`
`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
`
`IRELL & MANELLA LLP
`A Registered Limited Liability
`Law Partnership Including
`Professional Corporations
`
`28
`
`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 134 Filed 06/29/18 Page 1 of 18
`
`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.
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
`
`FINJAN, INC., a Delaware Corporation,
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`
`JUNIPER NETWORKS, INC., a Delaware
`Corporation,
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`vs.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`10522401
`
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`
`
`Case No. 3:17-cv-05659-WHA
`
`DEFENDANT JUNIPER NETWORKS,
`INC.’S OPPOSITION TO FINJAN, INC.’S
`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
`
`Date: July 26, 2018
`Time: 8:00 a.m.
`Courtroom: 12, 19th Floor
`Before: Hon. William H. Alsup
`
`JUNIPER'S OPPOSITION TO
`MOTION TO DISMISS/STRIKE
`(Case No. 3:17-cv-05659-WHA)
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 134 Filed 06/29/18 Page 2 of 18
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`I. 
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................... 1 
`
`II. 
`
`III. 
`
`IV. 
`
`V. 
`
`STATEMENT OF ISSUES TO BE DECIDED .................................................................. 2 
`
`BRIEF STATEMENT OF RELEVANT FACTS ............................................................... 2 
`
`LEGAL STANDARD ......................................................................................................... 2 
`
`FINJAN WAIVED ITS RIGHT TO SEEK DISMISSAL OF THE
`CHALLENGED COUNTERCLAIMS ............................................................................... 4 
`
`VI. 
`
`FINJAN’S MOTION TO STRIKE/DISMISS SHOULD BE DENIED ............................. 5 
`
`A. 
`
`B. 
`
`C. 
`
`D. 
`
`E. 
`
`Finjan’s Request For Judicial Notice Cannot Support Disputed Facts ................... 5 
`
`Finjan’s Pattern Of Making Material Misrepresentations To The
`USPTO Supports Juniper’s Claims Of Unclean Hands .......................................... 5 
`
`Juniper Has Sufficiently Alleged Inequitable Conduct ........................................... 7 
`
`1. 
`
`2. 
`
`Finjan’s Inequitable Conduct Related To The ’494 Patent ......................... 7 
`
`Finjan’s Inequitable Conduct Related To The ’154 Patent ......................... 9 
`
`Finjan’s Pattern Of Delay Is Sufficient To Support A Finding Of
`Prosecution Laches (Juniper’s Third Counterclaim And Eleventh
`Affirmative Defense) ............................................................................................. 10 
`
`Juniper’s Invalidity Contentions Demonstrate The Viability of
`Juniper’s Ensnarement Contentions ...................................................................... 11 
`
`VII. 
`
`JUNIPER SHOULD BE GRANTED LEAVE TO AMEND IF THE
`COURT ACCEPTS ANY OF FINJAN’S ARGUMENTS ............................................... 12 
`
`VIII.  CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................. 12 
`
`
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`IRELL & MANELLA LLP
`A Registered Limited Liability
`Law Partnership Including
`Professional Corporations
`
`28
`
`10522401
`
`
`- i -
`
`JUNIPER'S OPPOSITION TO
`MOTION TO DISMISS/STRIKE
`(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
`
`IRELL & MANELLA LLP
`A Registered Limited Liability
`Law Partnership Including
`Professional Corporations
`
`28
`
`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 134 Filed 06/29/18 Page 3 of 18
`
`
`
`Cases
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`
`Page(s)
`
`Advanced Cardiovascular Sys., Inc. v. Medtronic, Inc.,
`41 U.S.P.Q.2d 1770 (Fed. Cir. 1997) ...........................................................................................7
`
`Albizo v. Wachovia Mortg.,
`No. 2:11-cv-02991 KJN, 2012 WL 1413996 (E.D. Cal. April 20, 2012) ....................................3
`
`ASUSTeK Comput. Inc. v. AFTG-TG LLC,
`No. 5:CV 11-00192-EJD, 2011 WL 6845791 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 29, 2011) .................................11
`
`Barnes v. AT&T Pension Ben. Plan-Nonbargained Program,
`718 F. Supp. 2d 1167 (N.D. Cal. 2010) .......................................................................................3
