Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 115 Filed 06/22/18 Page 1 of 36
`
`
`
`
`
`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.
`
`IRELL & MANELLA LLP
`Jonathan S. Kagan (SBN 166039)
`jkagan@irell.com
`Joshua Glucoft (SBN 301249)
`jglucoft@irell.com
`Casey Curran (SBN 305210)
`ccurran@irell.com
`Sharon Song (SBN 313535)
`ssong@irell.com
`1800 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 900
`Los Angeles, California 90067-4276
`Telephone: (310) 277-1010
`Facsimile: (310) 203-7199
`
`Rebecca Carson (SBN 254105)
`rcarson@irell.com
`Kevin Wang (SBN 318024)
`kwang@irell.com
`840 Newport Center Drive, Suite 400
`Newport Beach, California 92660-6324
`Telephone: (949) 760-0991
`Facsimile: (949) 760-5200
`
`Attorneys for Defendant
`JUNIPER NETWORKS, INC.
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
`
`
`Case No.: 3:17-cv-05659-WHA
`
`JOINT CLAIM CONSTRUCTION AND
`PRE-HEARING STATEMENT
`
`
`FINJAN, INC.,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`
`JUNIPER NETWORKS, INC.,
`
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`JOINT CLAIM CONSTRUCTION AND
`PRE-HEARING STATEMENT
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No.: 3:17-cv-05659-WHA
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 115 Filed 06/22/18 Page 2 of 36
`
`
`
`Pursuant to Patent L.R. 4-3, Plaintiff Finjan, Inc. (“Finjan”) and Defendant Juniper Networks,
`
`Inc. (“Juniper”) hereby submit this Joint Claim Construction and Pre-Hearing Statement.
`
`I.
`
`PATENT L.R. 4-3(A): PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION OF EACH AGREED TERM
`The parties’ agreed-upon claim constructions are provided below.
`U.S. Patent No. 6,154,844
`Claim Term
`Claim(s)
`Downloadable
`1, 15, 41
`
`Agreed Construction
`an executable application program, which is downloaded from a
`source computer and run on the destination computer.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,677,494
`Claim Term
`Claim(s)
`Downloadable
`10, 14, 18
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,804,780
`Claim Term
`Claim(s)
`Downloadable
`1, 9
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,613,926
`Claim Term
`Claim(s)
`Downloadable
`15, 22
`
`Agreed Construction
`an executable application program, which is downloaded from
`a source computer and run on the destination computer
`
`Agreed Construction
`an executable application program, which is downloaded from a
`source computer and run on the destination computer.
`
`Agreed Construction
`an executable application program, which is downloaded from a
`source computer and run on the destination computer.
`a collection of interrelated data organized according to a
`database schema to serve one or more applications
`PATENT L.R. 4-3(b): PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION OF EACH DISPUTED TERM
`
`database
`
`15, 22
`
`II.
`
`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
`
`The parties’ proposed additional claim constructions are provided below. All supporting
`
`evidence for the parties’ claim constructions is provided in Exhibit A. The parties reserve their rights
`
`to cite additional supporting evidence based on arguments raised in the claim construction briefs.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,154,844
`Claim Term
`Claim(s)
`
`inspector
`
`1, 15, 41
`
`Finjan’s Proposed
`Construction
`No construction necessary
`– Plain and ordinary
`meaning.
`
`Juniper’s Proposed
`Construction
`A content inspection engine
`located within an external
`computer network, that is separate
`from the network gateway
`
`
`
`JOINT CLAIM CONSTRUCTION AND
`PRE-HEARING STATEMENT
`
`
`
`1
`
`Case No.: 3:17-cv-05659-WHA
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 115 Filed 06/22/18 Page 3 of 36
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,154,844
`Claim Term
`Claim(s)
`
`1, 15, 41
`
`before a web
`server makes the
`Downloadable
`available to web
`clients
`
`Juniper’s Proposed
`Construction
`Before the Downloadable is
`available on a web server to be
`called up or forwarded to a web
`client
`
`Finjan’s Proposed
`Construction
`Plain and ordinary
`meaning. Plain and
`ordinary meaning of “web
`client” is “an application
`on the computer of an end
`user that requests a
`Downloadable from the
`web server.”
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,613,926
`Claim Term
`Claim(s) Finjan’s Proposed
`Construction
`No construction necessary –
`Plain and ordinary meaning.
