Brocade Communications Systems, Inc. et al v. A10 Networks, Inc. et al

Filing 413

Stipulated ORDER Regarding Parties' Proposed Claim Constructions. Signed by Judge Lucy H. Koh on 12/19/2011. (lhklc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/19/2011)

1

(Counsel of record listed on next page)

2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

SAN JOSE DIVISION

11
12
13

BROCADE COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEMS,
INC., a Delaware corporation, and FOUNDRY
NETWORKS, LLC, a Delaware limited liability
company,

14
Plaintiffs,

Case No. 10-cv-03428 LHK
[PROPOSED] STIPULATION
REGARDING PARTIES’
PROPOSED CLAIM
CONSTRUCTIONS

15
v.
16
17
18
19

A10 NETWORKS, INC., a California corporation;
LEE CHEN, an individual; RAJKUMAR JALAN;
an individual; RON SZETO, an individual; DAVID
CHEUNG, an individual; LIANG HAN, an
individual; and STEVE HWANG, an individual,
Defendants.

20
21

A10 NETWORKS, INC., a California corporation,

22

Counterclaimant,

23

v.

24
25
26
27

BROCADE COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEMS,
INC., a Delaware corporation; and FOUNDRY
NETWORKS, LLC, a Delaware limited liability
company,
Counterclaim-Defendants.

28
[PROPOSED] STIPULATION RE PARTIES’
PROPOSED CLAIM CONSTRUCTIONS

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

FABIO MARINO (STATE BAR NO. 183825)
[e-mail]
DENISE MINGRONE (STATE BAR NO. 135224)
[e-mail]
SIDDHARTHA VENKATESAN (STATE BAR NO. 245008)
[e-mail]
CHRISTINA VON DER AHE (STATE BAR NO. 255467)
[e-mail]
NITIN GAMBHIR (STATE BAR NO. 259906)
[e-mail]
ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP
1000 Marsh Road
Menlo Park, California 94025
Telephone:
650-614-7400
Facsimile:
650-614-7401
Attorneys for Plaintiffs and Counterclaim Defendants
BROCADE COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEMS, INC.
AND FOUNDRY NETWORKS, LLC

15

WILLIAM E. IRELAND (STATE BAR NO. 115600)
[e-mail]
H. ANN LIROFF (STATE BAR NO. 113180)
[e-mail]
HAIGHT BROWN & BONESTEEL LLP
71 Stevenson Street, 20th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94105
Telephone:
415-546-7500
Facsimile:
415-546-7505

16

Attorneys for Defendant
DAVID CHEUNG

11
12
13
14

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

SCOTT R. MOSKO (STATE BAR NO. 106070)
[e-mail]
SCOTT A. HERBST (STATE BAR NO. 226739)
[e-mail]
FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, GARRETT & DUNNER, L.L.P.
Stanford Research Park
3300 Hillview Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94304
Telephone:
650-849-6600
Facsimile:
650-849-6666
SMITH R. BRITTINGHAM IV (Admitted pro hac vice)
[e-mail]
JOHN F. HORNICK (Admitted pro hac vice)
[e-mail]
FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, GARRETT & DUNNER, L.L.P.
901 New York Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20001
Telephone:
202-408-4000
Facsimile:
202-408-4400

28
[PROPOSED] STIPULATION RE PARTIES’
PROPOSED CLAIM CONSTRUCTIONS

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

LIONEL M. LAVENUE (Admitted pro hac vice)
[e-mail]
JOHN M. MULCAHY
[e-mail]
FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, GARRETT & DUNNER, L.L.P.
Two Freedom Square
11955 Freedom Drive
Reston, VA 20190
Telephone:
571-203-2700
Facsimile:
202-408-4400
Attorneys for Defendants
A10 NETWORKS, INC., LEE CHEN, RAJKUMAR JALAN,
RON SZETO, and STEVE HWANG

8

12

JOSEPH ERLICH (STATE BAR NO. 84359)
[e-mail]
LOSCH & EHRLICH
425 California Street, Ste. 2025
San Francisco, CA 94104
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]

