Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 176 Filed 08/06/18 Page 1 of 27
`
`
`
`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 OPENING
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`Date:
`Time:
`Courtroom:
`Before:
`
`
`TBD
`8:00 a.m.
`Courtroom 12, 19th Floor
`Hon. William Alsup
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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 OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`CASE NO. 3:17-cv-05659-WHA
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 176 Filed 08/06/18 Page 2 of 27
`
`
`
`I.
`II.
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................ 1
`STATEMENT OF FACTS ............................................................................................... 1
`
`A.
`
`Summary of Finjan’s Patents at Issue in this Brief ........................................................... 2
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`The ‘633 Patent ..................................................................................................... 2
`
`The ‘844 Patent ..................................................................................................... 2
`
`The ‘926 Patent ..................................................................................................... 3
`
`III.
`
`The ‘154 Patent ..................................................................................................... 4
`4.
`ARGUMENT .................................................................................................................... 4
`
`A.
`
`Terms in the ‘633 Patent ................................................................................................... 4
`
`Term 1.
`
` “mobile protection code” (‘633 Patent, Claims 1, 8, 14 and
`19) ......................................................................................................... 4
`
`Term 2.
`
` “A computer program product, comprising a computer
`usable medium having a computer readable program code
`therein, the computer readable program code adapted to be
`executed for computer security, the method comprising:”
`(‘633 Patent, Claim 14) ........................................................................ 6
`
`Term 3.
`
` “information-destination/downloadable-information
`destination” (‘633 Patent, Claims 1, 8, 14 and 19).............................. 8
`
`Term 4.
`
` “if the downloadable-information is determined to include
`executable code / determining, by the computer, whether
`the downloadable information includes executable code”
`(‘633 Patent, Claims 1 and 8) ............................................................... 9
`
`B.
`
`Terms in the ‘844 Patent ................................................................................................. 11
`
`Term 5.
`
` “inspector” (‘844 Patent, Claims 1, 15 and 41) ................................. 11
`
`Term 6.
`
` “before a web server makes the Downloadable available to
`web clients” (Claims 1, 15, and 41) .................................................. 13
`
`C.
`
`Terms in the ‘926 Patent ................................................................................................. 16
`
`Term 7.
`
` “a transmitter coupled with said receiver, for transmitting
`the incoming Downloadable and a representation of the
`retrieved Downloadable security profile data to a
`
`i
`FINJAN’S OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`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 176 Filed 08/06/18 Page 3 of 27
`
`
`
`destination computer, via a transport protocol transmission”
`(‘926 Patent, Claim 22) ...................................................................... 16
`
`D.
`
`Terms in the ‘154 Patent ................................................................................................. 17
`
`Term 8.
`
` “A content processor (i) for processing content received
`over a network the content including a call to a first
`function, and the call including an input, and (ii) for
`invoking a second function with the input, only if a security
`computer indicates that such invocation is safe” (‘154
`Patent, Claim 1) .................................................................................. 17
`
`Term 9.
`
` “invoking a second function with the input” (‘154 Patent,
`Claim 1) .............................................................................................. 19
`
`Term 10.
` “safe” (‘154 Patent, Claim 1) ............................................................ 20
`CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................... 21
`
`
`
`IV.
