Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 150 Filed 07/06/18 Page 1 of 22
`
`
`
`PAUL J. ANDRE (State Bar No. 196585)
`pandre@kramerlevin.com
`LISA KOBIALKA (State Bar No. 191404)
`lkobialka@kramerlevin.com
`JAMES HANNAH (State Bar No. 237978)
`jhannah@kramerlevin.com
`KRISTOPHER KASTENS (State Bar No. 254797)
`kkastens@kramerlevin.com
`KRAMER LEVIN NAFTALIS & FRANKEL LLP
`990 Marsh Road
`Menlo Park, CA 94025
`Telephone: (650) 752-1700
`Facsimile: (650) 752-1800
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff
`FINJAN, INC.
`
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`FINJAN, INC.,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`
`JUNIPER NETWORKS, INC.,
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
`
`Case No.: 3:17-cv-05659-WHA
`
`FINJAN, INC.’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF
`ITS 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
`
`July 26, 2018
`
`Date:
`8:00 a.m.
`Time:
`Courtroom: Courtroom 12, 19th Floor
`Hon. William Alsup
`Before:
`
`
`
`
`FINJAN’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS
`JUNPER’S COUNTERCLAIMS & STRIKE AFF. DEFENSES
`
`CASE NO.: 3:17-cv-05659-WHA
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 150 Filed 07/06/18 Page 2 of 22
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................................................1
`
`ARGUMENT ........................................................................................................................................2
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`JUNIPER’S PROSECUTION LACHES ALLEGATIONS ARE CONCLUSORY
`AND FACIALLY IMPLAUSIBLE ..................................................................................2
`
`JUNIPER’S INEQUITABLE CONDUCT ALLEGATIONS REGARDING THE
`‘494 AND ‘154 PATENTS ARE FACIALLY IMPLAUSIBLE .....................................4
`
`A.
`
`The ‘494 Patent .....................................................................................................5
`
`1.
`
`
`
`2.
`
`
`
`3.
`
`
`
`Juniper’s Inequitable Conduct Counterclaim and Affirmative
`Defense Based on the File History and Prior Litigation Documents
`Are Not Facially Plausible. .......................................................................5
`
`Juniper Does Not Allege Facts Supporting Materiality of Purported
`Misrepresentation ......................................................................................7
`
`Juniper Alleges no Facts Supporting Finjan’s Specific Intent to
`Deceive the Patent Office. ........................................................................8
`
`B.
`
`The ‘154 Patent .....................................................................................................9
`
`1.
`
`
`
`2.
`
`
`
`Juniper Does Not Sufficiently Plead Misrepresentation, Material
`Misrepresentation. .....................................................................................9
`
`Juniper’s Inequitable Conduct Counterclaim Does Not Sufficiently
`Plead Intent .............................................................................................10
`
`III.
`
`IV.
`
`V.
`
`VI.
`
`JUNIPER’S UNCLEAN HANDS ALLEGATIONS ARE FACIALLY
`IMPLAUSIBLE ..............................................................................................................10
`
`JUNIPER’S TWELFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE FOR ENSNAREMENT
`FAILS TO PROVIDE FAIR NOTICE ...........................................................................12
`
`FINJAN’S MOTION TO DISMISS AND TO STRIKE IS TIMELY ...........................13
`
`JUNIPER SHOULD NOT BE GRANTED LEAVE TO AMEND ................................15
`
`CONCLUSION .....................................................................................................................................15
`
`
`
`
`
`i
`FINJAN’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS
`JUNPER’S COUNTERCLAIMS & STRIKE AFF. DEFENSES
`
`CASE NO.: 3:17-cv-05659-WHA
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 150 Filed 07/06/18 Page 3 of 22
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`
`Page(s)
`
`
`
`Cases
`
`Advanced Cardiovascular Sys., Inc. v. Medtronic, Inc.,
`No. C-96-0942 DLJ, 1996 WL 467273 (N.D. Cal. July 24, 1996)................................................... 13
`
`Advanced Cardiovascular Sys., Inc. v. Medtronic, Inc.,
`41 U.S.P.Q.2d 1770 (Fed. Cir. 1997).................................................................................................. 8
`
`Amaretto Ranch Breedables, LLC v. Ozimals, Inc.,
`No. C 10-cv-05696 CRB, 2011 WL 2690437 (N.D. Cal. July 8, 2011) ........................................... 14
`
`In re Apple iPhone Antitrust Litig.,
`846 F.3d 313 (9th Cir. 2017) ............................................................................................................ 13
`
`ASUSTeK Computer Inc. v. AFTG-TG LLC,
`No. 5:CV 11-00192-EJD, 2011 WL 6845791 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 29, 2011) ........................................ 12
`
`Cancer Research Tech. Ltd. v. Barr Labs., Inc.,
`625 F.3d 724 (Fed. Cir. 2010)............................................................................................................. 2
`
`Capella Photonics, Inc. v. Cisco Sys., Inc.,
`77 F. Supp. 3d 850 (N.D. Cal. 2014) .................................................................................................. 8