`
`15, 22
`
`15, 22
`
`No construction necessary –
`Plain and ordinary meaning.
`
`transmitting the
`incoming
`Downloadable and a
`representation of the
`retrieved
`Downloadable
`security profile data
`to a destination
`computer, via a
`transport protocol
`transmission
`
`a transmitter coupled
`with said receiver, for
`transmitting the
`incoming
`Downloadable and a
`representation of the
`retrieved
`Downloadable
`security profile data
`to a destination
`computer, via a
`transport protocol
`transmission
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,647,633
`Claim Term
`Claim(s)
`
`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 Proposed
`Construction
`Sending the incoming
`Downloadable along with a
`representation of the retrieved
`Downloadable security profile
`data to a user/client computer,
`via a transport protocol
`transmission
`
`
`A transmitter coupled with said
`receiver, for sending the
`incoming Downloadable along
`with a representation of the
`retrieved Downloadable
`security profile data to a
`user/client computer, via a
`transport protocol transmission
`
`mobile protection
`code
`
`1, 8, 14 19
`
`Finjan’s Proposed
`Construction
`code that, at runtime, monitors
`
`Juniper’s Proposed
`Construction
`Code that itself, at runtime,
`
`
`
`JOINT CLAIM CONSTRUCTION AND
`PRE-HEARING STATEMENT
`
`
`
`2
`
`Case No.: 3:17-cv-05659-WHA
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 115 Filed 06/22/18 Page 4 of 36
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,647,633
`Claim Term
`Claim(s)
`
`
`
`
`
`JOINT CLAIM CONSTRUCTION AND
`PRE-HEARING STATEMENT
`
`
`
`3
`
`Case No.: 3:17-cv-05659-WHA
`
`Juniper’s Proposed
`Construction
`monitors or intercepts
`actually or potentially
`malicious code operations
`
`Indefinite under IPXL (mixed
`statutory classes) and/or
`Nautilus
`
`User/client device
`
`Finjan’s Proposed
`Construction
`or intercepts actually or
`potentially malicious code
`operations without modifying
`the code operations
`
`The typographical error in the
`preamble is corrected to read:
`
` A
`
` computer program product,
`comprising a computer usable
`medium having a computer
`readable program code therein,
`the computer readable program
`code adapted to be executed for
`computer security, comprising:
`providing a system…
`
`Plain and ordinary meaning.
`The plain and ordinary meaning
`of the terms “information-
`destination” and
`“downloadable-information
`destination” is a device or
`process that is capable of
`receiving and initiating or
`otherwise hosting a mobile code
`execution.
`
`14
`
`1, 8, 14, 19
`
`1, 8
`
`Plain and ordinary meaning.
`
`1, 8
`
`Plain and ordinary meaning.
`
`Distinguishing between two
`alternative possibilities:
`executable code is included in
`the downloadable-
`information and executable
`code is not included in the
`downloadable-information
`
`Distinguishing between two
`alternative possibilities:
`executable code is included in
`the downloadable-
`information and executable
`
`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
`
`A computer
`program product,
`comprising a
`computer usable
`medium having a
`computer readable
`program code
`therein, the
`computer readable
`program code
`adapted to be
`executed for
`computer security,
`the method
`comprising:
`information-
`destination/downlo
`adable-information
`destination
`
`If the
`downloadable-
`information is
`determined to
`include executable
`code
`
`
`determining, by the
`computer, whether
`the downloadable
`information
`includes
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 115 Filed 06/22/18 Page 5 of 36
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,647,633
`Claim Term
`Claim(s)
`
`executable code
`
`Finjan’s Proposed
`Construction
`
`
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,141,154
`Claim Term
`Claim(s)
`
`Finjan’s Proposed
`Construction
`Plain and ordinary meaning.
`
`Juniper’s Proposed
`Construction
`code is not included in the
`downloadable-information
`
`Juniper’s Proposed
`Construction
`A processor on a client
`computer for processing
`content received over a
`network, the content including
`a call to a first function, and the
`call including an input, and for
`invoking a second function with
`the input, only if a security
`computer indicates that such
`invocation is safe
`
`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
`invoking a second
`function with the
`input, only if a
`security computer
`indicates that such
`invocation is safe
`invoking a second
`function with the
`input
`
`1
`
`1
`
`1
`
`Safe
`
`III.
`
`No.
`1
`
`2
`
`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
`
`Plain and ordinary meaning.
`
`Plain and ordinary meaning.
