Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 110 Filed 06/15/18 Page 1 of 27
`
`
`
`PAUL J. ANDRE (State Bar No. 196585)
`pandre@kramerlevin.com
`LISA KOBIALKA (State Bar No. 191404)
`lkobialka@kramerlevin.com
`JAMES HANNAH (State Bar No. 237978)
`jhannah@kramerlevin.com
`KRISTOPHER KASTENS (State Bar No. 254797)
`kkastens@kramerlevin.com
`KRAMER LEVIN NAFTALIS & FRANKEL LLP
`990 Marsh Road
`Menlo Park, CA 94025
`Telephone: (650) 752-1700
`Facsimile: (650) 752-1800
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff
`FINJAN, INC.
`
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`FINJAN, INC.,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`
`JUNIPER NETWORKS, INC.,
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
`
`Case No.: 3:17-cv-05659-WHA
`
`FINJAN, INC.’S NOTICE OF MOTION
`AND MOTION TO DISMISS
`DEFENDANT JUNIPER NETWORKS,
`INC.’S THIRD, FOURTH, FIFTH, AND
`SIXTH COUNTERCLAIMS AND TO
`STRIKE JUNIPER’S TENTH,
`ELEVENTH, TWELFTH, AND
`FOURTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE
`DEFENSES; MEMORANDUM OF
`POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
`
`July 26, 2018
`
`Date:
`8:00 a.m.
`Time:
`Courtroom: Courtroom 12, 19th Floor
`Hon. William Alsup
`Before:
`
`
`
`FINJAN’S MOTION TO DISMISS JUNIPER’S
`COUNTERCLAIMS & STRIKE AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
`
`
`
`CASE NO.: 3:17-cv-05659-WHA
`
`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
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 110 Filed 06/15/18 Page 2 of 27
`
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`STATEMENT OF ISSUES .....................................................................................................................1
`
`INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................................................1
`
`FACTUAL BACKGROUND .................................................................................................................3
`
`I. Prosecution of the ‘494 Patent ...............................................................................................3
`
`A. Touboul Declaration ........................................................................................................3
`
`II. FINJAN’S DISCOVERY RESPONSES IN THE SYMANTEC ACTION ........................ 4
`
`ARGUMENT ........................................................................................................................6
`
`III. JUNIPER’S PROSECUTION LACHES ALLEGATIONS ARE FACIALLY
`IMPLAUSIBLE .....................................................................................................................7
`
`IV. JUNIPER’S INEQUITABLE CONDUCT ALLEGATIONS REGARDING THE ‘494
`AND ‘154 PATENTS ARE FACIALLY IMPLAUSIBLE ................................................10
`
`A. The ‘494 Patent .............................................................................................................11
`
`1.
`
`
`
`Juniper Mischaracterizes the File History and Prior Litigation Documents. ....... 11
`
`2. Mr. Touboul’s Declaration is Accurate and Contains No Misrepresentations..... 12
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`Juniper Alleges No Facts Supporting Materiality of the Alleged
`Misrepresentation. ................................................................................................ 14
`
`Juniper Alleges No Facts Supporting Finjan’s Specific Intent to Deceive the
`PTO. ..................................................................................................................... 15
`
`B. The ‘154 Patent .............................................................................................................16
`
`1.
`
`
`
`2.
