rog. No. 19) at
14; Ex. O (Xu Depo.) at 216:21 217:4.
Case 1:11-cv-01258-SLR Document 212 Filed 09/19/13 Page 27 of 38 PageID #: 9186
8/14/2019 JNPR SJM Infringement
28/38
- 25 -
Rubin Ex. A 349-378. PAN does not dispute this. Nor does PAN contest that its App-ID and
Content Inspection components perform security functions. Indeed, PAN affirmatively
promotes how App-ID and Content Inspection work together to
in the accused products.
Ex. Q at 2.15
Thus, the accused products satisfy the two or more security devices limitation
under Junipers construction.
Moreover, the result is the same if the term security device is accorded its plain and
ordinary meaning. Contrary to PANs suggestion, the 634 patent does not require any one
specific implementation of the claimed security devices, but rather indicates that [t]he
invention can be implemented . . . in computer hardware, firmware, software, or in combinations
of them. 634 patent at 6:1-3; see also id.at 2:14-22 (describing plural security devices as a
feature of the present invention, which may includ[e] computer program products). The
specification and prosecution history of the 634 patent likewise indicate that a security device
such as a firewall may constitute a set of software programs. D.I. 149 at Ex. D (Pat. App. No.
10/072,683) at 3:32. And PANs own expert testified that one of skill in the art would
understand that, in a computing context, the term device may have nothing to do with
physical devices. D.I. 149 at Ex. B (Mitchell Depo.) at 45:2-9; see also id.at 10:3-7 (device is
generally a thing that does something). Thus, the App-ID and Content Inspection components
indisputably fall within the scope of the patents teachings regarding the security devices of the
claimed invention. Rubin Ex. A 349-377.
15See also .
Case 1:11-cv-01258-SLR Document 212 Filed 09/19/13 Page 28 of 38 PageID #: 9187
8/14/2019 JNPR SJM Infringement
29/38
- 26 -
Accordingly, Junipers motion for partial summary judgment of infringement should be
granted as to the two or more security devices limitations of claims 1 and 19 of the 634
patent.
B. PAN Infringes The Engine Elements Of The 723 Patent
The 723 patent describes technology that uses tags to improve the efficiency of packet
processing in a system containing multiple processing engines. For example, claim 1 of the
723 patent recites a first engine, second engine, and third engine, where the second
engine is different from the third engine.
There is no genuine dispute that the accused PAN products include all three engines.
Juniper expert Dr. Rubin identified three components of the accused PAN products that satisfy
the engine elements, namely the
respectively. Rubin Ex. A 580, 584. Each of these components indisputably qualifies as an
engine under Junipers proposed construction: hardware, firmware, software, or combinations
thereof for implementing one or more functional operations. For example, Juniper expert Dr.
Rubin presented a detailed analysis of the functional operation of PAN software code comprising
the
Rubin Ex. A 581-585. As another example,
Dr. Rubin describes the
Rubin Ex. A 580-581, 585-587; see also Ex. E
(Mitchell Depo.) at 60:4-14 (PAN expert testimony: Q. [I]n fact, the POW or SSO routes
packets to engines on one or more cores of the Cavium chip; correct? A. Well, yeah. . . .) By
the same token, because Junipers proposed construction reflects the plain and ordinary meaning
of engine, these elements are satisfied even if the term is not construed.
Case 1:11-cv-01258-SLR Document 212 Filed 09/19/13 Page 29 of 38 PageID #: 9188
8/14/2019 JNPR SJM Infringement
30/38
- 27 -
PAN has presented no argument that the accused engines in its products are comprised
of something other than hardware, firmware, software, or combinations thereof. Nor has PAN
argued that the accused engines do not implement one or more functional operations. In
fact, PAN co-founders Zuk and Mao (both inventors of the 723 patent) described each accused
engine and its respective function in deposition testimony. Ex. A (6/4/2010 Zuk Depo.) at 138:1-
16 Ex. G (Mao Depo.) at 222:20 223:4 ( ); see alsoEx. C (7/3/2013
Mitzenmacher Depo.) at 169:8 170:9
Accordingly, as there is no genuine factual dispute that the SSO Unit, Slowpath Engine,
and Fastpath Engine constitute engines, partial summary judgment should be granted on this
element.