13

Attorneys for Defendant
LIANG HAN

9
10
11

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
[PROPOSED] STIPULATION RE PARTIES’
PROPOSED CLAIM CONSTRUCTIONS

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED by and among Plaintiffs/Counterclaim-Defendants
Brocade Communications Systems, Inc. and Foundry Networks, LLC (“Brocade”) and
Defendant-Counterclaimant A10 Networks, Inc. and Individual Defendants Lee Chen and
Rajkumar Jalan (“A10”) (collectively, “the Parties”):
To facilitate the Court’s construction of the disputed claim language from the asserted
claims of both the Brocade asserted patents and A10 asserted patent, the Parties make the
following stipulations:
1.

9

throughout the Layer 2 network”), from Brocade’s U.S. Patent No. 7,558,195, the

10

Parties agree that the words “transmitting … redundancy control” do not need any

11

interpretation by the Court. Accordingly, the Court will only construe the

12

remaining language of Term 2 in dispute, namely, “packets for flooding

13
14

throughout the Layer 2 network.”
2.

15

“dynamically established.” Accordingly, the Court will only construe the words

17

“virtual connection” / “virtual connection (SVC)” of Term 7.
3.

19

“couple message” is a “control message.” Accordingly, the Court will only

21

construe the words “containing the virtual channel connections for the first mobile

22

24
25
26
27

Regarding Term 8 (“a couple message containing the virtual channel connections
for the first mobile terminal”), from A10’s’185 Patent, the Parties agree that the

20

23

Regarding Term 7 (“switched virtual connection” / “switched virtual connection
(SVC)”), from A10’s ’185 Patent, the Parties agree that “switched” means

16

18

Regarding Term 2 (“transmitting … redundancy control packets for flooding

terminal” of Term 8.
4.

Regarding Term 9 (“a complete message containing the altered virtual channel
connections for the first mobile terminal”), from A10’s’185 Patent, the Parties
agree that the “complete message” is a “control message.” Accordingly, the
Court will only construe the words “containing the altered virtual channel
connections for the first mobile terminal” of Term 9.

28
1

[PROPOSED] STIPULATION RE PARTIES’
PROPOSED CLAIM CONSTRUCTIONS

Case5:10-cv-03428-LHK Document412

1
2
3
4
5

5.

Filed12/16/11 Page5 of 6

Regarding Term 10 (“a connection message containing virtual channel
connections for the first mobile terminal”), from A10’s’185 Patent, the Parties
agree that the “connection message” is a “control message.” Accordingly, the
Court will only construe the words “containing virtual channel connections for the
first mobile terminal” of Term 10.

6
7

IT IS SO STIPULATED, THROUGH COUNSEL OF RECORD.

8
9

Dated: December 16, 2011

ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP

10
11

/s/ Fabio E. Marino
FABIO E. MARINO
Attorneys for Plaintiffs and Counterclaim Defendants
BROCADE COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEMS, INC.
AND FOUNDRY NETWORKS, LLC

12
13
14
15

Dated: December 16, 2011

FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW,
GARRETT & DUNNER LLP

16
17
18
19

/s/ Scott R. Mosko
SCOTT R. MOSKO
Attorneys for Defendant and Counterclaimant
A10 NETWORKS, INC., and Defendants LEE CHEN,
RAJKUMAR JALAN, RON SZETO, AND STEVE
HWANG

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2

[PROPOSED] STIPULATION RE PARTIES’
PROPOSED CLAIM CONSTRUCTIONS

1
2

Filer’s Attestation: Pursuant to General Order No. 45, §X(B), I attest under penalty of
perjury that concurrence in the filing of the document has been obtained from its signatory.

3
4

Dated: December 16, 2011

Respectfully submitted,

5
/s/ Fabio E. Marino
Fabio E. Marino

6
7
8
9

ORDER
PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED.

10
11
12

Dated: December 19, 2011
THE HONORABLE LUCY H. KOH
United States District Judge

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3

[PROPOSED] STIPULATION RE PARTIES’
PROPOSED CLAIM CONSTRUCTIONS