Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_13-cv-02024/USCOURTS-cand-5_13-cv-02024-58/pdf.json

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

---

1

5:13-cv-02024-RMW 

ORDER REGARDING POST-TRIAL MOTIONS 

RS

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. 5:13-cv-02024-RMW 

ORDER REGARDING POST-TRIAL 

MOTIONS 

Re: Dkt. Nos. 515, 561, 570, 582, 583, 584, 

587

In this patent infringement action, a jury found that defendant F5 Networks Inc.’s 

infringement of plaintiff Radware’s U.S. Patent No. 8,266,319 was willful. Before the court are 

the following motions: (1) F5’s renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law (“JMOL”) or new 

trial as to willfulness, Dkt. No. 561; (2) Radware’s motion for enhanced damages and attorneys’ 

fees, Dkt. No. 583; (3) Radware’s motion for accounting, Dkt. No. 584; and (4) Radware’s motion 

for a permanent injunction, Dkt. No. 582. For the reasons set forth below, the court: (1) grants 

F5’s motion for JMOL as to willfulness;1(2) denies Radware’s motion for enhanced damages and 

attorneys’ fees; (3) grants in part and denies in part Radware’s motion for supplemental damages 

 

1 Radware’s motion for leave to file a surreply on the issue of waiver, Dkt. No. 570, is DENIED 

for failure to demonstrate good cause. 

Redacted Public Version

Case 5:13-cv-02024-RMW Document 609 Filed 08/22/16 Page 1 of 27
2

5:13-cv-02024-RMW

ORDER REGARDING POST-TRIAL MOTIONS

RS

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

and prejudgment and post-judgment interest; and (4) grants in part and denies in part Radware’s 

motion for a permanent injunction. 

I. BACKGROUND

Radware commenced this lawsuit on May 1, 2013 alleging that F5 infringed claims of U.S. 

Patent Nos. 6,655,702 (the “’702 Patent”) and 8,266,319 (the “’319 Patent”).2This court granted 

F5’s motion for summary judgment of non-infringement for all asserted claims of the ’702 Patent. 

Dkt. No. 145. On October 15, 2015, this court ruled on summary judgment that F5’s accused 

products infringed claim 24 of the ’319 Patent, at least until F5 implemented a redesign known as 

the First “Hotfix” that removed the accused functionality. Dkt. No. 294 at 43. The parties then 

stipulated that the accused products infringed claims 1 and 12 of the ’319 Patent until F5 

implemented a Second Hotfix in January 2016. Dkt. No. 381.3The case proceeded to a jury trial 

on the issues of invalidity, damages, and willfulness. 

At trial, F5 asserted that three references anticipated Radware’s asserted claims: (1) U.S. 

Patent No. 6,650,621 (the “Maki-Kullas Patent”); (2) the Cisco DistributedDirector (“DD”) 

Device; and (3) the F5 Big-IP/3DNS Device. Radware’s ’319 Patent was filed on June 2, 2003 and 

claims priority to a parent application that was filed on December 20, 1999. At trial, however, 

Radware presented evidence that it conceived of the inventions claimed in the ’319 Patent and 

reduced them to practice before December 20, 1999. The jury found that F5’s asserted references 

did not constitute prior art to Radware’s asserted patents, and so the jury did not make any factual 

findings on whether the references included all of the limitations of Radware’s asserted claims. 

Dkt. No. 556 at 2-3. 

The ’319 Patent issued on September 11, 2012. F5 introduced the Link Controller, one of 

the F5 products that forms the basis for Radware’s willful infringement claims, in 2002, 10 years 

 

2 Radware amended its complaint on July 9, 2013 to allege infringement of an additional patent, 

U.S. Patent No. 8,484,374 (the “’374 Patent”), which issued on July 9, 2013. Dkt. No. 24. 

Radware did not assert that F5’s infringement of the ’374 Patent was willful. Dkt. No. 375 at 7.

3

The court subsequently granted F5’s motions for summary judgment that F5’s First Hotfix ended

F5’s infringement of claim 24 of the ’319 Patent and that F5’s Second Hotfix ended F5’s 

infringement of the remaining asserted claims. Dkt. Nos. 420, 475.

Case 5:13-cv-02024-RMW Document 609 Filed 08/22/16 Page 2 of 27
3

5:13-cv-02024-RMW

ORDER REGARDING POST-TRIAL MOTIONS

RS

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

before the ’319 Patent issued. Trial Tr. vol. 3, 346:1-3. Radware does not dispute that Radware 

itself did not provide notice of the ’319 Patent to F5 until Radware commenced this lawsuit on 

May 1, 2013. See Trial Tr. vol. 3, 365:20-366:1. At trial, however, Radware argued that F5 

became aware of the ’319 Patent as early as February 7, 2013, when an F5 in-house attorney 

received correspondence from the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office that listed the ’319 Patent in a 

Notice of References Cited that accompanied a Notice of Allowance for an F5 patent. See TX-29; 

TX-34. Radware also argued that circumstantial evidence supported its argument that F5 willfully 

infringed the ’319 Patent.4

The court instructed the jury on willfulness, in relevant part, as follows:

To prove willful infringement, Radware must persuade you by clear 

and convincing evidence (1) that F5 was aware of the ’319 patent 

before Radware filed this lawsuit, and (2) that after becoming aware 

of the ’319 patent, F5 acted with reckless disregard of the claims of 

Radware’s ’319 patent.

Dkt. No. 552 at 15. The court’s instruction was based in part on the Federal Circuit’s test from In 

re Seagate Tech, LLC, 497 F.3d 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (en banc), which governed at the time of 

trial. When asked on the verdict form whether Radware had “proven by clear and convincing 

evidence that F5’s infringement of the ’319 patent was willful,” the jury responded “Yes.” Dkt. 

No. 556 at 4. The jury awarded Radware $6.4 million in damages. Id.

At the close of Radware’s case in chief, F5 moved for judgment as a matter of law under 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 50(a) that its infringement was not willful. Trial Tr. vol. 7, 

969:14-970:1; Dkt. No. 515. Radware filed an opposition, Dkt. No. 521, and F5 moved for leave 

to file a reply, Dkt. No. 526. The court declined to rule on F5’s motion at that time and indicated 

that it would submit the issue to the jury. Dkt. No. 530. At the close of F5’s invalidity case, F5’s 

counsel indicated again on the record that F5 wanted to move for judgment as a matter of law. 

Trial Tr. vol. 11, 1698:7-15. After the jury rendered its verdict finding willfulness, F5 filed a 

 

4

For example, Radware elicited testimony that in the mid-2000s, F5 was aware of the ’702 Patent, 

to which the ’319 Patent claims priority, and which issued on December 16, 2003. Trial Tr. vol. 5, 

622:10-20; TX-3.

Case 5:13-cv-02024-RMW Document 609 Filed 08/22/16 Page 3 of 27
4

5:13-cv-02024-RMW

ORDER REGARDING POST-TRIAL MOTIONS

RS

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

renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law, or, in the alternative, a new trial. Dkt. No. 561. 

Radware filed an opposition on April 20, 2016, Dkt. No. 565, and F5 filed a reply on April 29, 

2016, Dkt. No. 567. The court held a hearing on F5’s motion for JMOL on May 13, 2016. On June 

13, 2016, while F5’s motion was under submission, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Halo 

Electronics, Inc. v. Pulse Electronics, Inc., 136 S.Ct. 1923 (2016), which, as explained below, 

rejected the Seagate test for willfulness and announced a new standard for the award of enhanced 

damages.5

On July 11, 2016, Radware filed motions: for enhanced damages and attorneys’ fees, Dkt. 

No. 583; for supplemental damages and interest, Dkt. No. 584; and for a permanent injunction, 

Dkt. No. 582. F5 filed oppositions to these motions. Dkt. Nos. 593, 597, and 594, respectively. 

