Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_09-cv-00036/USCOURTS-cand-5_09-cv-00036-20/pdf.json

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

---

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

STIPULATION AND [] ORDER RE

LOGISTICS FOR CLAIM CONSTRUCTION AND

SUMMARY JUDGMENT HEARING

CASE NO: 09-CV-00036-RMW (PVT)

4009475

MICHAEL A. LADRA (St. Bar No. 64037)

Email: mladra@wsgr.com

JAMES C. YOON (St. Bar No. 177155)

Email: jyoon@wsgr.com

STEFANI E. SHANBERG (St. Bar No. 206717)

Email: sshanberg@wsgr.com

ARIANA M. CHUNG-HAN (St. Bar No. 197572)

Email: achung@wsgr.com

ROBIN L. BREWER (St. Bar No. 253686)

Email: rbrewer@wsgr.com

WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI

Professional Corporation

650 Page Mill Road

Palo Alto, CA 94304-1050

Telephone: (650) 493-9300

Facsimile: (650) 565-5100

Attorneys for Plaintiff and Counterclaim

Defendant FORTINET, INC.

DURIE TANGRI LLP

RAGESH K. TANGRI (St. Bar No. 159497)

Email: rtangri@durietangri.com

DARALYN J. DURIE (St. Bar No. 169825)

Email: ddurie@durietangri.com

RYAN M. KENT (St. Bar No. 220441)

Email: rkent@durietangri.com

332 Pine Street, Suite 2000

San Francisco, CA 94104-3214

Telephone: (415) 362-6666

Facsimile: (415) 326-6300

Attorneys for Defendants and Counterclaim

Plaintiffs PALO ALTO NETWORKS, INC.

AND PATRICK BROGAN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

FORTINET, INC.,

Plaintiff,

v.

PALO ALTO NETWORKS, INC., and

PATRICK R. BROGAN,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CASE NO.: 09-CV-00036-RMW (PVT)

STIPULATION AND []

ORDER REGARDING LOGISTICS

FOR CLAIM CONSTRUCTION AND

SUMMARY JUDGMENT HEARING

SCHEDULED FOR JULY 20, 2010

AND RELATED COUNTERCLAIMS.

)

)

)

*E-FILED - 7/14/10*

Case 5:09-cv-00036-RMW Document 171 Filed 07/14/10 Page 1 of 4
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

STIPULATION AND [] ORDER RE

LOGISTICS FOR CLAIM CONSTRUCTION AND

SUMMARY JUDGMENT HEARING

CASE NO: 09-CV-00036-RMW (PVT)

- 1 - 4009475

Plaintiff and Counterclaim Defendant Fortinet, Inc. (“Fortinet”) and Defendant and

Counterclaim Plaintiff Palo Alto Networks, Inc. (“PAN”) submit this Stipulation and [Proposed]

Order Regarding Logistics for the Claim Construction and Summary Judgment Hearing

Scheduled for July 14, 2010 in accordance with the Minute Order (Dkt #58) setting the claim

construction hearing and adopting the proposed dates in the Parties’ Subsequent Joint Case

Management Statement (Dkt # 52).

Fortinet and PAN are scheduled to appear before this Court for a combined Claim

Construction and Summary Judgment Hearing on July 20, 2010 at 9:00 a.m. In advance of the

hearing, the parties request the Court approve the agreed upon logistics for the following issues:

(1) the duration and format of the technology tutorial; (2) the order of presentation for the

hearing; and (3) the entry of equipment into the Court for the hearing. In the alternative, the

parties request the Court provide guidance regarding its preferred approach.

1. Technology Tutorial

The parties propose that the technology tutorial should be limited to 20-30 minutes per

side and may be accompanied by demonstrative support at the parties’ discretion. Fortinet will

present its technology tutorial first followed by PAN. The parties will exchange any

demonstratives to be used in their respective tutorials by July 12, 2010 at 6 p.m.

2. Claim Construction and Summary Judgment Hearing

The parties propose the hearing proceed on a patent by patent basis with arguments for all

claim terms for construction and summary judgment motion(s) for a given patent being made by

both sides before continuing onto the next patent. Fortinet and PAN do not believe that live

testimony is necessary, although the parties are willing to make witnesses available if the Court

believes that live testimony would be of assistance to the Court.

For a given patent, the parties propose that arguments for the claim terms in need of

construction will be presented first with each party presenting its position. The patent owner will

present first with the accused infringer following. The parties agree that all terms for a given

patent may be presented together, understanding that the Court may prefer to hear rebuttal on a

Case 5:09-cv-00036-RMW Document 171 Filed 07/14/10 Page 2 of 4
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

STIPULATION AND [] ORDER RE

LOGISTICS FOR CLAIM CONSTRUCTION AND

SUMMARY JUDGMENT HEARING

CASE NO: 09-CV-00036-RMW (PVT)

-2- 4009475

claim element by claim element basis. Arguments on the summary judgment motion(s) will

follow with the moving party speaking first followed by the opposing party.

More specifically, the parties propose the following agenda for arguments. There are five

patents-in-suit: U.S. Patent No. 7,376,125 (“the ‘125 patent”), U.S. Patent No. 7,177,311 (“the

‘311 patent”), U.S. Patent No. 7,519,990 (“the ‘990 patent”), and U.S. Patent No. 7,580,974

(“the ‘974 patent”), owned by Fortinet, and U.S. Patent No. 6,912,272 (“the ‘272 patent”),

owned by PAN. The parties agree that the issues should be presented as follows:

1. ‘990 patent

a. Claim construction

b. Motion for Summary Judgment of Noninfringement Regarding the ‘990

Patent

c. Motion for Summary Judgment of Invalidity Regarding the ‘990 Patent

2. ‘125 and ‘311 patents

a. Claim construction

b. Motion for Summary Judgment of Noninfringement Regarding the ‘125 and

‘311 Patents

3. ‘974 patent

a. Claim construction

b. Motion for Summary Judgment of Noninfringement and Invalidity of the

‘974 Patent

4. ‘272 patent

a. Claim construction

b. Motion for Summary Judgment of Noninfringement

In advance of the hearing, the parties will meet and confer in an attempt to narrow the issues that

the parties present orally to the Court.

3. Entry of Equipment into Court

The parties agree that it will be necessary to bring certain equipment into the courtroom

to be used during the hearing. The parties have identified the following list of equipment for

entry into the courtroom:

 2 laptops

 1 projector

 1 projection screen

 Miscellaneous cables

The parties agree that the equipment may be brought into the courtroom in advance of the

hearing in order to assemble it. The parties will identify a time with the courtroom clerk that is

Case 5:09-cv-00036-RMW Document 171 Filed 07/14/10 Page 3 of 4
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

STIPULATION AND [ ORDER RE

LOGISTICS FOR CLAIM CONSTRUCTION AND

SUMMARY JUDGMENT HEARING

CASE NO: 09-CV-00036-RMW (PVT)

-3- 4009475

convenient for the entry of equipment.

Dated: June 25, 2010 WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI

Professional Corporation

By: /s/ Stefani E. Shanberg

Stefani E. Shanberg

Attorneys for Plaintiff and Counterclaim

Defendant FORTINET, INC.

Dated: June 25, 2010 DURIE TANGRI LLP

By: /s/ Ryan M. Kent

Ryan M. Kent

Attorneys for Defendants and Counterclaim

Plaintiffs PALO ALTO NETWORKS, INC.

AND PATRICK BROGAN

PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: ______________________ ____________________________

The Honorable Ronald M. Whyte

7/14/10

Case 5:09-cv-00036-RMW Document 171 Filed 07/14/10 Page 4 of 4