Case 1:11-cv-01258-SLR Document 212 Filed 09/19/13 Page 1 of 38 PageID #: 9160

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE JUNIPER NETWORKS, INC., Plaintiff, v. PALO ALTO NETWORKS, INC., Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

C.A. No. 11-1258 (SLR) REDACTED PUBLIC VERSION

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 Street P.O. Box 1347 Wilmington, DE 19801 (302) 658-9200 jblumenfeld@mnat.com jying@mnat.com OF COUNSEL: Morgan Chu Jonathan S. Kagan IRELL & MANELLA LLP 1800 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 900 Los Angeles, CA 90067-4276 (310) 277-1010 Lisa S. Glasser David C. McPhie Rebecca L. Clifford IRELL & MANELLA LLP 840 Newport Center Drive, Suite 400 Newport Beach, CA 92660 (949) 760-0991 Original Filing Date: August 20, 2013 Redacted Filing Date: September 19, 2013 Attorneys for Plaintiff Juniper Networks, Inc.

Case 1:11-cv-01258-SLR Document 212 Filed 09/19/13 Page 2 of 38 PageID #: 9161

TABLE OF CONTENTS Page I. II. III. IV. V. VI. VII. NATURE AND STAGE OF PROCEEDINGS ............................................................. 1 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT .................................................................................... 1 FACTUAL BACKGROUND ....................................................................................... 3 APPLICABLE LEGAL PRINCIPLES.......................................................................... 6 PAN INFRINGES THE 612 PATENT ........................................................................ 7 PAN INFRINGES THE 347 PATENT ...................................................................... 10 PAN INFRINGES THE 459 PATENT ...................................................................... 14

VIII. PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF INFRINGEMENT IS APPROPRIATE FOR PARTICULAR ELEMENTS OF THE ASSERTED CLAIMS .................................................................................................................... 20 A. B. C. D. IX. PAN Infringes The Two Or More Security Devices Element Of The 634 Patent ............................................................................................... 22 PAN Infringes The Engine Elements Of The 723 Patent ............................. 26 Partial Summary Judgment Is Appropriate For Independent Claim Elements That Are Undisputed As To Infringement ........................................ 27 Partial Summary Judgment Is Appropriate For Certain Dependent Claim Elements ............................................................................................... 32

CONCLUSION .......................................................................................................... 34

-i-

Case 1:11-cv-01258-SLR Document 212 Filed 09/19/13 Page 3 of 38 PageID #: 9162

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Page(s) Cases Acco 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 Rules Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a).............................................................................................................. 6, 21 Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e)....................................................................................................................6 Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(g) ................................................................................................................. 21

- ii -

Case 1:11-cv-01258-SLR Document 212 Filed 09/19/13 Page 4 of 38 PageID #: 9163

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 do not 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.

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 (the 752 patent), 8,077,723 (the 723 patent), and 7,650,634 (the 634 patent) (collectively, the patents-in-suit).

-1-

Case 1:11-cv-01258-SLR Document 212 Filed 09/19/13 Page 5 of 38 PageID #: 9164

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 are not security policies, and not based on a determination of inter-zone or intra-zone statusindeed, they occur well before the PAN system compares the source and destination zone. Because PANs non-infringement argument does not address, much

-2-

Case 1:11-cv-01258-SLR Document 212 Filed 09/19/13 Page 6 of 38 PageID #: 9165

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

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.

-3-

Case 1:11-cv-01258-SLR Document 212 Filed 09/19/13 Page 7 of 38 PageID #: 9166

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. See Rubin Ex. A 43-48.

