From: Noona, Stephen E. [mailto:senoona@kaufcan.com]  
`Sent: Wednesday, July 14, 2021 8:09 PM 
`To: Julie Jones <Julie_Jones@vaed.uscourts.gov> 
`Cc: McFarland, Robert W. <rmcfarland@mcguirewoods.com>; Leventhal, Daniel 
`<daniel.leventhal@nortonrosefulbright.com>; Lee, Hannah <HLee@KRAMERLEVIN.com> 
`Subject: Centripetal Network, Inc. v. Palo Alto Network, Inc., Civil Action No. 2:21‐cv‐00137‐RCY‐RJK, Initial Pretrial 
`Conference
`
`[External Email – Use Caution]
`
`Julie:
`
` In keeping with the Court’s directives in the referenced matter and the parties’ communications with
`you, attached are the following:
`
`1. Proposed Rule 26(f) Report and Proposed Discovery Order;
`
`2. Exhibit A—a proposed pretrial schedule for the August 1, 2022 trial date (you indicated was
`acceptable to the Court) for the referenced matter; where the parties’ have differing proposals for some of the
`dates, an explanation of each parties’ position on the dates proposed is attached as Exhibit C; and
`
`3. Exhibit B—alternative proposed pretrial schedules for the original dates offered by the Court should
`the parties’ suggested August 1, 2022 trial date be unworkable for the Court. As you will recall,
`
`1
`
`Palo Alto Ex. 1019
`Palo Alto Networks v. Centripetal Networks
`IPR2021-01150
`Page 00001
`
`

`

`Palo Alto’s lead trial counsel informed Centripetal that he has a conflict with these dates due to another trial,
`and in an effort to reasonably accommodate in good faith, the parties agreed to a trial commencing August 1,
`2022 subject to the Court’s availability and approval. As an alternative if the August 1, 2022 trial does not work
`for the Court, Centripetal is available on the earlier trial dates and proposes these schedules. 
`
` Please let us know if you have any questions. Thanks,…SEN.
`
`
`Stephen E. Noona
`Kaufman & Canoles, P.C.
`150 W. Main Street, Suite 2100
`Norfolk, VA 23510-1665
`
`
` T
`
` (757) 624.3239
`F (888) 360.9092
`senoona@kaufcan.com
`www.kaufCAN.com
`
`
`
`
`CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This email, including any attachments, is confidential and may be privileged. If you are not
`the intended recipient please notify the sender immediately, and please delete it; you should not copy it or use it for any
`purpose or disclose its contents to any other person. Norton Rose Fulbright entities reserve the right to monitor all email
`communications through their networks.
`
`Norton Rose Fulbright Australia, Norton Rose Fulbright LLP, Norton Rose Fulbright Canada LLP, Norton Rose Fulbright
`South Africa Inc and Norton Rose Fulbright US LLP are separate legal entities and all of them are members of Norton
`Rose Fulbright Verein, a Swiss verein. Norton Rose Fulbright Verein helps coordinate the activities of the members but
`does not itself provide legal services to clients. Details of each entity, with certain regulatory information, are available at
`nortonrosefulbright.com.
`
`2
`
`IPR2021-01150 Page 00002
`
`

