JNPR SJM Infringement

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


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



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



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).



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



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.



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.



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.



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)).



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



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.



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.



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:



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,



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.



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.



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.



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.



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.



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



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.



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.



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.



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



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.



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).



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.



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 .



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.



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-



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.).



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

.



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



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.



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.



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



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]

[email protected]

Attorneys for Plaintiff Juniper Networks, Inc.

August 20, 20137478060.3



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)


Documents

JNPR SJM Infringement