Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 129 Filed 06/28/18 Page 1 of 49
`
`
`
`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.
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
`
`FINJAN, INC., a Delaware Corporation,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`
`JUNIPER NETWORKS, INC., a Delaware
`Corporation,
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`Case No.: 3:17-cv-05659-WHA
`
`PLAINTIFF FINJAN, INC.’S OPPOSITION
`TO DEFENDANT JUNIPER NETWORKS,
`INC.’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY
`JUDGMENT
`
`Date:
`Time:
`Courtroom:
`Before:
`
`
`July 26, 2018
`8:00 a.m.
`Courtroom 12, 19th Floor
`Hon. William Alsup
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`REDACTED VERSION OF DOCUMENT SOUGHT TO BE SEALED
`
`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
`
`
`
`FINJAN’S OPPOSITION TO JUNIPER’S
`MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`
`
`
`CASE NO. 3:17-cv-05659-WHA
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 129 Filed 06/28/18 Page 2 of 49
`
`
`
`STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES TO BE DECIDED
`
`Should the Court deny Juniper’s motion for summary judgment because Claim 1 of
`1.
`U.S. Patent No. 6,804,780 (the “‘780 Patent”)1 is patent eligible?
`Due to Juniper’s infringement of Claim 1 of the ’780 Patent, are there issues of material
`2.
`fact that require Juniper’s Motion for Summary Judgment be denied?
`Are there undisputed facts that require the Court to deny Juniper’s Motion for Summary
`3.
`
`Judgment seeking to improperly limit damages for infringement of Claim 1 of the ‘780 Patent under
`
`35 U.S.C. § 287?
`
`
`1 Dkt. No. 96-5, Exhibit 1 to the Declaration of Rebecca Carson in Support of Juniper’s Motion for
`Summary Judgment (“Carson Decl.”).
`
`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
`
`
`
`FINJAN’S OPPOSITION TO JUNIPER’S
`MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`
`i
`
`CASE NO. 3:17-cv-05659-WHA
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 129 Filed 06/28/18 Page 3 of 49
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES TO BE DECIDED................................................................................ i
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................ 1
`
`II. BACKGROUND .............................................................................................................................. 1
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`Overview of the ‘780 Patent and The Elements of Claim 1 ............................................. 1
`
`Benefits of the ‘780 Patent ................................................................................................ 2
`
`Cases ‘780 Patent Found Infringed ................................................................................... 4
`
`Overview of Juniper’s Accused Products ......................................................................... 4
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`SRX Gateways ...................................................................................................... 4
`
`Sky ATP ................................................................................................................ 5
`
`III. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION .............................................................................................................. 6
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`Software Components Required to be Executed by the Downloadable ........................... 7
`
`Fetching at least One Software Component Identified by the One or More
`References ......................................................................................................................... 9
`
`Performing a Hashing Function on the Downloadable and the Fetched Software
`Components to Generate a Downloadable ID ................................................................ 12
`
`IV.
`
`The SRX Gateways with Sky ATP Infringe Claim 1 of the ‘780 Patent .................................... 14
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`Preamble – “A computer-based method for generating a Downloadable ID to
`identify a Downloadable, comprising:” .......................................................................... 15
`
`Element 1(a) – “obtaining a Downloadable that includes one or more references
`to software components required to be executed by the Downloadable” ....................... 16
`
`Element 1(b) – “fetching at least one software component identified by the one
`or more references” ......................................................................................................... 17
`
`1.
`
`Doctrine of Equivalents ...................................................................................... 19
`
`Element 1(c) – “performing a hashing function on the Downloadable and the
`fetched software components to generate a Downloadable ID” ..................................... 20
`
`1.
`
`Juniper’s Non-Infringement Arguments ............................................................. 21
`
`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
`
`
`
`FINJAN’S OPPOSITION TO JUNIPER’S
`MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`
`i
`
`CASE NO. 3:17-cv-05659-WHA
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 129 Filed 06/28/18 Page 4 of 49
`
`
`
`V. Claim 1 Is Eligible Under 35 U.S.C. § 101 .................................................................................... 23
`
`A.