`
`Executing a second function by
`using the input to the first
`function as the input to the
`second function
`
`Security profile does not violate
`the client computer’s security
`policy
`
`PATENT L.R. 4-3(C): IDENTIFICATION OF TERMS FOR CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`BRIEFING
`
`Patent [Claim]
`
`Term
`
`‘633 Patent [1,
`8, 14, 19]
`‘633 Patent
`[14]
`
`mobile protection code
`
`A computer program product, comprising a computer usable medium
`having a computer readable program code therein, the computer readable
`program code adapted to be executed for computer security, the method
`
`
`
`JOINT CLAIM CONSTRUCTION AND
`PRE-HEARING STATEMENT
`
`
`
`4
`
`Case No.: 3:17-cv-05659-WHA
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 115 Filed 06/22/18 Page 6 of 36
`
`
`
`Patent [Claim]
`
`No.
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`‘633 Patent
`[1, 8, 14, 19]
`‘633 Patent [1, 8]
`
`‘844 Patent [1,
`15, 41]
`‘844 Patent [1,
`15, 41]
`‘926 Patent [15,
`22]
`
`8
`
`‘154 Patent [1]
`
`‘154 Patent [1]
`9
`‘154 Patent [1]
`10
`Finjan’s Statement:
`
`comprising
`information-destination/downloadable-information destination
`
`Term
`
`If the downloadable-information is determined to include executable
`code / determining, by the computer, whether the downloadable
`information includes executable code
`Inspector
`
`Before a web server makes the Downloadable available to web clients
`
`transmitting the incoming Downloadable and a representation of the retrieved
`Downloadable security profile data to a destination computer, via a transport
`protocol transmission / a transmitter coupled with said receiver, for
`transmitting the incoming Downloadable and a representation of the retrieved
`Downloadable security profile data to a destination computer, via a transport
`protocol transmission
`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 invoking a second function with the input, only if a
`security computer indicates that such invocation is safe
`invoking a second function with the input
`safe
`
`This Court made clear that it construes six terms rather than ten during the claim construction
`
`process. See Amended Case Management Order (Dkt. 35) at page 7. To that end, Finjan identified the
`
`first three terms, namely “mobile protection code,” “a computer program product…,” and “information
`
`destination,” for its half of the six total terms that the Court will construe.
`
`Over Finjan’s objection, Juniper insisted on identifying seven additional terms in this Patent
`
`L.R. 4-3(c) disclosure. Notably, Juniper’s identification of seven terms is in addition to the three more
`
`terms from the ‘780 Patent that it seeks to have construed as part of its opening early summary
`
`judgment motion and any further terms Juniper seeks a construction for based on the ‘494 Patent. See
`
`Dkt. 96 at 4-9. Finjan objects to Juniper’s inclusion of at least ten terms, so far, which is seven terms
`
`more than the Court restricted the parties to in the Amended Case Management Order. Dkt. 35.
`
`Juniper’s argument below that it will be “highly prejudiced” by following the Court’s Amended
`
`Case Management Order for six terms is specious as it never sought relief in light of the Court’s ruling.
`
`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
`
`
`
`JOINT CLAIM CONSTRUCTION AND
`PRE-HEARING STATEMENT
`
`
`
`5
`
`Case No.: 3:17-cv-05659-WHA
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 115 Filed 06/22/18 Page 7 of 36
`
`
`
`To the extent Juniper wished to construe more than 6 terms, it should have brought a motion to the
`
`Court. Further, Juniper’s argument below regarding plain and ordinary meaning is also misplaced,
`
`since “claim terms should be given their ordinary and customary meaning” unless there is a clear
`
`disavowal in the specification. Finjan, Inc. v. Proofpoint, Inc., No. 3:13-cv-05808-HSG, 2015 WL
`
`7770208, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 3, 2015) (citing Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312-13 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2005) (en banc). As such, it is completely appropriate for Finjan to propose the plain and ordinary
`
`meaning for terms when there is no disavowal in the intrinsic record and those of skill in the art readily
`
`understand the terms.
`
`Finjan does not consider any of the disputed terms case or claim dispositive.
`
`Juniper’s Statement
`
`
`
`Juniper considers each term identified above pursuant to Patent L.R. 4-3(c) to be highly
`
`significant to the resolution of the case because each term is individually claim dispositive and may be
`
`collectively case dispositive.
