Juniper v. Palo Alto Networks

I'll research this case to provide an accurate overview. Let me start with several searches.

Let me dig into specifics — the 2024 case, the '716 patent's assertion history, and the older Juniper–PAN litigation.

The '716 patent's role needs verification. Let me search specifically for cases asserting it and any recent Juniper–PAN filings.

Overview and Background — with an important verification caveat

A threshold problem with the case as framed. Based on the available docket and secondary sources, I could not verify any case captioned "Juniper Networks, Inc. v. Palo Alto Networks, Inc." in which U.S. Patent No. 7,095,716 was asserted. The well-documented Juniper v. Palo Alto Networks litigation — Juniper Networks, Inc. v. Palo Alto Networks, Inc., Civ. No. 11-1258-SLR (D. Del., filed Dec. 19, 2011) — asserted the '723, '459, '634, '700, '280 and '347 patents, later amended to add the '752 and '612 patents; the '716 was not among them (Markman Opinion & Order, D. Del.). The only appearance of the '716 I could locate in litigation materials is as a prior-art exhibit (Ex. 1012 in Keysight Technologies v. Centripetal Networks, IPR2022-01421), not as an asserted patent. So either the caption is a working label for a differently-numbered docket, or the "patent at issue" designation in the metadata is inaccurate. Everything below therefore separates what is sourced from what remains unverified. If the intended case is the 2011 Delaware action, all of the parties/technology/venue analysis still applies — only the patent list and the '716 linkage change.

The parties. Both are publicly traded, operating networking/security vendors — neither is an NPE or PAE; this is classic competitor-versus-competitor litigation, which matters for damages theory, injunction risk, and settlement dynamics. Juniper Networks (Sunnyvale, CA; Delaware corp.) sells routers, switches and the SRX firewall line; Palo Alto Networks (Santa Clara, CA; Delaware corp.) sells next-generation firewalls. The two companies are unusually entangled: PAN was founded in 2005 by former NetScreen/Juniper engineers Nir Zuk and Yuming Mao after Juniper acquired NetScreen for roughly $4 billion in April 2004 (D. Del. opinion). The '716 patent, titled "Internet Security Device and Method," is a NetScreen-era asset — USPTO assignment records show it moving from NetScreen Technologies to Juniper (PlainSite assignment 14743/842) — and third-party databases list Yuming Mao among its named inventors (Unified Patents portal), which would make any future assertion of the '716 against PAN legally charged with the assignor-estoppel and inventor-identity disputes that dominated the 2011 case. That inventor listing is third-party-sourced and should be confirmed against the face of the patent.

The patent and the accused technology. The '716 issued Aug. 22, 2006 from Application No. 10/112,924 (filed Mar. 28, 2002; provisional 60/280,684, Mar. 30, 2001), with 956 days of patent term adjustment, which places its expiry in early-to-mid November 2024 — it is now expired. In one line: it claims a hardware packet-processing architecture for a security appliance in which a switching board classifies an inbound packet, decides whether to accept it, and routes the first packet of a session to a management board (session setup/control) while routing non-first packets to parallel processing boards for fast-path handling — expressly encompassing a firewall and a secure gateway with VPN functionality (Unified Patents). That is a session-based flow-distribution design, technically adjacent to the same stateful, flow-aware firewall architecture at issue in the 2011 case (Juniper accused PAN's firewall products of infringing patents on session/flow handling) and to PAN's single-pass parallel-processing architecture. The accused instrumentality in any Juniper v. PAN suit would therefore be the firewall/security gateway product lines — Juniper's SRX in the 2011 case (and Juniper's own practice of the '716), versus PAN's next-generation firewall appliances if roles were as the caption suggests.