`
`Claim 1 Is Directed to a Non-Abstract Idea .................................................................... 24
`
`1.
`
`The ’780 Patent Is Directed To Improvements In Computer
`Functionality. ...................................................................................................... 24
`
`a.
`
`b.
`
`Claim 1 Recites Specific, Concrete Steps. .............................................. 26
`
`Juniper’s Arguments Mischaracterize the Invention of Claim 1. ........... 27
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`Claim 1 Contains Inventive Concepts............................................................................. 31
`
`Questions of Material Fact Preclude Juniper’s Section 101 Challenge of Claim 1 ........ 32
`
`Finjan Complied with 35 U.S.C. § 287 and Is Entitled to Pre-Suit Damages ............................ 33
`
`
`
`VI.
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`FINJAN’S OPPOSITION TO JUNIPER’S
`MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`
`ii
`
`CASE NO. 3:17-cv-05659-WHA
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 129 Filed 06/28/18 Page 5 of 49
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`
`Page(s)
`
`Federal Cases
`
`24/7 Customer, Inc. v. LivePerson, Inc.,
`No. 15-CV-02897-JST, 2017 WL 2311272 (N.D. Cal. May 25, 2017) ........................................... 27
`
`Aatrix Software, Inc. v. Green Shades Software, Inc.,
`882 F.3d 1121 (Fed. Cir. 2018)......................................................................................................... 32
`
`Accent Packaging, Inc. v. Leggett & Platt, Inc.,
`707 F.3d 1318 (Fed. Cir. 2013)..................................................................................................... 8, 10
`
`Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int'l,
`134 S.Ct. 2347 (2014) ..................................................................................................... 23, 24, 26, 27
`
`Amdocs (Israel) Ltd. v. Openet Telecom, Inc.,
`841 F.3d 1288 (Fed. Cir. 2016)......................................................................................................... 31
`
`Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.,
`477 U.S. 242 (1986) .......................................................................................................................... 15
`
`Arctic Cat Inc. v. Bombardier Recreational Prod. Inc.,
`876 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2017)................................................................................................... 38, 39
`
`Arthrex, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc.,
`Case No. 15-cv-1047-RSP, Dkt. No. 275 (E.D. Tex. Nov. 29, 2016) .............................................. 36
`
`Bascom Global Internet Servs., Inc. v. AT&T Mobility LLC,
`827 F.3d 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2016)............................................................................................. 23, 31, 32
`
`Berkheimer v. HP Inc.,
`881 F.3d 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2018)............................................................................................. 23, 32, 33
`
`Blitzsafe Texas, LLC v. Honda Motor Co., Ltd.,
`No. 2:15-cv-1274-JRG-RSP, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 58358
`(E.D. Tex. Jan. 26, 2017) ............................................................................................................ 39, 40
`
`Bradford Co. v. Jefferson Smurfit Corp.,
`No. 2000-1511, 2001 WL 35738792 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 31, 2001).................................................. 33, 34
`
`Brocade Commc’n Sys., Inc. v. A10 Networks, Inc.,
`873 F. Supp. 2d 1192 (N.D. Cal. 2012) ............................................................................................ 15
`
`Content Extraction Transmission LLC v Wells Fargo Bank, Nat’l Ass’n,
`776 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2014)......................................................................................................... 28
`
`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
`
`
`
`FINJAN’S OPPOSITION TO JUNIPER’S
`MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`
`iii
`
`CASE NO. 3:17-cv-05659-WHA
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 129 Filed 06/28/18 Page 6 of 49
`
`
`
`Crown Packaging Tech., Inc. v. Rexam Beverage Can Co.,
`559 F.3d 1308 (Fed. Cir. 2009)......................................................................................................... 38
`
`DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P.,
`773 F.3d 1245 (Fed. Cir. 2014)................................................................................................... 26, 30
`
`Elec. Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A.,
`830 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016)......................................................................................................... 28
