Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_13-cv-02021/USCOURTS-cand-5_13-cv-02021-25/pdf.json

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

---

- 1 - 

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

RADWARE, LTD., et al., 

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

A10 NETWORKS, INC., 

Defendant. 

Case No. 13-cv-02021-RMW 

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO 

DISMISS

Re: Dkt. Nos. 256, 258, 259, 260, 266 

5H

Plaintiff Radware, Ltd. moves to dismiss this case under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(2). Dkt. No. 

256-3. Defendant A10 Networks, Inc. opposed the motion, Dkt. No. 258-3, and plaintiff replied, 

Dkt. No. 259-2. 

Radware filed its complaint for patent infringement in this case on May 1, 2013, Dkt. No. 

1, and a first amended complaint on July 9, 2013, Dkt. No. 28. A10 answered Radware’s amended 

complaint and asserted declaratory judgment counterclaims. Dkt. No. 56. The case proceeded 

through claim construction, see Dkt. Nos. 136, 156, 164, 178, 185, and summary judgment, see

Dkt. Nos. 137, 139, 155, 157, 165, 166, 205, 230. The court denied defendant’s motion for 

summary judgment of invalidity, but granted-in-part defendant’s motion for summary judgment of 

non-infringement. See Dkt. No. 230. 

On August 29, 2013, Radware and A10 entered into a settlement agreement and filed a 

Joint Notice of Settlement with the court. See Dkt. Nos. 258-5, 252. In the Joint Notice of 

Settlement, the parties informed the court that:

[T]he parties in the above-referenced matter have reached a 

settlement. The parties expect to file, by October 3, 2014, a 

stipulated dismissal (1) with prejudice as to Radware, Ltd.’s and 

Radware, Inc.’s (collectively “Radware”) claims against A10 

Networks, Inc. (“A10”) and (2) without prejudice as to A10’s 

REDACTED 

*E-FILED - 2/9/15*

Case 5:13-cv-02021-RMW Document 274 Filed 02/09/15 Page 1 of 6
- 2 - 

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

declaratory judgment claims against Radware. The parties have 

agreed to suspend any interim deadlines in the case. Each party will 

bear its own fees and costs.

Dkt. No. 252. The term sheet into which the parties entered on August 29, 2014 specified that 

 Dkt. No. 258-5, §§ 1, 

5. The term sheet stated that 

Id. at § 5. 

In the following months, Radware and A10 clashed over the terms of the contemplated 

long form agreement. See Dkt. Nos. 258-3 at 2–3; 259-2 at 2–4. After the parties failed to agree 

upon a long form agreement, A10 filed a motion to enforce the term sheet. Dkt. No. 254-3. 

However, the parties shortly thereafter executed a long form agreement as contemplated under the 

term sheet, Dkt. No. 256-10, and A10 withdrew its motion, Dkt. No. 252. 

The long form agreement provides that 

(i) Radware will dismiss with prejudice any and all claims in the 

Action against A10 and (ii) A10 will dismiss without prejudice any 

and all claims, including its declaratory judgment claims, in the 

Action against Radware. The Parties shall cooperate in taking 

reasonable actions as might be required to dismiss the Action. 

Dkt. No. Dkt. No. 256-10. The parties subsequently failed to agree on a stipulated dismissal, and 

Radware moved to dismiss the action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(2). Dkt. No. 256-3. 

The parties’ disagreement stems from Radware’s demand that a dismissal in this case be 

conditioned on the court “retain[ing] jurisdiction for the purpose of enforcing compliance with the 

terms of the Settlement Agreement.” See Dkt. No. 256-8. A10 argues 

 that Radware’s attempts to change the terms of the 

parties’ agreements after the fact are improper. Dkt. No. 258-3. Radware argues that under Rule 

41(a)(2) a district court may condition dismissal upon the court’s retention of jurisdiction over the 

settlement agreement, and that the court needs to retain jurisdiction over the case to ensure A10’s 

Case 5:13-cv-02021-RMW Document 274 Filed 02/09/15 Page 2 of 6
- 3 - 

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

compliance with the terms of the settlement agreement, 

Dkt. No. 259-2. According to Radware, 

 Dkt. No. 259-2 at 2–3. In support of this argument, Radware cites Brocade 

Communc’ns Sys., Inc. et al. v. A10 Networks, Inc., et al, Case No. 10-cv-3428-PSG, Dkt. No. 830 

(N.D. Cal. January 10, 2013). Radware asserts that “[u]nder factually analogous circumstances [in 

Brocade], Judge Grewal entered a permanent injunction against A10.” But Brocade is not 

analogous as plaintiff in that case moved for, and received, a permanent injunction. 

Here, the parties agreed to a settlement, and the terms of the settlement agreement 

See Dkt. No. 256-10, § 4.1. The settlement 

agreement provides that 

Id. § 4.2(a). 

Radware moves for a dismissal wherein “(1) all claims and counterclaims by Radware 

against A10 are dismissed with prejudice, (2) all claims and counterclaims by A10 against 

Radware are dismissed without prejudice, (3) all costs, expenses, and attorneys’ fees are to be 

borne by the party which incurred them, and (4) that the Court retains jurisdiction for the purpose 

of enforcing compliance with the terms of the Settlement Agreement pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 

41(a)(2).” Dkt. No. 259-2. 

 the court finds that the settlement agreement contains no basis for the court’s 

retention of jurisdiction. The agreement provides and the court is 

unwilling to go beyond its terms. The court therefore finds the dismissal sought by Radware under 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(2) improper as it does not reflect the agreed-upon terms of settlement. 

Radware’s motion to dismiss is denied. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: January 23, 2015 

Case 5:13-cv-02021-RMW Document 274 Filed 02/09/15 Page 3 of 6
Case 5:13-cv-02021-RMW Document 274 Filed 02/09/15 Page 4 of 6
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

RADWARE, LTD., et al.,

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

A10 NETWORKS, INC., 

Defendant. 

Case No. 13-cv-02021-RMW 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S. 

District Court, Northern District of California.

That on 1/23/2015, I EMAILED a true and correct copy. 

Dean Geoffrey Dunlavey

dean.dunlavey@lw.com

Barrington E Dyer 

Bdyer@mwe.com

Andrew John Fossum

andrew.fossum@lw.com

Nitin Gambhir

ngambhir@mwe.com

Gunnar Bjorn Gundersen, IV

gunnar.gundersen@lw.com

Eric William Hagen

ehagen@mwe.com

Laura Kieran Kieckhefer

kkieckhefer@mwe.com

David Fleming Kowalski 

david.kowalski@lw.com

Fabio Elia Marino 

fmarino@mwe.com

Case 5:13-cv-02021-RMW Document 274 Filed 02/09/15 Page 5 of 6
2 

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

Teri H.P. Nguyen 

thpnguyen@mwe.com

Adrian James Sawyer 

sawyer@kerrwagstaffe.com

James Matthew Wagstaffe 

wagstaffe@kerrwagstaffe.com

Dated: 1/23/2015 

Richard W. Wieking 

Clerk, United States District Court

By:________________________ 

Jackie Lynn Garcia, Deputy Clerk to the 

Honorable RONALD M. WHYTE

Case 5:13-cv-02021-RMW Document 274 Filed 02/09/15 Page 6 of 6