`
`
`
`Juniper’s Inequitable Conduct Counterclaim Does Not Sufficiently Plead a
`Misrepresentation, Let Alone a Material Misrepresentation. ............................... 16
`
`Juniper’s Inequitable Conduct Counterclaim Does Not Sufficiently Plead
`Intent. .................................................................................................................... 18
`
`V. JUNIPER’S UNCLEAN HANDS ALLEGATIONS ARE NOT
`FACIALLY PLAUSIBLE ...................................................................................................18
`
`FINJAN’S MOTION TO DISMISS JUNIPER’S
`COUNTERCLAIMS & STRIKE AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
`
`i
`
`CASE NO.: 3:17-cv-05659-WHA
`
`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
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 110 Filed 06/15/18 Page 3 of 27
`
`VI. JUNIPER’S TWELFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE FOR ENSNAREMENT FAILS
`TO GIVE FINJAN FAIR NOTICE .....................................................................................20
`
`CONCLUSION .....................................................................................................................................21
`
`
`
`
`
`FINJAN’S MOTION TO DISMISS JUNIPER’S
`COUNTERCLAIMS & STRIKE AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
`
`ii
`
`CASE NO.: 3:17-cv-05659-WHA
`
`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
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 110 Filed 06/15/18 Page 4 of 27
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`
`Page(s)
`
`
`
`Cases
`
`1st Media, LLC v. Elec. Arts, Inc.,
`694 F.3d 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2012)......................................................................................................... 15
`
`Adobe Sys. Inc. v. Norwood,
`No. C 10-03564 SI, 2011 WL 2650945 (N.D. Cal. July 6, 2011) ...................................................... 7
`
`AirWair Int’l Ltd. v. Schultz,
`84 F. Supp. 3d 943 (N.D. Cal. 2015) ............................................................................................ 7, 11
`
`Ashcroft v. Iqbal,
`556 U.S. 662 (2009) ...................................................................................................................... 7, 11
`
`Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly,
`550 U.S. 544 (2007) ............................................................................................................................ 7
`
`BlackBerry Ltd. v. Typo Prods. LLC,
`No. 14-cv-00023-WHO, 2014 WL 1867009 (N.D. Cal. May 8, 2014) ...................................... 10, 16
`
`Cancer Research Tech. Ltd. v. Barr Labs., Inc.,
`625 F.3d 724 (Fed. Cir. 2010)............................................................................................................. 8
`
`Catch a Wave, Inc. v. Sirius XM Radio, Inc.,
`No. C 12-05791 WHA, 2013 WL 1996134 (N.D. Cal. May 13, 2013)........................................ 7, 21
`
`DePuy Spine, Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc.,
`567 F.3d 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2009)......................................................................................................... 20
`
`Exergen Corp. v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.,
`575 F.3d 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2009)................................................................................................... 10, 12
`
`Feit Elec. Co. v. Beacon Point Capital, LLC,
`No. 13-CV-09339, 2015 WL 557262 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 9, 2015) ......................................................... 10
`
`Fiscars, Inc. v. Hunt Mfg. Co.,
`221 F.3d 1318 (Fed. Cir. 2000)......................................................................................................... 20
`
`Gilead Sciences, Inc. v. Merck & Co.,
`Nos. 2016-2302, 2016-2615, 2018 WL 1936686 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 25, 2018) .................................... 18
`
`In re Gilead Scis. Sec. Litig.,
`536 F.3d 1049 (9th Cir. 2008) ............................................................................................................ 7
`
`FINJAN’S MOTION TO DISMISS JUNIPER’S
`COUNTERCLAIMS & STRIKE AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
`
`i
`
`CASE NO.: 3:17-cv-05659-WHA
`
`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
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 110 Filed 06/15/18 Page 5 of 27
`
`
`
`Jarrow Formulas, Inc. v. Nutrition Now, Inc.,
`304 F.3d 829 (9th Cir. 2002) ............................................................................................................ 19
`
`Keystone Driller Co. v. Gen. Excavator Co.,
`290 U.S. 240 (1933) .......................................................................................................................... 18
`
`Lee v. City of Los Angeles,
`250 F.3d 668 (9th Cir. 2001) ........................................................................................................ 7, 11
`
`Lucent Techs., Inc. v. Gateway, Inc.,
