Radware, Ltd. v. F5 Networks, Inc.

• Decision Date: 15 October 2015
• Docket Number: Case No. 5:13-cv-02024-RMW
• Citation: 147 F.Supp.3d 974
• Court: U.S. District Court — Northern District of California
• Parties: Radware, Ltd., et al., Plaintiffs, v. F5 Networks, Inc., Defendant.

147 F.Supp.3d 974

Radware, Ltd., et al., Plaintiffs,

v.F5 Networks, Inc., Defendant.

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

United States District Court, N.D. California.

Signed October 15, 2015

Filed December 4, 2015

A. Marisa Chun, Barrington E. Dyer, Fabio Elia Marino, Judith S.H. Hom, Nitin Gambhir, Laura Kieran Kieckhefer, Sruli Yellin, Teri H.P. Nguyen, McDermott Will & Emery, LLP, Menlo Park, CA, Eric William Hagen, McDermott Will and Emery LLP, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiffs.

Christopher Kao, Vinson & Elkins L.L.P., San Francisco, CA, Antoine M. McNamara, Christina Jordan McCullough, Nathaniel Eli Durrance, Ramsey M. Al-Salam, Ryan James McBrayer, Stevan Richard Stark, Jr., Perkins Coie LLP, Seattle, WA, Daniel Tyler Keese, Portland, OR, Michael James Engle, Perkins Coie LLP, Palo Alto, CA, for Defendant.

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

Ronald M. Whyte, United States 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.

I. BACKGROUND

A. Asserted Patents

Radware brings this patent infringement action against its competitor F5, alleging infringement of claims 1–7, 9–19, and 21–32 of U.S. Patent No. 8,266,319 (“'319 Patent”) and claims 1–4, 6–12, 14, and 15 of U.S. Patent No. 8,484,374 (“'374 Patent”) (collectively “Asserted Patents”).¹ Both Asserted Patents are entitled “Load Balancing” and relate to “computer networks in general, and in particular to load balancing client requests among redundant network servers in different geographical locations.” '319 col.1 ll.13–16; '374 col.1 ll.17–20. The '374 Patent is a continuation of the '319 Patent. The '374 Patent shares the same specification as the '319 Patent, other than the “Summary” section.

The technology at issue relates to link load balancing in a multi-homed environment. A “multi-homed” network is a network with multiple connections to the Internet. '319 col.15 ll.34–37. “Link load balancing” is a process for allocating network communications across these connections.

The Asserted Patents relate to techniques and systems for selecting a specific route from the multi-homed network to the Internet and from the Internet into the multi-homed network. The claimed inventions describe both “outbound” and “inbound” link load balancing. Outbound link load balancing deals with requests sent from a host that are destined for an external network via the Internet. Inbound link loading involves inbound requests for services received by the host via the Internet. Claims 24-28 of the '319 Patent are directed to outbound link load balancing. Claims 1-23 and 29-32 of the '319 Patent and all claims of the '374 Patent are generally directed to inbound link load balancing.

The Asserted Patents claim link load balancing as both a method and system. Representative Claim 26 of the '319 Patent describes a method for outbound link load balancing:

26. A method for routing data via a network from a first node to a second node, said network having a plurality of available routes from said first node to said second node and the plurality of routes are assigned with respective IP addresses, said method comprising the steps of:

selecting one of said routes for sending data between the first node and the second node on the basis of costing information of said respective routes;

receiving a packet having a source IP address; and

translating the source IP address to an IP address corresponding to the selected route of the plurality of routes.

Representative Claim 13 of the '319 patent describes a method for inbound link load

balancing:

13. A method for managing a computer network having a device connected to the Internet through a plurality of routes, wherein the plurality of routes are assigned with respective IP addresses, comprising:

receiving a DNS² resolution query from a remote computer for a domain name within the computer network;

selecting one of a plurality of routes connecting said device to the Internet in accordance with one or more criteria of the plurality of routes;

responding to the DNS resolution query with an IP address associated with the selected route, said IP address is used for resolution of said domain name, receiving a packet having a destination IP address corresponding to one of the plurality of routes; and

translating the destination IP address to an IP address within the computer network.