`
`Patent Local Rule 4-3(c) states that the Joint Claim Construction Statement must include an
`
`“identification of the terms whose construction will be most significant to the resolution of the case up
`
`to a maximum of 10.” There are only 10 terms still in dispute between the parties, each of which is
`
`highly significant to the resolution of the case because they are each claim dispositive, and therefore
`
`each of the 10 terms is presented in the Patent L.R. 4-3(c) table above as required.
`
`Juniper understands that the Court has indicated that it prefers 6 terms rather than 10. See Dkt.
`
`No. 35 at ¶ 20. However, in view of Finjan’s overbroad and ungrounded application of the disputed
`
`claim terms in its Infringement Contentions, Juniper would be highly prejudiced if it was relegated to
`
`construing only 6 claim terms across 4 patents (the ‘844, ‘926, ‘633, and ‘154 Patents). Additionally,
`
`Finjan proposes construing 8 of the 10 disputed terms as simply “plain and ordinary” meaning without
`
`clarification as to what exactly that “plain and ordinary” meaning actually is (for example, whether
`
`such “plain and ordinary” meaning may be ascertained from any random technical or non-technical
`
`dictionary) or how that “plain and ordinary” meaning comports with the incredibly broad application
`
`of those terms as they appear in Finjan’s Infringement Contentions. Under these circumstances,
`
`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
`
`
`
`JOINT CLAIM CONSTRUCTION AND
`PRE-HEARING STATEMENT
`
`
`
`6
`
`Case No.: 3:17-cv-05659-WHA
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 115 Filed 06/22/18 Page 8 of 36
`
`
`
`Juniper believes that all 10 terms in dispute should be construed. See O2 Micro Intern. Ltd. v. Beyond
`
`Innovation Technology Co., Ltd., 521 F.3d 1351, 1361-62 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (“A determination that a
`
`claim term ‘needs no construction’ or has the ‘plain and ordinary meaning’ may be inadequate when a
`
`term has more than one ‘ordinary’ meaning or when reliance on a term’s ‘ordinary’ meaning does not
`
`resolve the parties’ dispute. . . . When the parties present a fundamental dispute regarding the scope of
`
`a claim term, it is the court’s duty to resolve it.”).
`
`The parties have already collected the evidence, so Finjan’s opposition to construing more than
`
`6 terms cannot be based on any additional burden that will be borne by Finjan in briefing the remaining
`
`10 disputed terms; rather, Finjan’s opposition is evidence that Finjan’s motive is to avoid attaching any
`
`meaning to the claim terms by hiding behind their “plain and ordinary” meaning (whatever that is) so
`
`that it can continue to assert the claims in the overbroad and untethered manner shown in their
`
`Infringement Contentions.
`IV.
`
`PATENT L.R. 4-3(d): TIME FOR CLAIM CONSTRUCTION HEARING.
`
`Juniper understands that “[i]nstead of a claim construction hearing, claim construction will now
`
`be done on summary judgment or at trial in settling the jury instructions.” See Dkt. No. 35 at ¶ 16.
`
`Should the Court decide, however, to hold a claim construction hearing, Juniper anticipates that the
`
`parties will require at least four hours for the hearing, including a tutorial on the relevant technology.
`
`Finjan anticipates that the parties will not require more than three (3) hours for the entire claim
`
`construction hearing.
`V.
`
`PATENT L.R. 4-3(e): WITNESSES AT CLAIM CONSTRUCTION HEARING.
`
`Finjan’s Statement:
`
`Finjan intends to offer a declaration and may present live witness testimony from Dr. Nenad
`
`Medvidovic, University of Southern California, 941 Bloom Walk, Los Angeles, CA 90089, regarding a
`
`tutorial of the relevant technology, the technical background of the asserted patents, the qualifications
`
`of one of skill in the art at the time of the inventions, how the above terms are understood by one of
`
`skill in the art, and to support Finjan’s claim construction positions. Furthermore, Dr. Nenad
`
`Medvidovic will and rebut any testimony or opinions offered by Defendant’s expert witness.
`
`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
`
`
`
`JOINT CLAIM CONSTRUCTION AND
`PRE-HEARING STATEMENT
`
`
`
`7
`
`Case No.: 3:17-cv-05659-WHA
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 115 Filed 06/22/18 Page 9 of 36
`
`
`
`Juniper’s Statement:
`
`Juniper may offer a rebuttal declaration and present live rebuttal testimony form Dr. Aviel D.