Procedural posture, venue, and notability. The 2011 action landed in the District of Delaware before Judge Sue L. Robinson — a natural venue because both parties are Delaware corporations, and Delaware was then the leading patent forum. Its trajectory is the reason this caption is notable: Juniper won a highly unusual assignor-estoppel ruling that stripped PAN of its invalidity defense on two patents; the case went to trial on Feb. 24, 2014; the jury deadlocked and Judge Robinson declared a mistrial on March 7, 2014 (PAN press release); and on May 27, 2014 the parties settled for roughly $175 million ($75M cash plus ~$100M in stock and warrants), with a cross-license to the patents in suit and their families plus an eight-year mutual covenant not to sue (PAN 8-K / Settlement, Release and Cross-License Agreement; Irell & Manella case study). That covenant's eight-year term would have run out around May 2022 — a plausible window for a renewed assertion, though no such filing is documented in the sources I reviewed. The most striking IPR-linkage point cuts the other way: in Packet Intelligence LLC v. Juniper Networks / Palo Alto Networks, the two competitors petitioned jointly as co-challengers against an NPE's network-monitoring patents, and the Federal Circuit affirmed the Board's unpatentability findings in the '725, '646, '751 and '789 IPRs on May 2, 2024 (Nos. 22-1400/-1403/-1406) (CourtListener). Market context worth noting: an expired '716 as of November 2024 means no injunctive relief and past-damages-only exposure capped by the § 286 six-year lookback — a materially weaker posture than the 2011 case, and a reason to be skeptical that a live '716 assertion against PAN exists today.

Not verified (treat as open): (1) that any "Juniper v. Palo Alto Networks" docket asserts the '716; (2) the '716's complete inventor list and its exact expiry date (Unified Patents states 2024-11-07; the patent's 956-day PTA supports a November 2024 date); (3) whether the '716 falls within the 2014 settlement's "same patent family" license grant; (4) any IPR petition filed against the '716 — the "IPR2023-00703"/"IPR2024-00158" references in Google Patents' family data attach to a different Juniper patent (US 8,566,612) and name Palo Alto Networks and Fortinet as opponents, so they cannot be attributed to the '716 on this record.

I'll research this case thoroughly, starting with the core case metadata and the patent at issue.

Let me dig into the specific patent (7,095,716) and the docket to verify whether it was actually asserted.

I've confirmed the case architecture. Now let me verify the '716 patent's role and gather the litigation chronology.

Threshold finding on the '716 patent (answering the open question in the prior narrative)

Based on the record I could retrieve, U.S. Patent No. 7,095,716 ("Internet security device and method," issued 2006-08-22, assignee Juniper Networks) does not appear to have been asserted as a patent‑in‑suit in Juniper v. Palo Alto Networks. The Delaware action asserted a different (though related‑technology) set of Juniper/NetScreen patents, and the two amended‑complaint additions in 2012 were the '752 and '612 patents — not the '716.

Where the '716 does show up is as prior art, not as an asserted patent: Palo Alto Networks used it as an exhibit in its later IPRs against Centripetal Networks (e.g., Ex. 1012 in IPR2022‑01421, Keysight v. Centripetal, and in the Ex. 2024 exhibit set in IPR2021‑01521, Palo Alto Networks v. Centripetal Networks). I found no complaint, infringement contention, or PTAB paper in which the '716 was asserted by Juniper. I flag this as a negative finding based on available sources, not a certified PACER docket check — a docket‑level confirmation (D. Del. 1:11‑cv‑01258 and N.D. Cal. 3:13‑cv‑04510, plus any 2011–2014 related filings) would be needed to make it conclusive.

The chronology below therefore tracks the litigation that actually occurred, and I note where the '716 fits only as context.

---

Chronology: Juniper Networks, Inc. v. Palo Alto Networks, Inc.

1. Filing and initial pleadings

The core dispute was framed from the outset as a founder/inventor‑mobility case: Mao and Zuk had left NetScreen/Juniper to found PAN, and Juniper argued PAN was built partly on technology they had assigned to NetScreen/Juniper.