`
`
`
`ii
`FINJAN’S OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`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 176 Filed 08/06/18 Page 4 of 27
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Federal Cases
`
`
`
`Page(s)
`
`Accent Packaging, Inc. v. Leggett & Platt, Inc.,
`707 F.3d 1318 (Fed. Cir. 2013)............................................................................................... 9, 17, 19
`
`Acromed Corp. v. Sofamor Danek Grp., Inc.,
`253 F.3d 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2001)......................................................................................................... 12
`
`Aventis Pharms. Inc. v. Amino Chems. Ltd.,
`715 F.3d 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2013)................................................................................... 9, 10, 11, 13, 17
`
`Avid Tech., Inc. v. Harmonic, Inc.,
`812 F.3d 1040 (Fed. Cir. 2016)......................................................................................................... 12
`
`EPOS Techs. Ltd. v. Pegasus Techs. Ltd.,
`766 F.3d 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2014)......................................................................................................... 16
`
`Finjan, Inc. v. Blue Coat Sys., Inc.,
`879 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2018)..................................................................................................... 2, 15
`
`Finjan, Inc. v. Blue Coat Sys., Inc.,
`No. 13-cv-03999-BLF, 2014 WL 5361976 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 20, 2014) ...................................... passim
`
`Finjan, Inc. v. Blue Coat Sys., Inc.,
`No. 13-cv-03999-BLF, 2016 WL 3880774 (N.D. Cal. July 18, 2016), aff’d in part
`and reversed in part by Blue Coat Sys., Inc., 879 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2018) ................................. 15
`
`Finjan, Inc. v. Blue Coat Systems, LLC,
`No. 15-cv-03295-BLF, 2016 WL 7212322 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 13, 2016) .............................................. 3
`
`Finjan, Inc. v. Cisco Sys., Inc.,
`No. 17-cv-00072-BLF, 2018 WL 3537142 (N.D. Cal. July 23, 2018) ....................................... 13, 15
`
`Finjan, Inc. v. Proofpoint, Inc.,
`No. 13-cv-05808-HSG, 2015 WL 7770208 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 3, 2015) ..................................... 5, 8, 21
`
`Finjan, Inc. v. Proofpoint, Inc.,
`No. 13-cv-05808-HSG, 2016 WL 1427492 (N.D. cal. April 12, 2016) ........................................... 15
`
`Finjan, Inc. v. Sophos, Inc.,
`244 F. Supp. 3d 1016 (N.D. Cal. 2017) ...................................................................................... 15, 17
`
`Finjan, Inc. v. Sophos, Inc.,
`No. 14-cv-01197-WHO, 2016 WL 2988834 (N.D. Cal. May 24, 2016) .......................................... 15
`
`iii
`FINJAN’S OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`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 176 Filed 08/06/18 Page 5 of 27
`
`
`
`Finjan, Inc. v. Symantec Corp.,
`No. 14-cv-02998-HSG, 2017 WL 550453 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 10, 2017) .................................... 4, 13, 15
`
`IPXL Holdings, LLC v. Amazon.com, Inc.,
`430 F.3d 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2005)....................................................................................................... 6, 7
`
`K–2 Corp. v. Salomon S.A.,
`191 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 1999)......................................................................................................... 10
`
`Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc.,
`134 S. Ct. 2120 (2014) .................................................................................................................... 6, 7
`
`On-Line Techs., Inc. v. Bodenseewerk Perkin-Elmer GmbH,
`386 F.3d 1133 (Fed. Cir. 2004)......................................................................................................... 17
`
`Resonate Inc. v. Alteon Websystems, Inc.,
`338 F.3d 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2003)......................................................................................................... 10
`
`Thorner v. Sony Computer Entm’t Am. LLC,
`669 F.3d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2012)................................................................................................... 12, 18
`
`Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc.,
`90 F.3d 1576 (Fed. Cir. 1996)......................................................................................................... 6, 8
`
`iv
`FINJAN’S OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`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 176 Filed 08/06/18 Page 6 of 27
`
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`The Court should adopt Finjan’s proposed claim constructions because they are consistent with
`
`the intrinsic record and this Court’s previous claim construction orders. Juniper’s proposed
`
`constructions, in contrast, conflict with the prior orders of this Court and improperly read limitations
`
`into the claims from exemplary embodiments or other patents, in a litigation-driven attempt to avoid
`
`infringement. In fact, Juniper’s proposed constructions are largely rehashes of arguments that have
`
`already been rejected by other Judges in this district. In the few instances where Juniper raises new
`
`constructions, it is undercut by the previous testimony of its own expert, Dr. Rubin, who agreed with
`
`Finjan’s position when he submitted declarations stating that the plain and ordinary meaning applies to
`
`these terms. Finally, Juniper’s proposed constructions often also needlessly muddle the plain language
`
`of the claim terms with verbose descriptions that will only confuse the jury, and should be rejected on
`
`this basis as well.
`
`Therefore, the Court should adopt Finjan’s proposed constructions, as detailed below.
`
`II.
`
`STATEMENT OF FACTS
`
`Finjan currently asserts seven patents against Juniper: U.S. Patent Nos. 6,154,844 (the “’844
`
`Patent”), 8,677,494 (the “’494 Patent”), 6,804,780 (the “’780 Patent”), 8,141,154 (the “’154 Patent”),
`
`7,418,731 (the “’731 Patent”), 7,613,926 (the “’926 Patent”), and 7,647,633 (the “’633 Patent”)
`
`(collectively the “Patents-in-Suit”). The ‘844, ‘633, ‘154, and ‘926 Patents have terms at issue for this
`
`claim construction briefing. The ‘731 Patent was recently added to the case and Finjan has consented
`
`to Juniper’s request to handle terms from this patent in a separate briefing schedule.
