Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 111 Filed 06/15/18 Page 1 of 4
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PAUL 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.
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
`
`FINJAN, INC.,
`
`
`
`
`
`JUNIPER NETWORKS, INC.,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`Case No.: 3:17-cv-05659-WHA
`
`FINJAN, INC.’S REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL
`NOTICE
`
`July 26, 2018
`
`Date:
`8:00 a.m.
`Time:
`Courtroom: Courtroom 12, 19th Floor
`Before:
` Hon. William Alsup
`
`
`
`FINJAN’S REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE
`
`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 111 Filed 06/15/18 Page 2 of 4
`
`
`
`REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE
`
`Finjan, Inc. (“Finjan”) respectfully requests that the Court take judicial notice of the following
`
`records as bearing on its pending 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:
`
`1)
`
`2)
`
`3)
`
`4)
`
`5)
`
`6)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,677,494 Patent, attached hereto as Exhibit 1.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,141,154, attached hereto as Exhibit 2.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,647,633, attached hereto as Exhibit 3.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,613,926, attached hereto as Exhibit 4.
`
`Excerpted portions of the file history of the ’494 Patent, attached hereto as
`Exhibit 5.1
`Plaintiff Finjan, Inc.’s Disclosure of Asserted Claims and Infringement
`
`Contentions and Document Production Accompanying Disclosure Pursuant to
`
`Patent Local Rules 3-1 and 3-2 from Finjan, Inc. v. Symantec Corp., Case No. 14-
`
`cv-02998-RS, dated December 4, 2014, attached hereto as Exhibit 6.
`
`7)
`
`Plaintiff Finjan, Inc.’s Preliminary Election of Asserted Claims from Finjan, Inc.
`
`v. Symantec Corp., Case No. 14-cv-02998-HSG, dated March 3, 2017, attached
`
`hereto as Exhibit 7.
`
`8)
`
`Plaintiff Finjan, Inc.’s Supplemental Responses to Defendant Symantec Corp.’s
`
`Interrogatories (No. 1), filed as Exhibit J to the Cassidy Declaration in Support of
`
`Symantec’s Motion to Amend Its Answer to Add an Inequitable Conduct Defense
`
`from Finjan, Inc. v. Symantec Corp., Case No. 14-cv-02998-HSG, Dkt. 242-11
`
`(N.D. Cal. Aug. 18, 2017), attached hereto as Exhibit 8.
`
`9)
`
`Plaintiff Finjan, Inc.’s Final Election of Asserted Claims, filed as Exhibit H to the
`
`Cassidy Declaration in Support of Symantec’s Motion to Amend Its Answer to
`
`1 Because the complete file history of the ‘494 Patent (Ex. 6) is voluminous, Finjan has attached
`excerpted portions of the file history that contain information relevant to Finjan’s Motion. Finjan is
`prepared to submit the entire file history if the Court so requests.
`
`FINJAN’S REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE
`
`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 111 Filed 06/15/18 Page 3 of 4
`
`
`
`Add an Inequitable Conduct Defense from Finjan, Inc. v. Symantec Corp., Case
`
`No. 14-cv-02998-HSG, Dkt. 242-9 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 18, 2017), attached hereto as
`
`Exhibit 9.
`
`10)
`
`Plaintiff Finjan, Inc.’s Supplemental Responses to Defendant Symantec Corp.’s
`
`Interrogatories (Nos. 1 and 12), filed as Exhibit I to the Cassidy Declaration in
`
`Support of Symantec’s Motion to Amend Its Answer to Add an Inequitable
`
`Conduct Defense from Finjan, Inc. v. Symantec Corp., Case No. 14-cv-02998-
`HSG, Dkt. 242-10 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 18, 2017), attached hereto as Exhibit 10.2
`11) U.S. Patent No. 6,092,194, attached hereto as Exhibit 12.
`
`12) U.S. Patent No. 6,804,780, attached hereto as Exhibit 13.
`
`13) U.S. Patent No. 8,079,086, attached hereto as Exhibit 14.
`
`14) U.S. Patent No. 6,154,844, attached hereto as Exhibit 15.
`
`15) U.S. Patent Application Serial No. 11/281,839, “Ross,” IPR2016-00151, Ex. 1003,
`
`attached hereto as Exhibit 16.
`
`16)
`
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s Final Written Decision of the ‘494 Patent in Palo
`
`Alto Networks, Inc. v. Finjan, Inc., IPR2016-00159, Paper No. 50 (P.T.A.B. April
`
`11, 2017), attached hereto as Exhibit 17.
`
`MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
`
`Finjan’s request for judicial notice should be granted as the Court may take judicial notice of
`
`facts that are “not subject to reasonable dispute,” such as when they can be “accurately and readily
`
`determined from sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned.” Fed. R. Evid. 201(b)(2).
`
`The Ninth Circuit and this District authorize taking judicial notice of patents, patent file histories and
`
`patent application materials, information disclosure statements and notices of allowance. See
`
`Oroamerica Inc. v. D & W Jewelry Co., 10 Fed. App'x 516, 517, n.4 (9th Cir. 2001) (taking judicial
`
`notice of patent file histories, information disclosure statements and notices of allowance); X One, Inc.
`
`v. Uber Techs., Inc., 239 F. Supp. 3d 1174 (N.D. Cal. 2017) (taking judicial notice of patents listed in
`
`
`2 Ex. 11 to the Declaration of Kristopher Kastens filed with Finjan’s Motion was intentionally omitted.
`
`FINJAN’S REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE
`
`2
`
`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 111 Filed 06/15/18 Page 4 of 4
`
`
`
`specification of patents-in-suit where patents were matters of public record). Furthermore, the Court
`
`should take judicial notice of the remainder of the exhibits because courts may take judicial notice of
`
`its own records in different cases. 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)).
`
`The authenticity of the documents for which Finjan requests judicial notice is not subject to
`
`reasonable dispute. Accordingly, the Court should grant Finjan’s request for judicial notice.
`
`
`
`
`
`DATED: June 15, 2018
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`By: /s/ Lisa Kobialka
`
`
`Paul J. Andre (State Bar. No. 196585)
`Lisa Kobialka (State Bar No. 191404)
`James Hannah (State Bar No. 237978)
`Kristopher Kastens (State Bar No. 254797)
`KRAMER LEVIN NAFTALIS
` & FRANKEL LLP
`990 Marsh Road
`Menlo Park, CA 94025
`Telephone: (650) 752-1700
`Facsimile: (650) 752-1800
`pandre@kramerlevin.com
`lkobialka@kramerlevin.com
`jhannah@kramerlevin.com
`kkastens@kramerlevin.com
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff
`FINJAN, INC.
`
`FINJAN’S REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE
`
`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
`
`
`
`