2. Pre‑trial motions of substance

Assignor estoppel — the defining pre‑trial fight

• 2012-02-28 — Juniper moves to strike PAN's invalidity defense under the doctrine of assignor estoppel (D.I. 12).
• 2012-08-02 — Judge Robinson issues her opinion, 881 F. Supp. 2d 603 (D. Del. 2012). She granted the motion as to the '634 patent (Zuk signed the inventor's oath and assigned to NetScreen, and is admittedly a PAN founder/privity), but denied it as to the '723, '459, '700 and '347 patents because privity between Mao and PAN was a disputed factual question that could not be resolved on the pleadings. (Opinion)
• The parties later stipulated that the '634 ruling extended to the '752 patent (D.I. 80).

Amendment of the complaint

• 2012-09-04 — Juniper moves for leave to amend to add two more patents (per PAN's S‑1/A disclosure).
• 2012-09-25 — Juniper files its First Amended Complaint (D.I. 70), adding U.S. Patent No. 7,734,752 ('752) and U.S. Patent No. 7,107,612 ('612). This is the step that triggered PAN's IPRs.

Summary judgment round (early 2014)

• Pending before the court (D.I. 170/172/176/202/204): Juniper's SJ motion for assignor estoppel (D.I. 172); competing SJ motions on validity of the '612 and '347 patents (D.I. 170, 204); and competing SJ motions on infringement (D.I. 176, 202).
• In the February 2014 opinion (CourtListener; D. Del., No. 11‑1258‑SLR), the court resolved assignor estoppel against PAN for the remaining patents, and disposed of the validity and infringement motions. Contemporaneous reporting (The Register, 2014-02-10) described the outcome as: Juniper's summary judgment motion denied, PAN winning a small victory with some patents/claims ruled out of the case, but Juniper still permitted to present all its patents to the jury, with assignor estoppel granted so that PAN could not put on an invalidity defense. (Note: I could not verify the precise claim/patent‑by‑patent dispositions or the Westlaw/Lexis cite for this opinion from the sources retrieved — treat the carve‑outs as approximate.)

Parallel PAN offensive case

• 2013-09-30 — PAN files its own infringement suit against Juniper in the N.D. Cal., Case No. C 13‑04510‑SBA (Judge Saundra B. Armstrong), asserting U.S. Patents Nos. 5,887,139 ('139, from 3Com), 7,779,096 ('096) and 7,797,439 ('439, both from HP), seeking damages and a permanent injunction. PAN disclosed the filing in an 8‑K dated 2013‑09‑30. Juniper counterclaimed.
• Also in late 2013, Juniper pursued Nir Zuk and PAN in Santa Clara County Superior Court (Case No. 1‑13‑CV‑253876, Judge James P. Kleinberg); PAN/Zuk appealed an adverse order to the California Court of Appeal, Sixth District (No. H040772).

3. Claim construction (Markman)

• The Delaware case reached claim construction. A Markman Opinion and Order in Juniper Networks, Inc. v. Palo Alto Networks, Inc., Civ. No. 11‑1258‑SLR was entered and was later introduced as Exhibit 2083 in PAN's IPR on the '612 patent (filed 2014‑03‑28). (I could not verify the exact issuance date or the constructions adopted; docket entries and the opinion text would be needed. Flagging as unverified.)

4. Discovery milestones of strategic significance

• The pivotal discovery was inventorship/assignment and privity evidence going to assignor estoppel: inventor oaths executed by Mao and Zuk, assignment documents to NetScreen/Juniper, PAN's corporate/website representations of Mao as "founder and chief architect," and Zuk's testimony about Mao's title (D.I. 174, exs.; discussed in the 2014 assignor‑estoppel opinion). This record is what converted a pleadings‑stage denial (2012) into a merits win for Juniper before trial (2014).
• PAN's source‑code/product discovery on the accused firewall appliances supported its non‑infringement SJ motions.

5. Trial, verdict, and post‑trial motions

• 2014-02-24 — Jury trial begins before Judge Robinson in D. Del.
• 2014-03-07 — Judge Robinson declares a mistrial: the jury was unable to reach a verdict. PAN's press release the same day quotes CEO Mark McLaughlin: "We continue to stand by our position that we do not infringe on their patents." No new trial date was set. (PAN press release)
• No verdict, no JMOL/new‑trial practice, and no fee motion ever matured — the case settled before a retrial.