`
`Rubin, Professor at Johns Hopkins University, regarding the meaning of the disputed terms from the
`
`perspective of one of ordinary skill in the art based on the intrinsic record and extrinsic evidence, and
`
`regarding the scope and intent of the disputed claims, the relevant technology, and the state of the art.
`
`Juniper may also offer a declaration and testimony from Dr. Rubin to establish that the term “A
`
`computer program product, comprising a computer usable medium having a computer readable
`
`program code therein, the computer readable program code adapter to be executed for computer
`
`security, the method comprising” is indefinite from the perspective of one of ordinary skill in the art.
`
`///
`///
`
`///
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`JOINT CLAIM CONSTRUCTION AND
`PRE-HEARING STATEMENT
`
`
`
`8
`
`Case No.: 3:17-cv-05659-WHA
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 115 Filed 06/22/18 Page 10 of 36
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated: June 22, 2018
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`
`By: /s/ Kristopher Kastens
`Paul J. Andre (SBN 196585)
`Lisa Kobialka (SBN 191404)
`James Hannah (SBN 237978)
`Kristopher Kastens (SBN 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.
`
`Dated: June 22, 2018
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`By: /s/ Rebecca Carson
`
`Rebecca L. Carson (SBN 254105)
`rcarson@irell.com
`IRELL & MANELLA LLP
`840 Newport Center Drive, Suite 400
`Newport Beach, California 92660-6324
`Telephone: (949) 760-0991
`Facsimile: (949) 760-5200
`
`Attorneys for Defendant
`JUNIPER NETWORKS, INC.
`
`ATTESTATION PURSUANT TO L.R. 5-1(I)
`
`In accordance with Civil Local Rule 5-1(i)(3), I attest that concurrence in the filing of this
`
`document has been obtained from any other signatory to this document.
`
`/s/ Kristopher Kastens
`Kristopher Kastens
`
`
`
`9
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`JOINT CLAIM CONSTRUCTION AND
`PRE-HEARING STATEMENT
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 115 Filed 06/22/18 Page 11 of 36
`
`I.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,154,844
`
`Claim Term
`inspector
`
`Claim (s)
`1, 15, 41
`
`EXHIBIT A
`
`
`Finjan’s Proposed Construction
`Plain and ordinary meaning
`
`Intrinsic Evidence
`Exemplary citations include:
`‘844 patent at:
`Abstract;
`Claims 1-41, 43;
`FIGS. 1-8;
`Col. 1, ll. 6-19, 23-58, 62-67;
`Col. 2, ll. 1-67;
`Col. 3, ll. 1-7, 32-67;
`Col. 4, ll. 1-67;
`Col. 5, ll. 1-67;
`Col. 6, ll. 1-24, 66-67;
`Col. 7, ll. 1-40, 49-67;
`Col. 8, ll. 1-5, 36-67;
`Col. 9, ll. 1-67;
`Col. 10, ll. 1-24;
`Col. 11, ll. 1-11.
`‘844 Patent File History
`
`Extrinsic Evidence
`Testimony from Dr. Nenad Medvidovic
`regarding the proper construction of the
`term “inspector” from the perspective of
`one of skill in the art based on the
`intrinsic record and extrinsic evidence.
`
`Any intrinsic and extrinsic evidence
`relied upon by Juniper.
`
`
`1
`
`Juniper’s Proposed Construction
`Proposed Construction: a content
`inspection engine located within an
`external computer network, that is
`separate from the network gateway
`
`Supporting Evidence
`
`‘844 Patent, e.g.: 2:3-11; 2:61-3:2; 3:58-
`60; 3:66-4:34; 4:59-64; 5:1-13; 5:48-58;
`6:66-7:9; 7:33-40; 8:51-60; 9:5-18; Claims
`1, 11, 15, 41, 43; Figures 2, 4
`
`File History – 2000-05-16 Applicant
`Arguments/Remarks.
`
`Patent Application No. 08/964,388
`(incorporated into ‘844 Prosecution
`History) at, e.g.: p. 4, 5
`
`Provisional Application No. 60/030,639
`(incorporated into ‘844 Prosecution
`History) at, e.g.: p. 19
`
`Ex parte reexamination 90/013,653, e.g.:
`Decision Granting Ex Parte
`Reexamination, p. 6
`
`Juniper may provide rebuttal testimony
`from Dr. Avi Rubin, in response to any
`expert testimony offered by Finjan,
`regarding the meaning of this term from
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 115 Filed 06/22/18 Page 12 of 36
`
`before a web server makes
`the Downloadable available
`to web clients
`
`1, 15, 41
`
`Juniper’s invalidity contentions.