-4-

Case 1:11-cv-01258-SLR Document 212 Filed 09/19/13 Page 8 of 38 PageID #: 9167

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 independent claims are shown in shaded boxes of the charts below:
752 634 723 347 612 700 459 Claim1 Claim13 Claim1 Claim19 Claim1 Claim9 Claim1 Claim14 Claim24 Claim1 Claim13 Claim22 Claim27 Claim2 Claim3 Claim4 Claim5 Claim19 Claim1 Claim12 1pre 1pre 19pre 1pre 9pre 1pre 1pre 24pre 1a 13a 22a 27a 2pre 3pre 4pre 5pre 19pre 12pre 1a 1b 13a 13b 1a 1b 19a 19b 1a 9a 9b 1a 14a 14b 24a 24b 1b 1c 13b 22b 27b 2a 2b 3a 3b 5a 5b 19a 19b 1a 1b 12a 12b 1c 13c 1c 19c 1b 9c 1b 14c 24c 1d 13d 1d 19d 1c 9d 1e 13e 1e 19e 1d 1f 13f 1f 19f 1e 9e 1g 13g 1g 19g 1f 9f 1i 1j 13h 1h 1i 1j 19h 19i 19j 9g 9h 1h

1k 19k

22c 27c 2c

27d 2d 3c 4a 5c 19d 1d 12d

27e 2e 4b

19c 1c 12c

Moreover, PANs report did not present any additional non-infringement arguments with respect to the asserted dependent claims analyzed in Dr. Rubins report. During his deposition, PANs expert Ex.

-5-

Case 1:11-cv-01258-SLR Document 212 Filed 09/19/13 Page 9 of 38 PageID #: 9168

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. See Sections 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. See Sections 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. See Sections 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) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e)).

-6-

Case 1:11-cv-01258-SLR Document 212 Filed 09/19/13 Page 10 of 38 PageID #: 9169

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 a network 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 incoming and 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 of data 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

-7-

Case 1:11-cv-01258-SLR Document 212 Filed 09/19/13 Page 11 of 38 PageID #: 9170

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 offer any non-infringement analysis whatsoever with respect to the two of the three PAN accused features ( ).3

See Rubin Ex. A 968-986. PANs only noninfringement 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 not Ex. D (Mitzenmacher Report) 236. PANs argument is mistaken, as Dr. Rubins analysis separately identified support for his conclusion 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. 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.

-8-

Case 1:11-cv-01258-SLR Document 212 Filed 09/19/13 Page 12 of 38 PageID #: 9171

See D.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 noninfringement 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 should be 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 rules can be 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 207208 (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 cofounder (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.

-9-

Case 1:11-cv-01258-SLR Document 212 Filed 09/19/13 Page 13 of 38 PageID #: 9172

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. See Rubin 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 are not 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:

- 10 -

Case 1:11-cv-01258-SLR Document 212 Filed 09/19/13 Page 14 of 38 PageID #: 9173

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 further sorting the initially denied packets 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 denied packets; 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 denied packets; 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 expert agreed with 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,

- 11 -

Case 1:11-cv-01258-SLR Document 212 Filed 09/19/13 Page 15 of 38 PageID #: 9174

Id. at 121:12-23, 122:7-16. Thus,

.5 PANs expert further admitted that, Id. at 122:17-25; see also Ex. 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.

- 12 -

Case 1:11-cv-01258-SLR Document 212 Filed 09/19/13 Page 16 of 38 PageID #: 9175

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

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 1 and 14, as claim 24 does not even mention sorting. Moreover, this construction is improper for the reasons discussed in Junipers Markman brief. D.I. 148 at 12-14. Even if PANs construction governed these claims, however, summary judgment of infringement 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 determination that identifies packets to be dropped, for example when the accused PAN products match packets to the default deny rule.

- 13 -

Case 1:11-cv-01258-SLR Document 212 Filed 09/19/13 Page 17 of 38 PageID #: 9176

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.

- 14 -

Case 1:11-cv-01258-SLR Document 212 Filed 09/19/13 Page 18 of 38 PageID #: 9177

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 distinct security domains; [1c] performing, based on a first determination that the packet is to pass between the two distinct security domains security, security screening on the packet before routing the screened packet to an egress 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 an egress port of the network device for forwarding on the network without performing the security screening on 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. See Rubin 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 security domains (e.g., element 1a, 12a); determine whether the packet is to remain within one security domain (intrazone) 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 security screening on that packet (e.g., element 1c, 12c).