`
`Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp.,
`822 F.3d 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2016)................................................................................................... 26, 30
`
`Exergen Corp. v. Kaz USA, Inc.,
`No. 2016-2315, 2018 WL 1193529 (Fed. Cir. 2018) ................................................................. 32, 33
`
`Finjan, Inc. v. Blue Coat Sys., Inc.,
`879 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2018).................................................................................................. passim
`
`Finjan, Inc. v. Blue Coat Sys., Inc.,
`No. 13-cv-03999-BLF, 2016 WL 3880774 (N.D. Cal. July 18, 2016) ...................................... passim
`
`Finjan, Inc. v. Blue Coat Systems, Inc.,
`No. 13-cv-03999-BLF, 2014 WL 5361976 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 20, 2014)............................................. 12
`
`Finjan, Inc. v. Blue Coat Systems, Inc.,
`No. 13-cv-03999-BLF, 2015 WL 3630000 (N.D. Cal. June 2, 2015) .............................................. 14
`
`Finjan, Inc. v. ESET, LLC,
`No. 17-cv-00183-CAB-(BGS), 2017 WL 5501338 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 14, 2017) ............................... 12
`
`Finjan, Inc. v. Secure Computing Corp.,
`No. 06-369 GMS, 2008 WL 9878538 (D. Del. Mar. 12, 2008) ......................................................... 4
`
`Finjan, Inc. v. Secure Computing Corp.,
`No. 06-369 (GMS), Dkt. No. 142 (D. Del. Dec. 11, 2007) .............................................................. 12
`
`Finjan, Inc. v. Sophos, Inc.,
`244 F. Supp. 3d 1016 (N.D. Cal. 2017) ........................................................................................ 4, 14
`
`Finjan, Inc. v. Symantec Corp.,
`No. 14-cv-02998-HSG, 2017 WL 550453 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 10, 2017) ........................................ 12, 13
`
`Gart v. Logitech, Inc.,
`254 F.3d 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2001)................................................................................................... 34, 37
`
`Info-Hold, Inc. v. Applied Media Techs. Corp.,
`783 F.3d 1262 (Fed. Cir. 2015)......................................................................................................... 13
`
`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
`
`
`
`FINJAN’S OPPOSITION TO JUNIPER’S
`MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`
`iv
`
`CASE NO. 3:17-cv-05659-WHA
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 129 Filed 06/28/18 Page 7 of 49
`
`
`
`Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Financial Corp.,
`850 F.3d 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2017)......................................................................................................... 28
`
`Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indemnity Co.,
`200 F. Supp. 3d 565 (W.D. Penn. 2016) ........................................................................................... 28
`
`Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp.,
`100 F. Supp. 3d 371 (D. Del. 2015) ............................................................................................ 29, 30
`
`Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp,
`838 F.3d 1307 (Fed. Cir. 2016)......................................................................................................... 30
`
`Landmark Tech. LLC v. Assurant, Inc.,
`No. 15-cv-76-RWS-SDL, 2015 WL 4388311 (E.D. Tex. July 14, 2015) ........................................ 29
`
`McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc.,
`837 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2016)......................................................................................................... 26
`
`Oatey Co. v. IPS Corp.,
`514 F.3d 1271 (Fed. Cir. 2008)......................................................................................................... 13
`
`On-Line Techs., Inc. v. Bodenseewerk Perkin-Elmer GmbH,
`386 F.3d 1133, 1138 (Fed. Cir. 2004)................................................................................................. 8
`
`Palo Alto Networks, Inc. v. Finjan, Inc.,
`Case IPR2016-00165, Paper No. 7 (P.T.A.B. April 21, 2016) .................................................. passim
`
`Phillips v. AWH Corp.,
`415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005)........................................................................................................... 8
`
`Realtime Data, LLC, v. Actian Corp.,
`No. 15-cv-463 RWS-JDL, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 56950 (E.D. Tex. April 4, 2017) ................ 39, 40
`
`RecogniCorp, LLC v. Nintendo Co.,
`855 F.3d 1322 (Fed. Cir. 2017)......................................................................................................... 30