`
`Finjan reserves the right to supplement
`its disclosure of intrinsic and extrinsic
`evidence based on the construction
`Juniper proposes for this term.
`Plain and ordinary meaning. Plain and
`ordinary meaning of “web client” is “an
`application on the computer of an end
`user that requests a Downloadable from
`the web server.”
`
`Claim Construction Orders
`October 20, 2014 Claim Construction
`Order – Finjan, Inc. v. Blue Coat, Inc.,
`Case No. 5:13-cv-03999-BLF (N.D. Cal.)
`
`December 3, 2015 Claim Construction
`Order– Finjan, Inc. v. Proofpoint, Inc., et
`al., 3:13-cv-05808-HSG (N.D. Cal.)
`
`March 2, 2015 Claim Construction Order
`–Finjan, Inc. v. Sophos, Inc., Case No.
`14-cv-01197-WHO (N.D. Cal.)
`
`February 10, 2017 Claim Construction
`Order– Finjan, Inc. v. Symantec Corp.,
`Civ. No. 14-cv-02998-HSG.
`
`Intrinsic Evidence
`Exemplary citations include:
`‘844 patent at Abstract;
`Claims 1, 15, 22, 23, 32, 41, 42, 43, 44;
`Figs. 1-8 (Fig. 1 shows web server as
`distinct from network gateway);
`
`the perspective of one of ordinary skill in
`the art based on the intrinsic record and
`extrinsic evidence, and regarding the
`scope and intent of this claim, the relevant
`technology, and the state of the art.
`
`Proposed Construction: Before the
`Downloadable is available on a web server
`to be called up or forwarded to a web
`client
`
`Supporting Evidence
`
`‘844 Patent, e.g.: 3:32-52; 4:65-5:33;
`8:36-9:18; 10:25-50; Claims 22, 24, 32;
`Figures 1, 6, 8
`
`‘844 Prosecution History, e.g.: May 16,
`2000 Response to Non-Final Rejection at,
`e.g., p. 2, 5, 6
`
`Ex parte reexamination 90/013,653, e.g.:
`Decision Granting Ex Parte
`Reexamination, p. 6
`
`IPR2015-01894, e.g.: Paper 6 at, e.g., p.
`10
`
`IPR2016-00498, Paper 8 at, e.g., p. 17
`
`Juniper may provide rebuttal testimony
`from Dr. Avi Rubin, in response to any
`expert testimony offered by Finjan,
`regarding the meaning of this term from
`the perspective of one of ordinary skill in
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 115 Filed 06/22/18 Page 13 of 36
`
`the art based on the intrinsic record and
`extrinsic evidence, and regarding the
`scope and intent of this claim, the relevant
`technology, and the state of the art.
`
`Col. 1, ll. 62 – 63 (purpose of invention
`is “protecting a network from suspicious
`Downloadables”);
`Col. 2, ll. 65 – 67;
`Col. 3, ll. 1 – 2, 33-67;
`Col. 4, ll. 1-58;
`Col. 5, ll. 3-33, 59-65;
`Col. 6, ll. 13–24;
`Col. 7, ll. 41–67;
`Col. 8, ll. 1 – 36; 65-67;
`Col. 9, ll. 5-18;
`Col. 10, ll. 66-67;
`Col. 11, ll. 1-11;
`
`U.S. Pat. No. 6,092,194, including:
`Figs. 1-5;
`Col. 1, ll. 60-67;
`Col. 2, ll. 1-36; 65-67;
`Col. 3, ll. 1-67;
`Col. 4, ll. 1-67;
`Col. 5, ll. 1-3; 15-67;
`Col. 6, ll. 1-67;
`Col. 7, ll. 1-6;
`Col. 9, ll. 24 – 28, 34 – 42, 57-67;
`Col. 10, ll. 1-6.
`
`‘844 Patent File History including: First
`Office Action on September 2, 1999 at 6-
`7; November 23, 1999 Response to Non-
`Final Office Action; February 8, 2000
`Non-Final Rejection; Applicant
`Amendment on May16, 2000 at 5; and
`July 13, 2000 Notice of
`Allowance.
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 115 Filed 06/22/18 Page 14 of 36
`
`Symantec Corp. v. Finjan, Inc., IPR2015-
`01894, PTAB Decision Denying
`Institution of Inter Partes Review, Paper
`No. 7.