`543 F.3d 710 (Fed. Cir. 2008)........................................................................................................... 13
`
`Mendiondo v. Centinela Hosp. Med. Ctr.,
`521 F.3d 1097 (9th Cir. 2008) ............................................................................................................ 6
`
`Nomadix, Inc. v. Hosp. Core Servs. LLC,
`No. CV 14-08256 DDP, 2015 WL 3948804 (C.D. Cal. June 29, 2015) ........................................ 8, 9
`
`Oracle Corp. v. DrugLogic, Inc.,
`807 F. Supp. 2d 885 (N.D. Cal. 2011) .............................................................................................. 14
`
`Powertech Tech., Inc. v. Tessara, Inc.,
`10–0945, 2012 WL 1746848 (N.D. Cal. May 16, 2012). ................................................................. 21
`
`Qarbon.com Inc. v. eHelp Corp.,
`315 F. Supp. 2d 1046 (N.D. Cal. 2004) ............................................................................................ 20
`
`Solis v. Zenith Capital, LLC,
`No. C 08-4854 PJH, 2009 WL 1324051 (N.D. Cal. May 8, 2009) .............................................. 6, 12
`
`Sonos, Inc. v. D&M Holdings Inc.,
`No. CV 14-1330-RGA-MPT, 2016 WL 4249493 (D. Del. Aug. 10, 2016) ..................................... 10
`
`Symbol Techs, Inc. v. Lemelson Med., Educ. & Research Found.,
`422 F.3d 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2005)........................................................................................................... 8
`
`Takeda Pharm. Co. v. TWi Pharms., Inc.,
`87 F. Supp. 3d 1263 (N.D. Cal. 2015) ........................................................................................ 15, 18
`
`Therasense, Inc. v. Becton, Dickinson & Co.,
`649 F.3d 1276 (Fed. Cir. 2011)............................................................................................. 10, 12, 16
`
`U.S. Water Servs., Inc. v. Novozymes A/S,
`843 F.3d 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2016)................................................................................................... 15, 18
`
`X One, Inc. v. Uber Techs., Inc.,
`239 F. Supp. 3d 1174 (N.D. Cal. 2017) .............................................................................................. 8
`
`FINJAN’S MOTION TO DISMISS JUNIPER’S
`COUNTERCLAIMS & STRIKE AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
`
`ii
`
`CASE NO.: 3:17-cv-05659-WHA
`
`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
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 110 Filed 06/15/18 Page 6 of 27
`
`
`
`Zep Solar Inc. v. Westinghouse Solar Inc.,
`No. C 11-06493 JSW, 2012 WL 1293873 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 16, 2012) .............................................. 10
`
`Statutes
`
`35 U.S.C. § 119(e) .................................................................................................................................... 3
`
`35 U.S.C. § 120 ................................................................................................................................... 3, 16
`
`35 U.S.C. § 154 ......................................................................................................................................... 9
`
`Other Authorities
`
`37 C.F.R. § 1.78 .................................................................................................................. 3, 9, 11, 16, 20
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 9(b) ................................................................................................................................. 10
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 12 ................................................................................................................................ 6, 18
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b) ................................................................................................................................. 5
`
`MPEP § 201.11 (8th Ed., rev. 9, Aug. 2012) .................................................................................... 16, 20
`
`FINJAN’S MOTION TO DISMISS JUNIPER’S
`COUNTERCLAIMS & STRIKE AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
`
`iii
`
`CASE NO.: 3:17-cv-05659-WHA
`
`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
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 110 Filed 06/15/18 Page 7 of 27
`
`
`
`TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD:
`
`NOTICE OF MOTION
`
`NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that on July 26, 2018, at 8:00 a.m., or as soon thereafter as
`
`counsel may be heard by the Honorable William Alsup in Courtroom 12, 19th Floor, located at 450
`
`Golden Gate Avenue, San Francisco, California 94102, Plaintiff Finjan, Inc. (“Finjan”) will and hereby
`
`does move the Court for an order granting Finjan’s Motion to Dismiss Defendant Juniper Networks,
`
`Inc.’s (“Juniper”) Third, Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Counterclaims and to Strike Juniper’s Tenth,
`
`Eleventh, Twelfth, and Fourteenth Affirmative Defenses (“Motion to Dismiss”).
