Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_13-cv-02024/USCOURTS-cand-5_13-cv-02024-29/pdf.json

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

---

1

13-cv-02024-RMW 

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF NON-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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

RADWARE, LTD., et al.,

Plaintiffs and Counterclaim 

Defendants,

v.

F5 NETWORKS, INC.,

Defendant and Counterclaim 

Plaintiff.

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

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR 

SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF NONINFRINGEMENT 

F5 Networks, Inc. alleges infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,437,802 (“’802 patent”); 

7,831,712 (“’712 patent”); 8,103,770 (“’770 patent”); and 8,392,563 (“’563 patent”) against 

plaintiffs and counterclaim-defendants Radware, Inc. and Radware Ltd. On August 10, 2015, 

Radware filed a motion for summary judgment of non-infringement of the F5 patents. Dkt. No. 

240. F5 opposed the motion, and Radware replied. Dkt. Nos. 244, 248-2. F5 then filed a motion 

for leave to file a surreply. Dkt. No. 250, 251. F5’s motion for leave to file a surreply is granted. 

For the reasons set forth below, Radware’s motion for summary judgment is denied.

I. BACKGROUND 

The F5 asserted patents1relate to load balancing between servers on a network. An HTTP 

 

1

F5 alleges that Radware infringes claims 33, 42, 43, and 51 the ’802 patent; claims 1, 5-7, 10, 12, 

and 14-25 of the ’712 patent; claims 1, 4, 6, 7, and 9-13 of the’770 patent; and claims 1-3, 5-6, 17-

19, and 21-22 the ’563 patent.

REDACTED

Case 5:13-cv-02024-RMW Document 272 Filed 11/06/15 Page 1 of 8
2

13-cv-02024-RMW

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF NON-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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

cookie is used “for the purpose of persistently directing HTTP connections to the same 

destination.” ’802 patent, col.5, ll.46-47. Many data transmissions use HTTP, an application level 

protocol for transferring resources across the Internet. ’802 patent col.5 ll.52-54. A server, when 

returning a web page or other HTTP object to a client, may also send a piece of “state”

information that the client’s web browser may store. Id. col.6 ll.1-3. This state object is called a 

“cookie,” for no compelling reason. Id. col.6 ll.8-9. A cookie may be used, for example, to send 

back registration information so that a user does not have to retype a user ID number or indicate 

specific preferences each time the user connects to a website or service. Id. col.6 ll.10-18. 

To meet user demand, some content providers host copies of content and applications on 

multiple servers. A device such as a “server array controller,” in the language of F5’s patents, 

might then balance the load among the servers. See ’802 patent col.l ll.26-34. In some cases, 

however, the saved state of the relationship between a client and server may create a load 

balancing problem. Id. col.6 ll.39-41. For example, each server that is managed by a server array 

controller may not share the same state relationship with a given client. Id. col.6 ll.41-44. In that 

case, the controller must persistently send a repeated client HTTP request to the same node server 

because it is difficult to recreate the same state relationship in another server during the HTTP 

request/response session. Id. col.6 ll.44-47. The claimed inventions allow a network device to 

balance load and route clients to the proper server based on information in a cookie. 

All four F5 patents share substantially the same specification, and the specifications 

disclose four distinct modes of operation—associative, passive, insert, and rewrite. These four 

modes are significant because the parties agree that Radware is licensed to practice two of the four 

modes described in the patent specifications—the associative mode and the passive mode. See

Dkt. No. 240 at 3; Dkt. No. 244 at 4-5. F5 asserts infringement of the unlicensed insert and rewrite 

modes. Dkt. No. 51-1 at 4-5.

In associative mode, illustrated in Figures 3A and 3B of the asserted patents, the server 

array controller inserts a cookie with information uniquely identifying the client into the HTTP 

response’s header. ’802 patent col.9 ll.39-42. Alternatively, the selected node server may include a 

Case 5:13-cv-02024-RMW Document 272 Filed 11/06/15 Page 2 of 8
3

13-cv-02024-RMW 

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF NON-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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

cookie command in the HTTP response’s header that contains blank information, after which the 

server array controller will rewrite this blank information with information that uniquely identifies 

the client. Id. col.9 ll.44-49. The server array controller maps the identified client and the address 

of the selected node server into a table that is stored in the memory of the controller. Id. col.9 

ll.50-53. The other modes do not employ a mapping table that maps client identifiers to selected 

servers. 

Unlike the associative mode, the passive, rewrite, and insert modes generate cookies 

containing server identifiers, not client identifiers. In passive mode, illustrated in Figures 4A and 

4B of the asserted patents, the selected node server generates an HTTP response that includes 

cookie information identifying the selected node server. Id. col. 10 ll.59-62. The server array 

controller provides this HTTP response to the client. Id. col.10 ll.65-66. In rewrite mode, 

illustrated in Figures 5A and 5B of the asserted patents, the selected node server generates an 

HTTP response that includes a cookie with a blank field without information identifying the 

selected node server. Id. col.11 ll.55-59. The server array controller then rewrites the blank cookie 

information to identify the node server and passes the HTTP response with the rewritten cookie 

information to the client. Id. col.11 ll.61-66. In insert mode, illustrated in Figures 6A and 6B of the 

asserted patents, the selected node server does not write a cookie. Instead, after the node server 

provides an HTTP response to the server array controller, the server array controller inserts cookie 

information identifying the selected node server into the HTTP response and passes it to the client. 

Id. col.12 l.60–col.13 l.4. In the insert mode, all of the load for inserting and examining cookie 

information and rewriting data packets is placed on the server array controller, and none is placed 

on the node servers. Id. col.13 ll.39-43.

REDACTED

Case 5:13-cv-02024-RMW Document 272 Filed 11/06/15 Page 3 of 8
4

13-cv-02024-RMW 

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF NON-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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

REDACTED

Case 5:13-cv-02024-RMW Document 272 Filed 11/06/15 Page 4 of 8
5

13-cv-02024-RMW 

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF NON-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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

REDACTED

Case 5:13-cv-02024-RMW Document 272 Filed 11/06/15 Page 5 of 8
6

13-cv-02024-RMW 

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF NON-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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

REDACTED

Case 5:13-cv-02024-RMW Document 272 Filed 11/06/15 Page 6 of 8
7

13-cv-02024-RMW 

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF NON-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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

REDACTED

Case 5:13-cv-02024-RMW Document 272 Filed 11/06/15 Page 7 of 8
8

13-cv-02024-RMW 

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF NON-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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

III.CONCLUSION 

For these reasons, the court denies Radware’s motion for summary judgment of noninfringement. 

The court has filed an unredacted copy of this order under seal. If a party believes that any 

portion discloses confidential information, it must file a version of the order with the proposed 

redaction and provide a declaration setting forth the bases for asserting confidentiality. The 

declaration and proposed redactions may be filed under seal. The court will evaluate any such 

confidentiality contention and make a decision whether to approve the proposed redaction or to 

remove it, thus rendering the underlying content public. Any proposed redactions and declarations 

in support must be filed by November 20, 2015. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: November 6, 2015 

______________________________________ 

Ronald M. Whyte 

United States District Judge 

REDACTED

Case 5:13-cv-02024-RMW Document 272 Filed 11/06/15 Page 8 of 8