Radware filed replies. Dkt. Nos. 600, 601, and 599, respectively. The court held an additional 

hearing on August 19, 2016.

II. WILLFULNESS AND ENHANCED DAMAGES

F5 maintains that Radware failed to present evidence that F5 had the awareness of the ’319 

patent that is necessary for a finding of willfulness. Moreover, F5 argues that its invalidity defense 

is still relevant to Radware’s claim for enhanced damages. 

To grant a renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law under Rule 50(b), the court 

must find that “the evidence, construed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, permits 

only one reasonable conclusion, and that conclusion is contrary to the jury’s.” Callicrate v. 

Wadsworth Mfg., 427 F.3d 1361, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (quoting Pavao v. Pagay, 307 F.3d 915, 

918 (9th Cir. 2002). A party seeking JMOL must show that the verdict is not supported by 

“substantial evidence,” meaning “relevant evidence that a reasonable mind would accept as 

adequate to support a conclusion.” Callicrate, 427 F.3d at 1366 (citing Gillette v. Delmore, 979 

F.2d 1342, 1346 (9th Cir. 1992)).

 

5

Following the Halo decision, the parties submitted five notices of supplemental authority to this 

court, most of which contained at least some argument, in violation of Civil Local Rule 7-3(d)(2). 

F5’s motion to respond to Radware’s statement of recent decision, Dkt. No. 587, is DENIED.

Case 5:13-cv-02024-RMW Document 609 Filed 08/22/16 Page 4 of 27
5

5:13-cv-02024-RMW

ORDER REGARDING POST-TRIAL MOTIONS

RS

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

Under Rule 59, “the trial court may grant a new trial, even though the verdict is supported 

by substantial evidence, if the verdict is contrary to the clear weight of the evidence, or is based 

upon evidence which is false, or to prevent, in the sound discretion of the trial court, a miscarriage 

of justice.” Wordtech Sys. v. Integrated Networks Solutions, Inc., 609 F.3d 1308, 1313 (Fed. Cir. 

2010) (quoting United States v. 4.0 Acres of Land, 175 F.3d 1133, 1139 (9th Cir. 1999)).

A district court has discretion to enhance damages “up to three times the amount found or 

assessed.” Halo, 136 S. Ct. at 1931 (quoting 35 U.S.C. § 284).

A. Willfulness 

Under the precedent that controlled at the time this case was tried in February and March 

2016, a patentee seeking enhanced damages had to show that infringement was willful under a 

two-part test. First, the patentee had to show “by clear and convincing evidence that the infringer 

acted despite an objectively high likelihood that its actions constituted infringement of a valid 

patent.” Seagate, 497 F.3d at 1371. “[T]he ‘objective’ prong of Seagate tends not to be met where 

an accused infringer relies on a reasonable defense to a charge of infringement.” Bard Peripheral 

Vascular, Inc. v. W.L. Gore & Associates, Inc., 682 F.3d 1003, 1005-06 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (citation 

omitted). Second, the patentee had to “demonstrate that this objectively-defined risk (determined 

by the record developed in the infringement proceeding) was either known or so obvious that it 

should have been known to the accused infringer.” Seagate, 497 F.3d at 1371.

The Supreme Court’s Halo decision eliminated Seagate’s objective prong: “The subjective 

willfulness of a patent infringer, intentional or knowing, may warrant enhanced damages, without 

regard to whether his infringement was objectively reckless.” Halo, 136 S. Ct. at 1933. Even after 

Halo, “[k]nowledge of the patent alleged to be willfully infringed continues to be a prerequisite to 

enhanced damages.” WBIP, LLC v. Kohler Co., No. 2015-1038, 2016 WL 3902668, at *15 (Fed. 

Cir. July 19, 2016). Under Halo, a party seeking enhanced damages under section 284 bears the 

burden of proof by a preponderance of the evidence. Halo, 136 S. Ct. at 1934. 

The court finds that the trial record contains insufficient evidence to support the jury’s 

Case 5:13-cv-02024-RMW Document 609 Filed 08/22/16 Page 5 of 27
6

5:13-cv-02024-RMW

ORDER REGARDING POST-TRIAL MOTIONS

RS

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

willfulness finding, even under a preponderance of the evidence standard.6It is undisputed that 

Radware never actively informed F5 of any of its patents or patent applications before Radware 

filed this lawsuit in May 2013. See Trial Tr. vol. 3, 365:20-366:13, 368:10-12 (Zisapel). For 

example, there was no claim that Radware sent a pre-suit notice letter to F5 to warn F5 of its 

infringement. At the time Radware filed its complaint, F5’s Link Controller, one of the products 

that forms the basis for Radware’s willful infringement claims, had been on the market for more 

than a decade. Trial Tr. vol. 6, 706:11-22. Radware’s argument that F5 allegedly copied 

Radware’s LinkProof product to create the Link Controller is unpersuasive. At the time that F5 

allegedly analyzed the LinkProof to introduce the Link Controller around 2002, Radware had not 

received any patents on link load balancing. The ’702 Patent issued in 2003, and the asserted ’319 

Patent did not issue until 2012. Thus, F5’s sales of the Link Controller for a decade without any 

notice that the Link Controller infringed any Radware patent cannot support a finding of 

willfulness.

The only direct evidence that Radware offered to show that F5 was subjectively aware of 

Radware’s ’319 Patent before this suit commenced was a Notice of Allowance for an F5 patent 

sent to F5’s outside patent prosecution counsel in January 2013, which F5’s outside counsel then 

forwarded in February 2013 to F5’s in-house counsel Mr. Campa. The Notice of Allowance and 

its attachments spanned over 100 pages and listed the ’319 Patent once by number in a list of over 

a dozen “References Cited.” TX-34 at 14. 

F5’s motion papers cite multiple cases in which district courts have ruled that mere citation 

to a patent number in correspondence from the Patent Office is legally insufficient to support a 

finding of willfulness. See, e.g., Spherix Inc. v. Juniper Networks, Inc., No. C14-578-SLR, 2015 

WL 1517508 (D. Del. Mar. 31, 2015) (dismissing willfulness claim because “[t]he fact that the 

 

6 While this court previously declined to grant F5’s motion for summary judgment on willfulness 

based in part on the existence of material disputes of fact, in evaluating a motion for judgment as a 

matter of law, the court must examine the evidence actually presented at trial. See Halo, 136 S. Ct. 

at 1933 (“As with any exercise of discretion, courts should continue to take into account the 

particular circumstances of each case.”).

Case 5:13-cv-02024-RMW Document 609 Filed 08/22/16 Page 6 of 27
7

5:13-cv-02024-RMW

ORDER REGARDING POST-TRIAL MOTIONS

RS

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

[asserted] patent was referenced during prosecution of two of defendant’s over 1,700 patents is not 

compelling evidence of knowledge”) (citation omitted); Chalumeau Power Sys. LLC v. Alcatel–

Lucent, No. C11-1175-RGA, 2012 WL 6968938 (D. Del. July 18, 2012) (dismissing willfulness 

claim despite the fact that the Patent Office cited the asserted patent as prior art in reference to 

three of defendant’s patent applications); Cordance Corp. v. Amazon.com Inc., 639 F. Supp. 2d 

406, 412–16 (D. Del. 2009) (granting summary judgment of no willfulness despite the fact that 

defendant had cited the asserted patent in one of its own patent applications in part because there 

was no evidence that defendant’s patent counsel had knowledge of the accused product). 

Radware’s opposition brief does not address these cases.

