Case 2:19-cv-00040-JRG-RSP Document 161 Filed 11/26/19 Page 1 of 7 PageID #: 2182
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`MARSHALL DIVISION
`
`IMPLICIT, LLC,
` Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`IMPERVA, INC.
`
`FORTINET, INC.
`
`JUNIPER NETWORKS, INC.
`
` Defendants.
`
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`
`Case No. 2:19-cv-00040-JRG-RSP
`LEAD CASE
`
`Case No. 2:19-cv-00039-JRG-RSP
`
`Case No. 2:19-cv-00037-JRG-RSP
`
`JOINT CLAIM CONSTRUCTION AND PREHEARING STATEMENT
`PURSUANT TO P.R 4-3
`
`Plaintiff Implicit, LLC (“Implicit), and Defendants Fortinet, Inc. (“Fortinet”), Juniper
`
`Networks, Inc. (“Juniper”), and Imperva, Inc. (“Imperva”) (collectively, the “Parties”), pursuant
`
`to Patent Local Rule 4-3 and the Court’s Third Amended Docket Control Order (Dkt. 152),
`
`hereby respectfully submit this joint claim construction and prehearing statement regarding U.S.
`
`Patent Nos. 8,694,683 (the “’683 patent”); 9,270,790 (the “’790 patent); 9,591,104 (the “’104
`
`patent”); 10,033,839 (the “’839 patent”); 10,027,780 (the “’780 patent”); and 10,225,378 (the
`
`“’378 patent”) (collectively, the “Patents-in-Suit”).
`
`I.
`
`AGREED CLAIM CONSTRUCTIONS
`
`The Parties agree to the construction of the following claim terms:
`
`Term, Phrase, or Clause
`“message”
`
`Agreed Construction
`“a collection of data that is related in some way, such
`as a stream of video or audio data or an email
`message”
`
`Joint Claim Construction and Prehearing Statement Pursuant to P.R. 4-3
`
`1
`
`Juniper Ex. 1024-p. 1
`Juniper v Implicit
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-00040-JRG-RSP Document 161 Filed 11/26/19 Page 2 of 7 PageID #: 2183
`
`Term, Phrase, or Clause
`“state information”
`
`“the packet of the message”
`
`“key [value]”
`
`Agreed Construction
`“information that is specific to a software routine for a
`specific message, that can be used for all packets of
`the message, and that is not information related to an
`overall path”
`“the one or more received message packets used to
`create a path”
`“information that can be used to identify the session
`of a protocol,” and—as used in the ’104, ’780, ’839,
`and ’378 Patents—the determine/determining
`operation/step is performed before the
`identify/identifying operation/step
`
`II.
`PROPOSED CONSTRUCTIONS AND IDENTIFICATION OF INTRINSIC AND
`EXTRINSIC EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`The Parties’ proposed constructions for the disputed terms and identification of
`
`supporting evidence are attached as Exhibits A and B. Plaintiff’s proposed constructions and
`
`identification of evidence are attached as Exhibit A. Defendants’ proposed constructions and
`
`identification of evidence are attached as Exhibit B.
`
`Defendants’ Objection: The Parties exchanged their P.R. 4-2 disclosures on November 4,
`
`2019, identifying proposed constructions and extrinsic evidence for the collection of terms
`
`previously identified by the Parties on October 3, 2019. At 5:14 p.m. CT on the day of this
`
`filing, Plaintiff for the first time served a draft of its Exhibit A that (i) materially changed the
`
`terms identified by combining terms and adding claim language; (ii) added new extrinsic
`
`evidence not previously identified; and (iii) proposed new alternative constructions, all of which
`
`were previously undisclosed in Plaintiff’s P.R. 4-2 disclosure. Although Plaintiff proposed
`
`combining certain terms during the Parties’ meet and confer on November 25, 2019, Plaintiff did
`
`not provide a written version of its proposal—much less identify any of the new terms,
`
`constructions, and evidence—until 5:14 p.m. CT today as Plaintiff’s Exhibit A. Defendants
`
`object to Plaintiff’s Exhibit A to the extent it differs from Plaintiff’s P.R. 4-2 disclosure,
`
`
`Joint Claim Construction and Prehearing Statement Pursuant to P.R. 4-3
`
`2
`
`Juniper Ex. 1024-p. 2
`Juniper v Implicit
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-00040-JRG-RSP Document 161 Filed 11/26/19 Page 3 of 7 PageID #: 2184
`
`including because the belated disclosure of Plaintiff’s Exhibit A does not allow Defendants
`
`adequate time to consider and respond to Plaintiff’s new and previously undisclosed positions.
`
`Plaintiff’s Response to Defendants’ Objections: Implicit’s P.R. 4-2 disclosure properly
`
`disclosed its preliminary proposed terms, constructions, and supporting evidence in compliance
`
`with the Eastern District of Texas’s Patent Rules.
