Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_13-cv-02024/USCOURTS-cand-5_13-cv-02024-41/pdf.json

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

---

1

13-cv-02024-RMW

ORDER RE SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING ON MOTIONS IN LIMINE RELATED TO LOST PROFITS

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. 13-cv-02024-RMW 

ORDER RE SUPPLEMENTAL 

BRIEFING ON MOTIONS IN LIMINE 

RELATED TO LOST PROFITS

At the pretrial conference on February 4, 2016, the court determined that supplemental 

briefing on certain issues involving lost profits would be helpful. By 5 p.m. on Tuesday, February 

9, 2016,

1

the parties shall file supplemental briefs addressing the following questions and any 

other points that the parties believe would assist the court in deciding the pending motions. The 

supplemental briefs shall not exceed twelve (12) pages. The pretrial conference and hearing on 

motions in limine is continued until February 11, 2016 at 2:00 p.m.

1. Is the Panduit test even appropriate for the determination of lost profits in cases

such as this one, in which the patented feature is not the primary functionality of the patented and 

accused products?

2. How, if at all, does the TechValidate survey support the requested 12% lost profits 

 

1

This deadline is extended from the February 8, 2016 deadline discussed at the conference.

Case 5:13-cv-02024-RMW Document 434 Filed 02/05/16 Page 1 of 2
2

13-cv-02024-RMW

ORDER RE SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING ON MOTIONS IN LIMINE RELATED TO LOST PROFITS

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

figure for LTM and GTM? For what purposes (e.g. for which Panduit factors or other issues), if 

any, do the parties intend to rely on the TechValidate Survey at trial? 

3. What specific evidence, other than the TechValidate survey, supports Radware’s 

requested 12% lost profits figure for LTM and GTM?

4. If the court excludes the TechValidate Survey for all purposes, will there still be a 

triable issue for the jury on lost profits for LTM and GTM?

5. At the hearing, Radware represented that the product category for GTM Devices in 

Exhibit 3.1 to Malackowski’s expert report includes devices for which GTM and LTM modules 

are licensed. Where are these product categories defined in Malackowski’s report? Does 

Malackowski’s report separately count devices for which GTM devices alone are licensed? How 

do these categories avoid double counting?

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 5, 2016

______________________________________

Ronald M. Whyte

United States District Judge

Case 5:13-cv-02024-RMW Document 434 Filed 02/05/16 Page 2 of 2