Consistent with the reasoning of the cases above, the court finds that the Notice of 

Allowance is insufficient to support Radware’s willfulness claims. Here, the Notice of Allowance 

did not discuss or attach the ’319 Patent. Mr. Campa specifically testified that he did not see the 

’319 Patent until after Radware sued. Trial Tr. vol. 6, 700:12-15. While the notice recited the 

name of the lead inventor of the ’319 Patent—Zisapel, the CEO of Radware—the notice made no 

mention of Radware itself. Moreover, Radware offered no evidence that any individual at F5 

reviewed the ’319 Patent or was otherwise actually aware of it—particularly at the same time that 

the individual was aware of F5’s accused products—before Radware filed suit. To the contrary, 

Mr. Campa testified that F5 searched its employees’ emails and found no references to the ’319 

Patent before Radware filed suit. Trial Tr. vol. 6, 700:16-701:12. To the extent that Radware 

argues that F5 or its outside counsel had a duty to review the ’319 Patent when they saw its 

number listed in the Notice of Allowance, Radware is incorrectly suggesting that willfulness can 

be proven by negligence; the Supreme Court has ruled that “intentional or knowing” infringement 

may warrant enhanced damages. Halo, 136 S. Ct. at 1933. The court finds that the Notice of 

Allowance, Radware’s only direct evidence that F5 knew of the issuance of the ’319 Patent before 

Radware filed suit, is insufficient to prove willfulness.

Radware argues, however, that circumstantial evidence also supports an inference that F5 

was aware of the ’319 Patent before Radware filed suit. Radware points to documents and 

Case 5:13-cv-02024-RMW Document 609 Filed 08/22/16 Page 7 of 27
8

5:13-cv-02024-RMW

ORDER REGARDING POST-TRIAL MOTIONS

RS

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

testimony suggesting that F5 and Radware were competitors and that F5 performed a competitive 

analysis of Radware products. See Dkt. No. 565 at 17 (citing TX-179). Moreover, Radware cites a 

press release from November 2012 indicating that the ’319 Patent had issued. Id. at 18 (citing 

TX-173). Radware argues that this evidence supports an inference that F5 was, in fact, aware of 

the ’319 Patent before Radware filed suit. 

The court finds Radware’s arguments about competition between the parties unpersuasive. 

The court notes that Trial Exhibit 179, on which Radware relies to argue that F5 considered 

Radware an important competitor, is from 2001, before Radware even filed the divisional 

application that became the ’319 Patent. Even assuming that F5 considered Radware a competitor 

in September 2012 when the ’319 Patent issued, as Radware acknowledges, the only F5 witness 

who testified on the subject indicated that he has no reason to believe that anyone at F5 reviewed 

Radware’s press release regarding the ’319 Patent. Trial Tr. vol. 5, 639:14-18 (Campa). While the 

jury did not have to believe Mr. Campa, Radware, which had the burden of proof, did not offer 

any evidence to show that anyone at F5 actually reviewed the November 2012 press release.

Radware also points to evidence that F5 was aware of the ’702 Patent, which is the parent 

of the ’319 Patent, and that F5 cited the published application for the ’319 Patent in 

correspondence with the Patent Office related to F5’s own patent applications. This evidence does 

not support a finding of willfulness. F5’s products do not infringe the ’702 Patent. Moreover, one 

cannot infringe a patent application; the earliest date F5 could have infringed the ’319 Patent was 

September 11, 2012, the date the patent issued. To the extent that Radware argues that F5 was 

actively monitoring Radware’s patent applications such that F5 would have immediately become 

aware of the issuance of the ’319 Patent, Radware offered no evidence in support of this 

proposition. Indeed, F5’s in-house attorney testified that he does not monitor the patent 

applications of competitors and that no one else at F5 is responsible for patents. Trial Tr. vol. 9, 

696:14-15; 699:19-21. 

For the reasons discussed above, Radware has failed to submit sufficient evidence to 

support a finding of subjective willfulness. Accordingly F5’s motion for judgment as a matter of 

Case 5:13-cv-02024-RMW Document 609 Filed 08/22/16 Page 8 of 27
9

5:13-cv-02024-RMW

ORDER REGARDING POST-TRIAL MOTIONS

RS

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

law on willfulness is granted.

7

B. Enhanced Damages

Even assuming that substantial evidence supported the jury’s willfulness verdict, this court 

would still need to use its discretion to determine “[w]hether the conduct is sufficiently egregious 

as to warrant enhancement and the amount of the enhancement that is appropriate.” WBIP, 2016 

WL 3902668, at *15 n.13; see also Halo, 136 S. Ct. at 1933 (noting that “none of this is to say that 

enhanced damages must follow a finding of egregious misconduct”). Awards for enhanced 

damages “are not to be meted out in a typical infringement case, but are instead designed as a 

‘punitive’ or ‘vindictive’ sanction for egregious infringement behavior.” Halo, 136 S. Ct. at 1932.

The Supreme Court has described the conduct giving rise to enhanced damages as “willful, 

wanton, malicious, bad-faith, deliberate, consciously wrongful, flagrant, or—indeed—

characteristic of a pirate.” Id. Both parties rely on the factors listed in Read Corp. v. Portec, Inc., 

970 F.2d 816, 827 (Fed. Cir. 1992), abrogated on other grounds by Markman v. Westview 

Instruments, Inc., 52 F.3d 967, 975-78 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (en banc), as guideposts in determining 

whether enhanced damages should be awarded. The Read factors include: (1) whether the 

infringer deliberately copied the ideas or design of another; (2) whether the infringer, when he 

knew of the other’s patent protection, investigated the scope of the patent and formed a good-faith 

belief that it was invalid or that it was not infringed; (3) the infringer’s behavior as a party to the 

litigation; (4) defendant’s size and financial condition; (5) closeness of the case; (6) duration of 

defendant’s misconduct; (7) remedial action by the defendant; and (8) defendant’s motivation for 

harm.8Id.

 

7 Because the court finds that Radware’s willfulness evidence was insufficient to survive a motion 

for JMOL, the court finds that F5 would at least be entitled to a new trial on the issue under the 

lower “clear weight of the evidence” standard. F5 raised one additional argument in support of its 

motion for a new trial that was not addressed above. Specifically, F5 argues that Radware’s 

counsel incorrectly described the legal standard for willfulness at trial and implied to the jury that 

willfulness merely required Radware to show that F5 was negligent. See Dkt. No. 561 at 14. The 

court finds that Radware’s misstatement of the legal standard for willfulness was not 

independently sufficient to require a new trial but that it does provide limited support for F5’s 

position.

8 Neither party argues that the ninth Read factor—whether defendant attempted to conceal its 

Case 5:13-cv-02024-RMW Document 609 Filed 08/22/16 Page 9 of 27
10

5:13-cv-02024-RMW

ORDER REGARDING POST-TRIAL MOTIONS

RS

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

1. Copying and Intent to Harm

Radware’s main argument is that that F5 copied Radware’s LinkProof product to create 

F5’s Link Controller and that F5 intended to harm Radware in the marketplace. The court finds 

Radware’s arguments unpersuasive. As noted above, F5 released the Link Controller in 2002, 10 

years before the ’319 Patent issued. Trial Tr. vol. 3, 346:1-3. “It is obvious that a party cannot be 

held liable for ‘infringement’, and thus not for ‘willful’ infringement, of a nonexistent patent.” 

Gustafson, Inc. v. Intersystems Indus. Products, Inc., 897 F.2d 508, 510 (Fed. Cir. 1990). 

Radware argues that Read’s reference to copying the “ideas or design” of another suggests 

that copying a plaintiff’s product—regardless of whether a patent has yet issued—justifies an 

award of enhanced damages. F5 responds that while Radware presented evidence that F5 was 

trying to develop a product to compete with the features of the LinkProof, Radware presented no 

evidence that F5 copied the LinkProof’s design or source code. F5 witnesses testified that they did 

not rely on Radware patents, manuals, or code when designing the Link Controller. Trial Tr. vol. 