`
`Chiron Corp. v. Genentech, Inc,
`268 F. Supp. 2d 1139 (E.D. Cal. 2002) ......................................................................................10
`
`Collaboration Props., Inc. v. Tandberg ASA,
`No. C 05-01940 MHP, 2007 WL 205065 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 25, 2007) ...........................................6
`
`Core Optical Techs., LLC v. Fujitsu Network Commc'ns, Inc.,
`No. SACV1600437AGJPRX, 2016 WL 7496742 (C.D. Cal. July 8, 2016) ..............................11
`
`Dunn v. Castro,
`621 F.3d 1196 (9th Cir 2010) .......................................................................................................6
`
`Fed. Agr. Mortg. Corp. v. It’s a Jungle Out There, Inc.,
`No. C 03-3721 VRW, 2005 WL 3325051 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 7, 2005) ...........................................4
`
`Honeywell Int’l Inc. v. Universal Avionics Sys. Corp.,
`488 F.3d 982 (Fed.Cir.2007) ........................................................................................................7
`
`Hynix Semiconductor Inc. v. Rambus Inc.,
`No. CV-00-20905-RMW, 2007 WL 4209386 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 26, 2007) ...............................10
`
`Inter-Tel, Inc. v. W. Coast Aircraft Eng'g, Inc.,
`No. 804CIV2224T17MSS, 2006 WL 890010 (M.D. Fla. Mar. 31, 2006) ...................................4
`
`Kaar v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.,
`No. C 16-01290 WHA, 2016 WL 3068396 (N.D. Cal. June 1, 2016) .........................................5
`
`Kimberly-Clark Worldwide, Inc. v. First Quality Baby Prods., LLC,
`No. 09–C–0916, 2010 WL 3386599 (E.D. Wis. Aug. 25, 2010) .................................................6
`
`Malem Med., Ltd. v. Theos Med. Sys.,
`No. 13-5236, 2014 WL 3568885 (N.D. Cal. July 18, 2014) ........................................................2
`
`10522401
`
`
`- ii -
`
`JUNIPER'S OPPOSITION TO
`MOTION TO DISMISS/STRIKE
`(Case No. 3:17-cv-05659-WHA)
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 134 Filed 06/29/18 Page 4 of 18
`
`
`
`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
`
`Maquet Cardiovascular LLC v. Saphena Med., Inc.,
`No. C 16-07213 WHA, 2017 WL 3215355 (N.D. Cal. July 27, 2017) ......................................12
`
`Miller v. Ghirardelli Chocolate Co.,
`No. C 12-04936 LB, 2013 WL 3153388 (N.D. Cal. June 19, 2013) ...........................................3
`
`Platte Anchor Bolt, Inc. v. IHI, Inc.,
`352 F.Supp.2d 1048 (N.D. Cal. 2004) .........................................................................................3
`
`Powertech Tech., Inc. v. Tessera, Inc.,
`No. C 10-945, 2012 WL 1746848, at *3 (N.D. Cal. May 16, 2012) ..........................................12
`
`Quad Envtl. Techs. Corp. v. Union Sanitary Dist.,
`946 F.2d 870, 876 (Fed. Cir. 1991) ............................................................................................10
`
`Rowley v. McMillan,
`502 F.2d 1326 (4th Cir.1974) .......................................................................................................4
`
`Schreiber Distrib. v. Serv–Well Furniture Co.,
`806 F.2d 1393 (9th Cir. 1986) ......................................................................................................7
`
`SCVNGR, Inc. v. eCharge Licensing, LLC,
`No. 13–12418–DJC, 2014 WL 4804738 (D. Mass. Sept. 25, 2014) ..........................................10
`
`Seaboard Int’l, Inc. v. Cameron Int’l Corp.,
`No. 1:13–CV–00281–MLH–SKO, 2013 WL 3936889 (E.D. Cal. July 30, 2013) ....................11
`
`SecurityProfiling, LLC v. Trend Micro Am., Inc.,
`No. 616CV01165RWSJDL, 2017 WL 5150682 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 21, 2017),
`report and recommendation adopted, No. 616CV01165RWSJDL, 2017 WL
`1950810 (E.D. Tex. May 11, 2017) .........................................................................................8, 9
`
`Simmons v. Navajo Cty., Ariz.,
`609 F.3d 1011, 1023 (9th Cir. 2010) ............................................................................................2
`
`Sun Microsystems, Inc. v. Dataram Corp.,
`No. CIV. 96-20708 SW, 1997 WL 50272 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 4, 1997) ............................................7
