Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_13-cv-02024/USCOURTS-cand-5_13-cv-02024-54/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 35:271 Patent Infringement

---

1

5:13-cv-02024-RMW

ORDER REGARDING F5’S BENCH BRIEF ON RADWARE’S UNDISCLOSED DAMAGES THEORIES

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

RADWARE, LTD., et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

F5 NETWORKS, INC.,

Defendant.

Case No. 5:13-cv-02024-RMW 

ORDER REGARDING F5’S BENCH 

BRIEF ON RADWARE’S 

UNDISCLOSED DAMAGES THEORIES

Re: Dkt. No. 524

The court has received F5’s Bench Brief Regarding Radware’s Failure to Disclose 

Damages Theories, Dkt. No. 524, and Radware’s response, Dkt. No. 527. During proceedings on 

March 10, 2016, Radware indicated that it intends to present damages theories in its closing 

argument seeking more than twice the damages that its retained expert on damages computed. The 

arguments presented go even beyond those theories described in its response to F5’s bench brief. 

Radware will not be allowed to do so.

While expert testimony is not always required to prove damages, any damages theory must 

have evidentiary support. Radware had a duty to disclose its damages theories and evidence under 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(1)(A)(iii) and in response to F5’s discovery requests and 

this court’s orders. Radware attempted to do that by pointing to the calculations of its expert Mr. 

Malackowski. The permissible scope of Radware’s damages contentions at trial is thus limited by 

Case 5:13-cv-02024-RMW Document 547 Filed 03/10/16 Page 1 of 3
2

5:13-cv-02024-RMW

ORDER REGARDING F5’S BENCH BRIEF ON RADWARE’S UNDISCLOSED DAMAGES THEORIES

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

Radware’s pretrial disclosures—including Mr. Malackowski’s expert report—and, to the extent 

that the court allowed it, Mr. Malackowski’s revised report served on February 27, 2016.

The court notes that during the examination of Mr. Malackowski, Radware briefly 

published Trial Exhibit 426, Mr. Malackowski’s revised damages schedule, to the jury. Dkt. No. 

518 at 914:15-21. Contrary to Radware’s representations1and in violation of this court’s orders,2

the copy of TX 426 submitted to the court does calculate damages for LTM alone. The court 

assumes that the publication of TX 426 was inadvertent. Neither TX 426 nor any other evidence 

calculating damages for LTM alone will be submitted to the jury. 

Furthermore, in closing arguments, Radware may not present any damages arguments or 

calculations based on LTM alone, DNS Lite,3inactive modules, percentages of users calculated 

based on the data underlying the TechValidate survey, lost profits for GTM add-ons or virtual 

editions, “off-box” combinations of GTM and LTM, or any other area outside the scope of Mr. 

Malackowski’s calculations as limited by this court’s orders, and as Mr. Malackowski presented at 

trial. The court’s ruling is not intended to suggest that that Radware was necessarily required to 

present expert testimony on these topics. If Radware wished to present these damages theories, 

however, Radware was required to disclose these theories to F5 well before the close of discovery 

and certainly well before Radware rested its case at trial. Despite this court’s order nearly three 

weeks ago suggesting that Radware could submit an offer of proof on what additional damages it 

wished to seek, Dkt. No. 489 at 3, Radware failed to bring its additional theories to the attention of 

F5 or the court until the evening before closing arguments and then said it preferred to disclose its 

new theories in camera so that F5 would not have a preview of Radware’s new theories. F5’s 

motion to preclude Radware from presenting undisclosed damages theories is GRANTED.

 

1

Id. at 816:23-25 (“And by the way, for the record, your honor, the schedules, they are the same, 

it’s just removing LTM.”)

2

See Dkt. No. 511-1 at 1 (noting that F5’s motion in limine to exclude Radware’s Improper 

Damages Claims was granted).

3 Radware is not precluded from arguing that DNS Lite combined with LTM might suggest that 

there is still interest in link load balancing. Radware is precluded, however, from presenting 

damages calculations based on DNS Lite for the reasons stated in this court’s prior orders. Dkt. 

No. 456 at 15-16.

Case 5:13-cv-02024-RMW Document 547 Filed 03/10/16 Page 2 of 3
3

5:13-cv-02024-RMW

ORDER REGARDING F5’S BENCH BRIEF ON RADWARE’S UNDISCLOSED DAMAGES THEORIES

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 10, 2016

______________________________________

Ronald M. Whyte

United States District Judge

Case 5:13-cv-02024-RMW Document 547 Filed 03/10/16 Page 3 of 3