On Feb 24, Juniper Networks (JNPR) and Palo Alto Networks (PANW) start a patent infringement trial, where Juniper is suing Palo Alto for infringement of seven patents. The suit implicates virtually all of Palo Alto's firewall technology products. Juniper is seeking treble damages and a permanent injunction, barring Palo Alto from selling the infringing technology.
This case presents a serious risk to Palo Alto. If Palo Alto loses this case, its stock could drop substantially on the negative headline - possibly 15%. If the court issues an injunction barring Palo Alto from selling its technology, the stock could drop sharply below significant resistance levels and key moving averages - perhaps more than 25% - as Palo Alto's business model, and more than 50% of its sales and earnings, will be in jeopardy. Barring a workaround, the earnings (and stock) of an enjoined Palo Alto would have to be completely re-valued. Conversely, competitors of Palo Alto in the network security space would benefit at Palo Alto's expense. These companies include: FireEye (FEYE), Check Point (CHKP) and Fortinet (FTNT), all of which market firewall technology that is competitive with Palo Alto's firewall products. Juniper stock probably rises 10% on a positive headline. If Juniper loses this case, its stock probably doesn't react much since Elliott and other activist investors have accumulated stakes and are pushing for reform (the result of which, presumably, will lead to a higher stock price). If Palo Alto succeeds in fending off Juniper in this trial, its stock will likely rise sharply, possibly by 15%, though the gain may be short-lived since it will have to incur a second trial on infringement, involving several other Juniper patents.
With Palo Alto stock trading near all-times highs, this may be a good time to short the stock, given the downside risk.
A. Infringement Case
Juniper Networks ("Juniper") and Palo Alto Networks ("Palo Alto") are competitors in the multi-billion dollar market for firewall and network security technology. In 2012, Juniper sued Palo Alto for patent infringement, arguing that Palo Alto's firewall and network security technology infringed seven Juniper patents: U.S. Patent No. 8,077,723 (the "723 patent"); 7,779,459 (the "459 patent"); 7,650,634 (the "634 patent"); 7,302,700 (the "700 patent"); 6,772,347 (the "347 patent"); 7,734,752 (the "752 patent") and the 7,102,612 patent (the "612 patent") (collectively, the patents-in-suit"). The PALO ALTO products at issue in this suit are: PA-5000 Series Firewall; PA-4000 Series Firewall; PA-3000 Series Firewall; PA-2000 Series Firewall, and the PA-500 Firewall and PA-200 Firewall. These products comprise a substantial majority of Palo Alto's revenues, which in 2013 exceeded $396mm, a 55%+ increase from the prior year.
The complaint alleges that Palo Alto's firewall technology directly and indirectly (through the sale to third parties) infringes the patents-in-suit. Direct infringement can be proved literally, or under the doctrine of equivalents. With literal infringement, the accused technology literally embodies all the limitations or elements of a given claim. Alternatively, if literal infringement does not exist - because Palo Alto's technology has been modified in some respects - the law still allows the patentee to establish infringement under what is called the doctrine of equivalents. Infringement under the doctrine of equivalents exists when the differences between the accused technology and the patent claims are insubstantial - i.e. where the elements of the accused technology and the claim term are essentially equivalent because the accused technology performs substantially the same function in substantially the same way to obtain substantially the same result as the claim limitation.
Under either standard, the patentee has the burden of establishing infringement by a preponderance of the evidence. This means that the patentee must prove that it is more likely than not that all the elements or limitations of a given claim are found in the accused technology. In a patent case, this is a relatively easy burden to meet, as the quantum of proof required to establish preponderance is just 50.1% of the evidence.
B. Current Posture of the Case Following Summary Judgment Rulings
On Feb 6, the court issued its decision on claims construction and cross motions for summary judgment. The court granted Palo Alto's motion for summary judgment of non-infringement as to three patents under the doctrine of equivalents, denied Palo Alto's motion for judgment of non-infringement of these three patents under a theory of literal infringement, and denied the parties' cross-motions for summary judgment as to the remaining four patents. The court also granted Juniper's motion for summary judgment on the issue of assignor estoppel. As a result, Palo Alto cannot argue at trial - in defense to infringement - that Juniper's patents are invalid. Put another way, if the jury finds that Juniper's patents are infringed, then its game over - Juniper wins the case.