`
`SAS Inst., Inc. v. ComplementSoft, LLC,
`825 F.3d 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2016)........................................................................................................... 8
`
`SRI Int’l v. Matsushita Elec. Corp. of Am.,
`775 F.2d 1107 (Fed. Cir. 1985)......................................................................................................... 19
`
`Symantec Corp. v. Zscaler, Inc.,
`No. 17-cv-04426-JST, 2018 WL 1456678 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 23, 2018) ....................................... 29, 31
`
`Tech. Props. Ltd. v. Huawei Techs. Co.,
`849 F.3d 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2017)......................................................................................................... 10
`
`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
`
`
`
`FINJAN’S OPPOSITION TO JUNIPER’S
`MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`
`v
`
`CASE NO. 3:17-cv-05659-WHA
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 129 Filed 06/28/18 Page 8 of 49
`
`
`
`Tessenderlo Kerley, Inc. v. Or-Cal, Inc.,
`No. C 11-04100 WHA, 2012 WL 2054994 (N.D. Cal. June 5, 2012).............................................. 34
`
`Thales Visionix Inc. v. United States,
`850 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2017)................................................................................................... 27, 30
`
`Trading Techs. Int'l, Inc. v. CQG, Inc.,
`675 F. App’x 1001 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ..................................................................................... 23, 26, 30
`
`Tranxition, Inc. v. Lenovo (U.S.) Inc.,
`No. 12-xc-01065-HZ, 2015 WL 4203469 (D. Ore. July 9, 2015) .................................................... 29
`
`Wine Ry. Appliance Co. v. Enter. Ry. Equip. Co.,
`297 U.S. 387 (1936) .......................................................................................................................... 40
`
`Federal Statutes
`
`35 U.S.C. § 101 ........................................................................................................................... 23, 32, 33
`
`35 U.S.C. § 287 ................................................................................................................................. 33, 38
`
`Other Authorities
`
`Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 56 .......................................................................................... 33, 34
`
`Federal Rules of Evidence Rule 408 ....................................................................................................... 38
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`FINJAN’S OPPOSITION TO JUNIPER’S
`MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`
`vi
`
`CASE NO. 3:17-cv-05659-WHA
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 129 Filed 06/28/18 Page 9 of 49
`
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`Juniper’s Motion for Summary Judgment (“Motion”) should be denied because Juniper infringes
`
`patent eligible Claim 1 of the ‘780 Patent (“Claim 1”) and there are material issues of fact in dispute.
`
`Juniper infringes Claim 1 because its SRX Gateways, when used with Sky ATP, obtain Downloadables
`
`with references to “dropped” software components that are submitted to Sky ATP; Sky ATP performs
`
`dynamic analysis on the Downloadable, in which it fetches referenced dropped components; and Sky
`
`ATP creates a Downloadable ID in the security profile generated for the Downloadable, which includes
`
`a hash of the Downloadable together with its dropped software components.
`
`Juniper’s non-infringement arguments should be rejected because they rely on rewriting the
`
`language of Claim 1 in a manner that is contrary to the intrinsic record and the laws of claim
`
`construction. In fact, many of Juniper’s arguments are incompatible with the specification of the ‘780
`
`Patent and the stated purpose of the invention. Furthermore, even if Juniper’s claim constructions are
`
`adopted, there are still issues of fact that cannot be resolved on summary judgement. Juniper’s
`
`argument that Claim 1 is patent ineligible is without merit because Finjan’s pioneering technology is
`
`directed to improving computer functionality and Claim 1 recites specific steps showing how to
`
`accomplish the improvements. The ordered combination of Claim 1’s elements also provides an
`
`inventive concept, making it further patent eligible. Finally, Juniper’s damages argument is a tacit
`
`admission of infringement and a red herring because Finjan provided Juniper with actual notice of the
`
`‘780 Patent well before filing its complaint. Juniper’s attempts to suggest otherwise undercut its
`
`credibility, given the parties’ ongoing discussions about licensing Finjan’s Patents.
`
`II.
`
`BACKGROUND
`
`A.