`
`Chiron Corp. v. Genentech, Inc.,
`268 F. Supp. 2d 1139 (E.D. Cal. 2002)............................................................................................... 4
`
`Collaboration Properties, Inc. v. Tandberg ASA,
`No. C 05-01940 MHP, 2007 WL 205065 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 25, 2007) ............................................... 12
`
`Core Optical Techs., LLC v. Fujitsu Network Commc’ns, Inc.,
`No. SACV 16-00437-AG-JPRX, 2016 WL 7496742 (C.D. Cal. July 8, 2016) ............................... 12
`
`Cover v. Windsor Surry Co.,
`No. 14-cv-05262-WHO, 2016 WL 520991 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 10, 2016) ............................................ 14
`
`Dunn v. Castro,
`621 F.3d 1196 (9th Cir. 2010) .......................................................................................................... 11
`
`Elvig v. Calvin Presbyterian Church,
`375 F.3d 951 (9th Cir. 2004) ............................................................................................................ 15
`
`Evans v. Arizona Cardinals Football Club, LLC,
`231 F. Supp. 3d 342 (N.D. Cal. 2017) .............................................................................................. 14
`
`i
`FINJAN’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS
`JUNPER’S COUNTERCLAIMS & STRIKE AFF. DEFENSES
`
`CASE NO.: 3:17-cv-05659-WHA
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 150 Filed 07/06/18 Page 4 of 22
`
`
`
`Exergen Corp. v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.,
`575 F.3d 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2009)....................................................................................................... 4, 5
`
`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) ................................................ 14
`
`Feit Elec. Co. v. Beacon Point Capital, LLC,
`No. 13-cv-09339, 2015 WL 557262 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 9, 2015) ............................................................. 3
`
`Fiskars, Inc. v. Hunt Mfg. Co.,
`221 F.3d 1318 (Fed. Cir. 2000)......................................................................................................... 12
`
`Galindo v. Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC,
`282 F. Supp. 3d 1193 (N.D. Cal. 2017) ............................................................................................ 13
`
`Gilead Sciences, Inc. v. Merck & Co.,
`88 F.3d 1231 (Fed. Cir. 2018)........................................................................................................... 10
`
`In re Gilead Scis. Sec. Litig.,
`536 F.3d 1049 (9th Cir. 2008) ...................................................................................................... 6, 11
`
`Grid Sys. Corp. v. Texas Instruments Inc.,
`771 F. Supp. 1033 (N.D. Cal. 1991) ................................................................................................. 12
`
`Honeywell Int’l Inc. v. Universal Avionics Sys. Corp.,
`488 F.3d 982 (Fed. Cir. 2007)............................................................................................................. 8
`
`Hynix Semiconductor Inc. v. Rambus Inc.,
`No. CV-00-20905-RMW, 2007 WL 4209386 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 26, 2007) ......................................... 4
`
`Int’l Test Sols., Inc. v. Mipox Int’l Corp.,
`No. 16-cv-00791-RS, 2017 WL 2118314 (N.D. Cal. May 16, 2017) ............................................ 7, 8
`
`Inter-Tel, Inc. v. W. Coast Aircraft Eng’g, Inc.,
`No. 804CIV2224T17MSS, 2006 WL 890010 (M.D. Fla. Mar. 31, 2006) ....................................... 14
`
`Kaar v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.,
`No. C 16-01290 WHA, 2016 WL 3068396 (N.D. Cal. June 1, 2016)................................................ 2
`
`Keystone Driller Co. v. Gen. Excavator Co.,
`290 U.S. 240 (1933) .......................................................................................................................... 10
`
`Kimberly-Clark Worldwide, Inc. v. First Quality Baby Prod., LLC,
`No. 09-C-0916, 2010 WL 3386599 (E.D. Wis. Aug. 25, 2010) ....................................................... 11
`
`Network Caching Tech., LLC v. Novell, Inc.,
`No. C-01-2079-VRW, 2001 WL 36043487 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 31, 2001) ........................................... 13
`
`ii
`FINJAN’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS
`JUNPER’S COUNTERCLAIMS & STRIKE AFF. DEFENSES
`
`CASE NO.: 3:17-cv-05659-WHA
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 150 Filed 07/06/18 Page 5 of 22
`
`
`
`Nomadix, Inc. v. Hosp. Core Servs. LLC,
`No. CV 14-08256 DDP (VBKx), 2015 WL 3948804 (C.D. Cal. June 29, 2015) .............................. 3
`
`Oracle Corp. v. ORG Structure Innovations LLC,
`No. C 11-3549 SBA, 2012 WL 12951187 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 30, 2012) ......................................... 2, 12
`
`PB Farradyne, Inc. v. Peterson,
`No. C 05-03447 SI, 2006 WL 132182 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 17, 2006)..................................................... 13
`
`Presidio Components, Inc. v. Am. Tech. Ceramics Corp.,
`No. 14-cv-2061-H (BGS), 2016 WL 7319533 (S.D. Cal. Feb. 10, 2016) ........................................ 15
`