C. Partial Summary Judgment Is Appropriate For Independent Claim
Elements That Are Undisputed As To Infringement
The undisputed claim elements in this case can likewise be resolved at the summary
judgment stage for purposes of infringement, based on PANs failure during discovery to
identify any genuine dispute of material fact as to those elements:
634 patent. Each of the two independent claims of the 634 patent contains eleven
elements, nine of which PAN does not dispute. Dr. Rubins report explains in detail how these
nine elements are satisfied for purposes of the infringement analysis in this case. SeeRubin Ex.
A 304-307 (element 1a), 308-313 (element 1b), 314-320 (element 1c), 321-326
(element 1d), 327-330 (element 1e), 331-334 (element 1f), 335-338 (element 1g),
339-342 (element 1h), 391-395 (element 1k), 483-484 (element 19a), 485-486 (element
19b), 487-488 (element 19c), 489-490 (element 19d), 491-492 (element 19e), 493-
Case 1:11-cv-01258-SLR Document 212 Filed 09/19/13 Page 30 of 38 PageID #: 9189
8/14/2019 JNPR SJM Infringement
31/38
- 28 -
494 (element 19f), 495-496 (element 19g), 497-498 (element 19h), 503-504 (element
1k).16
By contrast, in its non-infringement contentions, PAN either left the claim chart blank for
these elements or simply stated it could not its non-infringement contentions.
See, e.g., Ex. R (PAN 3rd Supp. Resp. to Rog. No. 2) at Ex. C at 1-2. Even after PAN received
Dr. Rubins opening report detailing his analysis of PANs infringement, PAN still failed to
identify any facts or evidence that would support any non-infringement contentions for these
nine elements. Indeed, PANs expert report says nothing about any of them. Having failed to
present any meaningful opposition regarding these elements during fact and expert discovery,
PAN cannot do so at trial. See Kenexa, 751 F. Supp. 2d at 748.
Partial summary judgment should likewise be granted with respect to the preambles of
claims 1 and 19. PAN concedes that both preambles are descriptive of intended use without
adding any structure or substance to the claim, and [are], thus,non-limiting. Ex. S (PAN 634
Patent Reexam Request) at 32-33, 62. Juniper agrees. Accordingly, as there is no dispute
regarding the non-limiting nature of these preambles, any supposed non-infringement argument
based on the preambles must fail as a matter of law. See American Medical Systems, Inc. v.
Biolitec, Inc., 618 F.3d 1354, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (reversing judgment of non-infringement
that was based solely on defendant not satisfying non-limiting preamble); see alsoRubin Ex. A
293-303, 480-482.
752 patent. There are also two independent claims asserted from the 752 patent: claim
1 (with ten elements) and claim 13 (with nine). Between these two claims, there are at least
16 The cited portions of Junipers infringement expert report set forth yet additionalevidence demonstrating that these elements are satisfied. See, e.g., D.I. 149 at Ex. C
(Mao Depo.) at 203:23 204:12; Ex. G (Mao Depo.) 209:721, 210:922 (
); Ex. X (PAN Resp. to RFA No.10) at 3 (PAN admits that one or more PAN Accused Products in the United States have
processed data packets.).
Case 1:11-cv-01258-SLR Document 212 Filed 09/19/13 Page 31 of 38 PageID #: 9190
8/14/2019 JNPR SJM Infringement
32/38
- 29 -
eleven elements that PAN does not dispute. Juniper expert Dr. Rubin provided a detailed
infringement analysis for these elements. SeeRubin Ex. A 73-75 (claim 1 preamble), 76-
80 (element 1a), 81-84 (element 1b), 98-103 (element 1d), 104-107 (element 1e),
119-121 (element 1g), 122 (element 1h), 193-197 (element 13a), 198-201 (element 13b),
213-218 (element 13d), 219-222 (element 13e), 234-236 (element 13g).