`

`EXHIBIT A
`
`Trial: August 1, 2022 to August 14, 2022
`
`Plaintiff’s Proposal
`
`
`Defendant’s Proposal
`
`
`July 16, 2021
`July 21, 2021
`July 28, 2021
`August 2, 2021
`
`August 5, 2021
`
`October 18, 2021
`October 25, 2021
`
`October 29, 2021
`
`November 10, 2021
`
`January 13, 2022
`January 18, 2022
`
`January 25, 2022
`
`February 8, 2022
`
`December 10, 2022
`
`February 22, 2022
`
`December 15, 2021
`
`March 8, 2022
`
`January 6, 2022
`
`February 8, 2022
`
`February 21, 2022
`
`Close of fact discovery for
`plaintiff: January 21, 2022
`Close of fact discovery for
`defendant: February 21, 2022
`March 29, 2022 at 9:15 am (in person)
`April 4, 2022
`March 8, 2022
`April 29, 2022
`April 8, 2022
`
`April 22, 2022
`May 16, 2022
`May 16, 2022
`
`May 20, 2022
`
`June 3, 2022
`
`June 10, 2022
`
`June 17, 2022
`
`June 20, 2022
`
`
`Deadline
`
`Initial disclosures
`Stipulated Protective Order
`Stipulated ESI Order
`If a party has not yet answered,
`answer due
`Deadline for motions for joinder
`of additional parties
`Exchange list of claim terms
`Meet and confer regarding list of
`claim terms
`Exchange preliminary proposed
`constructions
`Simultaneous opening Markman
`briefs
`Simultaneous reply Markman
`briefs
`Parties file joint claim chart of
`claim terms along with proposed
`constructions
`Party with burden of proof to
`identify experts
`Close of fact discovery
`
`Markman hearing
`Opening expert reports
`Responsive expert reports
`Rebuttal expert reports
`Close of expert discovery
`Summary judgment motions
`
`Oppositions to summary
`judgment motions
`Replies to summary judgment
`motions
`Serve 26(a)(3) disclosures,
`proposed exhibit lists
`Daubert Motions
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- 1 -
`
`IPR2021-01150 Page 00003
`
`

`

`Serve any objections to 26(a)(3)
`disclosures, exhibit lists and
`proposed list of MILs
`File MILs
`Attorneys’ conference
`
`File oppositions to Daubert
`motions
`File oppositions to MILs
`Jury Instructions and Voir Dire
`
`File replies to Daubert motions
`
`Plaintiff to serve final draft of
`pretrial order
`Final Pretrial Conference
`
`Deliver binders of exhibits to
`Court
`Trial
`
`June 24, 2022
`
`
`June 29, 2022
`June 30, 2022
`
`July 5, 2022
`
`July 6, 2022
`July 8, 2022
`
`July 11, 2022
`
`July 12, 2022
`
`July 14, 2022 at 1:15 pm
`
`July 27, 2022
`
`August 1, 2022-August 14, 2022
`
`
`- 2 -
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2021-01150 Page 00004
`
`

`

`EXHIBIT B
`
`Trial: June 27, 2022 to July 11, 2022
`Trial: July 11, 2022 to July 22, 2022
`
`
`
`
`Deadline
`
`Initial disclosures
`Stipulated Protective Order
`Stipulated ESI Order
`If a party has not yet answered,
`answer due
`Deadline for motions for joinder
`of additional parties
`Exchange list of claim terms
`Meet and confer regarding list of
`claim terms
`Exchange preliminary proposed
`constructions
`Simultaneous opening Markman
`briefs
`Simultaneous reply Markman
`briefs
`Parties file joint claim chart of
`claim terms along with proposed
`constructions
`Party with burden of proof to
`identify experts
`Close of fact discovery
`
`Markman hearing
`
`Plaintiff’s Proposal2
`Plaintiff’s Proposal1
`(Trial: 7/11/22-7/22/22)
`(Trial: 6/27/22-7/11/22)
`July 16, 2021
`July 21, 2021
`July 28, 2021
`August 2, 2021
`
`August 5, 2021
`
`September 27, 2021
`October 4, 2021
`
`October 7, 2021
`
`October 21, 2021
`
`November 4, 2021
`
`November 11, 2021
`
`
`January 6, 2022
`
`February 18, 2022
`
`March 29, 2022 at 9:15 am (in person)
`
`March 8, 2022
`April 4, 2022
`April 18, 2022
`April 22, 2022
`May 6, 2022
`
`May 13, 2022
`
`Opening expert reports
`Responsive expert reports
`Close of expert discovery
`Summary judgment motions
`Oppositions to summary
`judgment motions
`Replies to summary judgment
`motions
`
`1 Pursuant to the clerk’s June 28, 2021 e-mail, Plaintiff provides proposed case schedules for trial commencing on
`June 27, 2022 and July 11, 2022. PAN’s lead trial counsel informed Centripetal that he has a conflict with these
`dates due to another trial, and in an effort to reasonably accommodate in good faith, Centripetal also provides a
`case proposal with trial commencing August 1, 2022 subject to the Court’s availability and approval.
`2 Id.
`
`April 4, 2022
`April 29, 2022
`May 16, 2022
`May 20, 2022
`June 3, 2022
`
`June 10, 2022
`
`
`
`IPR2021-01150 Page 00005
`
`