`Qarbon.com Inc. v. eHelp Corp.,
`315 F. Supp. 2d 1046 (N.D. Cal. 2004) ............................................................................................ 13
`
`Quad Envtl. Techs. Corp. v. Union Sanitary Dist.,
`946 F.2d 870 (Fed. Cir. 1991)............................................................................................................. 9
`
`Reyn’s Pasta Bella, LLC v. Visa USA, Inc.,
`442 F.3d 741 (9th Cir. 2006) .............................................................................................................. 2
`
`Rowley v. McMillan,
`502 F.2d 1326 (4th Cir. 1974) .......................................................................................................... 15
`
`Schreiber Distrib. Co. v. Serv-Well Furniture Co.,
`806 F.2d 1393 (9th Cir. 1986) ............................................................................................................ 8
`
`SCVNGR, Inc. v. eCharge Licensing, LLC,
`No. 13-12418-DJC, 2014 WL 4804738 (D. Mass. Sept. 25, 2014).................................................... 4
`
`SecurityProfiling, LLC v. Trend Micro Am., Inc.,
`No. 6:16-cv-01165-RWS-JDL, 2017 WL 5150682 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 21, 2017) ................................. 9
`
`Shwarz v. United States,
`234 F.3d 428 (9th Cir. 2000) .............................................................................................................. 5
`
`Sonos, Inc. v. D&M Holdings Inc.,
`No. 14-1330-RGA-MPT, 2016 WL 4249493 (D. Del. Aug. 10, 2016).............................................. 3
`
`Sun Microsystems, Inc. v. Dataram Corp.,
`No. CIV. 96-20708 SW, 1997 WL 50272 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 4, 1997)) ................................................. 8
`
`Symantec Corp. v. Zscaler, Inc.,
`No. 17-cv-04426-JST, 2018 WL 1456678 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 23, 2018) ............................................. 13
`
`Symbol Techs, Inc. v. Lemelson Med., Educ. & Research Found., LP,
`422 F.3d 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2005)........................................................................................................... 2
`
`iii
`FINJAN’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS
`JUNPER’S COUNTERCLAIMS & STRIKE AFF. DEFENSES
`
`CASE NO.: 3:17-cv-05659-WHA
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 150 Filed 07/06/18 Page 6 of 22
`
`
`
`Tellabs, Inc. v. Makor Issues & Rights, Ltd.,
`551 U.S. 308 (2007) .......................................................................................................................... 11
`
`Therasense, Inc. v. Becton, Dickinson & Co.,
`649 F.3d 1276 (Fed. Cir. 2011)........................................................................................................... 5
`
`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) .............................. 14
`
`United States v. Corinthian Colleges,
`655 F.3d 984 (9th Cir. 2011) .............................................................................................................. 2
`
`United States v. Ritchie,
`342 F.3d 903 (9th Cir. 2003) ............................................................................................................ 12
`
`Worldwide Home Prods., Inc. v. Bed Bath & Beyond, Inc.,
`No. 11 CIV. 03633 LTS, 2013 WL 247839 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 22, 2013)............................................. 11
`
`Other Authorities
`
`37 C.F.R. § 1.78(a)(3) ............................................................................................................................... 5
`
`Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b) .................................................................................................... 5, 8
`
`Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) ........................................................................................ passim
`
`Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c) .................................................................................................... 15
`
`Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f) .................................................................................................... 15
`
`Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(g) .................................................................................................... 14
`
`Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(h)(2) ............................................................................................... 15
`
`Federal Rule of Evidence 201(b) .............................................................................................................. 2
`
`iv
`FINJAN’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS
`JUNPER’S COUNTERCLAIMS & STRIKE AFF. DEFENSES
`
`CASE NO.: 3:17-cv-05659-WHA
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 150 Filed 07/06/18 Page 7 of 22
`
`
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`The Court should dismiss Juniper Networks, Inc.’s (“Juniper”) Third, Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth
`
`Counterclaims and strike Juniper’s Tenth, Eleventh, Twelfth, and Fourteenth Affirmative Defenses,
`
`because Juniper either fails to allege sufficient facts or state a plausible defense as required by law.