`
`Extrinsic Evidence
`Testimony from Dr. Nenad Medvidovic
`regarding the proper construction of the
`term “before a web server makes the
`Downloadable available to web clients”
`from the perspective of one of skill in the
`art based on the intrinsic record and
`extrinsic evidence.
`
`October 14, 2014, Joint Claim
`Construction and Pre-Hearing Statement
`Pursuant to Patent Local Rule 4-3,
`Finjan, Inc. v. Sophos Inc., Civ. No. 14-
`cv-01197-WHO.
`
`April 12, 2016 Summary Judgment Order
`- Finjan, Inc. v. Proofpoint, Inc. et al.,
`Case No. 3:13-cv-05808-HSG (N.D.
`Cal.)
`
`May 24, 2016 Summary Judgment Order
`Finjan, Inc. v. Sophos, Inc., Case No. 14-
`cv- 01197-WHO (N.D. Cal.)
`
`July 18, 2016 Post-Trial Order, Case No.
`13-CV-03999-BLF (N.D. Cal.)
`
`February 10, 2017 Claim Construction
`Order – Finjan, Inc. v. Symantec Inc.,
`Civ. No. 3:14-cv-02998-HSG (adopting
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 115 Filed 06/22/18 Page 15 of 36
`
`Finjan’s construction).
`
`Dictionary/Treatise Definitions
`Webster’s New World Dictionary of
`Computer Terms (1997) at 546.
`
`Any intrinsic and extrinsic evidence
`relied upon by Juniper.
`
`Juniper’s Invalidity Contentions.
`
`Finjan reserves the right to supplement
`its disclosure of intrinsic and extrinsic
`evidence based on the construction
`Juniper proposes for this term.
`
`
`Finjan’s Proposed Construction
`Plain and ordinary meaning.
`
`Intrinsic Evidence
`Exemplary citations include:
`Abstract;
`Figs. 1-12b;
`Claims 1, 8, 15, 22;
`Col. 3, ll. 49-62;
`Col. 8, ll. 17-64;
`Col. 9, ll. 49-62;
`Col. 11, ll. 41-57;
`Col. 12, ll. 3-13, 44-67;
`Col. 13, ll. 1-3, 25-38;
`Col. 14, ll. 56-63; and
`
`5
`
`Juniper’s Proposed Construction
`Proposed Construction: “sending the
`incoming Downloadable along with a
`representation of the retrieved
`Downloadable security profile data to a
`user/client computer, via a transport
`protocol transmission”
`
`Supporting Evidence
`
`‘926 Patent, e.g.: 2:27-32; 3:48-55; 3:58-
`4:8; 6:19-33; 6:60-7:6; 7:6-27; 7:41-48;
`7:63-67; 9:49-56; 10:51-59; 11:24-30;
`Claims 1, 8, 15, 22, 29-30; Figures 1b-c
`
`
`
`
`II.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,613,926
`
`Claim (s)
`15, 22
`
`Claim Term
`transmitting the incoming
`Downloadable and a
`representation of the retrieved
`Downloadable security profile
`data to a destination computer,
`via a transport protocol
`transmission
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 115 Filed 06/22/18 Page 16 of 36
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,092,194, e.g.: 1:29-2:5;
`5:2-3; 6:9-12; 6:13-19; Claims 1, 12-15,
`21, 30, 32, 37-39, 44-45, 53, 64-65;
`Figures 5, 6b-c
`
`‘633 Patent, e.g.: 2:20-25; 3:41-48; 3:51-
`67; 6:12-38; 6:54-67; 7:1-21; 7:36-42;
`7:58-62; 9:44-51; 10:46-54; 11:19-25;
`Claims 1, 14; Figures 1b-c, 7, 8
`
`‘633 Prosecution History, e.g.: May 26,
`2009 Amendment and Response to Office
`Action Under 37 C.F.R. § 1.111 at, e.g., p.
`14-20
`
`IPR2015-00907, e.g., Paper No. 8 at 25-
`26; Paper No. 7 at p. 32-34
`
`IPR2015-01974, e.g.: Paper No. 49 at,
`e.g., p. 11
`
`Juniper may provide rebuttal testimony
`from Dr. Avi Rubin, in response to any
`expert testimony offered by Finjan,
`regarding the meaning of this term from
`the perspective of one of ordinary skill in
`the art based on the intrinsic record and
`extrinsic evidence, and regarding the
`scope and intent of this claim, the relevant
`technology, and the state of the art.