`
`This motion is based on this Notice of Motion, the following Memorandum of Points and
`
`Authorities, the Declaration of Kristopher Kastens filed herewith and exhibits attached thereto, the
`
`proposed order submitted herewith, the pleadings and papers on file in this action, any evidence and
`
`argument presented to the Court at or before the hearing on this motion, and all matters of which the
`
`Court may take judicial notice.
`
`STATEMENT OF ISSUES
`
`1.
`
`Whether the Court should dismiss Juniper’s Third, Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth
`
`Counterclaims and strike its Tenth, Eleventh, and Fourteenth Affirmative Defenses, which relate to
`
`prosecution laches, inequitable conduct, and unclean hands, because they are not sufficiently pled.
`
`2.
`
`Whether the Court should dismiss Juniper’s Twelfth Affirmative Defense for
`
`ensnarement, which pleads no facts to support the defense.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`The Court should dismiss Juniper’s Third, Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Counterclaims and strike
`
`Juniper’s Tenth, Eleventh, Twelfth, and Fourteenth Affirmative Defenses, because Juniper’s claims are
`
`insufficiently pled and fail to state plausible defenses under the law. Juniper’s allegations for
`
`prosecution laches in both its Third Counterclaim and Eleventh Affirmative Defense consist of nothing
`
`more than conclusory assertions that do not amount to “an unreasonable and unexplained delay” or
`
`somehow present prejudice, which is required for such a defense.
`
`FINJAN’S MOTION TO DISMISS JUNIPER’S
`COUNTERCLAIMS & STRIKE AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
`
`1
`
`CASE NO.: 3:17-cv-05659-WHA
`
`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
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 110 Filed 06/15/18 Page 8 of 27
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`Juniper’s Fourth and Fifth Counterclaims and Fourteenth Affirmative Defense of inequitable
`conduct for U.S. Patent Nos. 8,677,494 (the “’494 Patent”) and 8,141,154 (the “’154 Patent”)1 are not
`facially plausible because Juniper’s allegations do not amount to a misrepresentation to the Patent
`
`Office (“PTO”) during prosecution of these patents that the PTO somehow relied upon. For the ‘494
`
`and ‘154 Patents, Juniper’s allegations accuse Finjan’s patent prosecutor, Ms. Dawn-Marie Bey, and
`
`an inventor, Mr. Shlomo Touboul, of making false representations. Ms. Bey, however, is only accused
`
`of properly filing a petition pursuant to the rules governing the prosecution of patents because the
`
`earlier priority date was unintentionally not sought earlier. Moreover, the PTO denied the petition,
`
`such that there was no reliance on the petition that could support an inequitable conduct claim.
`
`The remaining allegations are directed to a declaration that Mr. Touboul submitted to the PTO
`
`relating only to the ‘494 Patent. As demonstrated by the actual pleadings at issue, there is no conflict
`
`between Mr. Touboul’s declaration submitted to the PTO and other statements that Finjan made during
`
`litigation, which are subject to judicial notice. Thus, Juniper cannot identify any misrepresentations
`
`that support its counterclaim of inequitable conduct. Moreover, Juniper falls far short of the stringent
`
`Federal Circuit standard for pleading this claim with particularity. Specifically, Juniper entirely fails to
`
`plead facts sufficient to claim that any purported misrepresentation was material, or that any individual
`
`had a specific intent to deceive the Patent Office.
`
`Similarly, Juniper’s Sixth Counterclaim of unclean hands is not properly pled as a
`
`counterclaim. Further, Juniper’s allegations for unclean hands in its Sixth Counterclaim and Tenth
`
`Affirmative Defense are facially implausible because the facts that Juniper alleges—which are
`
`substantially the same as those Juniper relies on for inequitable conduct—do not give rise to bad faith
`
`or egregious conduct during the prosecution of the ‘494 Patent, ‘154 Patent, U.S. Patent No. 6,647,633
`
`(the “’633 Patent”) (Kastens Decl., Ex. 3), and U.S. Patent No. 7,613,926 (the “’926 Patent”) (Kastens
`
`Decl., Ex. 4). Finally, Juniper’s Twelfth Counterclaim states nothing more than ensnarement applies,
`
`which does not provide Finjan with any notice of Juniper’s defense.