B. Accused Products

Radware accuses F5's “BIG-IP Application Delivery Controller” of infringement. Specific accused models are listed at Dkt. No. 182 at 10 n.4. F5's BIG-IP device is [redacted] Dkt. No. 179-4 at 10 (citing Stamm Rep.). The infringement issues focus on three modules within the TMOS: the Link Controller, Local Traffic Manager (“LTM”), and Global Traffic Manager (“GTM”). Id. at 10-11. All three [redacted] must be activated through the purchase of a license from F5. Id. at 11. “LTM's primary functionality is local server load balancing, not ISP load balancing. In particular, an LTM can sit between a local network and the internet, and control the routing of incoming messages to different servers.” Dkt. No. 184-4 (Brewer Decl.) ¶ 8. “GTM's primary functionalities are to provide DNS-related services and global server load balancing (‘GSLB’). DNS services relate to responding to client requests for IP addresses associated with a domain name (e.g., ‘Amazon.com’).” Id. ¶ 9.

F5 acknowledges that the Link Controller's “primary purpose is to provide, in part, ISP link load balancing functionality.” Dkt. No. 190 at 3. However, in December 2014 F5 implemented a “hotfix” that made certain changes to its source code for the LTM, GTM and Link Controller that, according to F5, [redacted] Id. at 4; see also Dkt. No. 188-6 (Thornewell Decl.) ¶ 11. Since removing the Link Controller load balancing functionality, F5 has [redacted] Brewer Decl. ¶ 16.

C. Procedural History

The court previously held a joint Markman hearing in this case and in the related case Radware v. A10 , 13–cv–2021, on April 8, 2014 and issued its Claim Construction Order on April 18, 2014. Dkt. No. 122. The court also considered motions for summary judgment related to claim construction issues in May 2015, and issued an order on the motions on June 11, 2014. Dkt. No. 145. The parties in the A10 case filed a Joint Notice of Settlement on August 29, 2014. 13-cv-2021, Dkt. No. 252.

Having held a hearing on July 24, 2015, the court addresses the parties' various motions: (1) Radware's Motion to Strike, Dkt. No. 201, F5's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, Dkt. No. 180, and F5's Motion to Amend Invalidity Contentions, Dkt. No. 212; (2) F5's Motion for Summary Judgment of Invalidity, Dkt. No. 183, and Radware's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment Motion Against F5's Affirmative Defense of Invalidity, Dkt. No. 189; (3) Radware's Motion for Sanctions, Dkt. No. 207; (4) Radware's Motion for Summary Judgment of Infringement, Dkt. No. 182, and F5's Motion for Summary Judgment of Non-Infringement, Dkt. No. 190; and (5) Motion for Summary Judgment on Damages Issues, Dkt. No. 187.

II. RADWARE'S MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF F5'S MOTION FOR MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS, SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF INVALIDITY, AND DECLARATION OF DR. ALEXANDER IN SUPPORT THEREOF

Radware moves to strike: (1) F5's motion for judgment on the pleadings; (2) those portions of F5's motion for summary judgment of invalidity that rely on Global Server Load Balancing (“GSLB”); (3) those portions of F5's motion for summary judgment of invalidity that rely on Border Gateway Protocol (“BGP”); and (4) the May 28, 2015 declaration of Dr. Peter Alexander submitted in support of F5's motion for summary judgment of invalidity. Dkt. No. 201.

A. F5's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings and its Section 101 Invalidity Defense

Radware moves to strike F5's motion for judgment on the pleadings on the basis that F5 failed to disclose 35 U.S.C. § 101 subject matter ineligibility as a basis for finding the Asserted Patents invalid in its invalidity contentions. Id . at 1.

F5 served its preliminary invalidity contentions on September 30, 2013, Dkt. No. 189-9, and, after obtaining the court's leave, see Dkt. No. 157, served amended invalidity contentions on May 16, 2014, Dkt. No. 189-10. The preliminary invalidity contentions state only that: (1) several asserted claims are invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101 for mixing statutory claim classes, Dkt. No. 189-9 at 59 n.1, and that because discovery had then only recently commenced, it was at that time “premature for F5 to determine whether there are issues related to...improper inventorship [and] derivation under 35 U.S.C. § 101/102(f).” Id . at 59. F5's amendments did not add any invalidity contentions related to Section 101. Only after Radware filed the instant motion to strike F5's Section 101 invalidity defense...