`
`Currently, Finjan requests that the Court construe three terms (terms 1-3), which is consistent
`
`with the Court’s suggestion that the parties construe no more than six terms (three per party). Dkt. No.
`
`35 at ¶ 20. Juniper, however, now requests that the Court construe 14 terms, as it requests seven terms
`
`to be construed now during claim construction (Dkt. No. 115) and it also selected seven additional
`
`terms for construction during early summary judgment (Dkt. Nos. 96 and 126)—resulting in 17 terms
`
`total (with Finjan’s three terms) at issue for construction. As such, Juniper seeks to construe more
`
`terms well beyond what is allowed pursuant to the Court’s Amended Scheduling Order without a
`
`1
`FINJAN’S OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`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 176 Filed 08/06/18 Page 7 of 27
`
`
`
`showing of good cause. Dkt. No. 35 at ¶ 20. Furthermore, Finjan understands that Juniper will seek
`
`yet more terms to construe for the ‘731 Patent. As Juniper has already selected seven terms for
`
`construction during early summary judgment, the additional seven terms selected here—terms 4-10
`
`A.
`
`below—should be ignored as violating the Court’s Amended Scheduling Order.
`
`
`Summary of Finjan’s Patents at Issue in this Brief
`1. The ‘633 Patent
`The ‘633 Patent generally covers protecting network connectable devices, such as computers
`
`on a network, from malicious executable code, such as viruses, that perform undesirable operations.
`
`See Declaration of Kristopher Kastens in support of Finjan’s Opening Claim Construction Brief
`(“Kastens Decl.”), Ex. 1 (“‘633 Patent”) at Abstract.1 The patent describes a protection engine that
`operates within a re-communicator, such as a server or gateway computer. See, e.g., id. at Col. 2, ll.
`
`58–Col. 3, ll. 4. The protection engine intercepts information, which may or may not include a virus,
`
`and determines whether the information includes indicators showing that it is likely to include
`
`executable code. Id. The patent describes that determining whether a file has executable code can be
`
`performed by looking at the file header and the file type. Id. at Col. 14, ll. 58–Col. 15, ll. 8.
`
`Executable code includes information such as operations or actions performed by a system or
`
`computer. For example, executable code embedded in a webpage can perform operations, such as
`
`reading files, opening connections to other URLs or responding to movements of the mouse on the
`
`computer. In this example, if the information includes executable information, the protection engine
`
`can package the information with mobile protection code (“MPC”) and security policies. See ‘633
`
`Patent, Fig. 3. The MPC causes potentially malicious code or operations or the Downloadable to be
`
`monitored and/or intercepted. Id. at Col. 2, ll. 51–66.
`2. The ‘844 Patent
`
`The Federal Circuit Court recently recognized the ‘844 Patent, stating that the “‘behavior-
`
`based’ approach to virus scanning was pioneered by Finjan and is disclosed in the ‘844 patent’s
`
`specification.” Finjan, Inc. v. Blue Coat Sys., Inc., 879 F.3d 1299, 1304 (Fed. Cir. 2018). The Court
`
`1 Hereafter all references to “Ex.” are to exhibits attached to the Declaration of Kristopher Kastens in
`support of Finjan’s Opening Claim Construction Brief.
`2
`FINJAN’S OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`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 176 Filed 08/06/18 Page 8 of 27
`
`
`
`further explained the unique teaching in the ‘844 Patent: “In contrast to traditional ‘code-matching’
`
`systems, which simply look for the presence of known viruses, ‘behavior-based’ scans can analyze a
`
`downloadable’s code and determine whether it performs potentially dangerous or unwanted
`
`operations—such as renaming or deleting files.” Id. To accomplish this, the ‘844 Patent inspects a
`
`downloaded file and generates a DSP indicating the suspicious operations that the file may attempt.
`
`Ex. 4 (“‘844 Patent”) at Abstract. In this way, the system is able to characterize the behavior of the
`
`Downloadable to determine whether it is malicious, and thereby make security decisions for the
`
`Downloadable using the DSP. Id. The ‘844 Patent also describes how a content inspector can be used
`
`to identify suspicious operations or code in a Downloadable and links the DSP to the Downloadable.
`
`Id. After the DSP has been created and identified for a particular Downloadable, it can be used to
`
`determine whether to allow the Downloadable into a network or block it from ever reaching the user.