`Overview of the ‘780 Patent and The Elements of Claim 1
`
`The ’780 Patent describes protecting computer systems against a brand new class of threats that
`
`were never thought to be harmful, specifically “Downloadables,” which are executable application
`
`programs that are downloaded from a remote server and run on a destination computer. Dkt. No. 96-5,
`
`‘780 Patent, Col. 1, ll. 36-63 (“However, these [prior art] security systems are not configured to
`
`recognize computer viruses which have been attached to or configured as Downloadable application
`
`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
`
`
`
`FINJAN’S OPPOSITION TO JUNIPER’S
`MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`
`1
`
`CASE NO. 3:17-cv-05659-WHA
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 129 Filed 06/28/18 Page 10 of 49
`
`
`
`programs, commonly referred to as ‘Downloadables.’ A Downloadable is an executable application
`
`program downloaded from a source computer and run on the destination computer … Therefore, a
`
`system and method are needed to protect a network from hostile Downloadables.”). A Downloadable
`
`may identify various software components that are called during execution. Declaration of Michael
`
`Mitzenmacher in Support of Finjan’s Opposition to Juniper’s Motion for Summary Judgment (“Mitz.
`
`Decl.”) filed herewith, ¶ 19; ‘780 Patent, Abstract.
`
`Claim 1 specifically provides how to process these new types of threats to create an “ID” for
`
`them. This claim recites obtaining a “Downloadable” with references to software components,
`
`fetching software components for the Downloadable, and using a hash function to create a
`Downloadable ID for the Downloadable and its components. ‘780 Patent, Claim 1.2 This
`Downloadable ID can then be used to quickly determine whether subsequent Downloadables are a
`
`threat, which was a paradigm shift from conventional thinking at the time as there was no technology
`
`that could analyze Downloadables, much less generate an ID to prevent them from infecting a
`
`computer. Mitz. Decl., ¶¶ 18, 26-27.
`
`As described in the specification of the ‘780 Patent, a Downloadable ID should not only be
`
`generated for the Downloadable itself, but for other components as well. Otherwise, there is a risk that
`
`a required software component could be modified without the security system recognizing that a
`
`change had occurred, leaving the system vulnerable to attack. ‘780 Patent, Col. 4, ll. 61-66; Mitz
`
`Decl., ¶ 19. The ‘780 Patent describes how such a Downloadable ID will “hash” all or part of the
`
`Downloadable and its components to create this Downloadable ID. ‘780 Patent, Claim 1 (“at least one
`
`software component”) and Claim 8 (“fetching all software components”); Mitz. Decl., ¶¶ 18-19.
`
`Benefits of the ‘780 Patent
`B.
`
`The ‘780 Patent is part of Finjan’s pioneering technology related to protecting computers from
`
`Downloadables. The ‘780 Patent provides benefits to this system beyond what existed at the time
`
`because it specially addressed Downloadables, which was a new concept at the time the ‘780 Patent
`
`
`2 A hashing function is a particular function that is applied to data. Mitz. Decl., ¶ 20. It has many
`uses, but the ‘780 Patent uses a hash to create an identifier (or “ID”) for a Downloadable. Id.
`2
`
`FINJAN’S OPPOSITION TO JUNIPER’S
`MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`
`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 129 Filed 06/28/18 Page 11 of 49
`
`
`
`was filed. Mitz. Decl., ¶¶ 26-27. The ‘780 Patent describes the benefits of generating a Downloadable
`
`ID for a Downloadable and its referenced components in the patent description, which include
`
`allowing the network security system to avoid expensive analysis operations for Downloadables that
`
`have been analyzed previously. Mitz. Decl., ¶ 27. A Downloadable ID achieves this efficiency by
`
`enabling the security system to allow or block the Downloadable without having to perform another
`
`analysis because the Downloadable ID can be used to determine if that Downloadable has already been
`
`processed by the security system. Mitz. Decl., ¶ 27; see also, e.g., ’780 Patent, Col. 8, ll. 7-20. In
`
`particular, the ‘780 Patent describes how a security system uses the “Downloadable ID of the incoming
`
`Downloadable to determine whether to allow the Downloadable . . . .” ‘780 Patent, Col. 8, 9-11.
