Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_13-cv-02024/USCOURTS-cand-5_13-cv-02024-36/pdf.json

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

---

1

5:13-cv-02024-RMW

[TENTATIVE] ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

RS

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 

[TENTATIVE] ORDER DENYING 

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

Re: Dkt. No. 274-3

This court granted plaintiff Radware leave to file a motion for reconsideration of the 

portions of the court’s October 15, 2015 summary judgment order dealing with lost profits. Dkt. 

No. 266. In its motion for reconsideration, plaintiff asserts that this court committed clear error by 

analyzing plaintiff’s alleged lost profits under the incorrect assumption that there are acceptable 

non-infringing substitutes to plaintiff’s patented products. Dkt. No. 274-3. Defendant F5 filed an 

opposition, Dkt. No. 284, and plaintiff filed a reply, Dkt. No. 290-3. 

The court will hear oral argument on the instant motion, along with F5’s separately filed 

renewed motion for summary judgment of non-infringement, on January 8, 2015 at 9:00 a.m. The 

parties should be prepared to critique the tentative order below. However, no further briefing will 

be accepted.

For the reasons explained below, the court [TENTATIVELY] DENIES the motion for 

Case 5:13-cv-02024-RMW Document 336 Filed 01/05/16 Page 1 of 11
2

5:13-cv-02024-RMW

[TENTATIVE] ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

RS

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

reconsideration.

I. BACKGROUND

Radware alleges that F5 infringes certain claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 8,266,319 (the “’319 

Patent”) and 8,484,374 (the “’374 Patent”), both of which relate to link load balancing in a multihomed environment, that is, a network with multiple connections to the Internet. See ’319 col.15 

ll.34–37. “Link load balancing” is a process for allocating network communications across these 

connections.

Radware accuses F5’s “BIG-IP Application Delivery Controller” of infringement. The 

infringement issues focus on three modules within F5’s BIG-IP product: the Link Controller, 

Local Traffic Manager (“LTM”), and Global Traffic Manager (“GTM”). Dkt. No. 179-3 at 10-11. 

Radware asserts that these modules implement the claimed link load balancing feature.

“LTM’s primary functionality is local server load balancing, not ISP load balancing. In 

particular, an LTM can sit between a local network and the internet, and control the routing of

incoming messages to different servers.” Dkt. No. 184-3 (Brewer Decl.) ¶ 8. “GTM’s primary 

functionalities are to provide DNS-related services and global server load balancing (‘GSLB’). 

DNS services relate to responding to client requests for IP addresses associated with a domain 

name (e.g., ‘Amazon.com’).” Id. ¶ 9. F5 claims that in December 2014, it made changes to the 

accused products via a “hotfix” to remove the functionality Radware accuses of infringement. Dkt. 

No. 207 at 3-4.

Radware seeks damages in the form of lost profits for F5’s GTM and LTM sales.1

Radware asserts that, but for F5’s sales of these allegedly infringing products, Radware would 

have sold more of its competing Alteon and LinkProof products. Radware attempts to justify its 

lost profits calculation based on a 2011 survey conducted by TechValidate. Dkt. Nos. 185-3, 

274-17 (Malackowski Rep.) at 71-74. The survey targeted F5 customers that used an Oracle 

 

1 Radware also seeks lost profits for F5’s Link Controller sales, Dkt. No. 185-3 at 71, but F5’s 

summary judgment motion related only to GTM and LTM sales. Link Controller’s “primary 

purpose is to provide, in part, ISP link load balancing functionality,” but Link Controller is being 

discontinued in the United States. Dkt. No. 190 at 3.

Case 5:13-cv-02024-RMW Document 336 Filed 01/05/16 Page 2 of 11
3

5:13-cv-02024-RMW

[TENTATIVE] ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

RS

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

solution and had 261 respondents. Id. at 71. The survey listed seventeen features of F5’s BIG-IP 

product, including link load balancing, compression, and advanced routing, among others, and 

asked customers to select any and all features that they considered important to performance. Id. at 

71–72. Twelve percent of respondents selected link load balancing as an “important” feature. 