See Rubin Ex. A 1255-1272, 1311-1328.

- 15 -

Case 1:11-cv-01258-SLR Document 212 Filed 09/19/13 Page 19 of 38 PageID #: 9178

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 also Ex. 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 119:12120:15.
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 antecedent security 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 article the signals an antecedent basis). This point is elaborated in Junipers Markman Brief. See D.I. 148 at 28-29.

- 16 -

Case 1:11-cv-01258-SLR Document 212 Filed 09/19/13 Page 20 of 38 PageID #: 9179

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

- 17 -

Case 1:11-cv-01258-SLR Document 212 Filed 09/19/13 Page 21 of 38 PageID #: 9180

Rubin Ex. A 1261 ( ( ); Ex. J at 3, 56-58 ( ). ); see also id. 1109-1110

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

These illustrative examples of infringement are presented for summary judgment because they 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 involve more complex factual issues. E.g., Rubin Ex. A 643, 1266-1268.

- 18 -

Case 1:11-cv-01258-SLR Document 212 Filed 09/19/13 Page 22 of 38 PageID #: 9181

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, 62223 (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 within that 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.

- 19 -

Case 1:11-cv-01258-SLR Document 212 Filed 09/19/13 Page 23 of 38 PageID #: 9182

. Ex. C (7/3/2013 Mitzenmacher Depo.) at 75:14-76:7; Ex. D (Mitzenmacher Report) 265

Moreover, PAN does not contend that any comparison 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 APPROPRIATE FOR 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). See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a) ([a] party may move for summary judgment, identifying each claim or defenseor the part of each claim or 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.

- 20 -

Case 1:11-cv-01258-SLR Document 212 Filed 09/19/13 Page 24 of 38 PageID #: 9183

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 SynQor granted 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, in Acco 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

- 21 -

Case 1:11-cv-01258-SLR Document 212 Filed 09/19/13 Page 25 of 38 PageID #: 9184

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.

- 22 -

Case 1:11-cv-01258-SLR Document 212 Filed 09/19/13 Page 26 of 38 PageID #: 9185

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 accused security devices in the PAN products constitute two physically distinct structures (per PANs proposed construction).

- 23 -

Case 1:11-cv-01258-SLR Document 212 Filed 09/19/13 Page 27 of 38 PageID #: 9186

Ex. N (DLoP) at 4.14 Each of these two components serves a distinct purpose; as PAN cofounder (and 634 patent inventor) testified:

Ex. A (6/4/2010 Zuk Depo.) at 138:17-25; see also D.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 the document is accurate during discovery. See Ex. B (PAN Resp. to Juniper Rog. No. 19) at 14; Ex. O (Xu Depo.) at 216:21 217:4.

- 24 -

Case 1:11-cv-01258-SLR Document 212 Filed 09/19/13 Page 28 of 38 PageID #: 9187

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.

15

See also <https://www.paloaltonetworks.com/content/dam/paloaltonetworks-com/en_US /assets/pdf/tech-briefs/techbrief-content-id.pdf>.

- 25 -

Case 1:11-cv-01258-SLR Document 212 Filed 09/19/13 Page 29 of 38 PageID #: 9188

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.

- 26 -

Case 1:11-cv-01258-SLR Document 212 Filed 09/19/13 Page 30 of 38 PageID #: 9189

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 138:116 Ex. G (Mao Depo.) at 222:20 223:4 ( ); see also Ex. 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. See Rubin 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-

- 27 -

Case 1:11-cv-01258-SLR Document 212 Filed 09/19/13 Page 31 of 38 PageID #: 9190

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 also Rubin 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 additional evidence 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.).

