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

Filing 486

Order by Hon. Lucy H. Koh granting 484 Motion for Leave to File.(lhklc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/15/2012)

Case5:10-cv-03428-LHK Document484 Filed03/12/12 Page1 of 5

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

Scott R. Mosko (State Bar No. 106070)
[e-mail]
Scott A. Herbst (State Bar No. 226739)
[e-mail]
FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW,
GARRETT & DUNNER, LLP
Stanford Research Park
3300 Hillview Avenue
Palo Alto, California 94304-1203
Telephone:
[phone]
Facsimile:
[phone]

8

Attorneys for Defendant and Counterclaimant
A10 NETWORKS, INC. and Defendants LEE CHEN,
RAJKUMAR JALAN, RON SZETO, and STEVE HWANG

9

(Additional counsel listed on signature page.)

10

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
SAN JOSE DIVISION

11
12
13
14

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

15
16
17
18

Plaintiffs,
v.
A10 NETWORKS, INC., LEE CHEN,
RAJKUMAR JALAN, RON SZETO, LIANG HAN,
STEVE HWANG, and DAVID CHEUNG,

Case No. 5:10-cv-03428-LHK
A10 NETWORKS, INC.’S
ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION FOR
LEAVE TO FILE “NOTICE OF
ACTIVITY BEFORE THE PATENT
OFFICE FROM THE ONGOING
INTER PARTES AND EX PARTE
REEXAMINATIONS OF THE
ASSERTED BROCADE PATENTS”
AND [PROPOSED] ORDER

19
Defendants.
20
21

A10 NETWORKS, INC., a California corporation,

22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Judge: Honorable Lucy H. Koh

Counterclaimant,
v.
BROCADE COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEMS,
INC., a Delaware corporation; and FOUNDRY
NETWORKS, LLC, a Delaware limited liability
company,
Counterclaim-Defendants.
A10’S ADMIN MOT RE: FILING
NOTICE OF PTO ACTIVITY (REEXAMS
OF THE ASSERTED PATENTS)
Case No. 5:10-cv-03428-LHK

Case5:10-cv-03428-LHK Document484 Filed03/12/12 Page2 of 5

1

ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION SEEKING LEAVE TO FILE NOTICE OF PATENT
OFFICE ACTIVITY (REEXAMINATIONS OF ALL ASSERTED BROCADE PATENTS)

2

Pursuant to at least Civil L.R. 7-11(a),1 A10 Networks, Inc. (“A10”) respectfully seeks leave

3
4

to file a “Notice of Activity Before the Patent Office from the Ongoing Inter Partes and Ex Parte

5

Reexaminations of the Asserted Brocade Patents” (“Notice”), which contains new information

6

relevant to the Court’s claim constructions and to A10’s Renewed Motion to Stay (“RMTS”),

7

argument on which is set for this Thursday, March 15. The Notice that A10 requests permission to

8

file is attached hereto as Exhibit A.

9

By the time that briefing on A10’s RMTS concluded (December 14, 2011), the U.S. Patent &

10

Trademark Office (“Patent Office”) had granted all thirteen ex parte reexam requests. The Patent

11

Office had also just begun acting on the inter partes reexam requests, first granting inter partes

12

reexamination for U.S. Patent Number 7,574,508 (“the ’508 Patent”). In the three months that have

13

since passed, the Patent Office has granted the remaining twelve inter partes reexam requests, and

14

has issued Office Actions in all of them. Moreover, Brocade has been responding to the Office

15

Actions, and taking positions on the meaning of the claim language.

16

The Notice will allow A10 to bring to the Court’s attention statements that Brocade has made

17

to the Patent Office to try to salvage its claims. Those statements are not consistent with the Court’s

18

construction of certain terms, which constructions Brocade has not provided to the Patent Office.