`
`1 Declaration of Kristopher Kastens in Support of Finjan’s Motion to Strike (“Kastens Decl.”) filed
`herewith, Exs. 1-2.
`
`FINJAN’S MOTION TO DISMISS JUNIPER’S
`COUNTERCLAIMS & STRIKE AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
`
`2
`
`CASE NO.: 3:17-cv-05659-WHA
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 110 Filed 06/15/18 Page 9 of 27
`
`
`
`Thus, Juniper’s Third, Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Counterclaims should be dismissed for failure to
`
`state a claim for relief, and Juniper’s Tenth, Eleventh, Twelfth, and Fourteenth Affirmative Defenses,
`
`which incorporate the allegations in Juniper’s Counterclaims, should be stricken.
`
`FACTUAL BACKGROUND
`
`I.
`
`Prosecution of the ‘494 Patent
`On October 23, 2012, as a part of the prosecution of the ‘494 Patent, Ms. Dawn-Marie Bey
`
`submitted a “Petition To Accept Unintentionally Delayed Claim of Priority Under 35 U.S.C. § 119(e)
`
`and § 120 For The Benefit Of A Prior-filed Application Filed Under 37 C.F.R. § 1.78(a)(3)” (“‘494
`
`Patent Petition”). Dkt. No. 92, ¶186; Kastens Decl., Ex. 5 at FINJAN-JN 004959-60. The PTO denied
`
`the ‘494 Patent Petition on November 27, 2012, such that the PTO did not rely upon the ‘494 Patent
`
`Petition. Dkt. No. 92, ¶ 18; Kastens Decl., Ex. 5 at FINJAN-JN 004952-53.
`
`On January 7, 2013, the Patent Office initially determined that Ji was prior art to the ‘494
`
`Patent and rejected the amendments. Dkt. No. 92, ¶ 188; Kastens Decl., Ex. 5 at FINJAN-JN 004944-
`
`51. On May 7, 2013, pursuant to the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (“MPEP”), Ms. Bey
`
`submitted the Request for Continued Examination to overcome Ji as prior art, accompanied by Mr.
`
`Shlomo Touboul’s declaration (the “Touboul Declaration”). Dkt. No. 92, ¶ 189. Juniper
`
`acknowledges that following Ms. Bey’s Petition of October 2012, the PTO still issued a rejection on
`
`January 7, 2013 based on the Ji reference. Later, when the PTO issued a Notice of Allowance for the
`
`‘494 Patent, it cited Mr. Touboul’s Declaration of May 7, 2013 as overcoming the Ji reference—not
`
`Ms. Bey’s Petition. Dkt. No. 92, ¶ 190; Kastens Decl., Ex. 5 at FINJAN-JN 004348-57.
`
`Touboul Declaration
`A.
`Mr. Touboul’s declaration of May 7, 2013, submitted as a part of the prosecution of the ‘494
`
`Patent, confirmed that he is the sole inventor of certain claims of the ‘494 Patent—namely, Claims 1,
`
`3, 4–6, 9, 10, 12–15 and 18, and that he conceived these claims in late 1996. Dkt. No. 92, ¶ 191;
`
`Kastens Decl., Ex. 5 at FINJAN-JN 004421-23. Mr. Touboul corroborated the Touboul Declaration
`
`with documentation for the Finjan “Surfingate” product, attaching a press release from October 1996
`
`FINJAN’S MOTION TO DISMISS JUNIPER’S
`COUNTERCLAIMS & STRIKE AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
`
`3
`
`CASE NO.: 3:17-cv-05659-WHA
`
`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
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 110 Filed 06/15/18 Page 10 of 27
`
`
`
`as an exhibit. Kastens Decl., Ex. 5 at FINJAN-JN 004422-23. Mr. Touboul did not allege in his
`affidavit that he was the sole inventor of all claims of the ‘494 Patent. On August 29, 2013, the PTO
`
`issued a Notice of Allowance for the ‘494 Patent, stating that the press release attached to the Touboul
`
`Declaration corroborated the requested priority date. Id., FINJAN-JN 004348-57 at 55 (“the submitted
`
`Exhibit A Surfingate™ product press release titled ‘Gateway Level Corporate Security for the New
`
`World of Java™ and Downloadables’ shows a publication date of October 31, 1996 which is prior to
`
`September 10, 1997. The rejection is hereby withdrawn and the claims are in conditions for
`
`allowance.”).