1. Headlines Cast Decision as a Victory for Palo Alto
After the court issued its decision on summary judgment and claims construction matters, Palo Alto issued a press release touting its victory of non-infringement under the doctrine of equivalents as to three of the seven asserted patents. However, the Palo Alto press release neglected to inform investors that the court granted Juniper's motion for assignor estoppel, thereby eliminating Palo Alto's ability to put on an affirmative defense to infringement based on the alleged invalidity of the patents-in-suit.
Following the court's decision and Palo Alto's press release, various headlines on Bloomberg, and notes issued by several sell-side analysts, cast the decision as a win for Palo Alto. For example, one research note ran the caption: "Palo Alto: The Legal Clouds are Lifting," while a second firm issued a research note captioned "Palo Alto: 4 for 7 Ain't Bad" and further observing that "the court ruled on 7 specific patents, ruling in favor of Palo Alto dismissing the claims in 4 of the 7 . . . a net positive." Finally, one national business publication stated in a caption that "Palo Alto Wins Round in Litigation."
Palo Alto stock responded to these headlines by rising more than 20%. Part of this rise may have been fueled by short-covering, as the number of shares available to be borrowed after the court rendered its decision increased by more than 1mm shares.
In reality, however, the post-decision headlines and notes seriously misapprehended the court's decision, and in some cases were just flat-out wrong.
2. Reality Check: What Actually Happened
Although the court pared-back several of Juniper's infringement claims, and, on balance, adopted more of Palo Alto's proposed claim constructions, the court agreed with Juniper that all 65 claims of all seven patents could be tried to the jury. With 65 claims, Juniper effectively has 65 "shots on goal." To win the case, however, Juniper only needs to persuade the jury that a single claim is infringed. Even better for Juniper, the court agreed that Juniper could present its infringement case in two separate trials, effectively giving Juniper "two bites at the apple." In the trial that starts on Feb 24, Juniper will present to the jury its three strongest patents where (1) the court adopted Juniper's proposed claim constructions and (2) where the court agreed with Juniper (over Palo Alto's objections) that Juniper could present its case for infringement under alternative theories of liability, including literal infringement and / or infringement under the doctrine of equivalents. A bifurcated trial structure, where Juniper can present its strongest patents to the jury in the first trial beginning Feb 24 effectively eliminates any advantage that Palo Alto may have garnered from the court's recent summary judgment opinion.
Finally, because the court granted Juniper's assignor estoppel motion preventing Palo Alto from asserting an invalidity defense, Juniper wins the case if the jury returns a verdict of infringement on just one claim of one patent.
3. Subsequent Developments
After issuing its summary judgment / claims construction ruling, the court issued an Order further bifurcating the trial on infringement into a trial on direct infringement, followed by a trial on indirect infringement.
Under the Court's Order, Juniper will first present its case on direct infringement. If the jury returns a verdict finding Palo Alto liable for direct infringement, the parties will immediately proceed to a second trial (before the same jury) on indirect infringement. The court held that during the first trial on direct infringement, Palo Alto will not be able to present evidence on the time and money invested by Palo Alto in developing its technology. Further, the court held that during this second trial on indirect infringement, Juniper could present evidence of Palo Alto's willful blindness as it pertains to wrongful inducement.
Finally, the court rejected Palo Alto's proposed "ensnarement" defense, thereby eliminating Palo Alto's defense to infringement under the Doctrine of Equivalents.
C. Odds Favor Juniper on Infringement
Most companies that succeed in "defensing" a patent infringement case do so in the summary judgment stage. Once the case is allowed to proceed to trial, statistics show that more often than not juries find for the plaintiff-patentee. That probably holds true for Juniper as well.
1. Juniper Proceeding on its Three Strongest Patents
Juniper will proceed to trial on Feb 24 with its three strongest patents. These include:
Ø (1) the 723 patent which claims "efficient processing of packets at different network levels" (Independent claim 1 and Dependent claim 9);
Ø (2) the 347 patent describing technology for the efficient packet processing in a firewall (Independent claim 1, Independent claim 14; and
Ø (3) the 612 patent, which is a continuation of the 347 patent, with claims directed to "a filter that applies dynamically-generated rules after the application of fixed rules by the ACL engine" (Independent claim 1, Independent Claim 13).