PAN provided virtually no response regarding these elements during discovery in this
case. PANs non-infringement claim charts mention just one substantive non-infringement
argument:
See, e.g., Ex. R (PAN
3rd Supp. Resp. to Rog. No. 2) at Ex. G at 1-2. But in its expert report, PAN dropped this
argumentpresumably because it had been conclusively disproven during discovery by PANs
own admissions and documents, which repeatedly refer to the accused PAN products
See, e.g., Ex. T at
54-56 (
).17 Even PANs expert report admits that
Ex. D (Mitzenmacher Report) 51
( ), Ex. W (Mitzenmacher Report Appx. A) at 1 ( ).
Accordingly, there is no longer any dispute on the point.
17
See also Ex. U at PAN001828006); see also,
e.g., Ex. V at 12 (
; Ex. U at PAN001828006
.
Case 1:11-cv-01258-SLR Document 212 Filed 09/19/13 Page 32 of 38 PageID #: 9191
8/14/2019 JNPR SJM Infringement
33/38
- 30 -
The only other statements in PANs non-infringement claim charts for these elements of
the 752 patent are legal arguments regarding whether PAN and its customers actually use the
accused functions of the PAN products. However, this argument was mooted by PAN
admissions that
. SeeEx. P (1/23/13 PAN 30(b)(6)/Zuk Depo.) at 174:25175:3
Ex. X (PAN
Resp. to RFA Nos. 31-32) at 11 (admitting one or more PAN Accused Products configured in
Active/Active High Availability in the United States); see alsoRubin Ex. A 57 Thus, there
are no disputes remaining regarding these elements, and partial summary judgment is therefore
appropriate.
723 patent. With respect to the 723 patent, there are at least two significant facts about
the accused second engine and third engine in PANs products, which PAN has not contested for
purposes of infringement:
Juniper expert Dr. Rubin established these elements in his report. See
Rubin Ex. A 647-652 (element 1d), 658-661 (element 1f), 744-745 (element 9h). PAN
provides no opposition in either its non-infringement contentions or its expert report.
Accordingly, these elements should be found satisfied at the summary judgment stage.
700 patent. PAN has only contested one element of each of the independent claims of
the 723 patent (elements 2d, 3c, 4a, 5c, and 19d). Thus, the detailed analysis that Juniper expert
Dr. Rubin provided for the other elements stands unrebutted. SeeRubin Ex. A 1116-1118
(claim 2 preamble), 1119-1123 (element 2a), 1124-1130 (element 2b), 1131-1135
(element 2c), 1143-1145 (element 2e), 1147-1148 (claim 3 preamble), 1149-1153
Case 1:11-cv-01258-SLR Document 212 Filed 09/19/13 Page 33 of 38 PageID #: 9192
8/14/2019 JNPR SJM Infringement
34/38
- 31 -
(element 3a), 1154-1161 (element 3b), 1168-1169 (claim 4 preamble), 1180-1183
(element 4b), 1185-1187 (claim 5 preamble), 1188-1192 (element 5a), 1193-1199
(element 5b), 1212-1213 (claim 19 preamble), 1214-1219 (element 19a), 1220-1225
(element 19b), 1226-1233 (element 19c). PANs non-infringement report presentsno
analysis or evidence as to any of these elements. And PAN has failed to preserve any other non-
infringement argument through its interrogatory response claim charts. With respect to method
claim 19, PANs charts contain no substance at all, but merely purport to incorporate by
reference an analysis with respect to claim 18a claim that is not addressed elsewhere in the
charts and indeed has not even been asserted by Juniper. Ex. R (PAN 3rd Supp. Resp. to Rog.