`
`II.
`
`FINJAN’S DISCOVERY RESPONSES IN THE SYMANTEC ACTION
`Finjan asserted the ‘494 Patent in Finjan v. Symantec, Case No. 4:14-cv-02998-HSG (N.D.
`
`Cal.) (the “Symantec Action”). Dkt. No. 92, ¶ 191. On December 4, 2014, Finjan identified the claims
`
`it was asserting against Symantec in its infringement contentions for the ‘494 Patent, which included
`
`Claims 1-6 and 10-15. Kastens Decl., Ex. 6 at 2. On March 3, 2017, pursuant to the Scheduling Order
`
`in that case, Finjan narrowed the claims it was asserting against Symantec to Claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 10, 11,
`
`14, and 15. Id., Ex. 7 at 1.
`
`During discovery, Symantec asked Finjan a very broad interrogatory regarding different aspects
`
`of information related to the conception and reduction to practice of the claims of the ‘494 Patent. Id.,
`Ex. 8 at 2.2 On June 7, 2017, Finjan served its Third Supplemental Response, simply indicating that
`the inventors would have “knowledge related to the conception and reduction to practice of the ‘494
`
`Patent,” as follows:
`
`The date of conception for the asserted claims of U.S. Patent No.
`8,667,494 (“the ‘494 Patent”) began October 31, 1996 and continued
`through May 2000. The date of constructive reduction of practice of the
`asserted claims of the ‘494 Patent is no later than November 7, 2011.
`Yigal Edery, Nimrod Vered, David Kroll, and Shlomo Touboul were
`involved with, and may have knowledge related to the conception and
`reduction to practice of the ‘494 Patent.
`
`
`2 Exhibits 8-10 are copies of documents attached to Declaration of Kate E. Cassidy in Support of
`Symantec’s Motion to Amend Answer, filed in the Symantec Action on August 18, 2017.
`
`FINJAN’S MOTION TO DISMISS JUNIPER’S
`COUNTERCLAIMS & STRIKE AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
`
`4
`
`CASE NO.: 3:17-cv-05659-WHA
`
`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
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 110 Filed 06/15/18 Page 11 of 27
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`Id. at 2, 10. Finjan’s response discussed who had information regarding conception and reduction to
`
`practice of the ‘494 Patent and it only makes sense that co-inventors would have some knowledge
`
`about the related claims that Mr. Touboul invented in the same patent. Thus, conception started with
`
`the claims Mr. Touboul solely invented in October 1996 and continued until May 2000, when the other
`
`named inventors of the ‘494 Patent further contributed to certain claims. Finjan’s response referred to
`
`all the named inventors, but never stated that each inventor was involved with every claim and it did
`
`not contend that all the named inventors were involved with claims 1, 3, 4-6, 9, 10, 12-15, and 18 that
`
`were discussed in the Touboul Declaration.
`
`On June 26, 2017, after the close of fact discovery, Finjan served its Final Election of Asserted
`
`Claims and narrowed its asserted claims of the ‘494 Patent to claims 10, 14, and 15 according to the
`
`Scheduling Order. Kastens Decl., Ex. 9 at 1. With this election, Finjan for the first time narrowed the
`
`asserted claims of the ‘494 Patent to only those that were identified in the Touboul Declaration.
