RADWARE, LTD. v. F5 NETWORKS, INC., 5:13-cv-02024-RMW. (2015)
Court: District Court, N.D. California
Number: infdco20151016b20
Visitors: 4
Filed: Oct. 15, 2015
Latest Update: Oct. 15, 2015
Summary: ORDER ON: (1) RADWARE'S MOTION TO STRIKE; (2) F5'S MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS; (3) F5'S MOTION TO AMEND INVALIDITY CONTENTIONS; (4) F5'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF INVALIDITY; (5) RADWARE'S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON INVALIDITY; (6) RADWARE'S MOTION FOR SANCTIONS; (7) RADWARE'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF INFRINGEMENT; (8) F5'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF NON-INFRINGEMENT; (9) F5'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON DAMAGES REDACTED Re: Dkt. Nos. 180, 182, 183, 187,
Summary: ORDER ON: (1) RADWARE'S MOTION TO STRIKE; (2) F5'S MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS; (3) F5'S MOTION TO AMEND INVALIDITY CONTENTIONS; (4) F5'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF INVALIDITY; (5) RADWARE'S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON INVALIDITY; (6) RADWARE'S MOTION FOR SANCTIONS; (7) RADWARE'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF INFRINGEMENT; (8) F5'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF NON-INFRINGEMENT; (9) F5'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON DAMAGES REDACTED Re: Dkt. Nos. 180, 182, 183, 187, ..
More
ORDER ON: (1) RADWARE'S MOTION TO STRIKE; (2) F5'S MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS; (3) F5'S MOTION TO AMEND INVALIDITY CONTENTIONS; (4) F5'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF INVALIDITY; (5) RADWARE'S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON INVALIDITY; (6) RADWARE'S MOTION FOR SANCTIONS; (7) RADWARE'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF INFRINGEMENT; (8) F5'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF NON-INFRINGEMENT; (9) F5'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON DAMAGES
REDACTED
Re: Dkt. Nos. 180, 182, 183, 187, 189, 190, 201, 207, and 212
RONALD M. WHYTE, District Judge.
Defendant F5 Networks, Inc. ("F5") and plaintiffs Radware, Inc. and Radware Ltd. (collectively "Radware") bring the following motions: (1) Radware's Motion to Strike, Dkt. No. 201; (2) F5's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, Dkt. No. 180; (3) F5's Motion to Amend Invalidity Contentions, Dkt. No. 212; (4) F5's Motion for Summary Judgment of Invalidity, Dkt. No. 183; (5) Radware's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment Motion Against F5's Affirmative Defense of Invalidity, Dkt. No. 189; (6) Radware's Motion for Sanctions, Dkt. No. 207; (7) Radware's Motion for Summary Judgment of Infringement, Dkt. No. 182; (8) F5's Motion for Summary Judgment of Non-Infringement, Dkt. No. 190; and (9) F5's Motion for Summary Judgment on Damages Issues, Dkt. No. 187. The court has reviewed the papers filed and heard the argument of counsel. The court rules on the motions as set forth below.
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
VII. CONCLUSION
For the reasons explained above, the court orders as follows:
• Radware's Motion to Strike is:
º GRANTED as to F5's Section 101 invalidity defense and F5's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings;
º DENIED as to those portions of F5's Motion for Summary Judgment that rely upon GSLB;
º GRANTED as to those portions of F5's Motion for Summary Judgment that rely upon BGP; and
º DENIED as to the declaration of Dr. Peter Alexander.
• F5's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings is DENIED.
• F5's Motion to Amend its Invalidity Contentions is DENIED.
• Radware's Motion for Sanctions under Rule 37 is DENIED subject to the conditions specified.
• Radware's Motion for Summary Judgment regarding F5's invalidity affirmative defense is:
º DENIED as to the allegedly abandoned prior art references;
º GRANTED as to the testbed systems as prior art;
º DENIED as to the Maki-Kullas patent; and
º DENIED as to the Cisco DD white paper references.
• F5's Motion for Summary Judgment of Invalidity is:
º DENIED that GSLB anticipates the Asserted Patents;
º DENIED that BGP anticipates the Asserted Patents; and
º DENIED that the Asserted Patents are obvious.
• On the infringement motions:
º Per the parties' agreement, F5's Motion for Summary Judgment of no direct infringement of the asserted method claims29 is GRANTED (pre- and post-hotfix).
º Radware's Motion for Summary Judgment of Infringement is GRANTED as to claim 24 of the `319 Patent (pre-hotfix).
º F5's Motion for Summary Judgment of Non-Infringement is GRANTED as to `319 Patent claim 10 (pre- and post-hotfix direct infringement).
º Both parties' motions are DENIED as to the remaining claims/products.
º • F5's Motion for Summary Judgment on damages is GRANTED as to pre-complaint damages and lost profits on the LTM and GTM sales and DENIED as to willfulness on pre-hotfix products.
• F5 has 30 days from the date of this order to make its updated, post-hotfix source code available for inspection to Radware and provide Mr. Thornewell or a mutually agreed witness to testify about it. At that point, F5 may renew its Motion for Summary Judgment of Non-Infringement as to post-hotfix products.
• The court has filed an unredacted copy of this order under seal. 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 by October 26, 2015. Any responses to the proposed redactions must be filed by November 3, 2015. Thereafter, a copy of this order with the approved redactions will be made public.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
FootNotes
29. `319 Patent claims 13-23 and 26-28; `374 Patent claims 1-4 and 6-7.
Source: Leagle