`
`Id. at Col. 2, l. 65 to Col. 3, l. 2.
`3. The ‘926 Patent
`
`The ‘926 Patent generally describes a system for protecting networked computers from
`
`malicious content also using behavior detection. See Ex. 2 (“‘926 Patent”), Abstract. The ‘926 Patent
`
`describes how a “Downloadable security profile” (“DSP”) can be generated for a Downloadable. ‘926
`Patent at e.g., Claim 1-7; see also, Ex. 3 (“‘780 Patent”) at Col. 5, ll. 45-Col. 6, ll. 35.2 The ‘926
`Patent goes on further to describe examples for how after the DSP has been generated it can be stored
`
`in a number of ways for use. ‘780 Patent at Col. 5, ll. 48-51. In one example case, the ‘926 Patent
`
`describes a system for generating identities (“ID”) for downloaded files, and using those IDs to retrieve
`
`DSPs. Id. at e.g., Claim 1. Once retrieved, a representation of the DSP and the downloaded file can be
`
`sent to a destination computer for further analysis, such as being used to make security decisions with
`
`respect to the Downloadable the DSP is associated with. Id.; ‘780 Patent, Col. 6, ll. 21-24.
`
`
`2 The ‘926 Patent incorporates the specification of the ‘780 Patent by reference into the specification
`and is considered as part of the ‘926 Patent. See, for example, Finjan, Inc. v. Blue Coat Systems, LLC,
`No. 15-cv-03295-BLF, 2016 WL 7212322, at *7-8 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 13, 2016).
`3
`FINJAN’S OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`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 176 Filed 08/06/18 Page 9 of 27
`
`
`
`4. The ‘154 Patent
`The ‘154 Patent generally relates to protecting a computer from dynamically generated
`
`executable code. See Ex. 5 (“‘154 Patent”) at Abstract. The ‘154 Patent teaches example
`
`embodiments where incoming content is processed, and then a portion of the content is checked using
`
`a security computer to determine whether the software is malicious or not. ‘154 Patent at Claim 1.
`
`Generally, if the portion of the content sent to the security computer is not deemed malicious (or
`
`“safe”), then it is allowed to continue processing. See id., Abstract.
`III. ARGUMENT
` Terms in the ‘633 Patent
`A.
`
`Term 1.
`“mobile protection code” (‘633 Patent, Claims 1, 8, 14 and 19)
`Finjan’s Proposed Construction
`Juniper’s Proposed Construction
`Code that, at runtime, monitors or intercepts
`Code that itself, at runtime, monitors or
`actually or potentially malicious code
`intercepts actually or potentially malicious code
`operations without modifying the executable
`operations
`code
`Finjan’s proposed construction for this term is correct because it is consistent with the intrinsic
`
`
`
`record, which states that “mobile protection code … enables various Downloadable operations to be
`
`detected, intercepted or further responded to via protective operations.” ‘633 Patent at Col. 2, ll. 51–
`
`55. Furthermore, the ‘633 Patent specifically states that “mobile protection code” (or “MPC”) allows
`
`for this protection “without modifying the mobile code,” and specifically distinguishes the invention of
`
`the ‘633 Patent from other art that require “modification of the Downloadable components.” Id. at
`
`Col. 1, ll. 63–Col. 2, ll. 4; id. at Col. 4, ll. 11–21. Finjan’s proposed construction has already been
`adopted in this District by Judge Gilliam and Judge Freeman,3 and has also been adopted by the PTAB.
`See Finjan, Inc. v. Symantec Corp., No. 14-cv-02998-HSG, 2017 WL 550453, at *3–4 (N.D. Cal. Feb.
`
`10, 2017) (“to the extent possible, the degree of deference [to a prior claim construction order] should
`
`3 Although Judge Freeman identified the construction as “code that, at runtime, monitors or intercepts
`actually or potentially malicious code operations,” for the related term, “causing mobile protection
`code to be executed by the mobile code executor at...” she construed that it be done “without
`modifying the executable code,” and at trial required no modification to the executable code in the jury
`instructions. Finjan, Inc. v. Blue Coat Sys., Inc., No. 13-cv-03999-BLF, 2014 WL 5361976, at *13
`(N.D. Cal. Oct. 20, 2014).
`
`
`4
`FINJAN’S OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`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 176 Filed 08/06/18 Page 10 of 27
`
`
`
`be greater where the prior claim construction order was issued in the same jurisdiction.”); Finjan, Inc.