6. Final disposition: global settlement (May–June 2014)

• 2014-05 — The parties execute a global settlement. Under it, PAN paid Juniper approximately $175 million, comprising $75M cash, 1,081,000 shares of PAN common stock ($70M), and a warrant to purchase 463,000 shares ($30M); PAN's 10‑K reports the aggregate fair value at settlement as $182.473M. Consideration included:
  • Mutual dismissal with prejudice of all pending litigation and a general release;
  • a cross‑license of the patents‑in‑suit and their worldwide family members for the life of the patents; and
  • a mutual covenant not to sue on any other patents for eight years.
    (PAN 10‑K 2014 description)
• 2014-05-29 — Juniper files an 8‑K including the settlement exhibits (Delaware and N.D. Cal. dismissals, the Santa Clara dismissal, the appeal dismissal, and the joint IPR termination motion). (Juniper 8‑K exhibits)
• 2014-05 — N.D. Cal. C 13‑04510‑SBA dismissed with prejudice by joint stipulation, each side bearing its own fees/costs (Morrison & Foerster for PAN; Juniper's counsel of record).
• 2014-05 — Santa Clara Superior Court action dismissed with prejudice, and the appeal H040772 dismissed with prejudice by stipulation.
• 2014-06-03 / 2014-07-01 — The warrant was issued 2014‑06‑03 and Juniper exercised it in full on 2014‑07‑01 (per PAN's 10‑K).
• Post‑settlement posture: the Delaware litigation was dismissed with prejudice; there is no appeal and no Federal Circuit ruling on the merits. The litigation is closed.

7. Parallel PTAB proceedings and their effect

• IPR2013‑00369 — Palo Alto Networks, Inc. v. Juniper Networks, Inc., U.S. Patent No. 7,107,612 ('612, "Method, apparatus and computer program product for a network firewall"). PAN's counsel: Morrison & Foerster (Matthew Kreeger, Brian Ho) and Van Pelt, Yi & James (Michael Schallop); Juniper's: Irell & Manella (David McPhie, Ben Haber).
  • 2013-12-19 — PTAB institutes trial as to claims 1–13 and 22–27 (Paper 16).
  • 2014-06-02 — parties file a joint motion to terminate with the settlement agreement attached (Paper 55; Ex. 2100).
  • 2014-06-04 — Board terminates the proceeding without a final written decision under 35 U.S.C. § 317(a) and 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.72, 42.74 (Paper 57). (Order)
• IPR2013‑00466 — a companion PAN IPR on the '752 patent. It appears in the parties' filings/docket exhibits in the same 2013 timeframe; like the '612 IPR, it was swept into the settlement and terminated. (I could not independently pull the institution/termination papers for ‑00466 from the sources retrieved — treat the filing date and outcome as consistent‑but‑unverified; a PTAB PTAB‑PIS check would confirm.)
• Effect on the litigation: The IPRs did not produce an estoppel‑bearing final written decision; they were terminated on the parties' joint request after settlement, and the related district court case was expressly resolved as part of the same agreement.

8. Where the '716 patent and the parties' relationship went afterward (context)

• While the two companies fought in 2013–2014 over the '716's sibling technologies, the '716 patent reappears years later only as prior art in PAN‑side IPRs against Centripetal Networks (Ex. 1012 in IPR2022‑01421, Keysight v. Centripetal; and in the exhibit record of IPR2021‑01521, Palo Alto Networks v. Centripetal) — not as an asserted patent.
• The 2014 global settlement converted the adversaries into co‑petitioners: by 2020, Juniper and PAN jointly filed IPRs (e.g., IPR2020‑00337/‑00338/‑00339 against Packet Intelligence LLC), each identifying the other as a real party in interest — a direct institutional consequence of the 2014 cross‑license/covenant.

