Case 5:17-cv-00283-BLF Document 1 Filed 01/19/17 Page 1 of 17
`REDACTED VERSION OF DOCUMENT SOUGHT TO BE SEALED
`
`John L. Cooper (State Bar No. 050324)
`jcooper@fbm.com
`Jim Day (State Bar No. 197158)
`jday@fbm.com
`Farella Braun + Martel LLP
`235 Montgomery Street, 17th Floor
`San Francisco, California 94104
`Telephone: (415) 954-4400
`Facsimile: (415) 954-4480
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff Finjan, Inc.
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
`
`Finjan, Inc,
`
` Case No.
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`vs.
`
`AVG Technologies CZ, s.r.o., AVG
`Technologies USA, Inc., AVAST Software,
`Inc., and AVAST Software, s.r.o.,
`
`Defendants.
`
`COMPLAINT FOR BREACH OF
`CONTRACT AND PATENT
`INFRINGEMENT
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`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
`
`Farella Braun + Martel LLP
`235 Montgomery Street, 17th Floor
`San Francisco, California 94104
`(415) 954-4400
`
`COMPLAINT FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT AND PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`
`31470\5803222.1
`
`

`

`Case 5:17-cv-00283-BLF Document 1 Filed 01/19/17 Page 2 of 17
`
`Plaintiff Finjan, Inc. (“Finjan”) alleges as follows:
`
`NATURE OF THE ACTION
`
`1.
`
`This is a complaint for breach of contract and patent infringement.
`
`PARTIES
`
`2.
`
`Finjan is a Delaware corporation with a principal place of business at 2000
`
`University Avenue, Suite 600, Palo Alto, California, 94303. Finjan is a globally recognized
`
`cybersecurity company that has invested millions of dollars in research and development creating
`
`proactive behavior-based malware protection technology. Finjan’s patented technologies enable
`
`behavior-based approaches to modern and next-generation malware and zero-day protection for
`
`unknown attacks through techniques such as, for example, hashing, caching, sandboxing, and
`
`transmitting mobile protection code through customized profiles. Finjan’s patented technologies
`
`have been widely adopted, lauded in the industry, and assigned significant value by many of
`
`Defendants’ peers and competitors who have entered into licensing agreements with Finjan for
`
`those patented technologies.
`
`3.
`
`On information and belief, Defendant AVG Technologies CZ, s.r.o. is a company
`
`organized and existing under the laws of the Czech Republic. On information and belief, AVG
`
`Technologies CZ, s.r.o. has a regular and established place of business at 149 Bluxome Street, San
`
`Francisco, California, 94107. On information and belief, AVG Technologies CZ, s.r.o. makes,
`
`uses, sells, and/or offers to sell in the United States, or imports into the United States, including in
`
`this judicial district, cybersecurity products or processes that practice the inventions claimed in the
`
`Finjan patents asserted in this complaint.
`
`4.
`
`On information and belief, Defendant AVG Technologies USA, Inc. is a Delaware
`
`corporation with a regular and established place of business at 149 Bluxome Street, San Francisco,
`
`California, 94107. On information and belief, AVG Technologies USA, Inc. makes, uses, sells,
`
`and/or offers to sell in the United States, or imports into the United States, including in this
`
`judicial district, cybersecurity products or processes that practice the inventions claimed in the
`
`Finjan patents asserted in this complaint. AVG Technologies CZ, s.r.o. and AVG Technologies
`
`USA, Inc. are referred to collectively herein as “AVG.”
`
`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
`
`Farella Braun + Martel LLP
`235 Montgomery Street, 17th Floor
`San Francisco, California 94104
`(415) 954-4400
`
`2
`COMPLAINT FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT AND PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`
`31470\5803222.1
`
`