Importantly, as to these patents-in-suit the court adopted all of Juniper's proposed claim constructions and denied all of Palo Alto's motions for summary judgment of non-infringement. This means that Juniper will have the opportunity to present alternative theories of infringement to the jury, asking the jury to find either literal infringement or infringement under the doctrine of equivalents.
2. Admissions of Palo Alto Co-Founders
This case presents an unusual twist on most patent cases. In this case, the named inventors of the patents-in-suit, Nir Zuk and Yuming Mao, also happen to be the co-founders of the defendant corporation. Zuk and Mao developed the patents while working at NetScreen, and then transferred the patents to Juniper when Zuk and Mao sold NetScreen to Juniper in a $4bb transaction - Juniper's largest acquisition to date. After selling NetScreen to Juniper, Zuk and Mao remained at Juniper where they developed enhancements to Juniper's firewall and network security technology. Eventually, Zuk and Mao left Juniper to form Palo Alto Networks - and in the process took a number of Juniper employees with them.
This presents a host of problems for Palo Alto in this suit, not least of which is the impression that Palo Alto may have stolen technology rightfully belonging to Juniper, or at least the ideas for Palo Alto's firewall technology that may have been developed by Zuk and Mao while they worked at Juniper.
At trial, Juniper's counsel will try and exploit this confluence of events and cross-examine Zuk extensively, drawing similarities between the Juniper patent claims and Palo Alto's firewall technology, as well as the nature of Zuk and Mao's research while employed at Juniper. To this point, on Feb 12, Juniper's counsel filed a letter with the court stating that Juniper intended to introduce the deposition testimony of Zuk - specifically aimed toward establishing that Zuk believed that Palo Alto's technology infringed the Juniper patents.
If Juniper succeeds in proving infringement through the deposition testimony and email evidence of Palo Alto's co-founder, it will be devastating for Palo Alto and - unless rebutted - would likely mean that Juniper will win the trial. Indeed, if this evidence does exist, it is highly probative, and, when combined with the testimony of Juniper's expert, Dr. Rubin, will go a long way toward establishing infringement by a preponderance of the evidence.
3. Comments by the Judge: Possible Weakness in Palo Alto's Defense?
Because most of the evidence in support of the cross-motions for summary judgment was filed under seal, there really is no way of knowing with confidence what, exactly, will be the evidence at trial. It is enough to know that at this stage of the litigation, the court believed that there were disputed issues of material fact that could only be resolved by a jury adjudicating expert testimony - in what is known as a "battle of the experts." Adding further to the uncertainty of outcome, at trial the manner in which the evidence comes in or is presented to the jury is critically important - i.e. how well did the respective experts testify, and conversely how effective was opposing counsel in disrupting the flow of this testimony or in discrediting it on cross-examination. These concerns go to the quality of the lawyering, and it can make a difference if counsel is not evenly matched. In this case, the trial lawyers for each side, Morgan Chu (for Juniper) and Harold McElhinney (for Palo Alto), are widely regarded as stellar trial lawyers, and are evenly matched. Thus, it is too soon to say what will happen at trial without knowing the evidence and getting a feel from the testimony as to how the evidence is coming in.
However, having said all this, it is possible to glean insight as to the nature of the evidence - and the relative strength and weakness of the proposed expert testimony on a given issue -- based on comments made by the court in its recent summary judgment opinion. Based on the court's comments in its summary judgment opinion, it appears Juniper may have the upper hand here, at least as to the three patents selected for trial beginning on Feb 24.
For example, with respect to the 347 patent, the court adopted Juniper's proposed construction of the claim term "[Sorting/processing] … packets into … initially denied packets". Further, the court denied Palo Alto motion for summary judgment of non-infringement under the doctrine of equivalents, reasoning that Palo Alto failed to proffer any evidence to contradict the testimony of Juniper's expert:
"Juniper's expert offered sufficient support for his theories under the doctrine of equivalents, incorporating his element by element analysis from his opinion regarding literal infringement. While PAN may disagree with these conclusions, this goes to the weight of the testimony and may be properly dealt with on cross-examination. PAN has not herein offered any evidence or expert report to contradict the opinions of Juniper's expert. This lack of evidence does not meet PAN's burden of persuasion, therefore, the court denies PAN's motion for summary judgment as to infringement under the doctrine of equivalents."
See District Court Opinion, Feb 6, 2014, page 23, note 15 (emphasis added).
