Fortinet, Inc v. Palo Alto Networks, Inc. et al

Filing 171

STIPULATION AND ORDER 113 Regarding Logistics for Claim Construction and Summary Judgment Hearing Scheduled for July 20, 2010. Signed by Judge Ronald M. Whyte on 7/14/10. (jgS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/14/2010)

Fortinet, Inc v. Palo Alto Networks, Inc. et al

Doc. 171

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

MICHAEL A. LADRA (St. Bar No. 64037) Email: [e-mail] JAMES C. YOON (St. Bar No. 177155) Email: [e-mail] STEFANI E. SHANBERG (St. Bar No. 206717) Email: [e-mail] ARIANA M. CHUNG-HAN (St. Bar No. 197572) Email: [e-mail] ROBIN L. BREWER (St. Bar No. 253686) Email: [e-mail] WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI Professional Corporation 650 Page Mill Road Palo Alto, CA 94304-1050 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: [phone] Attorneys for Plaintiff and Counterclaim Defendant FORTINET, INC.

DURIE TANGRI LLP RAGESH K. TANGRI (St. Bar No. 159497) Email: [e-mail] DARALYN J. DURIE (St. Bar No. 169825) Email: [e-mail] RYAN M. KENT (St. Bar No. 220441) Email: [e-mail] 332 Pine Street, Suite 2000 San Francisco, CA 94104-3214 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: [phone] Attorneys for Defendants and Counterclaim Plaintiffs PALO ALTO NETWORKS, INC. AND PATRICK BROGAN

*E-FILED - 7/14/10*

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION FORTINET, INC., Plaintiff, v. PALO ALTO NETWORKS, INC., and PATRICK R. BROGAN, Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CASE NO.: 09-CV-00036-RMW (PVT) STIPULATION AND [] ORDER REGARDING LOGISTICS FOR CLAIM CONSTRUCTION AND SUMMARY JUDGMENT HEARING SCHEDULED FOR JULY 20, 2010

AND RELATED COUNTERCLAIMS.

STIPULATION AND [] ORDER RE LOGISTICS FOR CLAIM CONSTRUCTION AND SUMMARY JUDGMENT HEARING CASE NO: 09-CV-00036-RMW (PVT)

4009475

Dockets.Justia.com

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Plaintiff and Counterclaim Defendant Fortinet, Inc. ("Fortinet") and Defendant and Counterclaim Plaintiff Palo Alto Networks, Inc. ("PAN") submit this Stipulation and [Proposed] Order Regarding Logistics for the Claim Construction and Summary Judgment Hearing Scheduled for July 14, 2010 in accordance with the Minute Order (Dkt #58) setting the claim construction hearing and adopting the proposed dates in the Parties' Subsequent Joint Case Management Statement (Dkt # 52). Fortinet and PAN are scheduled to appear before this Court for a combined Claim Construction and Summary Judgment Hearing on July 20, 2010 at 9:00 a.m. In advance of the hearing, the parties request the Court approve the agreed upon logistics for the following issues: (1) the duration and format of the technology tutorial; (2) the order of presentation for the hearing; and (3) the entry of equipment into the Court for the hearing. In the alternative, the parties request the Court provide guidance regarding its preferred approach. 1. Technology Tutorial

The parties propose that the technology tutorial should be limited to 20-30 minutes per side and may be accompanied by demonstrative support at the parties' discretion. Fortinet will present its technology tutorial first followed by PAN. The parties will exchange any

demonstratives to be used in their respective tutorials by July 12, 2010 at 6 p.m. 2. Claim Construction and Summary Judgment Hearing

The parties propose the hearing proceed on a patent by patent basis with arguments for all claim terms for construction and summary judgment motion(s) for a given patent being made by both sides before continuing onto the next patent. Fortinet and PAN do not believe that live testimony is necessary, although the parties are willing to make witnesses available if the Court believes that live testimony would be of assistance to the Court. For a given patent, the parties propose that arguments for the claim terms in need of construction will be presented first with each party presenting its position. The patent owner will present first with the accused infringer following. The parties agree that all terms for a given patent may be presented together, understanding that the Court may prefer to hear rebuttal on a

STIPULATION AND [] ORDER RE LOGISTICS FOR CLAIM CONSTRUCTION AND SUMMARY JUDGMENT HEARING CASE NO: 09-CV-00036-RMW (PVT)

-1-

4009475

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

claim element by claim element basis. Arguments on the summary judgment motion(s) will follow with the moving party speaking first followed by the opposing party. More specifically, the parties propose the following agenda for arguments. There are five patents-in-suit: U.S. Patent No. 7,376,125 ("the `125 patent"), U.S. Patent No. 7,177,311 ("the `311 patent"), U.S. Patent No. 7,519,990 ("the `990 patent"), and U.S. Patent No. 7,580,974 ("the `974 patent"), owned by Fortinet, and U.S. Patent No. 6,912,272 ("the `272 patent"), owned by PAN. The parties agree that the issues should be presented as follows: 1. `990 patent a. Claim construction b. Motion for Summary Judgment of Noninfringement Regarding the `990 Patent c. Motion for Summary Judgment of Invalidity Regarding the `990 Patent 2. `125 and `311 patents a. Claim construction b. Motion for Summary Judgment of Noninfringement Regarding the `125 and `311 Patents 3. `974 patent a. Claim construction b. Motion for Summary Judgment of Noninfringement and Invalidity of the `974 Patent 4. `272 patent a. Claim construction b. Motion for Summary Judgment of Noninfringement In advance of the hearing, the parties will meet and confer in an attempt to narrow the issues that the parties present orally to the Court. 3. Entry of Equipment into Court

The parties agree that it will be necessary to bring certain equipment into the courtroom to be used during the hearing. The parties have identified the following list of equipment for entry into the courtroom: 2 laptops 1 projector 1 projection screen Miscellaneous cables

The parties agree that the equipment may be brought into the courtroom in advance of the hearing in order to assemble it. The parties will identify a time with the courtroom clerk that is
STIPULATION AND [] ORDER RE LOGISTICS FOR CLAIM CONSTRUCTION AND SUMMARY JUDGMENT HEARING CASE NO: 09-CV-00036-RMW (PVT)

-2-

4009475

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

convenient for the entry of equipment. Dated: June 25, 2010 WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI Professional Corporation By: /s/ Stefani E. Shanberg Stefani E. Shanberg

Attorneys for Plaintiff and Counterclaim Defendant FORTINET, INC. Dated: June 25, 2010 DURIE TANGRI LLP By: /s/ Ryan M. Kent Ryan M. Kent

Attorneys for Defendants and Counterclaim Plaintiffs PALO ALTO NETWORKS, INC. AND PATRICK BROGAN PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED. 7/ _____ DATED: _____14/10 ____________ ____________________________ The Honorable Ronald M. Whyte

STIPULATION AND [ ORDER RE LOGISTICS FOR CLAIM CONSTRUCTION AND SUMMARY JUDGMENT HEARING CASE NO: 09-CV-00036-RMW (PVT)

-3-

4009475