`
`Furthermore, the security system uses the “the Downloadable ID of the incoming Downloadable for
`
`determining whether to block the Downloadable . . . .” Id., Col. 8, ll. 14-17. The benefits of the ‘780
`
`Patent was particularly important for Finjan’s new behavioral-based technology, which required more
`
`computational resources than traditional virus scanning, but in turn, provided greater security through
`
`its novel ability to protect against this new threat called Downloadables. ‘780 Patent, Col. 2, ll. 36-43;
`
`Mitz. Decl., ¶ 27. The ‘780 Patent increased security and provided drastic efficiency gains by not
`
`requiring the same file to be analyzed multiple times. Mitz. Decl., ¶¶ 26-27.
`
`Furthermore, virus scanning at the time the ‘780 Patent was filed was focused on “signature
`
`matching,” where a set of signatures was matched against a file. Mitz. Decl., ¶ 27. For traditional
`
`signature matching at the time, the signature scanner would match signatures on every file and it was
`
`not necessary to create an ID for a Downloadable. Mitz. Decl., ¶ 27. Thus, if the file was going to be
`
`signature scanned every time, there was no need to take the extra step of generating a separate
`
`Downloadable ID. Mitz. Decl., ¶ 27. The significant drawback, however, was that traditional
`
`signature scanning was unable to protect against Downloadables because these types of files can
`
`execute on a computer without the user’s knowledge and before the system could scan the file. ‘780
`
`Patent, Col 1, 43-63; Mitz. Decl., ¶ 27. Therefore, the ‘780 Patent’s Downloadable IDs enabled
`
`computers to identify Downloadables without the need to reanalyze them, which is computationally
`
`intensive, especially at the time of the invention in the late 1990’s. Mitz. Decl., ¶ 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
`
`
`
`FINJAN’S OPPOSITION TO JUNIPER’S
`MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`
`3
`
`CASE NO. 3:17-cv-05659-WHA
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 129 Filed 06/28/18 Page 12 of 49
`
`
`
`C.
`Cases ‘780 Patent Found Infringed
`
`Finjan asserted the ‘780 Patent in three jury trials against products similar to Juniper’s accused
`
`products, and each time, the jury found in Finjan’s favor, with infringement upheld during all post-trial
`
`motions or appeals. In 2008, Secure Computing was found to infringe Claims 1-6, 9-14, and 18 of the
`
`‘780 Patent through its gateway product. Finjan, Inc. v. Secure Computing Corp., No. 06-369 GMS,
`
`2008 WL 9878538 (D. Del. Mar. 12, 2008). In 2015, the combination of Blue Coat’s ProxySG and
`
`ProxyAV products infringed Claims 9 and 13 of the ‘780 Patent when it generated hash values for
`
`downloaded files, including webpages (which are HTML) with referenced software components
`
`(which included JavaScript). Finjan, Inc. v. Blue Coat Sys., Inc., No. 13-cv-03999-BLF, 2016 WL
`
`3880774, at *9 (N.D. Cal. July 18, 2016). The Court upheld this verdict in post-trial motions and the
`
`decision was not appealed. Id. at *18. In 2016, Sophos was found to infringe Claims 9 and 18 of the
`
`‘780 Patent through its gateway product in part because “Sophos’ products fetch ‘dropped’ files….”
`
`Finjan, Inc. v. Sophos, Inc., 244 F. Supp. 3d 1016, 1050 (N.D. Cal. 2017).
`
`D.
`
`
`Overview of Juniper’s Accused Products
`
`SRX Gateways
`1.
`The SRX Gateways are network appliances and software that operate to protect computer on a
`network from receiving malicious content. Ex. 1,3 FINJAN-JN 005221. For example, a company can
`have an SRX Gateway in its network and when an employee of that company uses its computer to try
`
`and download a file, that SRX Gateway determines what to do with the file. Id. As part of this
`
`process, the SRX Gateway creates an identifier for the files that are being downloaded to perform
`
`security checks on that file. Ex. 2, JNPR-FNJN_29017_00552580. The SRX Gateway will perform
`
`an analysis on the file to determine if it is of a Downloadable type that the system should analyze (like
`
`HTML, Microsoft Documents, or EXE files). Dkt. No. 96-7 at 3. The SRX Gateway sends the entire
`
`file received for analysis in Sky ATP. Mitz. Decl., ¶ 43. To do this, the SRX Gateways “extract[]
`
`potentially malicious objects and files and send[] them to the cloud [Sky ATP] for analysis.” Mitz.