A lack of evidence, or inability to rebut one side's expert witness, generally is a formula for disaster in a patent case, where the result often turns on the quality and credibility of expert testimony. Here, the court seems to suggest that (at this stage of the litigation, at least) Juniper would likely be able to meet its burden of proof on infringement of the 347 patent through the testimony of its expert, whereas Palo Alto failed to proffer credible testimony in rebuttal. On balance, this is good for Juniper.
Similarly, as to the 612 patent, the court noted that Palo Alto was unable to sustain its burden of proof for summary judgment of non-infringement. Specifically, the court observed;
"PAN disputes (without reference to expert reports or testimony) that its products do not add rules dynamically as required by the claim language. Dr. Rubin [Juniper's expert witness] explains that several features of the accused products, including SYN flood, Block IP and Reconnaissance Protection, perform this dynamic step. . . . The experts disagree on whether the Block IP feature uses entries stored in a look up table... The court concludes that genuine issues of material fact exist and, therefore, the competing motions for summary judgment are denied."
See District Court Opinion, Feb 6, 2014, page 24 (emphasis added).
Finally, with respect to the 723 patent, the court, in denying cross-motions for summary judgment, alluded to a potential deficiency in Palo Alto's proof with respect to the claim term "second engine… associate a tag with the packet." With regard to this particular term, the court noted, "PAN asserts through attorney argument" that the opinion of Juniper's expert in support of infringement was incorrect. See District Court Opinion, Feb 6, 2014, page 33 (emphasis added). The court denied Juniper's motion for summary judgment noting that "several issues of material fact remain unresolved as to whether the accused products infringe the asserted claims." See District Court Opinion, Feb 6, 2014, page 33. While Palo Alto's attorney argument may have been enough to sustain the denial of Juniper's motion for summary judgment (arguably it should not have been) at trial attorney argument is not evidence and is insufficient proof to rebut a prima facie case for infringement in Juniper's case-in-chief. Therefore, without concrete expert testimony at trial, or some other tangible form of proof, Palo Alto may be unable to rebut Juniper's argument of infringement on this claim term.
Further to this point, the court observed that as to the 723 patent, Juniper's expert offered sufficient support to rebut the argument of non-infringement, whereas Palo Alto failed to meet its burden of persuasion. The court said:
PAN moves for summary judgment regarding the doctrine of equivalents, arguing that Juniper's theories are cursory and do not establish a disputed issue of fact regarding infringement. Juniper's expert offered sufficient support for his theories based on the court's adoption of PAN's constructions. PAN's lack of analysis does not meet its burden of persuasion on this issue; therefore, the court denies PAN's motion for summary judgment regarding the doctrine of equivalents.
See District Court Opinion, Feb 6, 2014, page 34 (emphasis added).
What's interesting about this is that the court observed that even assuming Palo Alto's proposed claim constructions, Juniper's expert seemed to offer sufficient support for his theory of infringement. Again, at least based on the evidence presented at the summary judgment stage, Juniper appears to have an advantage here (even when the claim term is defined according to Palo Alto's proposed construction).
D. Juniper Victory on Infringement Spells BIG Trouble for Palo Alto
If Juniper prevails at trial on infringement, the case is over because the court, in granting Juniper's motion for summary judgment on assignor estoppel, ruled that Palo Alto could not present a defense to infringement based on the alleged invalidity of the patents. (Palo Alto retains the right to challenge the verdict based on a theory of laches, but that is not before the court at this trial, and for purposes of what happens to the stock when the verdict is rendered will not be on the mind of most traders, as the issue has not even been briefed.)
If Juniper wins this trial, it will seek monetary damages and injunctive relief. Of these remedies, injunctive relief is, by far, the more relevant, and more impactful to Palo Alto stock.
1. Monetary Relief: Trebled Damages Based on Willfulness
The complaint alleges that Palo Alto's infringement is willful, meaning that if Juniper proves infringement, it can then petition the court to treble the size of the damages award and impose a permanent injunction on Palo Alto, barring Palo Alto from selling the infringing technology.