`
`Symbol Techs. Inc. v. Lemelson Med., Educ. & Research Found., LP,
`422 F.3d 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2005) ..................................................................................................10
`
`Taser Int’l, Inc. v. Stinger Sys.,
`Case No. 07-042-PHX, 2008 WL 4183019 (D. Ariz. Sept. 8, 2008) ...........................................3
`
`Tellabs, Inc. v. Makor Issues & Rights, Ltd.,
`551 U.S. 308 (2007) .....................................................................................................................6
`
`27
`
`IRELL & MANELLA LLP
`A Registered Limited Liability
`Law Partnership Including
`Professional Corporations
`
`28
`
`Townsend Farms v. Goknur Gida Madderleri Enerji Imalat Ithalat Ihracat Ticaret
`Ve Sanayi A.S.,
`No. SACV150837DOCJCGX, 2016 WL 10570248 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 17, 2016) .........................4
`JUNIPER'S OPPOSITION TO
`MOTION TO DISMISS/STRIKE
`(Case No. 3:17-cv-05659-WHA)
`
`- iii -
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 134 Filed 06/29/18 Page 5 of 18
`
`United States v. Corinthian Colls.,
`655 F.3d 984 (9th Cir. 2011) ........................................................................................................5
`
`Vistan Corp. v. Fadei USA, Inc.,
`No. C-10-4862 JCS, 2011 WL 1544796 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 25, 2011) ............................................3
`
`Worldwide Home Prods., Inc. v. Bed Bath & Beyond, Inc.,
`No. 11 C 3633, 2013 WL 247839 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 22, 2013) .......................................................6
`
`Wyler Summit P’ship v. Turner Broad. Sys. Inc.,
`135 F.3d 658 (9th Cir.1998) .........................................................................................................3
`
`Wyshak v. City Nat’l Bank,
`607 F.2d 824 (9th Cir. 1979) ..................................................................................................3, 12
`
`Statutes
`
`35 U.S.C. § 120 ..................................................................................................................................9
`
`Rules
`
`37 C.F.R. § 1.78(a)(3) ........................................................................................................................9
`
`37 C.F.R. § 1.114 ...............................................................................................................................7
`
`37 C.F.R. § 131 ..................................................................................................................................8
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 9(b) .............................................................................................................................9
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 12 ..................................................................................................................... passim
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a) .........................................................................................................................11
`
`Fed. R. Evid. 210 ................................................................................................................................5
`
`Other Authorities
`
`Wright & Miller, 5D Federal Practice & Procedure § 1388 (3d ed 2004) .......................................4
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`IRELL & MANELLA LLP
`A Registered Limited Liability
`Law Partnership Including
`Professional Corporations
`
`28
`
`
`
`
`- iv -
`
`JUNIPER'S OPPOSITION TO
`MOTION TO DISMISS/STRIKE
`(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
`
`IRELL & MANELLA LLP
`A Registered Limited Liability
`Law Partnership Including
`Professional Corporations
`
`28
`
`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 134 Filed 06/29/18 Page 6 of 18
`
`Defendant Juniper Networks, Inc. (“Juniper”) hereby submits its Opposition to Plaintiff
`
`Finjan, Inc.’s (“Finjan’s”) Motion to Dismiss Juniper’s Third, Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth
`
`Counterclaims and to Strike Juniper’s Tenth, Eleventh, Twelfth, and Fourteenth Affirmative
`
`Defenses. Dkt. No. 110 (the “Motion”).