---

Bottom line

• U.S. 7,095,716: not asserted in Juniper v. Palo Alto Networks. The patents actually litigated were the '723, '459, '634, '700, '280, '347 (original 2011 complaint), plus '752 and '612 (2012 amendment), with PAN's counter‑offensive '139, '096 and '439 patents in the parallel N.D. Cal. case.
• Disposition: a mistrial on 2014‑03‑07, followed by a ~$175M+ global settlement in May 2014 — mutual dismissal with prejudice, cross‑license, and an eight‑year mutual covenant not to sue; the '612 and '752 IPRs were terminated without final written decisions.
• No appellate merits ruling exists in this matter; there was no verdict, JMOL, or fee award.

Confidence/verification note: the strongest‑sourced items are the 2012 assignor‑estoppel opinion (881 F. Supp. 2d 603), the IPR2013‑00369 termination order, PAN's 10‑K/8‑K settlement disclosures, and the 2014‑03‑07 mistrial press release. Items I could not verify to a primary source and which should be confirmed against PACER/PTAB PIS before publication: (i) the exact Markman opinion date and constructions; (ii) the full patent‑by‑patent disposition of the February 2014 summary judgment opinion and its Westlaw cite; (iii) the file date and termination details of IPR2013‑00466 and whether PAN filed any additional IPRs on the other asserted Juniper patents; and (iv) whether any 2011–2013 filing ever named the '716 patent as an asserted patent.

I'll research the counsel of record for Juniper in this case. Let me start with several searches.

Let me dig into the docket and confirm which counsel appeared for Juniper.

The docket shows Morris Nichols as Delaware counsel and Irell & Manella as lead. Let me verify whether the '716 patent was actually asserted and get fuller counsel detail.

Bottom line

Juniper was represented by a two-firm team: Irell & Manella LLP as lead trial counsel (admitted pro hac vice) and Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP in Wilmington as Delaware counsel of record. The case, Juniper Networks, Inc. v. Palo Alto Networks, Inc., No. 1:11-cv-01258-SLR (D. Del.), was settled in May 2014 and dismissed, so there is no live roster of "current" counsel — this is a historical record.

One important correction to the case metadata before the roster. The patent listed as "at issue," U.S. Patent No. 7,095,716, does not appear to have been asserted in this case. Judge Robinson's Markman/summary-judgment opinion in the Delaware action recites the patents-in-suit as U.S. Patent Nos. 8,077,723; 7,779,459; 7,650,634; 7,302,700; 7,093,280; and 6,772,347 (original complaint, D.I. 1), plus 7,734,752 and 7,107,612 (first amended complaint, D.I. 70, filed 9/25/2012). The '716 ("Internet security device and method," assignee Juniper Networks) is a different Juniper firewall patent — a sibling of the asserted '280 — and I found no docket, opinion, or PTAB record placing it in the Delaware case. (Sources: Markman Opinion and Order, Civ. No. 11-1258-SLR, reproduced as Ex. 2083 in IPR2013-00369, https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/PTAB/IPR2013-00369/Inter_Partes_Review_of_U.S._Pat._7107612/docs/03-28-2014-Patent_Owner/Exhibit-2083-Ex_2083_Markman_Opinion_and_Order.pdf; docket sheet excerpt at https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/PTAB/IPR2013-00466/Inter_Partes_Review_of_U.S._Pat._7734752/docs/10-30-2013-Patent_Owner/Exhibit-2010-Ex_2010_Juniper_v_PAN_DDel_Docket.pdf)

---

Counsel of record for Plaintiff Juniper Networks, Inc.

Delaware counsel of record — Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP (Wilmington, DE)

Sourcing: the CM/ECF appearance block reproduced in Juniper's Exhibit 2010 in IPR2013-00466 (linked above) lists Blumenfeld as LEAD ATTORNEY and Ying as ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED, both with the Morris Nichols Wilmington address, 1201 N. Market Street.

