Implicit Networks, Inc. v. Juniper Networks, Inc.

Filing 145

ORDER RE IMPLICIT'S SECOND MOTION TO COMPEL FINANCIAL INFORMATION 136 141 143 (Illston, Susan) (Filed on 8/16/2012)

1
2
3

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

5
6
7
8
9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

No. C 10-04234 SI

IMPLICIT NETWORKS, INC.,

ORDER RE IMPLICIT’S SECOND
MOTION TO COMPEL FINANCIAL
INFORMATION

Plaintiff,
v.
JUNIPER NETWORKS, INC.,
Defendant.

/

11
12

Currently before the Court is plaintiff Implicit’s second motion to compel Juniper to produce

13

financial information. [Docket No. 136]. In Implicit’s prior motion, Implicit argued that Juniper should

14

provide supplemental interrogatory responses explaining how Juniper calculated a revenue summary

15

provided to Implicit and identifying revenues from sales of products and services for the Accused

16

Products and any products that “work with” or are “related to” the Accused Products. Juniper opposed,

17

arguing that its prior responses were sufficient. On July 23, 2012, the Court ordered Juniper to provide

18

supplemental answers to two interrogatories, which were significantly narrowed by the Court. See

19

Docket No. 120. The Court indicated that, following the production of the supplemental responses,

20

Implicit could move to compel further information regarding revenue for particular non-Accused

21

Products or non-accused components that had been withheld, as long as that discovery is necessary for

22

Implicit’s damages analysis. Id.

23

Implicit now moves for supplemental revenue information regarding non-accused components

24

necessary for its damage analysis, and asks the Court for additional time to produce its expert damages

25

report. Specifically, Implicit contends that Juniper provided revenue for only the base SRX Gateway

26

“chassis” – which is an Accused Product – but not revenue on components which Implicit contends

27

“must” be integrated into a customer’s network in order for the SRX Gateway to function. Juniper does

28

not contest this characterization, but argues that it need not report revenue for components sold with the

1

SRX Gateway “chassis” because the components were not identified as “Accused Products” by Implicit.

2

The Court GRANTS the motion to compel as follows: Juniper shall provide supplemental

3

interrogatory responses which include revenue figures for all components that Juniper lists or offers as

4

part of the accused SRX Gateway products. See Plaintiff’s 4/6/2012 Amended Disclosure, Lines 31-40.

5

These supplemental interrogatory responses shall be provided within ten (10) days of the date of this

6

Order and Implicit may serve a revised damages report within fourteen (14) days after the service of the

7

supplemental interrogatory responses.

8
9

IT IS SO ORDERED.

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11

Dated: August 16, 2012
SUSAN ILLSTON
United States District Judge

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2