`
`Defendants’ primary complaint appears to be about Implicit’s merging of the “execute”
`
`and “convert” terms. But Implicit presents no terms that went undiscussed by the
`
`Parties. Implicit specifically disclosed its proposal for merging the “execute” and “convert”
`
`terms during the Parties’ meet and confer, and the Parties discussed the same for approximately
`
`45 minutes. As for Implicit’s alternative constructions, Implicit’s position remains the same—
`
`the terms require no construction and the alternative constructions merely capture plain meaning
`
`to one of ordinary skill in the art in language that is helpful to the jury.
`
`Defendants’ objection is surprising given Defendants’ late addition of a new term not
`
`included in their P.R. 4-2 disclosure. Defendants added “routines in the sequence of routines,”
`
`which is not mentioned at all in Defendants’ P.R. 4-2 disclosure.
`
`Implicit’s “new” extrinsic evidence was largely cited in either Defendants’ own P.R. 4-2
`
`disclosure, or by Dr. Kevin Almeroth in his properly-noticed, sworn declaration (served
`
`concurrently with this filing). See P.R. 4-3 (b) & Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2)(B(i)-(ii). Furthermore,
`
`Defendants, after 7:00 p.m. CT, added an immense quantity (hundreds of pages) of “new”
`
`extrinsic evidence in support of each of their proposed terms.
`
` Finally, if Defendants need to adjust their approach to any of the claim terms, they have
`
`ample time to do so. Defendants’ claim construction brief is not due until January 9, 2020,
`
`which is 44 days from the date of this filing.
`
`
`Joint Claim Construction and Prehearing Statement Pursuant to P.R. 4-3
`
`3
`
`Juniper Ex. 1024-p. 3
`Juniper v Implicit
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-00040-JRG-RSP Document 161 Filed 11/26/19 Page 4 of 7 PageID #: 2185
`
`
`
`Defendants’ Reply: As discussed on the parties’ meet and confer teleconference, the
`
`omission of “routines in the sequence of routines” was an inadvertent omission from Defendants’
`
`P.R. 4-2 disclosures. Defendants identified this term as part of its P.R. 4-1 disclosures and had
`
`coupled it with the related terms “sequence of [two or more] routines” and “one or more
`
`routines” collectively identified as Term No. 2. Regarding Implicit’s assertion of Defendants’
`
`addition of “an immense quantity (hundreds of pages) of ‘new’ extrinsic evidence,” Defendants
`
`are unaware to what “new” evidence Implicit is referring. Defendants incorporated reservations
`
`of rights from their P.R. 4-2 cover pleading to rely on “any prosecution histories or
`
`reexamination proceedings for the patents at issue or patents in related families,” and have added
`
`that they reserve the right to rely on evidence cited by Implicit.
`
`III. ANTICIPATED LENGTH OF THE CLAIM CONSTRUCTION HEARING
`
`
`
`Pursuant to P.R. 4-3, the Parties anticipate that the length of time necessary for the Claim
`
`Construction Hearing will be no more than three (3) hours.
`
`IV.
`
`LIVE WITNESS TESTIMONY
`
`
`
`The Parties do not propose to call any witnesses, including experts, live at the Claim
`
`Construction Hearing.
`
`V.
`
`OTHER ISSUES FOR A PREHEARING CONFERENCE
`
`At this time, neither party is aware of any issues which might be appropriately taken up at
`
`a prehearing conference prior to the Claim Construction Hearing.
`
`Dated: November 26, 2019
`
`By: /s/ Christopher Larson _
`
`Michael J. Sacksteder
`(CA Bar No. 191605)
`Jessica Lee Benzler
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`By: /s/ Brandon C. Martin _
`
`Spencer Hosie, pro hac vice,
`(CA Bar No. 101777)
`shosie@hosielaw.com
`
`
`Joint Claim Construction and Prehearing Statement Pursuant to P.R. 4-3
`
`4
`
`Juniper Ex. 1024-p. 4
`Juniper v Implicit
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-00040-JRG-RSP Document 161 Filed 11/26/19 Page 5 of 7 PageID #: 2186
`
`Diane S. Rice, pro hac vice,
`(CA Bar No. 118303)
`drice@hosielaw.com
`Brandon C. Martin, pro hac vice,
`(CA Bar No. 269624)
`bmartin@hosielaw.com
`Darrell Rae Atkinson, pro hac vice,
`(CA Bar No. 280564)
`datkinson@hosielaw.com
`Francesca M.S. Germinario, pro hac vice,
`(CA Bar No. 326208)
`fgerminario@hosielaw.com
`HOSIE RICE LLP
`600 Montgomery St., 34th Floor
`San Francisco, CA 94111
`415.247.6000
`Fax: 415.247.6001
`
`William E. Davis, III (TX Bar No. 24047416)
`bdavis@bdavisfirm.com
`Christian J. Hurt (TX Bar No. 24059987)
`churt@bdavisfirm.com
`Edward Chin (Of Counsel)
`(TX Bar No. 50511688)
`echine@bdavisfirm.com
`Debra Coleman (Of Counsel)
`(TX Bar No. 24059595)
`dcoleman@bdavisfirm.com
`Ty Wilson (TX Bar No. 24106583)
`THE DAVIS FIRM, PC
`213 N. Fredonia Street, Suite 230
`Longview, Texas 75601
`Telephone: (903) 230-9090
`Facsimile: (903) 230-9661
`
`Counsel for Plaintiff Implicit, LLC
`
`(CA Bar No. 306164)
`Christopher L. Larson
`(CA Bar No. 308247)
`FENWICK & WEST LLP-San Francisco
`555 California Street
`12th Floor
`San Francisco, CA 94104
`415-875-2300
`Facsimile: (415) 281-1350
`Email: msacksteder@fenwick.com;
`jbenzler@fenwick.com;
`clarson @fenwick.com
`
`GEOFFREY ROBERT MILLER
`(TX State Bar No. 24094847)
`FENWICK & WEST LLP-Mtn. View
`Silicon Valley Center
`801 California Street
`Mountain View, CA 94041
`650-988-8500
`Facsimile: (650) 938-5200
`gmiller@fenwick.com
`
`Counsel for Defendant Imperva, Inc.