`
`First, with respect to Juniper’s prosecution laches Third Counterclaim and Eleventh
`
`Affirmative Defense, Juniper fails to allege facts from which an unreasonable and unexplained delay,
`
`or prejudice based on the purported delay, can be inferred. Indeed, the patents themselves, which are
`
`subject to judicial notice, show that any inference of delay is unwarranted because Finjan diligently
`
`prosecuted its various patent applications. As such, this defense—which is seldom applied in patent
`
`cases—is not facially plausible and fails as a matter of law.
`
`Second, with regard to Juniper’s affirmative defense of inequitable conduct based on the ‘494
`
`and ‘154 Patents, Juniper does not meet the Federal Circuit’s heightened pleading standard of showing
`
`either a “material misrepresentation” with an “intent to deceive.” Finjan’s counsel filing petitions to
`
`correct priority chain issues, which is allowed under the rules of the USPTO, cannot alone lend the
`
`conclusion that there was a “material misrepresentation” to the Patent Office. Further, for the ‘494
`
`Patent, Juniper has not plead facts of any misrepresentation, as Mr. Touboul did not state he was the
`
`sole inventor of all claims of the ‘494 Patent, perfectly consistent with Finjan’s discovery responses in
`
`another litigation. Juniper did not plead facts to establish an “intent to deceive” because Juniper has no
`
`evidence that Finjan intentionally waited to file petitions or that Mr. Touboul’s declaration—which
`
`was accurate—was submitted with the intent to deceive the Patent Office. Juniper’s allegations of
`
`intent, all based solely on information and belief, cannot lead to the single most reasonable inference
`
`(as the Federal Circuit requires) that Finjan intended to deceive the Patent Office.
`
`Third, Juniper’s unclean hands affirmative defense is based on its inequitable conduct
`
`allegations, and fails for the same reasons its inequitable conduct claims are deficient, because
`
`Juniper’s allegations do not amount to bad faith or egregious conduct.
`
`1
`FINJAN’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS
`JUNPER’S COUNTERCLAIMS & STRIKE AFF. DEFENSES
`
`CASE NO.: 3:17-cv-05659-WHA
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 150 Filed 07/06/18 Page 8 of 22
`
`
`
`Fourth, Juniper’s ensnarement doctrine affirmative defense is comprised purely of the elements
`of the cause of action without any factual support. Juniper does not dispute that it is devoid of factual
`
`allegations, and thus this defense fails to provide fair notice.
`
`Finally, Finjan’s motion is timely under the Ninth Circuit’s flexible approach to considering
`
`12(b)(6) Motions.
`
`Therefore, the Court should dismiss Juniper’s Third, Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Counterclaims for
`
`failure to state a claim for relief, and strike Juniper’s Tenth, Eleventh, Twelfth, and Fourteenth
`
`Affirmative Defenses, which incorporate the allegations in Juniper’s counterclaims.
`
`ARGUMENT
`
`I.
