Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_09-cv-00036/USCOURTS-cand-5_09-cv-00036-24/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

ORDER GRANTING

ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION

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

4025927_1.DOC

MICHAEL A. LADRA, State Bar No. 64037

Email: mladra@wsgr.com

JAMES C. YOON, State Bar No. 177155

Email: jyoon@wsgr.com

STEFANI E. SHANBERG, State Bar No. 206717

Email: sshanberg@wsgr.com

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

Email: achung@wsgr.com

ROBIN L. BREWER, State 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.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

FORTINET, INC., a Delaware corporation,

Plaintiff,

v.

PALO ALTO NETWORKS, INC., and

PATRICK R. BROGAN,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

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

ORDER GRANTING

ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO

FILE DOCUMENTS AND PORTIONS

OF DOCUMENTS UNDER SEAL

PERTAINING TO FORTINET, INC.’S

REPLY IN SUPPORT OF

OBJECTIONS AND MOTION TO

STRIKE NEW EVIDENCE AND NEW

ARGUMENTS PRESENTED IN PALO

ALTO NETWORKS, INC.’S REPLY

MEMORANDA IN SUPPORT OF

MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY

JUDGMENT

AND RELATED COUNTERCLAIMS

)

)

)

Case 5:09-cv-00036-RMW Document 179 Filed 07/19/10 Page 1 of 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

ORDER GRANTING

ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION

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

- 1 - 4025927_1.DOC

Having considered Plaintiff and Counterclaim Defendant Fortinet, Inc.’s administrative

motion to file under seal portions of Fortinet’s Reply in Support of Objections and Motion to

Strike New Evidence and New Arguments Presented in Palo Alto Networks, Inc.’s (“PAN”)

Reply Memoranda in Support of Motions for Summary Judgment (“Reply”) pursuant to Civil

Local Rules 7-11 and 79-5(c), and good cause appearing:

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Fortinet’s administrative motion is GRANTED.

Accordingly, the following portions of Fortinet’s Reply shall be filed under seal:

a) 2:7-9 (following “admit that . . .” through end of sentence);

b) 2:11 (following “including that . . .” through “. . . and that”);

c) 2:11-12 (following “and that . . .” through “. . . is not”);

d) 2:14 (following “interconnectivity of . . .” through “. . . Similarly”);

e) 2:15 (following “‘allocation’ in . . .” through end of line);

f) 2:17-18 (following “reply brief that . . .” through “. . . and that”).

IT IS SO ORDERED

Dated:

The Honorable Ronald M. Whyte

United States District Court Judge

Presented by:

WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI

/s/ Stefani E. Shanberg

Stefani E. Shanberg

Attorneys for Plaintiff and Counterclaim Defendant

FORTINET, INC.

July 19, 2010

Case 5:09-cv-00036-RMW Document 179 Filed 07/19/10 Page 2 of 2