`
`MEMORANDUM OF POINTS & AUTHORITIES
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`As detailed in Juniper’s counterclaims and affirmative defenses, Finjan has attempted to
`
`improperly extend the life of its patents by (1) intentionally delaying patents by up to 14 years,
`
`and (2) claiming that its delays are “unintentional” if it realizes it will not be able to get a later-
`
`filed priority date. Juniper’s counterclaims and affirmative defense specifically describe Finjan’s
`
`scheme, and provide details about the false and misleading statements Finjan made to the United
`
`States Patent And Trademark Office (“USPTO”) in support of this strategy.
`
`The essence of Finjan’s motion is a sanitized explanation of the patent prosecution scheme
`
`Juniper detailed in its counterclaims and affirmative defenses. On the basis of its alternative
`
`explanation, Finjan argues, this Court should dismiss or strike Juniper’s counterclaims and
`
`affirmative defenses. Finjan’s arguments betray a misunderstanding of Rule 12 motions.
`
`As an initial matter, Finjan cannot seek dismissal of any of Juniper’s counterclaims
`
`pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) because it has already filed an answer to these claims. See Dkt. No. 45.
`
`Once Finjan has answered these claims, it cannot challenge them on a 12(b)(6) motion whether or
`
`not they are re-alleged in an amended pleading.
`
`In addition, Finjan’s analysis of Juniper’s counterclaims and affirmative defenses relies on
`
`benign explanations for the specific facts identified by Juniper. This is improper. On motions to
`
`dismiss and strike, all allegations of material fact must be taken as true and construed in the light
`
`most favorable to the nonmoving party. When properly viewed, it is clear that Juniper’s
`
`counterclaims and affirmative defenses more than satisfy the requirements of a motion to dismiss
`
`or strike.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- 1 -
`
`JUNIPER'S OPPOSITION TO
`MOTION TO DISMISS/STRIKE
`(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
`
`IRELL & MANELLA LLP
`A Registered Limited Liability
`Law Partnership Including
`Professional Corporations
`
`28
`
`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 134 Filed 06/29/18 Page 7 of 18
`
`
`
`II.
`
`STATEMENT OF ISSUES TO BE DECIDED
`
`Whether Finjan’s Motion should be denied because Juniper’s counterclaims and
`
`affirmative defense allege plausible defenses of prosecution laches, inequitable conduct, unclean
`
`hands, and the ensnarement doctrine.
`III. BRIEF STATEMENT OF RELEVANT FACTS
`Juniper’s counterclaims and affirmative defenses outline a pattern of Finjan’s intentionally
`
`untruthful behavior in its dealings with the USPTO. For example, Finjan intentionally delayed in
`
`filing four of the six asserted patents in this case (the ’926, ’633, ’154, and ’494 Patents), with
`
`delays ranging from four to fourteen years between the earliest claimed non-provisional
`
`application in the chain of priority to the filing of the asserted patents. See, e.g., Dkt. No. 92
`
`¶¶ 171-174. During Finjan’s delay, Juniper was prejudiced because it “spent considerable
`
`resources marketing, selling, and importing updated versions of the accused products.” Id. ¶ 176.
`
`Further, on at least five different occasions Finjan ‘unintentionally’ delayed claims of priority only
`
`after one of Finjan’s patents is rejected over prior art that predates the filing of the patent (but
`
`post-dates the belatedly claimed priority document). Id. ¶ 217. In other words, on multiple
`
`occasions, Finjan delayed prosecuting certain early patents until it saw whether a later-filed patent
`
`(with a later expiration date) would be granted. Only when the later patents were not granted
`
`would Finjan try to revive the earlier patent, claiming it was merely trying to ‘correct’ its
`
`‘unintentional’ delay. Id. With regard to the ’494 and ’154 Patents, Finjan’s untruthful delay was
`
`material, leading to the issuance of an otherwise invalid patent. See, e.g., id. ¶¶ 194, 211.