`
`JUNIPER’S PROSECUTION LACHES ALLEGATIONS ARE CONCLUSORY AND
`FACIALLY IMPLAUSIBLE
`Juniper’s allegations of prosecution laches do not assert a delay sufficient to form the basis for
`
`this defense, and certainly not a delay that is “unreasonable and unexplained” or an “egregious misuse
`
`of the statutory patent system” as required under the law, despite the Federal Circuit’s warning that
`
`prosecution laches should be used sparingly. See Dkt. No. 92, ¶¶135, 168-178; see also Symbol Techs,
`
`Inc. v. Lemelson Med., Educ. & Research Found., LP, 422 F.3d 1378, 1384-85 (Fed. Cir. 2005);
`
`Cancer Research Tech. Ltd. v. Barr Labs., Inc., 625 F.3d 724, 728-29 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (citation
`
`omitted). Juniper does not dispute the facts or explanation set forth in Finjan’s Motion (based on the
`patents, which are subject to judicial notice)1 that Finjan continuously and diligently filed various
`patents following the timely filing and issuance of its patents. Motion at 7–10. Juniper also does not
`
`
`1 The patents, file histories, court filings, and other documents which Finjan has introduced to
`demonstrate the facial implausibility of Juniper’s allegations do not contain material that is subject to
`reasonable dispute, because their contents “can be accurately and readily determined from sources
`whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned.” Fed. R. Evid. 201(b); Oracle Corp. v. ORG
`Structure Innovations LLC, No. C 11-3549 SBA, 2012 WL 12951187, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 30, 2012)
`(granting judicial notice on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion because such notice is proper where the request
`pertains to court filings and other matters of public record) (citing Reyn’s Pasta Bella, LLC v. Visa
`USA, Inc., 442 F.3d 741, 746 n.6 (9th Cir. 2006)). Contrary to Juniper’s assertion, Finjan is not asking
`the Court to take judicial notice of disputed facts. Opp. at 5 (citing Kaar v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.,
`No. C 16-01290 WHA, 2016 WL 3068396, at *5 (N.D. Cal. June 1, 2016)); United States v.
`Corinthian Colleges, 655 F.3d 984, 998-99 (9th Cir. 2011). Nor does Juniper identify any disputed
`facts within its Opposition.
`
`2
`FINJAN’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS
`JUNPER’S COUNTERCLAIMS & STRIKE AFF. DEFENSES
`
`CASE NO.: 3:17-cv-05659-WHA
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 150 Filed 07/06/18 Page 9 of 22
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`dispute that Finjan is legally unable to monopolize its patents past the 20-year mark by filing
`
`continuations, which removes the incentive to unreasonably delay to prolong prosecution. Id. at 8 n.5,
`
`9 (citing Nomadix, Inc. v. Hosp. Core Servs. LLC, No. CV 14-08256 DDP (VBKx), 2015 WL
`
`3948804, at *10-11 (C.D. Cal. June 29, 2015)) (inventor sat on his rights and sequentially filed one
`
`application at a time to improperly extend patent monopoly). As such, any purported delay, without
`
`more, cannot be the basis to establish unreasonable or unexplained delay and thus Juniper’s Third
`
`Counterclaim and Eleventh Affirmative Defense for prosecution laches fail as a matter of law.
`
`Juniper’s claims of prosecution laches are also insufficiently pled because pleading the dates of
`
`filing of patents—as Juniper does here—is insufficient to establish delay for prosecution laches.
`
`Motion at 8–9 (citing Nomadix, 2015 WL 3948804, at *11); see also id. at 10 (citing Feit Elec. Co. v.
`
`Beacon Point Capital, LLC, No. 13-cv-09339, 2015 WL 557262, at *3 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 9, 2015) (noting
`
`that even a twenty year period of patent prosecution is “undoubtedly a long period of time, but without
`
`more … [defendant] has failed to adequately allege unreasonableness of the delay.”)); Sonos, Inc. v.
`
`D&M Holdings Inc., No. 14-1330-RGA-MPT, 2016 WL 4249493, at *7 (D. Del. Aug. 10, 2016).
`
`Further, Juniper does not dispute that Finjan prosecuted its patents within the procedures
`
`permitted by the MPEP, which on its own is not a showing of bad faith. Opp. at 6. As the Federal
`
`Circuit has explained, Finjan’s “legitimate grounds for refiling a patent application [] should not
`
`normally be grounds for a holding of laches.” Motion at 8 (citing Symbol Techs, 422 F.3d at 1385).