`

`Case 5:17-cv-00283-BLF Document 1 Filed 01/19/17 Page 3 of 17
`
`5.
`
`On information and belief, Defendant AVAST Software, s.r.o., is a company
`
`organized and existing under the laws of the Czech Republic. On information and belief, AVAST
`
`Software, s.r.o. has a regular and established place of business at 2625 Broadway, Redwood City,
`
`California, 94063. On information and belief, AVAST Software, s.r.o. makes, uses, sells, and/or
`
`offers to sell in the United States, or imports into the United States, including in this judicial
`
`district, cybersecurity products or processes that practice the inventions claimed in the Finjan
`
`patents asserted in this complaint.
`
`6.
`
`On information and belief, Defendant AVAST Software, Inc. is a Delaware
`
`corporation with a regular and established place of business at 255 Shoreline Drive, Suite 515,
`
`Redwood City, California 94065. On information and belief, AVAST Software, Inc. makes, uses,
`
`sells, and/or offers to sell in the United States, or imports into the United States, including in this
`
`judicial district, cybersecurity products or processes that practice the inventions claimed in the
`
`Finjan patents asserted in this complaint. AVAST Software, s.r.o. and AVAST Software, Inc. are
`
`referred to collectively herein as “AVAST.”
`
`7.
`
`On information and belief, AVAST publicly announced its offer to acquire AVG
`
`no later than July 7, 2016. On information and belief, AVAST completed its acquisition of AVG
`
`for $1.3 billion no later than September 30, 2016, including the AVG products and services that
`
`are accused of patent infringement in this complaint. On information and belief, AVAST and
`
`AVG have been operating as a single company since no later than October 3, 2016.
`
`8.
`
`Prior to AVAST’S acquisition of AVG, Finjan was in active license negotiations
`
`with AVG for the Finjan patents asserted in this complaint. Those negotiations commenced in
`
`January 2016 and were suspended around the time AVAST announced its intent to acquire AVG
`
`in July 2016. The Finjan-AVG negotiations spanned over a five month period.
`
`9.
`
`No later than October 2016, AVAST took over the licensing negotiations relating
`
`to AVG’s products that infringe the Finjan patents asserted in this complaint. Finjan and AVAST
`
`have been negotiating without success for over 100 days.
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`10.
`
`The Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331
`
`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
`
`Farella Braun + Martel LLP
`235 Montgomery Street, 17th Floor
`San Francisco, California 94104
`(415) 954-4400
`
`3
`COMPLAINT FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT AND PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`
`31470\5803222.1
`
`

`

`Case 5:17-cv-00283-BLF Document 1 Filed 01/19/17 Page 4 of 17
`
`and 1338(a) because this is a complaint for infringement of United States patents. Additionally,
`
`the Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action under 28 U.S.C. § 1332 because there is a
`
`complete diversity of citizenship between Finjan and Defendants and the amount in controversy
`
`exceeds $75,000. The Court also has subject matter jurisdiction over this action under 28 U.S.C.
`
`§§ 1331 and 1367 because Finjan alleges a federal law claim over which this Court has original
`
`jurisdiction, and all other claims are so related to the claim within such original jurisdiction that
`
`they form part of the same case or controversy within Article III of the United States Constitution.
`
`11.
`
`This Court also has personal jurisdiction over each Defendant because Plaintiff’s
`
`claims against each of them arises out of or relate to each of their purposeful contacts with
`
`California, and the exercise of personal jurisdiction over each Defendant in this particular case
`
`would comport with principles of fair play and substantial justice.
`
`12.
`
`This Court also has personal jurisdiction over each Defendant because it has
`
`engaged in systematic and continuous contacts with this State and this district by, inter alia,
`
`regularly conducting and soliciting business in this State and this district, and deriving substantial
`
`revenue from products and/or services provided to persons in this State and this district. For
`
`example and without limitation, as noted above, each Defendant maintains a regular and
`
`established place of business in this district.
`
`13.
`
`Venue is proper in this district under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(b)-(c) and 1400(b)
`
`because, on information and belief, Defendants have committed acts of patent infringement
`
`complained of herein in this district, and thus a substantial part of the events or omissions giving
`
`rise to the claims alleged herein occurred in this district, and because Defendants are each subject
`
`to this Court’s personal jurisdiction with respect to the claims alleged herein.
`
`INTRADISTRICT ASSIGNMENT
`
`14.
`
`This action is an Intellectual Property Action subject to district-wide assignment
`
`under Civil Local Rules 3-2(c) and 3-5(b).
`
`FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
`
`(Breach of Contract – Sham Transaction)
`
`(Against AVAST)
`
`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
`
`Farella Braun + Martel LLP
`235 Montgomery Street, 17th Floor
`San Francisco, California 94104
`(415) 954-4400
`
`4
`COMPLAINT FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT AND PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`
`31470\5803222.1
`
`