`IV.
`
`LEGAL STANDARD
`
`Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f), “[t]he court may strike from a pleading an
`
`insufficient defense or any redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous matter.” “[T]he key
`
`to determining the sufficiency of pleading an affirmative defense is whether it gives plaintiff fair
`
`notice of the defense.” Malem Med., Ltd. v. Theos Med. Sys., No. 13-5236, 2014 WL 3568885, at
`
`*2 (N.D. Cal. July 18, 2014) (quoting Simmons v. Navajo Cty., Ariz., 609 F.3d 1011, 1023 (9th
`
`Cir. 2010)). “In determining both Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) motions to dismiss and Rule 12(f)
`
`motions to strike, all allegations of material fact must be taken as true and construed in the light
`
`
`
`
`- 2 -
`
`JUNIPER'S OPPOSITION TO
`MOTION TO DISMISS/STRIKE
`(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
`
`IRELL & MANELLA LLP
`A Registered Limited Liability
`Law Partnership Including
`Professional Corporations
`
`28
`
`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 134 Filed 06/29/18 Page 8 of 18
`
`most favorable to the nonmoving party.” Taser Int’l, Inc. v. Stinger Sys., No. 07-042-PHX, 2008
`
`WL 4183019, at *3 (D. Ariz. Sept. 8, 2008) (citing Wyler Summit P’ship v. Turner Broad. Sys.,
`
`Inc., 135 F.3d 658, 661 (9th Cir.1998) (“On a motion to dismiss, all well-pleaded allegations of
`
`material fact are taken as true and construed in a light most favorable to the non-moving party.”));
`
`see also Albizo v. Wachovia Mortg., No. 2:11-cv-02991 KJN, 2012 WL 1413996, at *17 (E.D.
`
`Cal. April 20, 2012) (“[C]ourts may not resolve disputed and substantial factual or legal issues in
`
`deciding a motion to strike.”); Miller v. Ghirardelli Chocolate Co., No. C 12-04936 LB, 2013 WL
`
`3153388, at *4 (N.D. Cal. June 19, 2013) (“To the extent [the plaintiff] argues that the defense
`
`fails on its merits, that is an argument for summary judgment”).
`
`“The purposes of a Rule 12(f) motion is to avoid spending time and money litigating
`
`spurious issues.” Barnes v. AT&T Pension Ben. Plan-Nonbargained Program, 718 F. Supp. 2d
`
`1167, 1170 (N.D. Cal. 2010). “While a Rule 12(f) motion provides the means to excise improper
`
`materials from pleadings, such motions are generally disfavored because the motions may be used
`
`as delaying tactics and because of the strong policy favoring resolution on the merits.” Id.
`
`Motions to strike “should not be granted unless the matter to be stricken clearly could have no
`
`possible bearing on the subject of the litigation . . . . If there is any doubt whether the portion to
`
`be stricken might bear on an issue in the litigation, the court should deny the motion.” Platte
`
`Anchor Bolt, Inc. v. IHI, Inc., 352 F.Supp.2d 1048, 1057 (N.D. Cal. 2004) (citations omitted).
`
`Regarding Finjan’s Motion to Dismiss, “[a] claim should not be dismissed pursuant to Fed.
`
`R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) unless it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in
`
`support of his claim which would entitle him to relief. . . . On a motion to dismiss, the court
`
`accepts the facts alleged in the complaint as true.” Vistan Corp. v. Fadei USA, Inc., No. C-10-
`
`4862 JCS, 2011 WL 1544796, at *7 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 25, 2011) (alteration in original) (citations
`
`and internal quotation marks omitted).
`
`Finally, “[i]f a claim is stricken, leave to amend should be freely given when doing so
`
`would not cause prejudice to the opposing party.” Barnes , 718 F. Supp. 2d at 1170 (citing
`
`Wyshak v. City Nat’l Bank, 607 F.2d 824, 826 (9th Cir. 1979)).