19

The ongoing reexaminations are significant because of the effect that Brocade’s statements have on

20

the claim constructions: Brocade’s statements alter the intrinsic evidence that this Court should

21

consider in arriving at the legally-correct claim construction, and Brocade will continue to change

22

the intrinsic evidence until the reexamination proceedings conclude, leaving the disputed claim

23

terms and their legally-correct interpretation in a state of flux. See, e.g., Krippelz v. Ford Motor Co.,

24

667 F.3d 1261, 1266-67 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (affirming a claim construction that included limitations

25

not found in the specification or the original prosecution history, and finding that the patentee’s

26
27
1

28

See also e.g., Civil L.R. 7-3(d).
1

A10’S ADMIN MOT RE: FILING
NOTICE OF PTO ACTIVITY (REEXAMS
OF THE ASSERTED PATENTS)
Case No. 5:10-cv-03428-LHK

Case5:10-cv-03428-LHK Document484 Filed03/12/12 Page3 of 5

1

arguments during reexamination created “limitations [that] became part of the properly-construed

2

claims”).

3

A10 respectfully suggests that this Court should consider the information in the Notice, and

4

the attendant ramifications of continuing the patent side of this litigation on a parallel track with the

5

reexaminations, before deciding A10’s Renewed Motion to Stay.

6

The supporting Declaration of Scott A. Herbst filed herewith confirms that A10 advised

7

Brocade’s counsel of A10’s intention to seek leave to file the Notice. At the time this motion was

8

filed, Brocade’s counsel had not indicated a willingness to stipulate to the filing of the Notice.

9

Respectfully submitted,

10
11

Dated: March 12, 2012

FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW
GARRETT & DUNNER, L.L.P.

12
By: ____________________________________
/s/ Scott A. Herbst

13
14

Scott A. Herbst
Attorneys for Defendant and Counterclaimant
A10 NETWORKS, INC. and Defendants LEE
CHEN, RAJKUMAR JALAN, RON SZETO,
LIANG HAN, and STEVE HWANG

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

Additional Counsel:
E. Robert Yoches (Admitted pro hac vice)
[e-mail]
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. 20001-4413
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]

26
27
28
2

A10’S ADMIN MOT RE: FILING
NOTICE OF PTO ACTIVITY (REEXAMS
OF THE ASSERTED PATENTS)
Case No. 5:10-cv-03428-LHK

Case5:10-cv-03428-LHK Document484 Filed03/12/12 Page4 of 5

1
2
3
4
5

Lionel M. Lavenue (Admitted pro hac vice)
[e-mail]
FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW,
GARRETT & DUNNER, L.L.P.
Two Freedom Square
11955 Freedom Drive
Reston, Virginia 20190-5675
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]

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

A10’S ADMIN MOT RE: FILING
NOTICE OF PTO ACTIVITY (REEXAMS
OF THE ASSERTED PATENTS)
Case No. 5:10-cv-03428-LHK

Case5:10-cv-03428-LHK Document484 Filed03/12/12 Page5 of 5

1
2

[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING A10 MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE ITS “NOTICE
OF ACTIVITY BEFORE THE PATENT OFFICE FROM THE ONGOING INTER PARTES
AND EX PARTE REEXAMINATIONS OF THE ASSERTED BROCADE PATENTS”

3
4

A10 Networks, Inc. seeks leave to file the “Notice of Activity Before the Patent Office from

5

the Ongoing Inter Partes and Ex Parte Reexaminations of the Asserted Brocade Patents,” attached

6

as Exhibit A to A10’s Administrative Motion.

7

Upon good cause shown, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Exhibit A to 10’s Administrative

8

Motion shall now be and is hereby considered filed in this matter.

9

March 15, 2012
Dated: ________________________

10
11
12

Lucy H. Koh
United States District Judge

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4

A10’S ADMIN MOT RE: FILING
NOTICE OF PTO ACTIVITY (REEXAMS
OF THE ASSERTED PATENTS)
Case No. 5:10-cv-03428-LHK