- 28 -

Case 1:11-cv-01258-SLR Document 212 Filed 09/19/13 Page 32 of 38 PageID #: 9191

eleven elements that PAN does not dispute. Juniper expert Dr. Rubin provided a detailed infringement analysis for these elements. See Rubin Ex. A 73-75 (claim 1 preamble), 7680 (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 .

- 29 -

Case 1:11-cv-01258-SLR Document 212 Filed 09/19/13 Page 33 of 38 PageID #: 9192

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 . See Ex. 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 also Rubin 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. See Rubin 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

- 30 -

Case 1:11-cv-01258-SLR Document 212 Filed 09/19/13 Page 34 of 38 PageID #: 9193

(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 presents no analysis or evidence as to any of these elements. And PAN has failed to preserve any other noninfringement 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 disclosed any such 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 grant partial summary judgment with respect to the undisputed elements of that claim, for the reasons set forth above.

- 31 -

Case 1:11-cv-01258-SLR Document 212 Filed 09/19/13 Page 35 of 38 PageID #: 9194

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 method and non-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 dependent claims Juniper has asserted in this case. Dr. Rubins report provided a detailed
18

See 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. 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.

19

- 32 -

Case 1:11-cv-01258-SLR Document 212 Filed 09/19/13 Page 36 of 38 PageID #: 9195

analysis of these dependent claims (including supporting evidence and source code citations), as summarized below: Patent 752 752 752 752 752 634 634 723 723 347 612 612 612 459 459 459 Claim(s) 2 4 6-8, 10 14 16-19, 21 5-6 23-24 4-5, 8 11-12 16 4-8 12 26 6-8 10 17-18, 21 Rubin Report 131 143 148 152 158 180 239 243 247 261 412 426 515 522 685 719 746 778 892 896 993 1027 1042 1045 1069 1071 1282 1296 1302 1306 1338 1352 PANs non-

PANs expert did not address any of these dependent claims in his report.

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, none of 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

- 33 -

Case 1:11-cv-01258-SLR Document 212 Filed 09/19/13 Page 37 of 38 PageID #: 9196

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. MORRIS, NICHOLS, ARSHT & TUNNELL LLP OF COUNSEL: Morgan Chu Jonathan S. Kagan IRELL & MANELLA LLP 1800 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 900 Los Angeles, CA 90067-4276 (310) 277-1010 Lisa S. Glasser David C. McPhie Rebecca L. Clifford IRELL & MANELLA LLP 840 Newport Center Drive, Suite 400 Newport Beach, CA 92660 (949) 760-0991 August 20, 2013
7478060.3

/s/ Jennifer Ying

Jack B. Blumenfeld (#1014) Jennifer Ying (#5550) 1201 North Market Street P.O. Box 1347 Wilmington, DE 19899-1347 (302) 658-9200 jblumenfeld@mnat.com jying@mnat.com Attorneys for Plaintiff Juniper Networks, Inc.

- 34 -

Case 1:11-cv-01258-SLR Document 212 Filed 09/19/13 Page 38 of 38 PageID #: 9197

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, Esquire Jonathan A. Choa, Esquire POTTER ANDERSON & CORROON LLP 1313 North Market Street Hercules Plaza Wilmington, DE 19801 Attorneys for Defendant Daralyn J. Durie, Esquire Ragesh K. Tangri, Esquire Ryan M. Kent, Esquire Brian C. Howard, Esquire Sonali D. Maitra, Esquire DURIE TANGRI LLP 217 Leidesdorff Street San Francisco, CA 94111 Attorneys for Defendant Harold J. McElhinny, Esquire Michael A. Jacobs, Esquire Matthew A. Chivvis, Esquire Matthew I. Kreeger, Esquire MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP 425 Market Street San Francisco, CA 94105 Attorneys for Defendant VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL

VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL

VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL

/s/ Jennifer Ying

Jennifer Ying (#5550)