8, 1048:15–1049:1 (Skene); vol. 9, 1364:16–1365:4 (Thornewell). Rather, F5 maintained that it 

developed the code for Link Controller from code for existing F5 products. Trial Tr. vol. 8, 

1047:2-17 (Skene); vol. 9, 1364:11-15 (Thornewell). Moreover, while Radware relies heavily on 

evidence that F5 acquired a LinkProof device for comparison, the evidence presented at trial 

shows that F5 did not obtain Radware’s device until months after F5 released the Link Controller. 

Compare TX-62 (April 2002 email chain congratulating Link Controller team for the device’s 

March 2002 release) with TX-91 (August 2002 F5 email chain with subject line “Radware Link 

Proof is available for your examination”). Radware’s counsel cited no evidence to suggest that F5 

possessed a LinkProof earlier. To the extent that F5 was fiercely competing with Radware 

between 2000 and 2003, the court again notes that this was years before Radware’s patent issued. 

As the Federal Circuit has explained, “keeping track of a competitor’s products and designing new 

and possibly better or cheaper functional equivalents is the stuff of which competition is made and 

is supposed to benefit the consumer.” State Indus., Inc. v. A.O. Smith Corp., 751 F.2d 1226, 1235-

 

misconduct—applies to this case.

Case 5:13-cv-02024-RMW Document 609 Filed 08/22/16 Page 10 of 27
11

5:13-cv-02024-RMW

ORDER REGARDING POST-TRIAL MOTIONS

RS

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

36 (Fed. Cir. 1985). Accordingly, the court finds that the first and eighth Read factors do not favor 

enhanced damages.

2. Duration of Infringement and Remedial Measures

Radware also argues that that F5 continued to willfully infringe the ’319 Patent throughout 

this litigation. F5’s post-complaint conduct is of limited relevance. In Seagate, the Federal Circuit 

indicated that a patentee who does not seek a preliminary injunction “should not be allowed to 

accrue enhanced damages based solely on the infringer’s post-filing conduct.” 497 F.3d at 1374. 

Other courts in this district have followed a similar approach.9 Halo did not disturb this ruling, as 

post-filing conduct was not at issue in Halo; the patentee in that case had sent the defendant letters 

offering to license the asserted patents five years before the lawsuit commenced, so post-complaint 

conduct was not necessary to establish willfulness. Halo, 136 S. Ct. at 1931. In the instant case, 

since Radware did not seek a preliminary injunction, it is not entitled to a finding of willfulness 

based solely on F5’s post-complaint infringement. In any event, F5’s Hotfixes indicate an 

intention not to infringe. While F5 acknowledges that it shipped a relatively small number of 

infringing units from its existing inventory even after the jury returned its validity verdict, these 

shipments stopped within a month of trial and well before Radware moved for a permanent 

injunction on July 11, 2016. Dkt. No. 593-5 (Schmidt Decl.) ¶ 6. The court concludes that the 

sixth and seventh Read factors do not favor enhancement of the overall damages award.

3. Use of Defenses and Closeness of the Case

Nor do the second, third, or fifth Read factors favor enhancement. Radware argues that 

F5’s litigation conduct did not reflect a good faith belief that Radware’s patents were invalid or 

not infringed. The court disagrees. First, Radware points out that F5 did not present a noninfringement defense at trial and, indeed, stipulated to the infringement of certain claims. 

 

9

See, e.g., EON Corp. IP Holdings, LLC v. Sensus USA, Inc., No. C-12-1011 EMC, 2012 WL 

4514138, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 1, 2012) (dismissing willfulness allegations without prejudice 

because plaintiff did not move for preliminary injunction); Monolithic Power Systems, Inc. v. 

Silergy Corp., 127 F.Supp.3d 1071, 1076 (N.D. Cal. 2015) (noting that “the failure to seek a 

preliminary injunction becomes relevant” after post-filing willfulness is established, when the 

court is determining in its discretion whether to award enhanced damages).

Case 5:13-cv-02024-RMW Document 609 Filed 08/22/16 Page 11 of 27
12

5:13-cv-02024-RMW

ORDER REGARDING POST-TRIAL MOTIONS

RS

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

Radware’s argument overlooks the closeness of the infringement issues in this case. Radware 

moved for summary judgment of infringement on the claims it ultimately asserted at trial, and, 

with the exception of claim 24 of the ’319 Patent, this court denied Radware’s motion. Dkt. No. 

294 at 61. Moreover, this court ruled on summary judgment that claim 24 of the ’319 Patent was 

not infringed by products with F5’s Hotfixes applied. Dkt. No. 420, 475. In this case, F5’s 

decision to force Radware to prove its infringement case before trial does not suggest misconduct. 

Radware also asserts that F5 initially asserted almost 100 invalidity references and refused 

for months to narrow its invalidity case to the three references F5 presented at trial. As F5 points 

out, Radware’s argument is somewhat misleading—F5’s invalidity expert report, served a year 

before trial, covered only nine references. Dkt. No. 593-4. Moreover, for better or worse, it is 

typical for patent litigants to narrow their cases for trial, and enhanced damages “are not to be 

meted out in a typical infringement case.” Halo, 136 S. Ct. at 1932. The court notes that Radware 

initially asserted infringement of dozens of claims but stipulated to only present six claims at trial. 

Dkt. No. 294 at 2; Dkt. No. 357. 

Radware also argues that F5 could not have relied in good faith on the invalidity references 

that F5 ultimately presented at trial, but the court finds Radware’s arguments unpersuasive. In this 

case, the jury did not make any factual findings on whether F5’s asserted prior art references 

included every limitation of Radware’s asserted claims; rather, the jury simply found that F5’s 

asserted references did not constitute prior art to Radware’s asserted patents. Dkt. No. 556 at 2-3.

Each of F5’s asserted prior art references existed in some form before the ’319 Patent’s effective 

filing date of December 20, 1999.10 Presumably, then, the jury based its determination that F5’s 

asserted references were not actually prior art on evidence offered to show that Radware 

conceived of the claimed inventions and reduced them to practice before December 20, 1999. As 

explained below, the court finds that F5 could have relied in good faith on its invalidity defenses.

 

10 See, e.g., TX-676 (Maki-Kullas Patent, filed Oct. 5, 1999); Dkt. No. 419 at 2-3 (stipulation 

regarding publication dates of documents or code associated with Cisco DD and F5 Big-IP/3DNS 

products); Trial Tr. vol. 9, 1303:14-1304:1; 1315:22-1316:8 (Delgadillo testimony regarding 

Cisco software release dates).

Case 5:13-cv-02024-RMW Document 609 Filed 08/22/16 Page 12 of 27
13

5:13-cv-02024-RMW

ORDER REGARDING POST-TRIAL MOTIONS

RS

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

a. The Maki-Kullas Patent – Claim 24

With regard to the Maki-Kullas patent, Radware’s CEO testified that Radware typically 

announces the launch of a product “several weeks before it’s ready.” See Trial Tr. vol. 3, 316:3-18 

(Feb. 24, 2016). From this evidence as well as evidence that the Radware did not ship the first 

LinkProof until December 1999, see TX-161, it would not have been unreasonable to believe that 

the Maki-Kullas patent predated Radware’s claimed invention.11 Radware also argues that the 

Maki-Kullas patent does not teach the claimed route selection limitation and that Maki-Kullas 

patent was one of the references that the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office considered in finding 

’319 Patent claim 24 patentable. As F5 points out, however, the prosecution history of the ’319 

Patent does not reveal the extent to which the PTO considered the Maki-Kullas patent. Moreover, 

F5 presented testimony from its expert explaining how, in his view, the Maki-Kullas patent 

actually does disclose the claimed route selection limitation. See Trial Tr. vol. 10, 1411:20-

1412:13, 1486:13-16; TX-676 col.9 ll.15-26. Thus, the court finds that F5 could have reasonably 

questioned the validity of claim 24 of the ’319 Patent in light of the Maki-Kullas patent.

b. The Cisco DD System

F5 could have reasonably concluded that the Cisco DD predated Radware’s invention. The 

earliest date that Radware’s witnesses even claimed to have conceived their patented invention 

was March or April 1999, and F5 presented unrebutted testimony that the Cisco DD was publicly 

available in some form in 1998. Trial Tr. vol. 3, 303:7-9 (Zisapel); vol. 9, 1238:6-8 (Darwin).