`
`Nor does Juniper dispute that the parent patent permits the presumption that the industry was
`
`aware of the outline of subsequent patent claims. Id. at 9. While Juniper relies on Seaboard to
`
`establish purported prejudice, the defendant in that case pled substantially more than Juniper’s single
`
`sentence of purported prejudice, which does not provide any specific facts about how Juniper was
`
`prejudiced, which is completely in Juniper’s possession. Compare Declaration of Kristopher Kastens
`
`in Support of Finjan’s Reply (“Kastens Reply Decl.”), Ex. 1 (Seaboard defendant’s Amended Answer
`
`at ¶24) with Dkt. No. 92 (Juniper’s Answer) at ¶176 (“During the delay, Juniper was prejudiced
`
`because it spent considerable resources marketing, selling, and importing updated versions of the
`
`accused products.”). Accordingly, Juniper’s claim that it has been prejudiced is not sufficiently pled.
`
`3
`FINJAN’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS
`JUNPER’S COUNTERCLAIMS & STRIKE AFF. DEFENSES
`
`CASE NO.: 3:17-cv-05659-WHA
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 150 Filed 07/06/18 Page 10 of 22
`
`
`
`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 does not distinguish the cases Finjan cites in its Motion, and the cases Juniper relies on
`
`are inapplicable, confirming that there is no legal basis for Juniper’s assertion of prosecution laches.
`
`Juniper’s cases involve unexplained delays where the moving party was unable to provide any
`
`explanation for the delay. Opp. at 10-11 (citing Chiron Corp. v. Genentech, Inc., 268 F. Supp. 2d
`
`1139, 1143-45 (E.D. Cal. 2002)) (evaluating prosecution laches at the summary judgment stage and
`
`holding that there were genuine issues of material fact as to prejudice and the reasonableness of the
`
`delay in prosecution); SCVNGR, Inc. v. eCharge Licensing, LLC, No. 13-12418-DJC, 2014 WL
`
`4804738, at *5 (D. Mass. Sept. 25, 2014) (noting an eighteen-year-delay and that denying dismissal
`
`would be consistent with the findings of an Illinois court in a parallel litigation also involving
`
`eCharge); Hynix Semiconductor Inc. v. Rambus Inc., No. CV-00-20905-RMW, 2007 WL 4209386, at
`
`*4-5 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 26, 2007) (denying summary judgment as evidence was presented that the
`
`patents took longer to issue than 99.9% of similar patents and internal documents stated that
`
`continuations should be filed so that claims would encompass upcoming products). Here, Juniper does
`
`not dispute that Finjan diligently prosecuted various patent applications during the relevant time period
`
`or that the act of filing continuation and continuation-in-part applications in the manner Finjan has is
`
`standard practice in patent prosecution. Nor does Juniper attempt to distinguish from any of the cases
`
`identified by Finjan, including Feit, in which the court dismissed a prosecution laches claim with
`
`allegations of over 20 years of prosecution history. Motion at 8–10.
`
`Therefore, the Court should dismiss and strike Juniper’s prosecution laches affirmative defense.
`
`II.
`
`JUNIPER’S INEQUITABLE CONDUCT ALLEGATIONS REGARDING THE ‘494
`AND ‘154 PATENTS ARE FACIALLY IMPLAUSIBLE
`Juniper’s inequitable conduct allegations are not facially plausible under the Federal Circuit’s
`
`stringent standard because Juniper does not plead facts sufficient to establish a misrepresentation by
`
`Finjan, that such misrepresentation was material, or that Finjan intended to deceive the Patent Office.
`
`Dkt. No. 92, ¶¶138, 179-213; see also Exergen Corp. v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 575 F.3d 1312, 1326-27
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2009). To properly plead inequitable conduct, Juniper must allege: “(1) an individual
`
`associated with the filing and prosecution of a patent application made an affirmative
`
`4
`FINJAN’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS
`JUNPER’S COUNTERCLAIMS & STRIKE AFF. DEFENSES
`
`CASE NO.: 3:17-cv-05659-WHA
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 150 Filed 07/06/18 Page 11 of 22
`
`
`
`misrepresentation of a material fact, failed to disclose material information, or submitted false material
`
`information; and (2) the individual did so with a specific intent to deceive the Patent Office.” Exergen,
`
`575 F.3d at 1327 n.3 (citations omitted). Therefore, Juniper must plead inequitable conduct with
`
`particularized factual allegations under Rule 9(b), sufficient to establish a reasonable inference that
`
`there was intent to deceive the Patent Office by a material misrepresentation. See id. at 1326-27. In
`fact, Juniper must allege particular facts that demonstrate that specific intent to deceive is the most
`reasonable inference, which Juniper cannot credibly contend. Therasense, Inc. v. Becton, Dickinson
`& Co., 649 F.3d 1276, 1290 (Fed. Cir. 2011). Instead, Juniper’s defense is built on public information
`
`(subject to judicial notice), which actually disprove Juniper’s argument of an intent to deceive because
`
`Finjan’s actions during prosecution are permitted by the Patent Office. Shwarz v. United States, 234
`
`F.3d 428, 435 (9th Cir. 2000) (“The court need not accept as true, however, allegations that contradict
`
`facts that may be judicially noticed by the court.”). Juniper simply ignores or selects facts and adds an
`
`overarching accusation of suspicious activity, hoping that this suspicion alone changes the character of
`
`documents that are otherwise undisputed in meaning.