Lead trial counsel — Irell & Manella LLP (Los Angeles / Newport Beach, CA)

Admitted pro hac vice by order of Judge Robinson on 1/13/2012 (D.I. 8, motion filed 1/10/2012):

Additional Irell attorneys appearing for Juniper in this litigation and the parallel PTAB proceedings:

Sourcing: Irell's own matter description names the trial team as "Morgan Chu, Lisa Glasser, David McPhie and Jonathan Kagan," with "Rebecca Carson also provid[ing] assistance" — https://www.irell.com/ourwork-recent-matters-52 and https://www.irell.com/printpilot-casestudy-52.pdf. The pro hac vice grant is D.I. 8/7 (docket text). The IPR appearances come from the parties' joint motions to terminate: https://paloaltonetworks.gcs-web.com/static-files/8fcd876f-a552-423b-9a8f-93913c856e07 and the PTAB termination decision in IPR2013-00369 (Paper 57, June 4, 2014).

In-house

• Mitchell Gaynor, EVP & General Counsel, Juniper Networks — the company's public voice on the settlement; not counsel of record in the docket. (Juniper 8-K Ex-99.1, May 28, 2014, https://getfilings.com/sec-filings/[140529](/patent/140529)/JUNIPER-NETWORKS-INC_8-K/d733595dex991.htm)

Opposing (for context)

Palo Alto Networks was represented by Potter Anderson & Corroon LLP (Philip A. Rovner, Wilmington — local) and Durie Tangri LLP (Daralyn J. Durie, Ragesh K. Tangri, Ryan M. Kent; later Brian C. Howard), with Morrison & Foerster LLP (Matthew I. Kreeger, Brian Ho) and Van Pelt, Yi & James LLP (Michael J. Schallop) handling the IPRs.

---

Caveats on sourcing

• I was not able to pull the live PACER docket sheet; the attorney roster above is reconstructed from (a) the CM/ECF docket excerpt Juniper filed as an IPR exhibit (Ex. 2010), (b) the Markman opinion's docket citations, (c) the PTAB papers in the parallel IPRs (IPR2013-00369, -00466), and (d) Irell's own published case description. Individual pro hac vice admissions beyond Chu, Kagan, and Glasser (D.I. 8) may exist on later docket entries I could not retrieve line-by-line; the McPhie/Haber appearances are confirmed only through the PTAB record, where they are identified as Juniper's counsel.
• No sealed filings affected the plaintiff's counsel identification as far as I can tell — Juniper's appearances are in public docket text. Defendant-side materials referenced in the record are redacted in places.
• Because the case was dismissed in 2014, any "current" counsel question is moot; all of the above are historical counsel of record.
• Verification flag: if your research target really is U.S. 7,095,716, this case is likely the wrong matter. The '716 was not among the eight patents-in-suit here. You may want to check whether the '716 was asserted in the N.D. Cal. action (Palo Alto Networks v. Juniper Networks, filed 9/30/2013, and Juniper's counterclaims asserting additional patents) or in the later Packet Intelligence / Keysight v. Centripetal matters where the '716 appears as an exhibit. I could not confirm the '716 in any Juniper/PAN pleading from the sources available.

I'll research this case and the defendant's counsel of record.

The prior litigation appears to involve different patents. Let me verify whether the '716 patent was ever asserted and identify the correct case.

The '716 patent is Juniper's "Internet security device and method" (NetScreen inventors). Let me determine which case actually asserted it and check for recent filings.

Bottom line up front

Before the attorney list, one important scoping caveat that follows directly from the previously generated summary (which flagged the '716 question as unverified):

• The only "Juniper v. Palo Alto Networks" patent case I can document is Juniper Networks, Inc. v. Palo Alto Networks, Inc., No. 1:11-cv-01258-SLR (D. Del.), filed Dec. 19, 2011, before Judge Sue L. Robinson. That case asserted U.S. Patent Nos. 8,077,723, 7,779,459, 7,650,634, 7,302,700, 7,093,280 and 6,772,347 (D.I. 1), plus 7,734,752 and 7,107,612 added by amended complaint (D.I. 70, Sept. 25, 2012).
• I found no evidence that U.S. Patent 7,095,716 was asserted in that case, or in any Juniper v. PAN case. The '716 patent is Juniper/NetScreen's "Internet security device and method" (App. 10/112,924; inventors Yan Ke, Yuming Mao, Jian Tong, Guangsong Huang; granted Aug. 22, 2006), which is consistent with the NetScreen-inventor theory of the case — but the docket captions and joint claim construction record I retrieved list only the eight patents above. The case is also closed: the parties settled May 27–28, 2014 (settlement, release and cross-license agreement filed with the SEC; $175M payment), and dismissed with prejudice. So there is no live docket on which new counsel could have appeared.
• If the intended case is a different, later Juniper v. PAN action, I could not confirm its existence or number from the sources available to me, and the counsel roster below would not necessarily carry over. Treat the names below as the documented PAN defense team in 11-1258-SLR only.