No. 2) at Ex. D at 7-9. For the other 700 patent claims, PAN simply included language such as
that discussed above regarding a supposed inability to fully disclose non-infringement
contentionsbut then never disclosedanysuch contentions in its expert report. And for a few
elements,
. However, Dr. Rubin discussed these
claim elements in detail in his report, and PAN and its expert offered no rebuttal. See, e.g.,
Rubin Ex. A 1117, 1120, 1138; see also Ex. X (PAN Response to RFA No. 39) at 14.
Accordingly, there are no remaining disputes regarding these elements.
612, 347, and 459 patents. The sections above demonstrated that there is no genuine
dispute of material fact as to infringement by PAN of certain claims of the 612, 347, and 459
patents. But even if summary judgment were not granted with respect to any one of these claims
in its entirety, it would still be appropriate to grantpartialsummary judgment with respect to the
undisputed elements of that claim, for the reasons set forth above.
Case 1:11-cv-01258-SLR Document 212 Filed 09/19/13 Page 34 of 38 PageID #: 9193
8/14/2019 JNPR SJM Infringement
35/38
- 32 -
Finally, PAN originally raised in its non-infringement contentions one additional issue
with respect to some of the asserted method claims, asserting that Juniper had failed to show that
such method claims are actually performed. As an initial matter, this argument does not and
cannot preclude the partial summary judgment relief that Juniper has requested because Juniper
has asserted both methodandnon-method claims for each of the patents-in-suit.18
Moreover, even as to the asserted method claims, PANs argument is mistaken, as
Junipers expert report provides detailed evidence and analysis demonstrating that both PAN and
its customers perform the asserted method claims. See, e.g., Rubin Ex. A 56 71 (752
patent), 280 291 (634 patent), 565 574 (723 patent), 841 852 (347 patent),
929 953 (612 patent), 1100 1114 (700 patent), 1244 1253 (459 patent); see also,
e.g., Ex. P (1/23/13 PAN 30(b)(6)/Zuk Depo.) at 167:25-168:5 (PAN 30(b)(6) regarding PAN
testing:
PANs non-infringement report fails to present any genuine dispute of material
fact in response to Junipers analysis regarding these accused acts of direct infringement.19
Accordingly, Juniper has established direct infringement by PAN and its customers as to the
elements discussed above.
D. Partial Summary Judgment Is Appropriate For Certain Dependent Claim
Elements
The Court should also grant partial summary judgment on the elements of certain of the
dependentclaims Juniper has asserted in this case. Dr. Rubins report provided a detailed
18See also, e.g., Ex. P (1/23/13 PAN 30(b)(6)/Zuk Depo.) at 165:24 166:1; Ex. F(2/25/2013 Zuk Depo.) at 493:16 494:2; Rubin Ex. A 49.
19 By contrast, each section of PANs non-infringement report includes a subsection entitled
Juniper Has Failed to Establish Indirect Infringement. See, e.g., Ex. D (Mitzenmacher
Report) 116-119.