`

`Case 5:17-cv-00283-BLF Document 1 Filed 01/19/17 Page 5 of 17
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`15.
`
`16.
`
`
`
`17.
`
`18.
`
`19.
`
`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
`
`Farella Braun + Martel LLP
`235 Montgomery Street, 17th Floor
`San Francisco, California 94104
`(415) 954-4400
`
`5
`COMPLAINT FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT AND PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`
`31470\5803222.1
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 5:17-cv-00283-BLF Document 1 Filed 01/19/17 Page 6 of 17
`
`20.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`21.
`
`22.
`
`
`
`23.
`
`Finjan has fully performed its obligations under the Agreement to the extent those
`
`obligations were not excused by AVAST’s breaches thereof.
`
`24.
`
`25.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`Farella Braun + Martel LLP
`235 Montgomery Street, 17th Floor
`San Francisco, California 94104
`(415) 954-4400
`
`6
`COMPLAINT FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT AND PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`
`31470\5803222.1
`
`

`

`Case 5:17-cv-00283-BLF Document 1 Filed 01/19/17 Page 7 of 17
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`26.
`
`As a direct and proximate result of AVAST’s breach of the Agreement, Finjan has
`
`suffered damages, in an amount to be determined at trial.
`
`
`
`SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
`
`(Breach of the Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing)
`
`(Against AVAST)
`
`27.
`
`28.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`29.
`
`As a direct and proximate result of AVAST’s breach of the covenant of good faith
`
`and fair dealing, Finjan has suffered damages, in an amount to be determined at trial.
`
`THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
`
`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
`
`Farella Braun + Martel LLP
`235 Montgomery Street, 17th Floor
`San Francisco, California 94104
`(415) 954-4400
`
`7
`COMPLAINT FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT AND PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`
`31470\5803222.1
`
`

`

`Case 5:17-cv-00283-BLF Document 1 Filed 01/19/17 Page 8 of 17
`
`(Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 6,154,844)
`
`(Against AVG and AVAST)
`
`30.
`
`Finjan is the owner of all rights, title, and interest in United States Patent No.
`
`6,154,844, entitled “System and Method for Attaching a Downloadable Security Profile to a
`
`Downloadable,” which was duly and properly issued by the United States Patent and Trademark
`
`Office (“USPTO”) on November 28, 2000 (“‘844 patent”). A copy of the ‘844 patent is attached
`
`as Exhibit 2.
`
`31.
`
`In violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271, AVG and AVAST have been directly infringing,
`
`contributing to the infringement of, and/or inducing others to infringe the ‘844 patent by making,
`
`using, selling, and/or offering to sell in the United States, or importing into the United States,
`
`including in this judicial district, products or processes that practice the inventions claimed in the
`
`‘844 patent, including without limitation, claim 1 of the ‘844 patent by the AVG Antivirus, AVG
`
`CloudCare, AVG Internet Security, and AVG Ultimate products. Each of these software products
`
`performs the functions of (a) receiving by an inspector a Downloadable; (b) generating by the
`
`inspector a first Downloadable security profile that identifies suspicious code in the received
`
`Downloadable; and (c) linking by the inspector the first Downloadable security profile to the
`
`Downloadable before a web server makes the Downloadable available to web clients. Defendants’
`
`advertising, including through the AVG website, instructs users and customers how to operate
`
`these products in a manner that infringes claim 1 of the ‘844 patent. Finjan provided Defendants
`
`with claim charts detailing how Defendants infringe claim 1 of the ‘844 patent months before
`
`filing this complaint.
`
`32.
`
`AVG has known of its infringement of the ‘844 patent since no later than its receipt
`
`of a letter from Finjan dated January 26, 2016, providing AVG with notice of AVG’s infringement
`
`of the ‘844 patent. On information and belief, AVAST has also known of its infringement of the
`
`‘844 patent since no later than October 2016. Yet AVG and AVAST have continued to infringe
`
`the ‘844 patent through the conduct described above. Accordingly, Defendants’ infringement of
`
`the ‘844 patent has been willful.
`
`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
`
`Farella Braun + Martel LLP
`235 Montgomery Street, 17th Floor
`San Francisco, California 94104
`(415) 954-4400
`
`8
`COMPLAINT FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT AND PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`
`31470\5803222.1
`
`