`
`Col. 16, ll. 22-55.
`
`‘780 Patent, including:
`Abstract;
`Figs. 1–8;
`Col. 1, ll. 65–67;
`Col. 2, ll. 1–27;
`Col. 4, ll. 4–67;
`Col. 5, ll. 1–67;
`Col. 6, ll. 1–67;
`Col. 7, ll. 1–67;
`Col. 8, ll. 1–67;
`Col. 9, ll. 1–67;
`Col. 10, ll. 1–20.
`
`‘780 Patent File History, including:
`Provisional Application No.
`60/030,639;
`June 26, 2003 Non-Final Rejection;
`July 1, 2003 Office Action;
`August 4, 2003 Response to Non-Final
`Office Action;
`October 27, 2003 Final Rejection;
`February 27, 2004 Request for Continued
`Examination; and
`May 17, 2004 Examiner’s Amendment.
`
`‘194 Patent, including:
`Abstract;
`Figs. 3, 8;
`Col. 3, ll. 62–67;
`Col. 4, ll. 1–67.
`
`Sophos, Inc., v. Finjan, Inc., Case No.
`IPR2015-00907, Paper 8 at 13 (P.T.A.B.
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 115 Filed 06/22/18 Page 17 of 36
`
`Sept. 24, 2015) - Decision Denying
`Institution of Inter Partes Review
`
`Extrinsic Evidence
`Testimony from Dr. Nenad Medvidovic
`regarding the plain and ordinary meaning
`of the term from the perspective of one of
`skill in the art based on the intrinsic
`record and extrinsic evidence.
`
`Any intrinsic and extrinsic evidence
`relied upon by Juniper.
`
`Juniper’s Invalidity Contentions.
`
`Finjan reserves the right to supplement its
`disclosure of intrinsic and extrinsic
`evidence based on the construction
`Juniper proposes for this term.
`
`
`Plain and ordinary meaning.
`
`Intrinsic Evidence
`Exemplary citations include:
`Abstract;
`Figs. 1-12b;
`Claims 1, 8, 15, 22;
`Col. 3, ll. 49-62;
`Col. 8, ll. 17-64;
`Col. 9, ll. 49-62;
`Col. 11, ll. 41-57;
`Col. 12, ll. 3-13, 44-67;
`Col. 13, ll. 1-3, 25-38;
`Col. 14, ll. 56-63; and
`
`7
`
`Proposed Construction: “A transmitter
`coupled with said receiver, for sending the
`incoming Downloadable along with a
`representation of the retrieved
`Downloadable security profile data to a
`user/client computer, via a transport
`protocol transmission”
`
`Supporting Evidence
`
`‘926 Patent, e.g.: 2:27-32; 3:48-55; 3:58-
`4:8; 6:19-33; 6:60-7:6; 7:6-27; 7:41-48;
`7:63-67; 9:49-56; 10:51-59; 11:24-30;
`Claims 1, 8, 15, 22, 29-30; Figures 1b-c
`
`15, 22
`
`a transmitter coupled with said
`receiver, for transmitting the
`incoming Downloadable and a
`representation of the retrieved
`Downloadable security profile
`data to a destination computer,
`via a transport protocol
`transmission
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 115 Filed 06/22/18 Page 18 of 36
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,092,194, e.g.: 1:29-2:5;
`5:2-3; 6:9-12; 6:13-19; Claims 1, 12-15,
`21, 30, 32, 37-39, 44-45, 53, 64-65;
`Figures 5, 6b-c
`
`‘633 Patent, e.g.: 2:20-25; 3:41-48; 3:51-
`67; 6:12-38; 6:54-67; 7:1-21; 7:36-42;
`7:58-62; 9:44-51; 10:46-54; 11:19-25;
`Claims 1, 14; Figures 1b-c, 7, 8
`
`‘633 Prosecution History, e.g.: May 26,
`2009 Amendment and Response to Office
`Action Under 37 C.F.R. § 1.111 at, e.g., p.
`14-20
`
`IPR2015-00907, e.g., Paper No. 8 at 25-
`26; Paper No. 7 at p. 32-34
`
`IPR2015-01974, e.g.: Paper No. 49 at,
`e.g., p. 11
`
`Juniper may provide rebuttal testimony
`from Dr. Avi Rubin, in respo