Based on these results, Radware’s expert concluded that 12% of F5 customers who purchased 

BIG-IP LTM and GTM devices would have alternatively purchased Radware products but for 

F5’s infringement. Id. at 71-73.

F5 moved to exclude Radware’s lost profits theory on the basis that Radware’s evidence 

showing that Radware would be entitled to 12% of F5’s sales is unreliable. Dkt. No. 187 at 10-18. 

This court agreed and, on October 15, 2015, granted the motion for summary judgment for F5 on 

Radware’s claim for profits it lost as a result of LTM and GTM sales. Dkt. No. 294 (public 

version) at 55-60. Radware now moves for reconsideration.

II. ANALYSIS

A. Legal Standard

Reconsideration is appropriate if the district court (1) is presented with newly discovered 

evidence, (2) committed clear error or the initial decision was manifestly unjust, or (3) if there is 

an intervening change in controlling law. There may also be other, highly unusual, circumstances 

warranting reconsideration. Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cty., Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 

1263 (9th Cir. 1993) (citations omitted). A motion for reconsideration is an “extraordinary 

remedy, to be used sparingly in the interests of finality and conservation of judicial resources.” 

Kona Enterprises, Inc. v. Estate of Bishop, 229 F.3d 877, 890 (9th Cir. 2000) (citation omitted). 

“Likewise, as a general rule, such motions do not provide a vehicle for the introduction of new 

evidence or affidavits.” Dixon v. Shinseki, 741 F.3d 1367, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (citing Becton 

Dickinson & Co. v. C.R. Bard, Inc., 922 F.2d 792, 797 (Fed. Cir. 1990)).

B. Radware Has Not Shown that the Alleged Infringement Caused the Loss of 

Profits for Which Radware Seeks Damages

Radware claims that the court committed clear error in granting summary judgment 

Case 5:13-cv-02024-RMW Document 336 Filed 01/05/16 Page 3 of 11
4

5:13-cv-02024-RMW

[TENTATIVE] ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

RS

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

because it purportedly applied an incorrect legal standard. As explained below, the court disagrees.

1. The Panduit Factors

To recover lost profits, a patentee “must prove a causal relation between the infringement 

and its loss of profits” by demonstrating a reasonable probability that that “‘but for’ the 

infringement, it would have made the infringer’s sales.” Bic Leisure Prods., Inc. v. Windsurfing 

Int’l, Inc., 1 F.3d 1214, 1218 (Fed. Cir. 1993). A lost profits award cannot be speculative. Id. The 

Panduit factors are commonly, though not exclusively, used to show “but for” causation in a lost 

profits analysis by demonstrating: (1) demand for the patented product; (2) the absence of 

acceptable non-infringing substitutes; (3) manufacturing and marketing capability to exploit the 

demand; and (4) the amount of profit the patent owner would have made. Id. at 1217-18 (citing 

Panduit Corp. v. Stahlin Bros. Fibre Works, 575 F.2d 1152, 1156 (6th Cir. 1978)). “The finding of 

the amount of damages for patent infringement is a question of fact on which the patent owner 

bears the burden of proof.” Id. at 1217.

Radware argues that F5 only moved for summary judgment on Panduit Factor One. 

According to Radware, F5 argued that with the TechValidate survey, Radware failed to present 

sufficient evidence to prove demand for the patented feature. Dkt. No. 274-3 (Mot. for 

Reconsideration) at 3 (citing Dkt. No. 184-7 at 16-17). Radware asserts that “F5 challenged no 

other aspect of Radware’s Panduit analysis, namely, Factors Two, Three and Four.” Id.