Substantively, the court finds that a reasonable jury could have concluded from the trial 

record that the Cisco DD satisfied the limitations of each asserted claim of the ’319 Patent. F5 

presented testimony that the Cisco DD could perform ISP load balancing and that Cisco sold DD 

units to Microsoft in 1998 or 1999. Trial Tr. vol. 9, 1239:12-23 (Darwin). F5 also presented 

testimony that the Cisco DD could choose between different ISPs in a multi-homed environment. 

 

11 At trial, Radware also presented evidence intended to show that Radware conceived the claimed 

inventions in the spring or summer of 1999 and diligently reduced them to practice. However, 

Radware’s papers do not explain how, if at all, that evidence shows that Radware had developed 

each asserted claim limitation before December 20, 1999.

Case 5:13-cv-02024-RMW Document 609 Filed 08/22/16 Page 13 of 27
14

5:13-cv-02024-RMW

ORDER REGARDING POST-TRIAL MOTIONS

RS

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

Id. at 1305:2-14 (Delgadillo). Radware did not present any direct evidence that Cisco DD lacked 

these capabilities at a general level in 1998 to 1999. F5’s expert Dr. Alexander also discussed each 

element of the asserted claims and explained how the Cisco DD satisfied each limitation. Trial Tr. 

vol. 10, 1438:14-1445:6. Radware’s briefs do not attempt to rebut the testimony of F5’s expert on 

an element-by-element level, nor does Radware point to any portion of the trial record containing 

such a rebuttal. See Dkt. No. 565 at 8-11. 

The court finds Radware’s remaining arguments about Cisco DD unpersuasive. The patent 

office’s consideration of the Cisco DD is not dispositive at least because the Patent Office did not 

consider a related Cisco white paper by Kevin Delgadillo describing certain features of Cisco DD 

that F5 relied upon at trial. See Trial Tr. vol. 10, 1406:16-1407:15. Finally, Radware argues that 

F5’s test bed was not a single device as required by the claims. Dkt. No. 565 at 8-9. Radware does 

not appear to dispute, however, that the Cisco DD system could have been construed as a single 

set of modules packaged together in a rack, which would satisfy the claim limitations. In sum, the 

court finds that F5 could have reasonably questioned the validity the asserted claims of the ’319 

Patent in light of the Cisco DD.

c. The F5 BIG-IP/3DNS System

F5 next argues that it presented a reasonable invalidity defense that the F5 Big-IP/3DNS 

anticipated all asserted claims of the ’319 Patent. Because the court finds that F5 presented 

reasonable arguments that other asserted prior art references invalidated all of Radware’s asserted 

claims, in evaluating enhanced damages, the court need not reach the issue of whether it was 

reasonable for F5 to argue that the F5 Big-IP/3DNS system anticipated the asserted claims.

4. Other Factors

The court finds that only the fourth Read factor—F5’s size and financial condition—

supports an award of enhanced damages. Radware presented evidence that F5’s 2015 revenue was 

$1.92 billion. Trial Tr. vol. 5, 570:24-571:2. While F5 argues that most of this revenue came from 

features that Radware has not accused of infringement, F5 does not appear to seriously dispute that 

F5 would be able to afford the $19.2 million total damages award that Radware seeks. However, 

Case 5:13-cv-02024-RMW Document 609 Filed 08/22/16 Page 14 of 27
15

5:13-cv-02024-RMW

ORDER REGARDING POST-TRIAL MOTIONS

RS

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

this factor alone is insufficient to support enhanced damages.

After reviewing the circumstances of this case, the court concludes that enhanced damages 

are inappropriate. Radware’s motion for enhanced damages is denied. 

III. ATTORNEYS’ FEES

Radware argues that it is entitled to attorneys’ fees based on F5’s litigation conduct and 

tactics. F5 responds that this is not an exceptional case that warrants an award of attorneys’ fees. 

Under 35 U.S.C. § 285, a “court in exceptional cases may award reasonable attorney fees to the 

prevailing party.” In Octane Fitness, LLC v. ICON Health & Fitness, Inc., 134 S. Ct. 1749, 1756 

(2014), the Supreme Court held that “an ‘exceptional’ case is simply one that stands out from 

others with respect to the substantive strength of a party’s litigating position (considering both the 

governing law and the facts of the case) or the unreasonable manner in which the case was 

litigated.” “[T]here is no precise rule or formula for making these determinations, but instead 

equitable discretion should be exercised in light of the considerations we have identified.” Id.

(citation omitted). A litigant must establish its entitlement to attorneys’ fees by a preponderance of 

the evidence. Id. at 1758.

Many of Radware’s arguments in support of its claim for attorneys’ fees overlap with 

Radware’s arguments in support of enhanced damages. Radware argues that F5 needlessly 

prolonged this case by asserting non-infringement defenses and invalidity references that F5 did 

not rely upon at trial. As explained above, however, F5 defended its position, and the court does 

not find that F5’s non-infringement defenses or F5’s assertion of multiple invalidity references 

make this case exceptional. Nor does the court find that F5’s decision to abandon its obviousness 

defense at trial was exceptional.

Radware specifically argues that F5 could not reasonably rely on the Big-IP/3DNS system 

to prove anticipation because it could not perform link load balancing in 1999 and because it was 

not a single reference. However, F5 did at least present some contemporaneous evidence that F5 

products could perform link load balancing prior to Radware’s products. See, e.g., TX-99 at 39 

(F5 document stating: “We have most of the pieces to do a better job”); TX-63 at 13 (F5 document 

Case 5:13-cv-02024-RMW Document 609 Filed 08/22/16 Page 15 of 27
16

5:13-cv-02024-RMW

ORDER REGARDING POST-TRIAL MOTIONS

RS

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

describing “[w]hat we have today” in the “BIG-IP / 3-DNS Combo”). Moreover, the court 

previously applied the definition of Radware’s expert to find that the Big-IP/3DNS system could 

constitute a single composite device for anticipation purposes because it contained “two modules 

that may be next to each other or within the same box.” Dkt. No. 529 at 2. The record before the 

court does not suggest that F5’s reliance on this device was unreasonable. 

Radware’s only new argument appears to be that F5 forced Radware to spend time and 

money proving that Radware’s own products practiced the asserted patents even though F5 

allegedly copied those products. F5 responds that F5 simply wanted Radware to show that 

Radware did not mark its products with the patent numbers of the asserted patents. The court finds 

that forcing Radware to prove that its products practiced the asserted patents does not make this an 

exceptional case.

The court concludes that the circumstances of this case and F5’s conduct do not warrant 

an award of attorneys’ fees.

IV. SUPPLEMENTAL DAMAGES AND INTEREST

Radware’s Motion for Accounting seeks supplemental damages for infringing units that F5 

sold between January 26, 2016—the last day F5 provided sales figures before trial—and April 14, 

2016—the day F5 asserts it stopped selling infringing units.12 Dkt. No. 584. Radware also seeks 

prejudgment and post-judgment interest. F5 concedes that supplemental damages and interest are 

appropriate, but the parties disagree on the number of infringing units sold, the appropriate royalty 

rate for those units, and the appropriate method of calculating interest. See Dkt. No. 597.

A. Supplemental Damages

Courts regularly award supplemental damages for infringing units that a jury could not 

consider at trial. While a patentee could potentially file a new lawsuit to recover damages for these 

units, additional litigation would be costly and inefficient. When a jury does not explicitly state the 

amount of damages it awarded for each infringing unit, determining the appropriate amount of 

 

12 Radware “reserves the right to seek damages for any continued F5 infringing sales.” Dkt. No. 

584 at 2 n.1.