`
`On July 26, 2017, Finjan supplemented its response to Interrogatory No. 1 as a housekeeping
`
`matter to reference a certificate of correction that had just issued for the ‘926 Patent. Dkt. No. 92,
`
`¶ 191; Kastens Decl., Ex. 10 at 11 (citing FINJAN-SYM 447977). The only addition to Finjan’s
`
`response to Interrogatory No. 1 was including the bates number for this certificate within the response.
`
`As a part of this supplement, Finjan included its entire previous responses for the other patents asserted
`
`in this case, including the prior verbatim response for the ‘494 Patent, as there were no new
`
`intervening facts related to these claims as there was for the ‘926 Patent.
`
`In August 2017, Symantec sought to amend its answer in the Symantec Action to assert an
`
`inequitable conduct defense based on the same statements by Mr. Touboul that Juniper alleges in its
`Answer here.3 When Finjan and Symantec met and conferred regarding this proposed amendment,
`Finjan explained that Symantec’s interpretation was incorrect and that Finjan would serve a clarifying
`
`supplement to its Response to Interrogatory No. 1 to address Symantec’s concerns. Finjan then in
`
`3 The Court denied Symantec’s motion to amend on the basis that “Symantec has not satisfied the
`‘good cause’ standard of Rule 16(b)” because it “has not been diligent.” Thus, the Court did not need
`to address the futility of the amendment. See Kastens Decl., Ex. 11, Symantec Action, Dkt. No. 285 at
`2–3.
`
`FINJAN’S MOTION TO DISMISS JUNIPER’S
`COUNTERCLAIMS & STRIKE AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
`
`5
`
`CASE NO.: 3:17-cv-05659-WHA
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 110 Filed 06/15/18 Page 12 of 27
`
`
`
`good faith served a supplemental response that day, August 14, 2017, to Symantec’s Interrogatory No.
`
`1, clarifying that:
`
`The date of conception for claims of U.S. Patent No. 8,667,494 (“the
`‘494 Patent”) began October 31, 1996 and continued through May 2000.
`The date of conception for the currently asserted claims of the ‘494
`Patent is October 31, 1996. The date of constructive reduction of practice
`of the asserted claims of the ‘494 Patent is no later than November 7,
`2011. Yigal Edery, Nimrod Vered, David Kroll, and Shlomo Touboul
`were involved with, and may have knowledge related to the conception
`and reduction to practice claims of the ‘494 Patent.
`Kastens Decl., Ex. 8 at 15 (emphasis added).
`
`Thus, Finjan’s responses stated that the asserted claims identified in Finjan’s Final Election
`
`(claims 10, 14, and 15 of the ‘494 Patent) were conceived in 1996, the date stated in the Touboul
`
`Declaration. This supplementation made clear that conception of the entire ‘494 Patent and claims
`
`continued through 2000, when the other named inventors contributed. Finjan’s supplemental response
`
`also maintained the accurate statement that all named inventors were involved with conception and
`
`reduction to practice of the invention of the ‘494 Patent, which is set forth in the different claims of the
`
`‘494 Patent, including those for which Mr. Touboul is not the sole inventor.
`
`ARGUMENT
`
`The Court may dismiss Juniper’s Counterclaims under Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a
`
`claim because they “lack[] a cognizable legal theory or sufficient facts to support a cognizable legal
`
`theory.” Mendiondo v. Centinela Hosp. Med. Ctr., 521 F.3d 1097, 1104 (9th Cir. 2008)(citation
`
`omitted). Similarly, this Court “may strike from a pleading an insufficient defense or any redundant,
`
`immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous matter.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f). In particular, the Court may
`
`strike any defense that is “insufficient” because it fails to plead the elements of the defense or fails to
`
`provide an adequate factual basis. See Solis v. Zenith Capital, LLC, No. C 08-4854 PJH, 2009 WL
`
`1324051, at *3-7 (N.D. Cal. May 8, 2009) (striking affirmative defenses because no factual bases were
`
`provided).