`

`Serve 26(a)(3) disclosures,
`proposed exhibit lists
`Daubert Motions
`Serve any objections to 26(a)(3)
`disclosures, exhibit lists and
`proposed list of MILs
`File MILs
`Attorneys’ conference
`File oppositions to Daubert
`motions
`File oppositions to MILs
`Jury Instructions and Voir Dire
`File replies to Daubert motions
`Plaintiff to serve final draft of
`pretrial order
`Final Pretrial Conference
`
`Deliver binders of exhibits to
`Court
`Trial
`
`
`
`
`
`May 20, 2022
`
`May 23, 2022
`May 27, 2022
`
`June 1, 2022
`June 2, 2022
`June 6, 2022
`
`June 7, 2022
`June 7, 2022
`June 13, 2022
`June 8, 2022
`
`June 13, 2022
`
`June 14, 2022
`June 20, 2022
`
`June 22, 2022
`June 23, 2022
`June 23, 2022
`
`June 27, 2022
`June 27, 2022
`June 29, 2022
`June 28, 2022
`
`June 15, 2022 at 1:15 pm by
`Zoom (or in-person)
`June 23, 2022
`
`June 30, 2022 at 1:15 pm (by
`Zoom or in-person)
`July 7, 2022
`
`June 27, 2022-July 11, 2022
`
`July 11, 2022-July 22, 2022
`
`
`
`
`- 2 -
`
`IPR2021-01150 Page 00006
`
`

`

`EXHIBIT C
`
`SCHEDULING EXPLANATION
`
`Parties’ positions:
`
`• Centripetal: Centripetal’s proposed schedule is fair to both parties and avoids unnecessary
`delay and gamesmanship. Centripetal is willing to reasonably accommodate PAN’s trial
`conflict by offering to commence trial on August 1, 2022 (subject to the Court’s availability
`and approval), 17 months after this case was filed. PAN proposes later dates for claim
`construction and discovery to attempt to avoid discretionary denial of its petitions for inter
`partes review of the asserted patents under Apple, Inc. v. Fintiv, Inc., IPR2020-00019 (May
`13, 2020) and in an attempt to stay this litigation.
`
`• PAN: Palo Alto Networks’ proposed schedule is consistent with this Court’s goals and
`procedures in the scheduling of civil cases. Certain of Centripetal’s proposals are contrary
`to established practice and are inappropriate for this case.
`
`Claim Construction Deadlines:
`
`• Centripetal: It is up to the Court’s discretion when to schedule Markman briefing, and an
`earlier Markman will help educate the Court about the technology earlier in this case. Claim
`construction can be done earlier as it is based on the intrinsic record (i.e. patent and file
`history) that both parties already have in their possession. PAN attempts to delay claim
`construction to prevent Centripetal from referencing the claim construction schedule in
`forthcoming preliminary responses to PAN’s inter partes review petitions, in an attempt to
`avoid discretionary denial of its petitions. In addition, PAN’s schedule unfairly precludes
`Centripetal from producing information in discovery during claim construction briefing,
`while allowing PAN to continue to produce information during claim construction by
`setting PAN’s close of fact discovery a month after Centripetal’s.
`
`• PAN: The parties agree on the Markman hearing date, having selected the March 29, 2022
`date offered by the Court. Palo Alto Networks’ proposed deadlines leading up to the
`Markman are calculated backwards from the hearing date, consistent with EDVA practice,
`and employ the same intervals as ordered by this Court in Daedalus Blue. Palo Alto
`Networks is unaware of any federal district court employing a schedule with the very early
`disclosures and submissions Centripetal urges. Centripetal’s dates would result in
`submissions to the Court being completed three and a half months before the hearing, long
`before fact discovery is concluded. Indeed, Centripetal’s proposed Markman schedule
`forces Palo Alto Networks to take claim construction positions with, at best, limited
`discovery responses.
`
`Plaintiff and Defendant Fact Discovery Deadlines:
`
`• Centripetal: PAN was served with the Complaint in this case on March 19, 2021, four
`months ago, and the Amended Complaint on June 30, 2021 (adding a recently issued and
`related patent). PAN has had sufficient time to prepare it answer to the Complaint, which
`
`102694297.1
`
`- 1 -
`
`IPR2021-01150 Page 00007
`
`