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- 3 -
`
`JUNIPER'S OPPOSITION TO
`MOTION TO DISMISS/STRIKE
`(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
`
`IRELL & MANELLA LLP
`A Registered Limited Liability
`Law Partnership Including
`Professional Corporations
`
`28
`
`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 134 Filed 06/29/18 Page 9 of 18
`
`
`
`V.
`
`FINJAN WAIVED ITS RIGHT TO SEEK DISMISSAL OF THE CHALLENGED
`COUNTERCLAIMS
`
`Finjan’s Motion to Dismiss is directed to counterclaims to which it has already answered
`
`in its initial Answer to Juniper’s Counterclaims (Dkt. No. 45). Because it has already answered
`
`these claims, it is barred from filing a Rule 12(b)(6) motion on these claims, even though they are
`
`now in an amended pleading: “The filing of an amended complaint will not revive the right to
`
`present by motion defenses that were available but were not asserted in timely fashion prior to the
`
`amendment of the pleading . . . .” Fed. Agr. Mortg. Corp. v. It’s a Jungle Out There, Inc., No. C
`
`03-3721 VRW, 2005 WL 3325051, at *5 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 7, 2005) (quoting Wright & Miller, 5D
`
`Federal Practice & Procedure § 1388, at 491-92 (3d ed 2004)); see also Rowley v. McMillan, 502
`
`F.2d 1326, 1333 (4th Cir.1974) (“An unasserted defense available at the time of response to an
`
`initial pleading may not be asserted when the initial pleading is amended.”); Inter-Tel, Inc. v. W.
`
`Coast Aircraft Eng'g, Inc., No. 804CIV2224T17MSS, 2006 WL 890010, at *2 (M.D. Fla. Mar. 31,
`
`2006) (“defendants waived their right to object to [and file a motion to dismiss] the first amended
`
`complaint because they filed an answer to the original complaint in this case”). Further Federal
`
`Rule of Civil Procedure 12(g)(2) provides: “a party that makes a motion under this rule must not
`
`make another motion under this rule raising a defense or objection that was available to the party
`
`but omitted from its earlier motion,” and the Federal Agricultural Mortgage court perceived the
`
`difference between responding initially in the form of an answer rather than a Rule 12(b) motion
`
`to be “immaterial.” Federal Agr. Mortg. Corp., 2005 WL 3325051, at *5.
`
`Here, the challenged counterclaims were entirely unchanged between Juniper’s first and
`
`second countercomplaint and the Court should not permit Finjan to now seek dismissal. Compare
`
`Dkt. No. 42 (Juniper’s Answer), with Dkt. No. 92 (Juniper’s Am. Answer); see also, e.g.,
`
`Townsend Farms v. Goknur Gida Madderleri Enerji Imalat Ithalat Ihracat Ticaret Ve Sanayi A.S.,
`
`No. SACV150837DOCJCGX, 2016 WL 10570248, at *6 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 17, 2016) (“Federal
`
`Rule 12 states that unless a 12(b) objection is raised at the earliest opportunity it is waived.
`
`Holding that an amended complaint allows a defendant a fresh opportunity to bring a 12(b)(6)
`
`motion to dismiss as to claims raised by a prior—answered—complaint would undermine the
`
`
`
`
`- 4 -
`
`JUNIPER'S OPPOSITION TO
`MOTION TO DISMISS/STRIKE
`(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
`
`IRELL & MANELLA LLP
`A Registered Limited Liability
`Law Partnership Including
`Professional Corporations
`
`28
`
`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 134 Filed 06/29/18 Page 10 of 18
`
`requirements of the Federal Rule. Therefore, this Court joins numerous other circuit and district
`
`courts in holding that amending or consolidating a complaint does not give defendants a second
`
`opportunity to raise waived objections.”).
`
`Because Finjan previously elected to answer Juniper’s counterclaims, its Rule 12(b)(6)
`
`motion is barred as a matter of law.
`VI.