`
`By: /s/ Alice Snedeker _
`
`Matthew C. Gaudet (GA SBN 287789)
`Admitted E.D. Tex.
`David C. Dotson (GA SBN 138040)
`Admitted E.D. Tex.
`John R. Gibson (GA SBN 454507)
`Admitted E.D. Tex.
`Alice E. Snedeker
`Admitted E.D. Tex.
`DUANE MORRIS LLP
`1075 Peachtree NE, Suite 2000
`Atlanta, GA 30309
`Telephone: 404.253.6900
`Facsimile: 404.253.6901
`Email: mcgaudet@duanemorris.com;
`dcdotson@duanemorris.com;
`jrgibson@duanemorris.com
`aesnedeker@duanemorris.com
`
`Christopher J. Tyson (VA SBN 81553)
`
`
`Joint Claim Construction and Prehearing Statement Pursuant to P.R. 4-3
`
`5
`
`Juniper Ex. 1024-p. 5
`Juniper v Implicit
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-00040-JRG-RSP Document 161 Filed 11/26/19 Page 6 of 7 PageID #: 2187
`
`Admitted E.D. Tex.
`DUANE MORRIS LLP
`505 9th Street, N.W., Suite 1000
`Washington, DC 20004-2166
`Tel: 202.776.7800
`Fax: 202.776.7801
`Email: cjtyson@duanemorris.com
`
`Deron R. Dacus
`State Bar No. 00790553
`THE DACUS FIRM, P.C.
`821 ESE Loop 323, Suite 430
`Tyler, TX 75701
`Phone: (903) 705-1117
`Fax: (903) 581-2543
`ddacus@dacusfirm.com
`
`Counsel for Defendant Fortinet, Inc.
`
`By: /s/ David McPhie _
`
`IRELL & MANELLA LLP-Newport
`Beach
`David McPhie
`(CA Bar No. 231520) [Pro Hac Vice]
`Ingrid Marie Haslund Petersen
`(CA Bar No. 313927) [Pro Hac Vice]
`840 Newport Center Drive, Suite 400
`Newport Beach, CA 92660
`Telephone: (949) 760-0991
`Facsimile: (949) 760-5200
`Email: dmcphie@irell.com
`ipetersen@irell.com
`
`IRELL & MANELLA LLP-Los Angeles
`Jonathan S. Kagan
`(CA Bar No. 166039) [Pro Hac Vice]
`
`1800 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 900
`Los Angeles, CA 90067-4276
`Telephone: (310) 277-1010
`Facsimile: (310) 203-7199
`Email: jkagan@irell.com
`
`GILLAM & SMITH LLP
`Melissa R. Smith
`
`
`Joint Claim Construction and Prehearing Statement Pursuant to P.R. 4-3
`
`6
`
`Juniper Ex. 1024-p. 6
`Juniper v Implicit
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-00040-JRG-RSP Document 161 Filed 11/26/19 Page 7 of 7 PageID #: 2188
`
`(Texas Bar No. 24001351)
`303 South Washington Avenue
`Marshall, TX 75670
`Telephone: (903) 934-8450
`Facsimile: (903) 934-9257
`Email: melissa@gillamsmithlaw.com
`
`Attorneys for Defendant Juniper Networks,
`Inc.
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`The undersigned certifies that the foregoing document is being filed electronically in
`
`compliance with Local Rule CV-5(a). As such, this document is being served on this 26th day of
`
`November, 2019 on all counsel, who are deemed to have consented to electronic service. See Local
`
`Rule CV-5(a)(3)(V).
`
`/s/ Brandon C. Martin
`Brandon C. Martin
`
`
`
`
`Joint Claim Construction and Prehearing Statement Pursuant to P.R. 4-3
`
`7
`
`Juniper Ex. 1024-p. 7
`Juniper v Implicit
`
`