`

`the parties agreed will be filed on August 2, 2021. Centripetal’s simultaneous fact
`discovery deadline is fair to both parties, and does not give PAN an unfair advantage in
`claim construction or expert reports as discussed herein. The Court is not required to adopt
`staggered fact discovery deadlines for plaintiff and defendant.
`
`• PAN: Consistent with the Court’s usual practice, Palo Alto Networks requests staggered
`fact discovery deadlines for plaintiff and defendant. This is consistent with Centripetal’s
`burden of proof on infringement and damages. Moreover, Centripetal has had months, if
`not more, to prepare its case; Palo Alto Network’s involvement did not begin until it
`received the Complaint. Palo Alto Networks does not anticipate filing counterclaims in
`this matter.
`
`Expert Report Schedule:
`
`• Centripetal: PAN’s proposed expert report schedule gives PAN more than a month and
`half to prepare their opening expert reports after the close of fact discovery, but leaves
`Centripetal with only 15 days. Centripetal’s expert schedule is fair as it allows both parties
`to serve expert reports more than a month after the simultaneous close of fact discovery
`and avoids the additional burden and expense of supplemental expert reports, as PAN’s
`proposal necessarily invites. Under Centripetal’s proposed schedule, both parties will have
`the benefit of any rulings by the Court at the time of their expert reports.
`
`• PAN: Palo Alto Networks proposes an expert report schedule developed by working
`backwards from the assigned trial date and providing the Court sufficient time to consider
`briefing stemming from expert reports. Applying this standard timing results in opening
`expert reports before the Markman hearing, with other reports due in the weeks after the
`hearing, and with all reports likely to occur before the Court issues a Markman order.
`Centripetal proposes a later opening expert report date, after the Markman hearing.
`Centripetal’s rationale for delaying opening expert reports provides no real benefit to the
`Court or the parties, however, because whether issued before or after the Markman hearing,
`all expert reports issued before the Markman order will necessarily need to address all
`“live” proposed claim constructions. Scheduling opening expert reports five days after the
`Markman hearing does not alter this reality, nor does it leave time for rebuttal expert
`reports.
`
`Rebuttal Expert Reports:
`
`• Centripetal: Centripetal provided more than adequate notice of the infringing
`combinations of technology and products in its Complaint and Amended Complaint. Under
`Centripetal’s proposed schedule, both parties will have more than a month to prepare
`opening expert reports after the close of fact discovery to avoid unfair ambush as PAN
`suggests. By contrast, PAN’s proposed expert report schedule attempts to give it an unfair
`advantage as discussed herein. Also, adding rebuttal expert reports does not leave adequate
`room in the schedule for the possibility of supplemental expert reports.
`
`• PAN: Further consistent with the Court’s usual practice, Palo Alto Networks requests
`rebuttal expert reports. Including such reports ensures that the burden of proof experts’
`
`102694297.1
`
`- 2 -
`
`IPR2021-01150 Page 00008
`
`

`

`rebuttals to response reports are disclosed in a report and, thus, testimony at trial can be
`properly limited to what is disclosed in the reports. Palo Alto Networks has already raised
`concerns in its motion to dismiss that Centripetal’s infringement allegations leave open the
`possibility of voluminous unstated combinations not specifically identified and, thus, leave
`Palo Alto Networks without full and proper notice of Plaintiff’s claims. Palo Alto
`Networks intends to hold Centripetal to its disclosure obligations, and rebuttal expert
`reports are one important element to minimize trial by ambush.
`
`102694297.1
`
`- 3 -
`
`IPR2021-01150 Page 00009
`
`