Nevertheless, Radware argues, “despite F5’s Motion being limited to an alleged failure of proof as 

to Factor One, this Court granted summary judgment based on a presumed failure of proof as to 

Factor Two.” Id.

In support of its argument, Radware cites a portion of the court’s summary judgment order 

that explained how Radware could attempt to show that Radware would have captured all or a 

portion of F5’s sales in the absence of infringement:

If Radware is simply using the Panduit factors to show the number 

of sales Radware would have made but for F5’s infringement, 

Radware may either show the absence of non-infringing alternatives 

under the second Panduit factor, or show what portion of customers 

would have rejected available non-infringing alternatives and 

Case 5:13-cv-02024-RMW Document 336 Filed 01/05/16 Page 4 of 11
5

5:13-cv-02024-RMW

[TENTATIVE] ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

RS

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

purchased Radware’s products.

Dkt. No. 294 at 58 (citing Northern District of California Model Patent Jury Instruction 5.3). 

Based on Radware’s position that Radware was “apportioning” the lost profits2rather than seeking 

100% of F5’s unit sales (as Radware might try to do if Radware products were the only noninfringing alternatives), the court explained its understanding of Radware’s position: “Radware is 

attempting to do the latter: to show the number of sales made by F5 that Radware would have 

made despite the availability of acceptable non-infringing substitutes.” Id. The order “next 

examine[d] whether Radware’s evidence purporting to show that Radware would have recovered 

12% of the sales of GTM and LTM is sufficiently reliable to justify an award.” Id. The court 

granted summary judgment in part because it found that the TechValidate survey “does not 

support the conclusion that had F5 exited the market, 12% of F5 customers would have turned to 

Radware.” Id. at 59. Radware claims that the court committed clear error regarding the second 

Panduit factor because the court purportedly “failed to consider Radware’s actual lost profits 

theory, which is based on the absence of acceptable non-infringing alternatives.” Dkt. No. 274-3 at 

2. 

The court initially questions a premise of Radware’s reconsideration motion: It is not clear 

that F5 only moved for summary judgment on the first Panduit factor. For example, the motion 

discusses case law that applies the entire market value rule and not the Panduit factors. Dkt. No. 

187 at 11 (citing case law for the proposition that “any award must not be based on the entire 

value of a device that contains both patented and unpatented components unless the patented 

component is the basis for customer demand”). Moreover, Radware asserted in its opposition brief 

that some of the case law cited in F5’s motion applied to the second and third Panduit factors—

purportedly not the first. See Dkt. No. 204-3 at 13-14. This suggests that Radware suspected that 

F5’s motion covered more than Panduit Factor One. Additionally, at the hearing on F5’s motion, 

counsel for F5 argued that Radware’s evidence was insufficient under the first Panduit factor, the 

 

2

See Dkt. No. 204-31 (Malackowski Dep.) at 56:21-57-19 (describing how Radware’s expert 

“conservatively apportioned the lost profits,” reducing Radware’s purported entitlement from 

100% to 12% of F5’s sales).

Case 5:13-cv-02024-RMW Document 336 Filed 01/05/16 Page 5 of 11
6

5:13-cv-02024-RMW

[TENTATIVE] ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

RS

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

second Panduit factor, and the entire market value rule. See Dkt. No. 332, MSJ Hr’g Tr. 104:10-

19, 106:7-10, 107:6-9 (July 24, 2015). Rather than presenting evidence on the other factors in its 

opposition, Radware simply argued that issues other than the first Panduit factor were not before 

the court. See Dkt. No. 204-3 at 13-14. To the extent that Radware misunderstood the scope of 

F5’s motion, however, F5’s subsequent briefs have not limited the basis of F5’s motion to a 

particular Panduit factor. While the court could deny Radware’s motion for reconsideration solely 

on the basis that Radware failed previously to present evidence that it satisfied the remaining 

Panduit factors,3the court declines to do so here.