`

`Case 5:17-cv-00283-BLF Document 1 Filed 01/19/17 Page 9 of 17
`
`33.
`
`As a result of AVG and AVAST’s unlawful infringement of the ‘844 patent, Finjan
`
`has suffered and will continue to suffer damage. Finjan is entitled to recover from AVG and
`
`AVAST the damages suffered by Finjan as a result of their unlawful acts.
`
`34.
`
`On information and belief, AVG and AVAST intend to continue their unlawful
`
`infringing activity, and Finjan continues to and will continue to suffer irreparable harm – for
`
`which there is no adequate remedy at law – from such unlawful infringing activities unless this
`
`Court enjoins AVG and AVAST from further infringing activities.
`
`FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
`
`(Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 7,930,299)
`
`(Against AVG and AVAST)
`
`35.
`
`Finjan is the owner of all rights, title, and interest in United States Patent No.
`
`7,930,299, entitled “System and Method for Appending Security Information to Search Engine
`
`Results,” which was duly and properly issued by the USPTO on April 19, 2011 (“‘299 patent”). A
`
`copy of the ‘299 patent is attached as Exhibit 3.
`
`36.
`
`In violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271, AVG and AVAST have been directly infringing,
`
`contributing to the infringement of, and/or inducing others to infringe the ‘299 patent by making,
`
`using, selling, and/or offering to sell in the United States, or importing into the United States,
`
`including in this judicial district, products or processes that practice the inventions claimed in the
`
`‘299 patent, including without limitation, claim 1 of the ‘299 patent by AVG Secure Search. This
`
`software product performs the functions of (a) issuing to a search engine a search request for web
`
`content, the search request having at least one designated search term; (b) receiving from the
`
`search engine search results identifying web content that includes the at least one designated
`
`search term; (c) generating a search results summary that presents the identified web content; (d)
`
`issuing to a content scanner a request for assessment of at least a portion of the identified web
`
`content, for potential security risks; (e) receiving from the content scanner assessments of potential
`
`security risks of the at least a portion of the identified web content; and (f) dynamically generating
`
`a combined search and security results summary comprising: (i) presenting the at least a portion of
`
`the identified web content, subsequent to said generating a search results summary and prior to
`
`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
`
`Farella Braun + Martel LLP
`235 Montgomery Street, 17th Floor
`San Francisco, California 94104
`(415) 954-4400
`
`9
`COMPLAINT FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT AND PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`
`31470\5803222.1
`
`

`

`Case 5:17-cv-00283-BLF Document 1 Filed 01/19/17 Page 10 of 17
`
`completion of said receiving from the content scanner; (ii) dynamically updating the combined
`
`search and security results summary, comprising presenting potential security risks of the
`
`presented web content, after the assessments of potential security risks are received from the
`
`content scanner; and (iii) displaying a warning of potential risk, subsequent to said presenting and
`
`prior to said dynamically updating. Defendants’ advertising, including through the AVG website,
`
`instructs users and customers how to operate this products in a manner that infringes claim 1 of the
`
`‘299 patent. Finjan provided Defendants with claim charts detailing how Defendants infringe
`
`claim 1 of the ‘299 patent months before filing this complaint.
`
`37.
`
`AVG has known of its infringement of the ‘299 patent since no later than its receipt
`
`of a letter from Finjan dated January 26, 2016, providing AVG with notice of AVG’s infringement
`
`of the ‘299 patent. On information and belief, AVAST has also known of its infringement of the
`
`‘299 patent since no later than October 2016. Yet AVG and AVAST have continued to infringe
`
`the ‘299 patent through the conduct described above. Accordingly, Defendants’ infringement of
`
`the ‘299 patent has been willful.
`
`38.
`
`As a result of AVG and AVAST’s unlawful infringement of the ‘299 patent, Finjan
`
`has suffered and will continue to suffer damage. Finjan is entitled to recover from AVG and
`
`AVAST the damages suffered by Finjan as a result of their unlawful acts.
`
`39.
`
`On information and belief, AVG and AVAST intend to continue their unlawful
`
`infringing activity, and Finjan continues to and will continue to suffer irreparable harm – for
`
`which there is no adequate remedy at law – from such unlawful infringing activities unless this
`
`Court enjoins AVG and AVAST from further infringing activities.
`
`FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION
`
`(Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 7,975,305)
`
`(Against AVG and AVAST)
`
`40.
`
`Finjan is the owner of all rights, title, and interest in United States Patent No.
`
`7,975,305, entitled “Method and System for Adaptive Rule-Based Content Scanners for Desktop
`
`Computers,” which was duly and properly issued by the USPTO on July 5, 2011 (“‘305 patent”).
`
`A copy of the ‘305 patent is attached as Exhibit 4.
`
`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
`
`Farella Braun + Martel LLP
`235 Montgomery Street, 17th Floor
`San Francisco, California 94104
`(415) 954-4400
`
`10
`COMPLAINT FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT AND PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`
`31470\5803222.1
`
`