`
`
`3 All “Ex. __” references herein are to the Declaration of Kristopher Kastens in Support of Finjan’s
`Opposition to Juniper’s Motion for Summary Judgment (“Kastens Opp. Decl.”) filed herewith unless
`otherwise noted.
`
`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
`
`
`
`FINJAN’S OPPOSITION TO JUNIPER’S
`MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`
`4
`
`CASE NO. 3:17-cv-05659-WHA
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 129 Filed 06/28/18 Page 13 of 49
`
`
`
`Decl., ¶ 43; Ex. 3, FINJAN-JN 005246 at 265.
`2.
`
`Sky ATP
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Sky ATP addressed this issue by scanning files with
`
`its “Malware Analysis Pipeline” of technologies to create a Downloadable security profile for the
`
`Downloadable. Mitz. Decl., ¶ 44; Dkt. No. 98-13 at FINJAN-JN 005438 at 38-39 (describing the Sky
`
`ATP “pipeline analysis”); Dkt. No. 97-17 at JNPR-FNJN_29017_00552807 (describing sample
`
`malware analysis processing pipeline). The SRX Gateways extract content from an incoming stream
`
`of a Downloadable and submits the file to Sky ATP for analysis. Mitz. Decl., ¶ 43; Ex. 3, FINJAN-JN
`
`005246 at 5266.
`
`The Malware Analysis Pipeline in Sky ATP scans the Downloadable using dynamic analysis,
`
`which runs the Downloadable in a sandbox and scans the file to see if the file performs any suspicious
`
`activity. Mitz. Decl., ¶ 45. The Malware Analysis Pipeline uses “dynamic analysis,” which is “often
`
`called sandboxing,” which studies a file “as it is executed in a secure environment.” Dkt. No. 98-14,
`
`FINJAN-JN 044744 at 63. This type of dynamic analysis is called sandboxing because, like a sandbox
`
`can limit children to a specific protected location, dynamic analysis limits a Downloadable to running
`
`in a protected environment to scan for the operations it performs. Mitz. Decl., ¶ 45. In doing so, Sky
`
`ATP will actually run the file in a “virtual” system or “sandbox” (i.e., a fake system that mimics a real
`
`computer system) that is meant to be infected. Dkt. No. 98-14 at FINJAN-JN 044744 at 63-64. Sky
`
`ATP runs the Downloadable in this sandbox, fetches its software components, and determines if the
`
`Downloadable is malicious. Id. at FINJAN-JN 044744 at 763-64. In this way, Sky ATP uses the
`
`dynamic analysis in a sandbox to determine “[w]hat happens when we execute the file in a real
`
`environment?” Dkt. No. 98-15, FINJAN-JN 005387 at 87.
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`FINJAN’S OPPOSITION TO JUNIPER’S
`MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`CASE NO. 3:17-cv-05659-WHA
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 129 Filed 06/28/18 Page 14 of 49
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`.
`
`III. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`Juniper’s non-infringement arguments are, in part, based upon unsupported claim construction
`
`arguments that effectively rewrites the entirety of Claim 1 of the ‘780 Patent to narrow its scope.
`
`Juniper seeks construction from this straightforward three-step method claim of the following terms:
`
`1. A computer-based method for generating a Downloadable ID to identify a
`Downloadable, comprising:
`1(a). obtaining a Downloadable4 that includes one or more references to software
`components required to be executed by the Downloadable;
`
`4 Only “Downloadable” requires construction as this was a term defined in the ‘780 Patent’s
`specification as “an executable application program, which is downloaded from a source computer and
`run on the destination computer.” ‘780 Patent, Col. 1, ll. 50-53. Juniper agrees with this construction.
`6
`
`CASE NO. 3:17-cv-05659-WHA
`
`FINJAN’S OPPOSITION TO JUNIPER’S
`MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`
`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 Doc