`
`A.
`
`The ‘494 Patent
`
`
`
`1.
`
`Juniper’s Inequitable Conduct Counterclaim and Affirmative Defense
`Based on the File History and Prior Litigation Documents Are Not Facially
`Plausible.
`Juniper does not dispute that there was no material misrepresentation when Ms. Bey filed a
`
`“Petition To Accept Unintentionally Delayed Claim of Priority Under 35 U.S.C. § 119(e) and § 120
`
`For The Benefit Of A Prior-filed Application Filed Under 37 C.F.R. § 1.78(a)(3)” in accordance with
`
`the established rules of the USPTO. Dkt. No. 92, ¶186; see also Dkt. No. 110-6, Declaration of
`
`Kristopher Kastens in Support of Finjan’s Motion to Dismiss (“Kastens Decl.”), Ex. 5 at FINJAN-JN
`
`004959-60; Motion at 11–12. Properly filing papers according to USPTO procedure is legally
`
`insufficient to establish a material misrepresentation with intent to deceive.
`
`Rather, Juniper’s Opposition rehashes the allegations in its counterclaim and affirmative
`
`defense, despite the fact that the Touboul Declaration contained no false statements or
`
`misrepresentation “that he was the sole inventor of the claims of the ‘494 Patent” as Juniper alleges.
`5
`FINJAN’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS
`JUNPER’S COUNTERCLAIMS & STRIKE AFF. DEFENSES
`
`CASE NO.: 3:17-cv-05659-WHA
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 150 Filed 07/06/18 Page 12 of 22
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`Dkt. No. 92, ¶194. Juniper cannot allege this conclusion without support and force the Court to accept
`
`it, because it cannot be reasonably inferred based on the content of documents subject to judicial
`
`notice. Indeed, the Court should not accept allegations that are “unwarranted deductions of fact, or
`
`unreasonable inferences.” In re Gilead Scis. Sec. Litig., 536 F.3d 1049, 1055 (9th Cir. 2008) (citation
`
`omitted). Here, Juniper cannot dispute that Mr. Touboul only stated that he is the sole inventor of
`some of the claims of the ‘494 Patent and that “[t]he remaining pending dependent claims were co-
`
`invented by or with one or more of the listed inventors”:
`
`The declaration made herein is to establish that I had the ideas described in the
`patent application, and first developed a working system that is described in the
`patent application and in claims 1, 3, 4-6, 9, 10, 12-15, and 18 pending as of the
`signing of this declaration (hereinafter sole invention) prior to September 10,
`1997, which is the filing date of U.S. Patent No. 5,983,348 to Ji (“the ’348
`patent”). I hereby declare that my sole invention was in my mind and developed
`by at least November 18, 1996. The remaining pending dependent claims were
`co-invented by or with one or more of the listed inventors.
`Dkt. No. 110-6, Kastens Decl., Ex. 5 (Touboul Decl.) at FINJAN-JN 004421-22 (emphasis added).
`
`This statement is consistent with statements Finjan made in a prior litigation that others were involved
`
`in conception of some claims of the ‘494 Patent. Motion at 9–12. Thus, based on the lack of conflict
`
`between Mr. Touboul’s statement and statements made by Finjan during litigation, it would not
`
`reasonable to infer any misrepresentation.
`
`Rather than addressing this defect, Juniper claims that Finjan “quibbles over the weight of
`
`Juniper’s allegations concerning Finjan’s representations in the Symantec litigation.” Opp. at 8
`
`