`

`Case 5:17-cv-00283-BLF Document 1 Filed 01/19/17 Page 11 of 17
`
`41.
`
`In violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271, AVG and AVAST have been directly infringing,
`
`contributing to the infringement of, and/or inducing others to infringe the ‘305 patent by making,
`
`using, selling, and/or offering to sell in the United States, or importing into the United States,
`
`including in this judicial district, products or processes that practice the inventions claimed in the
`
`‘305 patent, including without limitation, claim 13 of the ‘305 patent by the AVG Ultimate, AVG
`
`Antivirus, AVG CloudCare, and AVG Internet Security products. These software products
`
`perform the functions of (a) receiving, at a computer, incoming content from the Internet on its
`
`destination to an Internet application; (b) selectively diverting, by the computer, the received
`
`incoming content from its intended destination; (c) scanning, by the computer, the selectively
`
`diverted incoming content to recognize potential computer exploits therewithin, based on a
`
`database of parser and analyzer rules corresponding to computer exploits, computer exploits being
`
`portions of program code that are malicious, wherein the parser and analyzer rules describe
`
`computer exploits as patterns of types of tokens, tokens being program code constructs, and types
`
`of tokens comprising a punctuation type, an identifier type and a function type; and (d) updating
`
`the database of parser and analyzer rules periodically to incorporate new behavioral rules that are
`
`made available. Defendants’ advertising, including through the AVG website, instructs users and
`
`customers how to operate these products in a manner that infringe claim 1 of the ‘305 patent.
`
`Finjan provided Defendants with claim charts detailing how Defendants infringe claim 1 of the
`
`‘305 patent months before filing this complaint.
`
`42.
`
`AVG has known of its infringement of the ‘305 patent since no later than its receipt
`
`of a letter from Finjan dated January 26, 2016, providing AVG with notice of AVG’s infringement
`
`of the ‘305 patent. On information and belief, AVAST has also known of its infringement of the
`
`‘305 patent since no later than October 2016. Yet AVG and AVAST have continued to infringe
`
`the ‘305 patent through the conduct described above. Accordingly, Defendants’ infringement of
`
`the ‘305 patent has been willful.
`
`43.
`
`As a result of AVG and AVAST’s unlawful infringement of the ‘305 patent, Finjan
`
`has suffered and will continue to suffer damage. Finjan is entitled to recover from AVG and
`
`AVAST the damages suffered by Finjan as a result of their unlawful acts.
`
`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
`
`Farella Braun + Martel LLP
`235 Montgomery Street, 17th Floor
`San Francisco, California 94104
`(415) 954-4400
`
`11
`COMPLAINT FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT AND PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`
`31470\5803222.1
`
`

`

`Case 5:17-cv-00283-BLF Document 1 Filed 01/19/17 Page 12 of 17
`
`44.
`
`On information and belief, AVG and AVAST intend to continue their unlawful
`
`infringing activity, and Finjan continues to and will continue to suffer irreparable harm – for
`
`which there is no adequate remedy at law – from such unlawful infringing activities unless this
`
`Court enjoins AVG and AVAST from further infringing activities.
`
`SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION
`
`(Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 8,079,086)
`
`(Against AVG and AVAST)
`
`45.
`
`Finjan is the owner of all rights, title, and interest in United States Patent No.
`
`8,079,086 entitled “Malicious Mobile Code Runtime Monitoring System and Methods,” which
`
`was duly and properly issued by the USPTO on December 13, 2011 (“‘086 patent”). A copy of
`
`the ‘086 patent is attached as Exhibit 5.
`
`46.
`
`In violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271, AVG and AVAST have been directly infringing,
`
`contributing to the infringement of, and/or inducing others to infringe the ‘086 patent by making,
`
`using, selling, and/or offering to sell in the United States, or importing into the United States,
`
`including in this judicial district, products or processes that practice the inventions claimed in the
`
`‘086 patent, including without limitation, claim 24 of the ‘086 patent by the AVG Ultimate, AVG
`
`Antivirus, AVG CloudCare, and AVG Internet Security products. These software products
`
`complete a system that comprises (a) a receiver for receiving an incoming Downloadable; (b) a
`
`Downloadable scanner coupled with said receiver, for deriving security profile data for the
`
`Downloadable, including a list of suspicious computer operations that may be attempted by the
`
`Downloadable; and (c) a transmitter coupled with said receiver and with said Downloadable
`
`scanner, for transmitting the Downloadable and a representation of the Downloadable security
`
`profile data to a destination computer, via a transport protocol transmission. Defendants’
`
`advertising, including through the AVG website, instructs users and customers how to operate
`
`these products in a manner that infringe claim 24 of the ‘086 patent. Finjan provided Defendants
`
`with claim charts detailing how Defendants infringe claim 24 of the ‘086 patent months before
`
`filing this complaint.
`
`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
`
`Farella Braun + Martel LLP
`235 Montgomery Street, 17th Floor
`San Francisco, California 94104
`(415) 954-4400
`
`12
`COMPLAINT FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT AND PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`
`31470\5803222.1
`
`