Case 5:13-cv-02024-RMW Document 609 Filed 08/22/16 Page 16 of 27
17

5:13-cv-02024-RMW

ORDER REGARDING POST-TRIAL MOTIONS

RS

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

supplemental damages per unit can be difficult. As Radware points out, however, at least one other 

district court has allowed parties to estimate the amount of per-unit damages that a jury awarded 

by dividing the jury’s total damages award by the number of infringing units the jury considered.

See Aero Products Int'l, Inc. v. Intex Recreation Corp., No. 02 C 2590, 2005 WL 1498667, at *2 

(N.D. Ill. June 9, 2005) (dividing $2,950,000.00 total jury award by $21,817,103.00 in sales to 

arrive at 13.5% royalty rate). F5 does not disagree with this approach in principle. 

In the instant case, Radware’s damages claims were based on sales of two F5 modules: the 

Link Controller and the Global Traffic Manager, or GTM. The jury awarded $5,000,000 in lost 

profits for Link Controller and $1,400,000 in reasonable royalties for GTM. Dkt. No. 556 at 4. 

Calculating the appropriate amount of per-unit damages for Link Controller is relatively 

straightforward. The parties agree that the jury saw evidence of 500 infringing sales of Link 

Controller, and $5,000,000 divided by 500 units equals $10,000 in lost profits per Link Controller 

unit. The parties agree that this is an appropriate rate to apply to infringing Link Controller units 

sold after January 26, 2016.

The parties disagree on the appropriate per-unit royalty rate for GTM. In support of the 

instant motion, Radware’s damages expert Mr. Malackowski estimated the per-unit royalty rate 

that the jury applied in two ways. First, he divided the $1,400,000 damages award by the number 

of BIG-IP hardware units with GTM licenses (but without any Hotfix) for which Radware sought 

a reasonable royalty (but not lost profits) at trial—6,885 units—to yield a royalty rate of 

approximately $203.34 per unit. Dkt. No. 584 at 2; see also TX-426 (Radware damages 

calculations); Dkt. No. 581-7 (Malackowski Decl.) ¶ 7. Radware argues that the court should 

apply this rate because it is consistent with the per-unit royalty rate that Radware sought at trial, 

$200. 

Radware’s expert acknowledges, however, that Radware’s damages claims at trial were not 

simply based on the number of hardware units with GTM and without any Hotfix installed. 

Rather, in addition to the 6,885 pre-Hotfix hardware units with GTM for which Radware sought 

only a reasonable royalty, the jury also saw evidence of:

Case 5:13-cv-02024-RMW Document 609 Filed 08/22/16 Page 17 of 27
18

5:13-cv-02024-RMW

ORDER REGARDING POST-TRIAL MOTIONS

RS

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

 909 additional hardware units with GTM licenses and without any Hotfix for which 

Radware sought lost profits but no reasonable royalty;

 2,415 hardware units with GTM licenses and the First Hotfix (but not the Second 

Hotfix);

 3,935 virtual editions; and

 25,096 add-ons.

See TX-426. Radware’s expert acknowledges that if these units are included, the damages base is 

39,240 units. See id.; Dkt. No. 581-7 ¶ 10. Dividing $1,400,000 by 39,240 units yields 

approximately $35.68 per unit. See id. F5 argues that this is the appropriate royalty rate to apply to 

any additional unit sales of GTM because it accurately reflects the damages base for which 

Radware sought damages at trial. F5 also notes that its own damages expert suggested a royalty 

rate of $5 per unit at trial to reflect the infrequency with which she argued that customers use 

Radware’s patented features. Radware disagrees and argues that the court should apply the 

$203.34 rate because no party suggested a $35.68 per unit royalty rate to the jury. 

The court finds it appropriate to apply a $35.68 per unit royalty rate for GTM sales made 

between January 26, 2016 and the jury’s validity verdict. While both of Mr. Malackowski’s 

proposed methodologies for estimating the jury’s per-unit royalty rate involve making certain 

assumptions, the assumptions he applied to arrive at the $35.68 figure seem more reasonable. To 

arrive at the $203.34 figure, the jury would have had to focus on one, isolated base figure on a 

spreadsheet—the number of hardware units with GTM (but without any Hotfix) for which 

Radware sought a reasonable royalty (but not lost profits)—to the exclusion of all of the other 

types of GTM units that F5 sold. Such a calculation would seem arbitrary, to say the least. 

Moreover, Radware’s proposal of $203.34 per unit is higher than the royalty rate that any party 

requested at trial, while $35.68 is at least between the $5 that F5’s expert argued was appropriate 

and the $200 that Radware’s expert requested at trial. 

The court notes, however, that the jury rendered its verdict finding that the asserted claims 

were valid on March 15, 2016, but F5 continued to sell infringing units through April 14, 2016. 

Case 5:13-cv-02024-RMW Document 609 Filed 08/22/16 Page 18 of 27
19

5:13-cv-02024-RMW

ORDER REGARDING POST-TRIAL MOTIONS

RS

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

The Federal Circuit has held that it may be appropriate to award a higher per-unit royalty rate for 

units sold after a finding of liability because a pre-verdict royalty rate includes some risk that a 

patent may be held invalid or not infringed. See Amado v. Microsoft Corp., 517 F.3d 1353, 1362

(Fed. Cir. 2008) (holding that a court determining damages “should take into account the change 

in the parties’ bargaining positions, and the resulting change in economic circumstances, resulting 

from the determination of liability”). This court finds it appropriate to award a higher royalty for 

infringing F5 units sold after March 15, 2016 to account for the certainty that Radware’s patents 

were found valid and infringed. Accordingly, for GTM units sold between March 15, 2016 and 

April 14, 2016, the court will award a royalty of $53.52, a 50% increase over the rate that the jury 

appears to have awarded. The court finds it unnecessary to adjust the lost profits figure for Link 

Controller sales because the parties agree that this number should be $10,000 per unit.

The parties dispute the number of supplemental infringing units that F5 has sold. In June 

2016, F5 provided Radware with updated sales figures for the period of January 26, 2016 through 

April 14, 2016. It appears that F5 initially indicated that all of the units in the spreadsheets it 

provided to Radware were infringing, but in opposition to Radware’s motion, F5 submitted a 

declaration indicating that some of the Link Controller and GTM units sold after January 26, 2016 

had the Second Hotfix installed and thus did not infringe. See Dkt. No. 593-5 (Schmidt Decl.). 

While Radware argues that it did not have time to adequately investigate or verify the claims of 

F5’s declarant, Radware has offered no evidence that F5’s claims about the Hotfix are incorrect. 

Accordingly, the court will subtract the number of non-infringing units from the total sales figures 

supplied by Radware. Because F5’s declarant did not distinguish between the non-infringing units 

sold before or after the jury’s verdict, the court has attempted to apportion those figures based on 

the number of days in each period, as indicated below.

With the above considerations in mind, the court awards supplemental damages to 

Radware in the amount of $444,360.35 as summarized in the following table based on data 

provided by the parties’ experts, Dkt. Nos. 581-7, 596-5:

Case 5:13-cv-02024-RMW Document 609 Filed 08/22/16 Page 19 of 27
20

5:13-cv-02024-RMW 

ORDER REGARDING POST-TRIAL MOTIONS 

RS

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

Pre-Verdict

1/26/2016 -

3/15/2016

Post-Verdict

3/16/2016 -

4/14/2016

Total 

1/26/2016 -

4/14/2016

Link Controller

Total Units Sold 24 9 33

- Second Hotfix Units (Estimated)13-3 -1 -4

Infringing Units 21 8 29

Lost Profits Per Unit $10,000.00 $10,000.00

Total Damages $210,000.00 $80,000.00 $290,000.00

GTM

Total Devices Sold

Virtual Editions

Add-Ons

Total Units

- Second Hotfix Units (Estimated) -53 -32 -85

Total Infringing Units 2,069 1,505 3,574

Royalty Rate Per Unit $35.68 $53.52

Total Damages $73,817.53 $80,542.81 $154,360.35

TOTAL SUPPLEMENTAL DAMAGES $283,817.53 $160,542.81 $444,360.35

B. Interest 

Radware also seeks prejudgment and post-judgment interest. In the instant case, Radware 

seeks prejudgment interest at the prime rate—between 3.25% and 3.5%—compounded monthly. 