The parties have presented dueling interpretations of the court’s summary judgment order 

that go beyond the order’s intended scope. Accordingly, the court takes this opportunity to clarify 

its order regarding lost profits.

a. Factor One: Demand for the Patented Product

In an attempt to downplay the significance of the TechValidate survey, Radware reiterates 

its position that it was not required to prove demand for the patented feature under the first 

Panduit factor. Dkt. No. 274-3 at 7. Indeed, this court’s summary judgment order agreed that the 

first Panduit factor requires showing demand for the patented product, not necessarily the patented 

feature. Dkt. No. 294 at 57. This court cited DePuy Spine v. Medtronic for the proposition that 

“whether demand exists for the patented feature is analyzed either under the second Panduit

factor—the existence of non-infringing alternatives—or when the patentee seeks to invoke the 

entire market value rule in the context of lost profits.” Id. (citing DePuy Spine, Inc. v. Medtronic 

Sofamor Danek, Inc., 567 F.3d 1314, 1330-31 (Fed. Cir. 2009)). 

Upon further review, however, the court finds it necessary supplement its prior order to 

clarify that DePuy did not hold that demand for the patented feature is irrelevant to the Panduit

analysis as a whole, as Radware seems to argue.4It is true that the DePuy court did not require a 

 

3

See Sch. Dist. No. 1J, 5 F.3d at 1263 (affirming denial of reconsideration where plaintiff 

submitted 21,000 pages of documents in support of reconsideration that it had failed to submit in 

opposition to summary judgment).

4

See Dkt. No. 274-3 at 8 (arguing that “[t]he relative importance of various features, however, is 

Case 5:13-cv-02024-RMW Document 336 Filed 01/05/16 Page 6 of 11
7

5:13-cv-02024-RMW

[TENTATIVE] ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

RS

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

plaintiff to show “demand for the specific feature (i.e., claim limitation) that distinguishes the 

patented product from a noninfringing substitute” under Panduit Factor One. 567 F.3d at 1330. 

However, DePuy is distinguishable from the present case. The patented product at issue in DePuy

was a surgical screw, and both parties in that case agreed that the polyaxial capability of the 

screws—“an inherent feature of the patented screws, not a feature of some other, unpatented 

device that may also be used in the surgery”—drove demand for the screws. Id. at 1331. The 

DePuy court did not consider a case such as the present one in which the products at issue 

incorporate numerous, distinct features that are not covered by the asserted patents. Moreover, in 

DePuy, the defendant only challenged the sufficiency of the evidence for the first two Panduit

factors, whereas in the present case, Radware claims that it is using the TechValidate survey in 

support of the fourth Panduit factor as well. See id. at 1329; Dkt. No. 274-3 at 9-12.

Accordingly, even if Radware has presented sufficient evidence to create an issue of fact 

regarding demand for the patented product as a whole, Radware must still present evidence in 

support of the remaining factors.

b. Factor Two: Absence of Acceptable Non-Infringing Alternatives

Radware claims that “at a minimum, there are disputed issues of fact for the jury to decide 

as to the existence of acceptable non-infringing alternatives.” Dkt. No. 274-3 at 1. Radware offers 

testimony from its technical expert, who allegedly relied “on a variety of factors, including but not 

limited to his experience in the industry, the objective evidence of non-obviousness of the patented 

inventions, F5’s own documents and witness testimony” to conclude that there are no acceptable 

non-infringing alternatives. Id. at 5-6.

F5 disagrees, arguing that the court’s summary judgment order necessarily found “no 

genuine dispute that non-infringing versions of GTM and LTM would have been available and 

acceptable.” Dkt. No. 284 at 4; see Northern District of California Model Patent Jury Instruction 

5.3 (“An acceptable non-infringing substitute may involve modifying the [alleged infringer’s]

 

not relevant to the Panduit analysis when there are no acceptable non-infringing alternatives”).