`

`Case 5:17-cv-00283-BLF Document 1 Filed 01/19/17 Page 13 of 17
`
`47.
`
`AVG has known of its infringement of the ‘086 patent since no later than its receipt
`
`of a letter from Finjan dated January 26, 2016, providing AVG with notice of AVG’s infringement
`
`of the ‘086 patent. On information and belief, AVAST has also known of its infringement of the
`
`‘086 patent since no later than October 2016. Yet AVG and AVAST have continued to infringe
`
`the ‘086 patent through the conduct described above. Accordingly, Defendants’ infringement of
`
`the ‘086 patent has been willful.
`
`48.
`
`As a result of AVG and AVAST’s unlawful infringement of the ‘086 patent, Finjan
`
`has suffered and will continue to suffer damage. Finjan is entitled to recover from AVG and
`
`AVAST the damages suffered by Finjan as a result of their unlawful acts.
`
`49.
`
`On information and belief, AVG and AVAST intend to continue their unlawful
`
`infringing activity, and Finjan continues to and will continue to suffer irreparable harm – for
`
`which there is no adequate remedy at law – from such unlawful infringing activities unless this
`
`Court enjoins AVG and AVAST from further infringing activities.
`
`SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
`
`(Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 8,141,154)
`
`(Against AVG and AVAST)
`
`50.
`
`Finjan is the owner of all rights, title, and interest in United States Patent No.
`
`8,141,154 entitled “System and Method for Inspecting Dynamically Generated Executable Code,”
`
`which was duly and properly issued by the USPTO on March 20, 2012 (“‘154 patent”). A copy of
`
`the ‘154 patent is attached as Exhibit 6.
`
`51.
`
`In violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271, AVG and AVAST have been directly infringing,
`
`contributing to the infringement of, and/or inducing others to infringe the ‘154 patent by making,
`
`using, selling, and/or offering to sell in the United States, or importing into the United States,
`
`including in this judicial district, products or processes that practice the inventions claimed in the
`
`‘154 patent, including without limitation, claim 1of the ‘154 patent by the AVG Antivirus, AVG
`
`CloudCare, AVG Internet Security, and AVG Ultimate products. These software products
`
`complete a system that comprises (a) a content processor (i) for processing content received over a
`
`network, the content including a call to a first function, and the call including an input, and (ii) for
`
`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
`
`Farella Braun + Martel LLP
`235 Montgomery Street, 17th Floor
`San Francisco, California 94104
`(415) 954-4400
`
`13
`COMPLAINT FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT AND PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`
`31470\5803222.1
`
`