`FINJAN’S MOTION TO STRIKE/DISMISS SHOULD BE DENIED
`To the extent the Court permits Finjan’s untimely Motion, Finjan has failed to demonstrate
`
`that the challenged Counterclaims and Affirmative Defenses fail under Iqbal/Twombly.
`A.
`Finjan’s Request For Judicial Notice Cannot Support Disputed Facts
`While Juniper does not challenge the authenticity of the documents for which Finjan seeks
`
`judicial notice, to the extent Finjan supports its arguments by asking the court to draw an inference
`
`from or take notice of disputed facts contained therein, Finjan’s request is impermissible under
`
`Federal Rule of Evidence 210. See Kaar v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., No. C 16-01290 WHA, 2016
`
`WL 3068396, at *2 (N.D. Cal. June 1, 2016); see also United States v. Corinthian Colls., 655 F.3d
`
`984, 999 (9th Cir. 2011) (“[Courts] may not, on the basis of evidence outside of the Complaint,
`
`take judicial notice of facts favorable to [d]efendants that could reasonably be disputed.”).
`B.
`Finjan’s Pattern Of Making Material Misrepresentations To The USPTO
`Supports Juniper’s Claims Of Unclean Hands
`
`Juniper’s Tenth Affirmative Defense and Sixth Counterclaim of Unclean Hands address
`
`Finjan’s repeated material misrepresentations to the USPTO. These allegations more than suffice
`
`to meet the standard under Iqbal/Twombly. As alleged in Juniper’s answer, “Finjan has an
`unusually abundant history of petitioning for allegedly ‘unintentionally’ delayed claims of
`
`priority, particularly after one of Finjan’s patents is under examination and has been rejected over
`
`prior art that predates the filing of the patent but post-dates the belatedly claimed priority
`document. In other words, on multiple occasions it appears that Finjan has waited to see if a
`
`patent would be granted or validated with a later priority date in order to benefit from a later
`
`expiration date, and only when it becomes clear that the patent would not be granted or validated
`
`does Finjan seek to ‘correct’ its ‘unintentionally’ delayed priority claim in order to try to moot the
`
`
`
`
`- 5 -
`
`JUNIPER'S OPPOSITION TO
`MOTION TO DISMISS/STRIKE
`(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
`
`IRELL & MANELLA LLP
`A Registered Limited Liability
`Law Partnership Including
`Professional Corporations
`
`28
`
`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 134 Filed 06/29/18 Page 11 of 18
`
`asserted prior art.” Dkt. No. 92 ¶ 217.
`
`Finjan’s sole response to Juniper’s allegations is that individually, each step was permitted
`
`by the PTO’s procedures. In making this argument, Finjan attempts to distract this Court from the
`
`crux of Juniper’s defense—that Finjan has adopted strategies of delay and misrepresentation with
`
`the USPTO to impermissibly extend the length of its patents. This strategy is difficult to see if one
`
`focuses only on individual decisions in individual cases (which is precisely why this is the tactic
`
`Finjan used), but it becomes quite apparent when you consider the totality of Finjan’s behavior. It
`
`is well established that “[c]ourts must consider the complaint in its entirety . . . when ruling on
`
`Rule 12(b)(6) motions to dismiss[.]” Dunn v. Castro, 621 F.3d 1196, 1205, n.6 (9th Cir. 2010)
`
`(quoting Tellabs, Inc. v. Makor Issues & Rights, Ltd., 551 U.S. 308, 322 (2007)). Here, Juniper
`
`walks through detailed allegations concerning at least five different instances in which Finjan
`
`made material misrepresentations to the PTO. See Dkt. No. 92 ¶¶ 179-242.
`
`When viewed together and accepted as true, Juniper’s allegations more than suffice to
`
`support Juniper’s related affirmative defense and counterclaim of unclean hands. See Worldwide
`
`Home Prods., Inc. v. Bed Bath & Beyond, Inc., No. 11 C 3633, 2013 WL 247839, at *1-2
`
`(S.D.N.Y. Jan. 22, 2013) (denying motion to dismiss where the defendants’ unclean hands defense
`
`stated that ‘“[p]laintiff’s claims are barred, in whole or in part, by the doctrine of unclean hands’
`
`based on [p]laintiff’s ‘misrepresentations . . . during the prosecution of the patent application . . .