Case 5:13-cv-02024-RMW Document 336 Filed 01/05/16 Page 7 of 11
8

5:13-cv-02024-RMW

[TENTATIVE] ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

RS

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

product to avoid infringement by adding an available alternative or by removing the patented 

feature from the product altogether.”). F5 points out that in opposing summary judgment, 

“Radware has offered no argument or evidence that GTM and LTM, without the infringing 

technology, would be unacceptable substitutes for the accused versions of those products.” Dkt. 

No. 284 at 9. In reply, Radware argues that such versions of GTM and LTM without the accused 

functionality are merely “hypothetical.” Dkt. No. 290-3 at 2.

Based on the foregoing, the court finds that there is a material issue of fact as to the 

existence of acceptable non-infringing alternatives. As discussed below, however, this finding 

does not end the inquiry.5

2. Radware’s Proffered Evidence of Causation and the Amount of Lost 

Profit

The parties’ arguments about Radware’s specific burdens with respect to each Panduit

factor mask the fundamental purpose of the Panduit test: determining whether a plaintiff has 

shown that, “but for” infringing conduct, the plaintiff would have made additional sales. “To 

recover lost profits damages, the patentee must show a reasonable probability that, ‘but for’ the 

infringement, it would have made the sales that were made by the infringer.” Rite-Hite Corp. v. 

Kelley Co., Inc., 56 F.3d 1538, 1545 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (en banc).6 Moreover, “the amount of 

damages for patent infringement is a question of fact on which the patent owner bears the burden 

of proof.” Bic Leisure, 1 F.3d at 1217 (emphasis added). Proving the amount of lost profits 

remains the plaintiff’s burden even if the fact finder ultimately concludes that there are no 

acceptable non-infringing alternatives. See, e.g., Panduit, 575 F.2d at 1156-57 (reversing district 

court’s finding that there were acceptable non-infringing alternatives but nevertheless affirming 

decision to deny lost profits because plaintiff failed to present competent evidence of its fixed 

costs under the fourth factor).

 

5

F5’s summary judgment motion did not appear to argue that Radware lacked the manufacturing 

and marketing capability to exploit the demand under Panduit Factor Three. The parties’ 

arguments regarding the fourth Panduit factor, the amount of profit, are addressed below.

6 Notably, while the Panduit factors are a means of showing causation, “Panduit is not the sine 

qua non for proving ‘but for’ causation.” Id. at 1548.

Case 5:13-cv-02024-RMW Document 336 Filed 01/05/16 Page 8 of 11
9

5:13-cv-02024-RMW

[TENTATIVE] ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

RS

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

The central argument of F5’s summary judgment motion was that “[t]here is insufficient 

evidence, as a matter of law, for a reasonable jury to find that Radware would have made sales of 

its products ‘but for’ the accused ISP load balancing functionality in LTM and GTM.” Dkt. No. 

187 at 6. Accordingly, regardless of how much emphasis the parties placed on each Panduit factor, 

Radware’s burden to defeat summary judgment was to create an issue of fact as to whether, but for 

F5’s infringing sales, Radware would have sold a non-speculative quantity of Radware’s own 

products.

The court’s previous order explained why Radware’s only cited evidence in support of its 

12% lost profits figure, the TechValidate survey, was insufficient to meet Radware’s burden 

regarding lost profits as a matter of law. Dkt. No. 294 at 59. The court explained that “the survey 

demonstrates that multiple features, including features unrelated to the Asserted Patents, drive the 

demand for the accused products. For example, 72% of participants selected ‘local load balancing 

methods’ and 48% of participants selected ‘SSL offload’ as functionalities important to 

performance.” Id. (citing Dkt. No. 185-3 at 72). Moreover, the survey listed some functionalities 

that are proprietary to F5, such as iRules and iControl. Id. The court found that “[s]imply put, the 

survey does not support the conclusion that had F5 exited the market, 12% of F5 customers would 

have turned to Radware.” Id.