`

`Case 5:17-cv-00283-BLF Document 1 Filed 01/19/17 Page 14 of 17
`
`invoking a second function with the input, only if a security computer indicates that such
`
`invocation is safe; (b) a transmitter for transmitting the input to the security computer for
`
`inspection, when the first function is invoked; and (c) a receiver for receiving an indicator from
`
`the security computer whether it is safe to invoke the second function with the input. Defendants’
`
`advertising, including through the AVG website, instructs users and customers how to operate
`
`these products in a manner that infringe claim 1 of the ‘154 patent. Finjan provided Defendants
`
`with claim charts detailing how Defendants infringe claim 1 of the ‘154 patent months before
`
`filing this complaint.
`
`52.
`
`AVG has known of its infringement of the ‘154 patent since no later than its receipt
`
`of a letter from Finjan dated January 26, 2016, providing AVG with notice of AVG’s infringement
`
`of the ‘154 patent. On information and belief, AVAST has also known of its infringement of the
`
`‘154 patent since no later than October 2016. Yet AVG and AVAST have continued to infringe
`
`the ‘154 patent through the conduct described above. Accordingly, Defendants’ infringement of
`
`the ‘154 patent has been willful.
`
`53.
`
`As a result of AVG and AVAST’s unlawful infringement of the ‘154 patent, Finjan
`
`has suffered and will continue to suffer damage. Finjan is entitled to recover from AVG and
`
`AVAST the damages suffered by Finjan as a result of their unlawful acts.
`
`54.
`
`On information and belief, AVG and AVAST intend to continue their unlawful
`
`infringing activity, and Finjan continues to and will continue to suffer irreparable harm – for
`
`which there is no adequate remedy at law – from such unlawful infringing activities unless this
`
`Court enjoins AVG and AVAST from further infringing activities.
`
`EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION
`
`(Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 8,677,494)
`
`(Against AVG and AVAST)
`
`55.
`
`Finjan is the owner of all rights, title, and interest in United States Patent No.
`
`8,677,494 entitled “Malicious Mobile Code Runtime Monitoring System and Methods,” which
`
`was duly and properly issued by the USPTO on March 18, 2014 (“‘494 patent”). A copy of the
`
`‘494 patent is attached as Exhibit 7.
`
`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
`
`Farella Braun + Martel LLP
`235 Montgomery Street, 17th Floor
`San Francisco, California 94104
`(415) 954-4400
`
`14
`COMPLAINT FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT AND PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`
`31470\5803222.1
`
`

`

`Case 5:17-cv-00283-BLF Document 1 Filed 01/19/17 Page 15 of 17
`
`56.
`
`In violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271, AVG and AVAST have been directly infringing,
`
`contributing to the infringement of, and/or inducing others to infringe the ‘494 patent by making,
`
`using, selling, and/or offering to sell in the United States, or importing into the United States,
`
`including in this judicial district, products or processes that practice the inventions claimed in the
`
`‘494 patent, including without limitation, claim 1 of the ‘494 patent by the AVG Antivirus, AVG
`
`CloudCare, AVG Internet Security, and AVG Ultimate products. These software products
`
`perform the functions of (a) receiving an incoming Downloadable; (b) deriving security profile
`
`data for the Downloadable, including a list of suspicious computer operations that may be
`
`attempted by the Downloadable; and (c) storing the Downloadable security profile data in a
`
`database. Defendants’ advertising, including through the AVG website, instructs users and
`
`customers how to operate these products in a manner that infringe claim 1 of the ‘494patent.
`
`Finjan provided Defendants with claim charts detailing how Defendants infringe claim 1 of the
`
`‘494 patent months before filing this complaint.
`
`57.
`
`AVG has known of its infringement of the ‘494 patent since no later than its receipt
`
`of a letter from Finjan dated January 26, 2015, providing AVG with notice of AVG’s infringement
`
`of the ‘494 patent. On information and belief, AVAST has also known of its infringement of the
`
`‘494 patent since no later than October 2016. Yet AVG and AVAST have continued to infringe
`
`the ‘494 patent through the conduct described above. Accordingly, Defendants’ infringement of
`
`the ‘494 patent has been willful.
`
`58.
`
`As a result of AVG and AVAST’s unlawful infringement of the ‘494 patent, Finjan
`
`has suffered and will continue to suffer damage. Finjan is entitled to recover from AVG and
`
`AVAST the damages suffered by Finjan as a result of their unlawful acts.
`
`59.
`
`On information and belief, AVG and AVAST intend to continue their unlawful
`
`infringing activity, and Finjan continues to and will continue to suffer irreparable harm – for
`
`which there is no adequate remedy at law – from such unlawful infringing activities unless this
`
`Court enjoins AVG and AVAST from further infringing activities.
`
`PRAYER FOR RELIEF
`
`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
`
`Farella Braun + Martel LLP
`235 Montgomery Street, 17th Floor
`San Francisco, California 94104
`(415) 954-4400
`
`15
`COMPLAINT FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT AND PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`
`31470\5803222.1
`
`

`

`Case 5:17-