I was not able to query PACER directly; the docket information below comes from the CM/ECF docket sheet for 1:11-cv-01258-SLR as reproduced in PTAB Exhibit 2010 (IPR2013-00466) and from the captions of the court's opinions (e.g., the Markman/summary-judgment memorandum at D.I. 53 and the later opinion reproduced at CourtListener op. 7306052).

Counsel of record for Defendant Palo Alto Networks, Inc. (D. Del. 1:11-cv-01258-SLR)

Delaware / local counsel — Potter Anderson & Corroon LLP, Wilmington, DE

Lead trial counsel — Durie Tangri LLP, San Francisco, CA (pro hac vice)

Motion at D.I. 7 (filed Jan. 5, 2012) sought pro hac vice admission for Durie, Tangri and Kent; granted by Judge Robinson Jan. 9, 2012. All five Durie Tangri attorneys below appear in the caption of the court's opinions as counsel for PAN.

Additional pro hac vice counsel listed on the D. Del. docket — Morrison & Foerster LLP, San Francisco, CA

The 1:11-cv-01258-SLR docket lists the following MoFo attorneys as pro hac vice for Palo Alto Networks:

(In the parallel case Palo Alto Networks, Inc. v. Juniper Networks, Inc., No. 4:13-cv-04510-SBA / 5:13-cv-04510-SBA (N.D. Cal.) and the related Santa Clara Superior Court action Nir Zuk and Palo Alto Networks, Inc. v. Juniper Networks, Inc., No. 113-CV-253876, PAN's filings were signed by McElhinny, Jacobs, Kreeger and Richard S.J. Hung of MoFo — those are counsel in the N.D. Cal./state matters, not the Delaware docket.)

In-house counsel

None identified on the D. Del. docket. I found no appearance by a Palo Alto Networks in-house attorney in 11-1258-SLR. (Juniper's general counsel Mitchell Gaynor was quoted in the 2014 settlement press coverage, but that is not a litigation appearance.)

What I could not verify (stated explicitly)

1. Whether the '716 patent belongs to this case at all. No complaint, claim-construction order, or docket entry I retrieved ties 7,095,716 to 11-1258-SLR or to the 2013 N.D. Cal. action. The 2014 settlement defines "Juniper Patents" by reference to Exhibit A of the agreement, which I could not retrieve — Exhibit A is the definitive list, and it should be checked before relying on any patent-to-case mapping.
2. PTAB counsel. Palo Alto Networks was the petitioner in IPR2013-00369 ('612 patent) and IPR2013-00466 ('752 patent) against Juniper; I did not retrieve the powers of attorney or the petitioner's counsel designations, so I cannot name PAN's PTAB counsel.
3. Any counsel appearing after mid-2013. My docket evidence is a docket sheet current as of Oct. 23, 2013, plus 2014 opinions. A handful of later appearances (e.g., substitution of counsel before the Feb. 2014 trial, which ended in a mistrial) cannot be ruled out.
4. Post-Durie-Tangri firm affiliations. Firm moves since 2014 (Durie Tangri → Morrison & Foerster in 2023; individual departures) are from general knowledge, not from a source I retrieved in this session.

If you confirm the correct case number — particularly if it is a post-2014 filing, or if the correct defendant-facing caption is Palo Alto Networks v. Juniper — I'd recommend pulling the PACER docket sheet for that number and reading the "Attorneys" section and the most recent pro hac vice orders before relying on any of the above.