Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
0Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Opposition to Invalidity SJM

Opposition to Invalidity SJM

Ratings: (0)|Views: 15 |Likes:
Published by Markman Advisors
Juniper's Opposition to Palo Alto's Invalidity Motion
Juniper's Opposition to Palo Alto's Invalidity Motion

More info:

Published by: Markman Advisors on Nov 07, 2013
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

11/07/2013

pdf

text

original

 
 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)
PLAINTIFF JUNIPER NETWORKS, INC.’S CROSS-MOTION AND OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION OF ANTICIPATION AND OBVIOUSNESS
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:
 Attorneys for Plaintiff Juniper Networks, Inc.
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
Case 1:11-cv-01258-SLR Document 213 Filed 09/19/13 Page 1 of 33 PageID #: 9198
REDACTED - PUBLIC VERSIONOriginal Filing Date: September 12, 2013 Redacted Filing Date: September 19, 2013
 
 i
TABLE OF CONTENTS Page
I.
 
INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................ 1
 
II.
 
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT .................................................................................... 1
 
III.
 
ARGUMENT ............................................................................................................... 2
 
A.
 
PAN Is Estopped From Asserting Invalidity Of The ‘347 And ‘612 Patents .............................................................................................................. 2
 
B.
 
Julkunen Does Not Anticipate The ‘612 Patent ................................................. 2
 
1.
 
PAN Fails To Establish “Publication” Of Julkunen By Clear And Convincing Evidence
 ............................................................ 3
 
2.
 
PAN Has Failed To Establish Julkunen Satisfies The  Limitations Of The ‘612 Patent Claims
 ................................................ 10
 
C.
 
Julkunen Combined With NAT Does Not Render Obvious Claims 4-7 Of The ‘612 Patent .................................................................................... 17
 
D.
 
Bechtolsheim Does Not Anticipate The ‘347 Patent ........................................ 20
 
1.
 
PAN Has Failed To Show That Bechtolsheim Discloses “Sorting . . . Into Initially Allowed And Initially Denied Packets”
 .............................................................................................. 22
 
2.
 
 Bechtolsheim Does Not Disclose “A Filter Including A Second Set of Rules For Receiving And Further Sorting The  Initially Denied Packets into Allowed Packets and Denied Packets”
 .............................................................................................. 24
 
3.
 
 Bechtolsheim Does Not Disclose The Additional Elements of Claim 16 
 .......................................................................................... 25
 
IV.
 
OBJECTIONS TO THE MITCHELL DECLARATION ............................................. 26
 
V.
 
CONCLUSION .......................................................................................................... 27
 
Case 1:11-cv-01258-SLR Document 213 Filed 09/19/13 Page 2 of 33 PageID #: 9199
 
 ii
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Page(s) Cases
 
 Apple, Inc. v. ITC 
,  __ F.3d __, 2013 WL 4007535 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 7, 2013) ................................................ 20
 Depuy Inc. v. Zimmer Holdings, Inc.
, 343 F. Supp. 2d 675 (N.D. Ill. 2004) ................................................................................7
 In re Cronyn
, 890 F.2d 1158 (Fed. Cir. 1989) ........................................................................................3
 In re Hall
, 781 F.2d 897 (Fed. Cir. 1986) ..........................................................................................6
 In re Lister 
, 583 F.3d 1307 (Fed. Cir. 2009) .................................................................................... 8, 9
 In re Natures Remedies, Ltd.
, 315 F. App'x 300, 2009 WL 615841 (Fed. Cir. 2009) ......................................................6
 In re Omeprazole Patent Litig.
, 490 F. Supp. 2d 381 (S.D.N.Y. 2007) ..............................................................................7
 INVISTA N. Am. S.a.r.l. v. M&G USA Corp.
, 2013 WL 3216109 (D. Del. June 25, 2013) .......................................................... 5, 11, 28
 Norian Corp. v. Stryker Corp.
, 363 F.3d 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2004) ........................................................................................3
Orion IP, LLC v. Hyundai Motor America
, 605 F.3d 967 (Fed. Cir. 2010) ..........................................................................................6
Panduit Corp. v. Dennison Mfg. Co.
, 810 F.2d 1561 (Fed. Cir. 1987) ...................................................................................... 18
Proveris Scientific Corp. v. Innovasystems, Inc.
, 536 F.3d 1256 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ...............................................................................
 passim
 
 RCA Corp. v. Data Gen. Corp.
, 701 F. Supp. 456 (D. Del. 1988) ......................................................................................3
Schumer v. Lab. Computer Sys., Inc.
, 308 F.3d 1304 (Fed. Cir. 2002) .................................................................... 14, 17, 25, 28
Case 1:11-cv-01258-SLR Document 213 Filed 09/19/13 Page 3 of 33 PageID #: 9200

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->