`
`and, further, [p]laintiff’s intentional with-holding of information from the USPTO that is
`
`material”’) (internal quotation marks omitted); Collaboration Props., Inc. v. Tandberg ASA, No. C
`
`05-01940 MHP, 2007 WL 205065, at *7 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 25, 2007) (noting that an unclean hands
`
`defense may rest on allegations of inequitable conduct before the PTO); Kimberly-Clark
`
`Worldwide, Inc. v. First Quality Baby Prods., LLC, No. 09–C–0916, 2010 WL 3386599, at *1
`
`(E.D. Wis. Aug. 25, 2010) (denying patentee’s motion to strike accused infringer’s “unclean
`
`hands” defense that was based on allegations that the patentee “buried” key references in material
`
`submitted to the PTO).
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- 6 -
`
`JUNIPER'S OPPOSITION TO
`MOTION TO DISMISS/STRIKE
`(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
`
`IRELL & MANELLA LLP
`A Registered Limited Liability
`Law Partnership Including
`Professional Corporations
`
`28
`
`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 134 Filed 06/29/18 Page 12 of 18
`
`C.
`
`Juniper Has Sufficiently Alleged Inequitable Conduct
`1.
`Finjan’s Inequitable Conduct Related To The ’494 Patent
`
`Concerning Juniper’s claim of inequitable conduct, Juniper’s Fourth Counterclaim and
`
`Fourteenth Affirmative Defense, Finjan simply asks the Court to accept its version of the facts as
`
`true (and reject Juniper’s allegations as false). Finjan’s argument is in plain disregard of the legal
`
`standard applicable to its Motion.
`
`The Federal Circuit has set forth the following standard governing claims of inequitable
`
`conduct:
`
`Applicants for patents have a duty to prosecute patent applications
`in the Patent Office with candor, good faith, and honesty. A breach
`of this duty-including affirmative misrepresentations of material
`facts, failure to disclose material information, or submission of false
`material information-coupled with an intent to deceive, constitutes
`inequitable conduct. In determining whether inequitable conduct
`occurred, a trial court must determine whether the party asserting the
`inequitable conduct defense has shown . . . . that the alleged
`nondisclosure or misrepresentation occurred, that the nondisclosure
`or misrepresentation was material, and that the patent applicant
`acted with the intent to deceive the United States Patent and
`Trademark Office.
`
`Honeywell Int’l Inc. v. Universal Avionics Sys. Corp., 488 F.3d 982, 999 (Fed.Cir.2007) (citations
`
`omitted). At the pleading stage a party asserting a claim for inequitable conduct is required to
`
`“state the time, place and specific content of the false representations as well as the identities of
`
`the parties to the misrepresentation.” Advanced Cardiovascular Sys., Inc. v. Medtronic, Inc., 41
`
`U.S.P.Q.2d 1770, 1775 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (quoting Schreiber Distrib. v. Serv–Well Furniture Co.,
`
`806 F.2d 1393, 1401 (9th Cir. 1986)); see also Sun Microsystems, Inc. v. Dataram Corp., No.
`
`CIV. 96-20708 SW, 1997 WL 50272, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 4, 1997) (finding that a claim of
`
`inequitable conduct should set forth details concerning when the misrepresentations or omissions
`
`took place, who made or failed to make the representations, and which patents are at issue).
`
`Juniper clearly alleges each of the details required to set forth a plausible claim of
`
`inequitable conduct. As explained in detail in Juniper’s answer, “[o]n May 7, 2013 [(the when)],
`
`Ms. Bey, on behalf of Finjan [(the who)], filed an ‘Amendment And Response To Office Action
`
`Under 37 C.F.R. § 1.114.’ Accompanying this filing, Ms. B