Radware’s reconsideration motion attempts to downplay Radware’s reliance on the 

TechValidate survey. First, Radware repeats its previous argument that “Radware did not rely on 

the TechValidate study in isolation” but rather considered it in conjunction with other evidence. 

Dkt. No. 274-3 at 8; see Dkt. No. 204-3 at 24 (“Mr. Malackowski considered the totality of the 

evidence, including testimony of F5 and Radware witnesses and discussions with Professor 

Rubin.”). Second, Radware now seeks to supplement the record with additional evidence, 

including Mr. Malackowski’s complete expert report (excluding exhibits),7 Dkt. No. 274-17, and a 

new declaration from Mr. Malackowski, Dkt. No. 274-5. 

 

7

Previously, only excerpts of the expert report had been filed with the court. Dkt. No. 185-3.

Case 5:13-cv-02024-RMW Document 336 Filed 01/05/16 Page 9 of 11
10

5:13-cv-02024-RMW

[TENTATIVE] ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

RS

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

The court finds Radware’s attempt to downplay the survey inconsistent with Radware’s 

own reliance on the survey in Radware’s efforts to satisfy multiple Panduit factors. In opposing 

summary judgment, for example, Radware argued that the survey could be relevant to Panduit

Factors One and Two. See Dkt. No. 204-3 at 24 (arguing that the TechValidate survey “serves as a 

‘quantitative benchmark’ relevant to the issues, such as demand for the patented product and/or 

the absence of commercially acceptable non-infringing alternatives”). In its motion for 

reconsideration, Radware attempts to argue that it is appropriate to use the survey for a different 

purpose: “Radware’s use of the TechValidate survey is appropriate to help quantify damages 

under Factor Four.” Dkt. No. 274-3 at 9-10 (noting that Radware’s expert used the survey “to 

determine what percentage of users of the infringing products considers the patented technology 

important in order to calculate the amount of profit that Radware would have made.”).

Moreover, procedurally, Radware could have submitted its new evidence months ago in 

opposition to summary judgment, and thus the new evidence is not properly before the court. E.g.,

Dixon, 741 F.3d at 1378 (reconsideration motions “do not provide a vehicle for the introduction of 

new evidence or affidavits”). However, even if the court were to consider these additional 

materials, and even if the court viewed them under Panduit Factor Four as a mechanism for 

quantifying lost sales as Radware requests, F5 would still be entitled to summary judgment on lost 

profits. The court has reviewed Radware’s expanded analysis in support of its lost profits theory, 

see Dkt. No. 274-17 at 60-81, and the only evidence reflecting Radware’s requested 12% figure is 

still the TechValidate survey. If Radware’s expert considered other evidence that supports a 12% 

figure, his report does not cite it or explain how he used it to arrive at his calculation. Radware’s 

submissions in support of reconsideration have presented no basis other than the legally 

insufficient survey from which a 12% figure can be derived without speculation. As previously 

explained, the survey might show which features are desirable, but it provides no insight into the 

number of customers Radware purportedly lost due to F5’s alleged infringement.

Regardless of whether one attempts to use the survey to determine demand for the patented 

product, the availability of non-infringing alternatives, or the quantity of additional units that 

Case 5:13-cv-02024-RMW Document 336 Filed 01/05/16 Page 10 of 11
11

5:13-cv-02024-RMW

[TENTATIVE] ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

RS

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 would have sold, the survey still does not support the conclusion that had F5 removed 

the LTM and GTM modules from the market, 12% of F5 customers would have turned to 

Radware. Accordingly, Radware has presented no reason to depart from the court’s prior ruling.

III. ORDER

For the reasons explained above, the court [TENTATIVELY] DENIES plaintiff’s motion 

for reconsideration.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 5, 2016

______________________________________

Ronald M. Whyte

United States District Judge

Case 5:13-cv-02024-RMW Document 336 Filed 01/05/16 Page 11 of 11