Juniper's argument in support of willfulness is based on the fact the co-founders of Palo Alto are former Juniper employees who are the named inventors of the patents-in-suit and who allegedly developed the infringing technology while working at Juniper. The complaint notes that Juniper acquired the patents-in-suit when it purchased NetScreen from Nir Zuk and Yuming Mao in a $4bb transaction, which to this day is the largest acquisition in Juniper's history. After selling NetScreen to Juniper, Zuk and Mao remained at Juniper, and continued to work on developing enhancements to Juniper's firewall and network security technology. Eventually, Zuk and Mao, along with a number of other Juniper employees, left Juniper to form Palo Alto.
In a motion for treble damages, Juniper will argue that given the role of Zuk and Mao in developing the patents-in-suit, Palo Alto knew or should have known that is was infringing; the infringement in this case was intentional, deliberate; hence willful.
2. Permanent Injunction
Monetary damages, even if trebled, are probably the least of Palo Alto's problems, since under a local rule in Delaware monetary damages won't be decided until after the appeal in this case.
More serious for Palo Alto, Juniper will seek a permanent injunction barring Palo Alto from selling the infringing technology. That motion will be filed, briefed, argued and ruled upon right after the trial, and before any appeal. Injunctive relief is equitable in nature, and is awarded at the discretion of the judge, but only when the patentee meets it burden of establishing irreparable harm, the inadequacy of monetary damages, an injunction is in the public interest and on balance, all things considered, the equities favor the patentee over the defendant on this issue. Too soon to say whether Juniper has a colorable claim for a permanent injunction here, though under the unique circumstances of this case the fact that Zuk and Mao invented the patents-in-suit, worked at Juniper and co-founded Palo Alto Networks with employees they took from Juniper, likely will have probative value. Further, although a permanent injunction may seem extreme to the uninitiated, where, as here, the dispute is between direct competitors in a rapidly evolving industry courts in Delaware and elsewhere have imposed permanent injunctions on the losing defendant, irrespective of the damage that the injunction inflicts upon the defendant's business. To this point, see Becton Dickenson v. Tyco, 02-1694 (D DE, Oct 29, 2008) (Sleet, J.).
Without briefing it is impossible to say whether Juniper will obtain an injunction in this case, other than to note that on the unique facts here - as well as analogies to cases where courts have granted permanent injunctions - Juniper has a colorable claim for an injunction. On the other hand, Juniper products allegedly have been unable to compete effectively with Palo Alto's firewall technology (by some accounts); in that case, an inability to demonstrate that injunctive relief would restore customers to Juniper might auger against injunctive relief. As well, it is virtually certain that Palo Alto will argue that it has developed a non-infringing workaround.
Barring any workaround, the threat of a permanent injunction will weigh heavily on Palo Alto stock. Even assuming a workaround, the workaround would not change the injunction as to existing products, and would only lead to more litigation since under the law Juniper would be entitled to force Palo Alto to prove that the workaround did not read on any of Juniper's patent claims. At a minimum, that would result in more litigation and uncertainty. At the same time, competitors to Palo Alto might benefit from Palo Alto's loss of market share. These companies include: FireEye, Checkpoint and Fortinet, all of which market firewall technology that is competitive with Palo Alto's firewall products.
3. Judge Robinson: Ghost of Rambus?
The trial judge in this case, the Honorable Sue Robinson, is the same judge that handled the Micron v Rambus patent case. In that case, Micron accused Rambus (RMBS) of wrongful spoliation, based on destruction of evidence. Judge Robinson found Rambus liable and then issued an order barring Rambus from enforcing its patents.
The district judge in California reached a different result on similar facts.
The point here is that Judge Robinson is an experienced, no-nonsense judge who is not afraid to issue draconian penalties. As well, she has issued here fair share of injunctions in patent cases. At this stage, there is no telling how Judge Robinson would rule on injunctive relief. However, given the unique circumstances of this case involving direct competitors, where the co-founders of the defendant are the named inventors of the patents-in-suit and worked at Juniper developing firewall and network security technology, it is imprudent for commentators to dismiss any possibility of an injunction.
Impact on the Stocks
A. Palo Alto
If Palo Alto loses the trial on direct infringement, the court will immediately proceed to a second trial on indirect infringement where Juniper can introduce evidence of Palo Alto's willful blindness toward infringement by its customers. This phase of the case could encompass incriminating facts regarding Palo Alto's co-founders, specifically what they knew, when they knew it and why they ignored evidence of infringement and allowed their customers to purchase infringing technology. The same jury that decided the first phase on direct infringement will hear evidence of indirect infringement. Under these circumstances, odds are high that the jury will return a verdict of indirect infringement, as well.