Dkt. No. 584 at 12; Dkt. No. 581-7 ¶ 14. F5, on the other hand, argues that the appropriate interest 

rate is the 1-year Treasury Bill rate—between 0.11% and 0.53%—compounded annually. 

35 U.S.C. § 284 provides that damages for infringement should be awarded “together with 

interest and costs as fixed by the court.” See also Gen. Motors Corp. v. Devex Corp., 461 U.S. 

648, 655 (1983). Prejudgment interest is meant to be compensatory and not punitive. Oiness v. 

 

13 80 days passed between January 26, 2016 and April 14, 2016. 50 days passed between January 

26, 2016 and March 15, 2016, and 30 days passed between March 16, 2016 and April 14, 2016. 

To estimate the number pre-verdict units with the Second Hotfix, the court multiplied the total 

number of units with the Second Hotfix by 5/8. To estimate the number post-verdict units with the 

Second Hotfix, the court multiplied the total number of units with the Second Hotfix by 3/8. 

Redacted

Case 5:13-cv-02024-RMW Document 609 Filed 08/22/16 Page 20 of 27
21

5:13-cv-02024-RMW

ORDER REGARDING POST-TRIAL MOTIONS

RS

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

Walgreens Co., 88 F.3d 1025, 1033 (Fed. Cir. 1996). The purpose of prejudgment interest is to put 

the patent owner “in as good a position as he would have been in had the infringer entered into a 

reasonable royalty agreement.” Gen. Motors, 461 U.S. at 655. The rate of prejudgment interest is 

“left largely to the discretion of the district court.” Bio-Rad Labs., Inc. v. Nicolet Instrument 

Corp., 807 F.2d 964, 969 (Fed. Cir. 1986).

Typically, courts calculate interest at the prime rate “where there is evidence that the 

plaintiff would have been spared from borrowing money at the prime rate during the infringement 

period had the infringer been paying royalties, and thus, prejudgment interest at the prime rate is 

necessary to compensate for the forgone use of the money.” Finjan, Inc. v. Blue Coat Systems, 

Inc., No. 13-cv-03999-BLF, 2016 WL 3880774, at *18 (N.D. Cal. July 18, 2016) (quoting Mars, 

Inc. v. Coin Acceptors, Inc., 513 F. Supp. 2d 128, 133 (D. N.J. May 22, 2007)). On the other hand, 

“it is not necessary that a patentee demonstrate that it borrowed at the prime rate in order to be 

entitled to prejudgment interest at that rate.” Uniroyal, Inc. v. Rudkin-Wiley Corp., 939 F.2d 1540, 

1545 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (affirming award of interest at the prime rate in part because the patentee’s 

“poor financial condition during the pendency of the litigation required it to finance its operations 

with monies borrowed at rates above the prime rate”).

Here, Radware submitted no evidence that it borrowed any money during the infringement 

period at the prime rate. Nor has Radware argued that its poor financial condition required it to 

finance its operations with monies borrowed at high interest rates, in contrast with the situation in 

Uniroyal. Accordingly, the court finds it appropriate to utilize the T-Bill rate with annual 

compounding for prejudgment interest. See Laitram Corp. v. NEC Corp., 115 F.3d 947, 955 (Fed. 

Cir. 1997) (affirming use of T-Bill rate with annual compounding where patent owner did not 

provide any evidence that it borrowed money at a higher rate). Because neither Radware nor F5 

calculated interest based on the court’s supplemental damages award discussed above, the court 

will require Radware to submit a proposed judgment with an interest calculation consistent with 

this order.

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1961, the award of post-judgment interest is automatic and at a rate 

Case 5:13-cv-02024-RMW Document 609 Filed 08/22/16 Page 21 of 27
22

5:13-cv-02024-RMW

ORDER REGARDING POST-TRIAL MOTIONS

RS

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

equal to the weekly average 1-year constant maturity Treasury yield compounded annually. 28 

U.S.C. § 1961. Accordingly, the court grants Radware’s request for post-judgment interest.

V. PERMANENT INJUNCTION

Finally, Radware requests that the court enjoin F5 from infringing the asserted patents. 

Dkt. No. 582. A court may enjoin ongoing patent infringement after considering traditional 

principles of equity. 35 U.S.C. § 283. To receive injunctive relief, Radware must show: “(1) that it 

has suffered an irreparable injury; (2) that remedies available at law, such as monetary damages, 

are inadequate to compensate for that injury; (3) that, considering the balance of hardships 

between the plaintiff and defendant, a remedy in equity is warranted; and (4) that the public 

interest would not be disserved by a permanent injunction.” eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, L.L.C., 

547 U.S. 388, 391 (2006).

Radware’s proposed injunction would prevent F5 from:

1. making, using, selling, and/or offering to sell in the United States, 

or importing into the United States, software or code implementing 

any Infringing Feature, and/or any feature not more than colorably 

different therefrom; and/or 

2. developing, designing, testing, demonstrating, implementing, 

writing, modifying, updating, or manufacturing in the United States 

any software or code implementing any Infringing Feature, and/or 

any feature not more than colorably different therefrom, except for 

purposes of designing around the Radware Patents; and/or

3. advertising, marketing, demonstrating, or otherwise promoting in 

the United States any Infringing Feature, and/or any feature not 

more than colorably different therefrom; and/or

4. directly or indirectly requesting, assisting, or encouraging any 

third party to perform any of the acts listed in the immediately 

preceding Paragraphs (1)-(3).

Dkt. No. 582-1. The proposed injunction defines “Infringing Feature” as “link load balancing.” Id.

F5 argues that an injunction is not warranted under eBay and that Radware’s proposed injunction

would improperly restrain lawful activities. Dkt. No. 594. 

As explained below, the court finds that injunctive relief is warranted in this case but that 

Radware’s proposed injunction is overbroad.

A. Irreparable Harm

In support of its claim for irreparable harm, Radware submitted evidence that Radware and 

Case 5:13-cv-02024-RMW Document 609 Filed 08/22/16 Page 22 of 27
23

5:13-cv-02024-RMW

ORDER REGARDING POST-TRIAL MOTIONS

RS

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

F5 are competitors, TX-388 at 2; that Radware’s products practice the asserted patents, Trial Tr. 

vol. 6, 746:6-10 (Rubin); and that Radware has lost customers to F5, see, e.g., Trial Tr. vol. 3, 

346:17-349:8. Radware further notes that Radware does not license its patents. Id. at 360:24-

361:15. “Past harm to a patentee’s market share, revenues, and brand recognition is relevant for 

determining whether the patentee has suffered an irreparable injury.” i4i Ltd. Partnership v. 

Microsoft Corp., 598 F.3d 831, 861 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (quotation marks omitted). 

F5 responds that Radware cannot show irreparable harm because the last infringing BIG-IP 

product was shipped in April 2016, and all BIG-IP products shipped since then have included code 

that renders them non-infringing under this court’s summary judgment orders. See Dkt. No. 593-5 

¶ 6 (Schmidt); Dkt. No. 475. In essence, F5 is arguing that an injunction is unnecessary because 

F5 ceased infringement. 