Case 1:11-cv-01258-SLR Document 212 Filed 09/19/13 Page 35 of 38 PageID #: 9194
8/14/2019 JNPR SJM Infringement
36/38
- 33 -
analysis of these dependent claims (including supporting evidence and source code citations), as
summarized below:
Patent Claim(s) Rubin Report
752 2 131 143752 4 148 152
752 6-8, 10 158 180
752 14 239 243
752 16-19, 21 247 261
634 5-6 412 426
634 23-24 515 522
723 4-5, 8 685 719
723 11-12 746 778
347 16 892 896
612 4-8 993 1027
612 12 1042 1045612 26 1069 1071
459 6-8 1282 1296
459 10 1302 1306
459 17-18, 21 1338 1352
PANs expert did not address any of these dependent claims in his report. PANs non-
infringement claim charts likewise do not present any material dispute of fact. As was the case
with the uncontested elements discussed in the preceding section, the rows of PANs charts
pertaining to these dependent claims are either blank or state in conclusory fashion that PAN
But as shown in the chart above, Junipers expert Dr. Rubin presented substantial
evidence on each element; PANs expert simply had no response. Also, for a number of these
claims, PAN merely repeats its legal arguments regarding the standard for infringement of
method claims. Again, as shown above and in the additional evidence Dr. Rubin cited for these
claims, there is no genuine dispute that PAN and its customers perform these methods. In short,
noneof PANs contentions for these dependent claims identifies any factual evidence regarding
non-infringement, and PANs expert likewise fails to provide any evidence or argument in
Case 1:11-cv-01258-SLR Document 212 Filed 09/19/13 Page 36 of 38 PageID #: 9195
8/14/2019 JNPR SJM Infringement
37/38
- 34 -
response to the detailed analysis set forth in Junipers expert report. Accordingly, these elements
should be established by way of partial summary judgment as well.
IX. CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, Juniper respectfully requests that this Court grant its
motion for: (1) summary judgment of infringement as to claims 1 and 13 of the 612 patent; (2)
summary judgment of infringement as to claims 1, 14, and 24 of the 347 patent; (3) summary
judgment of infringement as to claims 1 and 12 of the 459 patent; (4) partial summary judgment
of infringement as to the two or more security devices element of the 634 patent; (5) partial
summary judgment of infringement as to the engine elements of the 723 patent; (6) partial
summary judgment of infringement as to the uncontested claim elements as identified in the
charts in Section III of this brief; and (7) partial summary judgment of infringement as to the
additional elements of the dependent claims as identified in the chart in Section VIII.D of this
brief.
OF COUNSEL:
Morgan ChuJonathan S. Kagan
IRELL & MANELLA LLP1800 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 900
Los Angeles, CA 90067-4276(310) 277-1010
Lisa S. Glasser
David C. McPhie
Rebecca L. CliffordIRELL & MANELLA LLP840 Newport Center Drive, Suite 400
Newport Beach, CA 92660(949) 760-0991
MORRIS, NICHOLS, ARSHT & TUNNELL LLP
/s/ Jennifer YingJack B. Blumenfeld (#1014)
Jennifer Ying (#5550)1201 North Market Street
P.O. Box 1347Wilmington, DE 19899-1347
(302) [email protected]
Attorneys for Plaintiff Juniper Networks, Inc.
August 20, 20137478060.3
Case 1:11-cv-01258-SLR Document 212 Filed 09/19/13 Page 37 of 38 PageID #: 9196
8/14/2019 JNPR SJM Infringement
38/38
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on September 19, 2013, I caused the foregoing to be
electronically filed with the Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF, which will send notification of
such filing to all registered participants.
I further certify that I caused copies of the foregoing document to be served on
September 19, 2013, upon the following in the manner indicated:
Philip A. Rovner, EsquireJonathan A. Choa, Esquire
POTTER ANDERSON &CORROON LLP1313 North Market Street
Hercules PlazaWilmington, DE 19801
Attorneys for Defendant
VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL
Daralyn J. Durie, EsquireRagesh K. Tangri, Esquire
Ryan M. Kent, EsquireBrian C. Howard, Esquire
Sonali D. Maitra, EsquireDURIE TANGRI LLP
217 Leidesdorff StreetSan Francisco, CA 94111
Attorneys for Defendant
VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL
Harold J. McElhinny, EsquireMichael A. Jacobs, Esquire
Matthew A. Chivvis, EsquireMatthew I. Kreeger, Esquire
MORRISON &FOERSTER LLP425 Market Street
San Francisco, CA 94105Attorneys for Defendant
VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL
/s/ Jennifer Ying
Jennifer Ying (#5550)
Case 1:11-cv-01258-SLR Document 212 Filed 09/19/13 Page 38 of 38 PageID #: 9197