If the jury finds Palo Alto liable for direct and indirect infringement, Palo Alto stock is going to drop - possibly by as much as 15% as long-only holders will begin to contemplate the remedies available to Juniper, and "get out while the getting is good." What happens to Palo Alto stock if the court awards treble damages - estimated by one reputable sell-side firm as in the 10s of figures? Palo Alto stock should drop significantly on the headline, possibly by another 10% to 15%. What happens if Palo Alto is enjoined from selling its infringing firewall technology? The stock of Palo Alto should plunge below key technical support levels and moving averages since the Palo Alto firewall technology at issue in this case comprises the vast majority of Palo Alto's revenues and earnings. Under these circumstances, the entire valuation model would have to be revised. (That may explain why Palo Alto is busy making new acquisitions and why, as some have noted, there has been some significant insider selling of Palo Alto stock.)
Granted this is a worst case scenario. But with trial starting Feb 24, the clock is ticking on this issue. Can investors afford to be complacent in the face of a "Legal Black Swan" that possibly could happen?
Finally, what happens to Palo Alto stock if it wins this trial on infringement? Under these circumstances, Palo Alto stock would likely trade sharply higher, possibly by 15% or more. To this point, Palo Alto stock recently broke above the monthly and weekly resistance levels, although of late the stock has struggled to maintain altitude. If Palo Alto can defeat Juniper's patent infringement case, then investors can expect Palo Alto stock to reach new highs, arguably well above current levels.
If Juniper wins this case, the prospect of a large damages award coupled with an injunction should send Juniper shares sharply higher. Combined with pressure by noted activists Elliott Management and Jana Partners, and a recently announced stock buyback of more than $2 billion, Juniper shares could well soar 10% to 15% on news of a favorable verdict in the Palo Alto infringement trial.
Conversely, the presence of a large buyback and pressure by noted activists should mute any downside to Juniper stock if it loses the Palo Alto patent infringement trial.
C. FireEye and Other Competitors to Palo Alto
If Palo Alto loses the patent infringement trial, expect a modest tailwind to FireEye and other competitors to Palo Alto in the firewall / network security space. This is because FireEye and other stand to benefit greatly if Palo Alto is ultimately enjoined from selling its firewall products. If an injunction is imposed on Palo Alto, expect FireEye and related stocks to trade sharply higher on the news, possibly by 10% or more.
Risk to Short Thesis
The risk to this short thesis is that at trial, Palo Alto's lawyers will succeed in "defensing" the case. In other words, Palo Alto's lawyers successfully discredit Juniper's expert witness testimony, and other evidence of infringement and the jury concludes that Juniper failed to meet its burden of proof on infringement. That will be perceived in the market as a major victory for Palo Alto.
Similarly, if the jury is unable to reach a verdict, and becomes deadlocked or "hung," the market will rightly perceive that as a victory for Palo Alto since in this first trial, Juniper is asserting its three strongest patents, where Juniper won all the claims construction rulings, and - importantly - where the court is allowing Juniper to prove its case for direct infringement either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents. Under these circumstances, if Juniper loses this first trial on infringement, although Juniper will "get a second bite at the apple" through a second infringement trial on the remaining patents, these remaining patents include patents where Palo Alto either won claim construction rulings or succeeded in eliminating Juniper's ability to prove infringement under the doctrine of equivalents.
Although Juniper bears the burden of proving infringement, this burden is relatively light. Based on favorable claims construction rulings, the court Order allowing Juniper to have two trials on infringement (if need be), the court's comments evaluating the expert testimony during the summary judgment stage, and armed with several rulings from the court eliminating Palo Alto defenses and limiting Palo Alto's ability to introduce extraneous (and irrelevant) testimony on the development of its own technology, arguably Juniper should prevail here. Of course, that could always change depending on what happens at trial.
Given these risks, and with Palo Alto stock trading near all-time highs, arguably in response to some highly misguided if not misleading commentary following the issuance of the court's opinion on cross-motions for summary judgment, Palo Alto looks to be a good short here, or at least right after earnings are announced the morning of Feb 24 - the day trial begins in Juniper v Palo Alto patent infringement case.
About the Author: Legal Alpha, the author of this article, is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Axicon Partners, LLC, which specializes in analyzing and trading the securities of companies impacted by legal overhangs and catalysts.