The court finds F5’s argument unpersuasive. At trial, F5 maintained that the Link 

Controller had been discontinued in the United States. Trial Tr. vol. 11, 1612:15-17. After trial, 

however, Radware submitted evidence that F5 was still shipping infringing Link Controller and 

GTM units from its Milpitas, California facility to customers overseas, at least until April 14, 

2016. Dkt. No. 593-5 ¶ 8. F5 does not dispute that these units infringed. It appears that at least as 

of April 2016 there was still demand outside the United States for F5 products with the infringing

link load balancing features enabled. Thus, the court finds that in the absence of an injunction, 

Radware may suffer irreparable harm.

F5 argues that to the extent that an injunction is appropriate, the injunction should be 

limited to Link Controller because the infringing functionality does not “drive consumer demand” 

for GTM, as evidenced by the jury’s denial of lost profits for GTM. See Apple Inc. v. Samsung 

Elecs. Co., Ltd., 809 F.3d 633, 641 (Fed. Cir. 2015). The court agrees that Radware presented no 

evidence that patented features “drove demand” for GTM. However, F5’s argument is 

unpersuasive because the Federal Circuit explained: “Though the fact that the infringing features 

are not the only cause of the lost sales may well lessen the weight of any alleged irreparable harm, 

it does not eliminate it entirely.” Id. at 642. Radware presented at least some evidence that 

Case 5:13-cv-02024-RMW Document 609 Filed 08/22/16 Page 23 of 27
24

5:13-cv-02024-RMW

ORDER REGARDING POST-TRIAL MOTIONS

RS

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

customers found link load balancing important generally. See, e.g., Trial Tr. vol. 3, 319:14-320:1 

(Zisapel); vol. 4, 490:1-491:7 (Trachtman). 

In any event, Radware explains that it does not seek to enjoin all GTM products; rather, 

Radware seeks only to enjoin products that contain the original, infringing code and not the 

Second Hotfix. Dkt. No. 599 at 8. While F5 may properly protest the breadth of Radware’s

definition of “Infringing Features,” F5’s argument is insufficient to deny all injunctive relief. 

B. Adequacy of Money Damages

Radware argues that F5’s infringement will cause Radware to suffer harm that cannot 

easily be quantified, including lost service contracts, getting locked out of future sales with 

customers, and losing opportunities to sell other products and solutions. See, e.g., Trial Tr. vol. 3, 

353:6-8; vol. 4, 481:12-24; vol. 6, 716:21-24. The Federal Circuit has held that courts may 

consider “the effect the sale of a single product can have on downstream sales of” related products 

in determining whether money damages are adequate. Apple, 809 F.3d at 645. 

F5 responds that “any lost downstream revenue is irrelevant to the adequacy of the jury’s 

award because Radware has not established that link load balancing drove demand for GTM.” 

Dkt. No. 594 at 4. Again, F5’s argument misses the mark because Radware is not attempting to 

enjoin all GTM sales; Radware is attempting to enjoin infringing features. Moreover, F5 does not 

even attempt to argue that money damages will be adequate to compensate for infringing Link 

Controller sales. F5 also argues points out that Radware failed to move for a preliminary 

injunction, which, according to F5, suggests that monetary damages are adequate. However, even 

the authority on which F5 relies, MercExchange, L.L.C. v. eBay, Inc., 500 F. Supp. 2d 556, 573 

(E.D. Va. 2007), indicates that failure to seek a preliminary injunction “is plainly not dispositive” 

in determining whether to issue a permanent injunction. 

The court finds that monetary damages would be inadequate to protect Radware from any 

continued infringement by F5.

C. Balance of the Hardships

Radware’s principal argument under the third eBay factor is that if, as F5 claims, F5 has 

Case 5:13-cv-02024-RMW Document 609 Filed 08/22/16 Page 24 of 27
25

5:13-cv-02024-RMW

ORDER REGARDING POST-TRIAL MOTIONS

RS

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

truly removed infringing link load balancing functionality from its products, F5 should suffer no 

hardship from an injunction. F5 maintains that it successfully designed around Radware’s asserted 

claims with the Second Hotfix. F5 argues, however, that Radware’s proposed injunction does 

more than simply enjoining sales of BIG-IP products without the Second Hotfix installed. 

Specifically, F5 argues that Radware’s proposed injunction impermissibly: (1) prevents F5 from 

developing, designing, testing, demonstrating, implementing, writing, modifying, updating, or 

manufacturing software code; (2) defines “Infringing Feature” so as to encompass forms of “link 

load balancing” that do not infringe; (3) applies to F5’s “successors, assigns . . . [and] any 

affiliated entities”; and (4) covers devices beyond those adjudicated in this case. See Dkt. No. 594 

at 6-10 (citing Dkt. No. 582-1 (proposed injunction)). F5’s criticisms are well taken, and the court 

will attempt to address them in its injunction order.

14 The court finds that the injunction, as 

modified, should not impose any hardship on F5. 

D. Public Interest

Finally, Radware argues that the public interest will be served by protecting Radware’s 

intellectual property rights. Radware points out that because its proposed injunction does not 

affect products that consumers have already purchased, the public will suffer no harm. See i4i, 598 

F.3d at 863 (“By carving out users who purchased or licensed infringing Word products before the 

injunction’s effective date, the injunction’s tailoring minimizes disruptions to the market and the 

public.”). F5 responds that an injunction against any product other than Link Controller will 

deprive the public of significant non-infringing technology. 

F5 has represented that of the BIG-IP products it has shipped from the United States since 

April 14, 2016 have included the Second Hotfix code, rendering them non-infringing. F5’s 

argument is persuasive only to the extent that Radware’s proposed injunction, in its current state, 

does not allow F5 to continue shipping products with the Second Hotfix code. The court finds that 

 

14 On the other hand, the court finds F5’s argument that an injunction should be limited to Link 

Controller and not GTM unpersuasive. In light of F5’s practices with respect to preloading and 

subsequently licensing software, see Dkt. No. 420 at 8, the court does not understand how an 

injunction directed to Link Controller but not GTM would limit infringement.

Case 5:13-cv-02024-RMW Document 609 Filed 08/22/16 Page 25 of 27
26

5:13-cv-02024-RMW

ORDER REGARDING POST-TRIAL MOTIONS

RS

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

as long as the injunction allows F5 to continue shipping products with the Second Hotfix, the 

injunction will not deprive the public of any non-infringing technology. 

* * *

Based on the analysis above, the record in this case, and the arguments of the parties, the 

court concludes that an injunction should issue that enjoins F5 from further infringing claims 1, 

12, or 24 of the ’319 patent and claims 9, 10, 12, or 14 of the ’374 patent.

VI. ORDER

For the foregoing reasons, the court GRANTS F5’s motion for judgment as a matter of law 

on willfulness and DENIES Radware’s motion for enhanced damages and attorneys’ fees.

Furthermore, the court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART Radware’s motion for 

supplemental damages and prejudgment and post-judgment interest. Radware shall promptly 

submit a proposed judgment consistent with this order on or before September 6, 2016. One week 

before submitting the proposed judgment to the court, Radware shall provide a copy to F5 for 

review of the proposed judgment’s adherence to this order.

The court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART Radware’s motion for a permanent 

injunction. The terms of the injunction will be filed separately.

The court does not believe that anything in this order reveals confidential information. 

However, in an abundance of caution, the court is publicly filing a redacted version, with portions 

of the order relating to subject matter that the parties have sought to keep under seal redacted. The 

court has filed an unredacted copy of this order with access restricted to participants in this case. If 

a party believes that the redacted portion discloses confidential information, it must file a version 

of the order with proposed redactions 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 within 14 days of the date of this order. Thereafter, a 

copy of this order with the approved redactions will be made public.

Case 5:13-cv-02024-RMW Document 609 Filed 08/22/16 Page 26 of 27
27

5:13-cv-02024-RMW

ORDER REGARDING POST-TRIAL MOTIONS

RS

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

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 22, 2016

______________________________________

Ronald M. Whyte

United States District Judge

Case 5:13-cv-02024-RMW Document 609 Filed 08/22/16 Page 27 of 27