`
`FINJAN’S MOTION TO DISMISS JUNIPER’S
`COUNTERCLAIMS & STRIKE AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
`
`6
`
`CASE NO.: 3:17-cv-05659-WHA
`
`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
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 110 Filed 06/15/18 Page 13 of 27
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`Juniper’s pleading must include “enough facts to state a claim [for] relief that is plausible on its
`face.”4 Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). The Court is not required to accept
`as true “allegations that are merely conclusory, unwarranted deductions of fact, or unreasonable
`
`inferences.” In re Gilead Scis. Sec. Litig., 536 F.3d 1049, 1055 (9th Cir. 2008)(citation omitted).
`
`Here, Juniper has pled claims and defenses that are facially implausible, such that they fail as a matter
`
`of law. While this Court “must take all of the factual allegations” in Juniper’s pleading “as true,” it is
`
`‘“not bound to accept as true a legal conclusion couched as a factual allegation.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal,
`
`556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555).
`
`Juniper’s Counterclaims and Affirmative Defenses refer to certain file histories and litigation
`
`documents that are subject to judicial notice for the purposes of this Motion. It is appropriate to
`
`consider these materials here to underscore the futility of Juniper’s prosecution laches, inequitable
`
`conduct, and unclean hands allegations, as demonstrated below. Courts may consider on a motion to
`
`dismiss or strike material properly submitted as part of the pleading and items that are proper subjects
`
`of judicial notice. See AirWair Int’l Ltd. v. Schultz, 84 F. Supp. 3d 943, 950–51 (N.D. Cal. 2015)
`
`(“Matters which are appropriate subjects of judicial notice include ‘matters of public record.’”) (citing
`
`Lee v. City of Los Angeles, 250 F.3d 668, 689 (9th Cir. 2001)). A document is not outside the pleading
`
`if the pleading specifically refers to the documents and if its authenticity is not questioned. Adobe Sys.
`
`Inc. v. Norwood, No. C 10-03564 SI, 2011 WL 2650945, at *3 (N.D. Cal. July 6, 2011) (citations
`
`omitted). The Court may consider the full text of the document, even if the pleading quotes it only in
`
`part. Id. (citation omitted).
`
`III.
`
`JUNIPER’S PROSECUTION LACHES ALLEGATIONS ARE FACIALLY
`IMPLAUSIBLE
`The Court should dismiss Juniper’s Third Counterclaim and Eleventh Affirmative Defense for
`
`prosecution laches because Juniper’s allegations are not sufficiently pled or facially plausible. The
`
`doctrine of prosecution laches requires “an unreasonable and unexplained delay in prosecution that
`
`4 “Within this district . . . there is widespread agreement” that the Iqbal and Twombly standard applies
`to affirmative defenses. Catch a Wave, Inc. v. Sirius XM Radio, Inc., No. C 12-05791 WHA, 2013 WL
`1996134, at *1 (N.D. Cal. May 13, 2013) (citation omitted).
`
`FINJAN’S MOTION TO DISMISS JUNIPER’S
`COUNTERCLAIMS & STRIKE AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
`
`7
`
`CASE NO.: 3:17-cv-05659-WHA
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 110 Filed 06/15/18 Page 14 of 27
`
`
`
`constitutes an egregious misuse of the statutory patent system” and there must be a finding of
`
`prejudice. Cancer Research Tech. Ltd. v. Barr Labs., Inc., 625 F.3d 724, 728-29 (Fed. Cir. 2010)
`
`(internal quotations and citations omitted). The Federal Circuit has instructed that “[t]here are
`
`legitimate grounds for refiling a patent application which should not normally be grounds for a
`holding of laches, and the doctrine should be used sparingly lest statutory provisions be unjustifiably
`vitiated.” Symbol T