`
`v. Proofpoint, Inc., No. 13-cv-05808-HSG, 2015 WL 7770208, at *2–4 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 3, 2015); Blue
`
`Coat Sys., Inc., 2014 WL 5361976, at *3–4; Ex. 6 at 15–18 (IPR2015-01974, Final Written Decision);
`
`see also Ex. 7 at 7 (‘633 Patent, Notice of Intent to Issue a Reexam Cert.) (Patent and Trademark
`
`Office Reexamination examiner rejecting reexam request noting that the “mobile protection code”
`
`“does not modify executable code found in the downloadable-information”). As such, the proper
`
`construction of mobile protection code is the code that monitors or intercepts potentially malicious
`
`code operations without modifying the executable code in order to determine the behavior of the
`
`software that is being analyzed.
`
`Here, Finjan’s proposed construction includes a limitation of “without modifying the
`
`executable code,” while Juniper’s proposed construction omits this limitation. However, this
`
`limitation is appropriate because it is consistent with the intrinsic evidence, which describes:
`
`Advantageously, systems and methods according to embodiments of the invention enable
`potentially damaging, undesirable or otherwise malicious operations by even unknown
`mobile code to be detected, prevented, modified and/or otherwise protected against
`without modifying the mobile code.
`‘633 Patent at Col. 4. Ll. 11–21 (emphasis added). Furthermore, the ‘633 Patent background section
`
`specifically states that a disadvantage of other methods is the “modification of the Downloadable
`
`component.” Id. at Col. 1, l. 58–Col. 2, l. 4, Col. 10, ll. 39–45 (describing disclosed invention as
`
`“more accurate and far less resource intensive than, for example, … modifying a Downloadable”).
`
`Indeed, this Court has previously determined that “[i]t is clear from the specification that the MPC
`
`does not modify executable code.” Blue Coat Sys., Inc., 2014 WL 5361976, at 5; see also Ex. 6 at 11
`
`(“no embodiment describes modification of the executable code itself”); Ex. 6 at 15 (“Indeed, such a
`
`disclosure would be contrary to the stated advantages and distinctions discussed above of mobile
`protection code that detects, prevents, and modifies malicious operations of executable code, without
`modifying such executable code.”)(emphasis added). As such, the construction of “mobile protection
`
`code” should specify that it operates “without modifying the executable code” as set forth in Finjan’s
`
`proposed construction.
`
`5
`FINJAN’S OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`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 176 Filed 08/06/18 Page 11 of 27
`
`
`
`
`
`Juniper also adds the limitation that the code “itself” will perform the monitoring or
`
`intercepting of operations. First, it is unclear what Juniper intends this limitation to mean, as all code
`
`running on a computer interacts with many other software components (such as an operating system).
`
`‘633 Patent at Col. 8, ll. 27-46 (describing how computer has an operating system). Therefore, “code”
`
`typically does not run on a computer by “itself” rather, it utilizes the operating system and other
`
`programs that are already resident. However, to the extent that Juniper argues that the MPC must
`
`perform every single aspect of the monitoring or incepting, instead of working with other software
`
`components (such as those in the operating system), there is nothing in the limitation that would limit
`
`mobile protection code to only operating in this manner. See Claims 1, 8, 14, and 19; Vitronics Corp.
`
`v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 1582 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (when construing claims, courts “look to
`
`the words of the claims themselves.”). Instead, the ‘633 Patent specifically describes how monitoring
`
`and intercepting is performed by the MPC in conjunction with other resident programs (like the
`
`operating system). See, e.g., ‘633 Patent at Col. 18, ll. 1-24 (describing how the operating system
`
`initializes the MPC). As such, Juniper’s proposed inclusion of “code by itself” is improper and
`
`contrary to the specification.
`
`Therefore, the Court should adopt Finjan’s proposed construction of the term mobile protection
`
`code.
`
`Term 2.
`
`
`
`“A computer program product, comprising a computer usable
`medium having a computer readable program code therein, the
`computer readable program code adapted to be executed for
`computer security, the method comprising:” (‘633 Patent, Claim 14)
`
`Finjan’s Proposed Construction
`The typographical error in the preamble is
`corrected to read:
`
`Juniper’s Proposed Construction
`Indefinite under IPXL (mixed statutory classes)
`and/or Nautilus
`
` A
`
` computer program product, comprising a
`computer usable medium having a computer
`readable program code therein, the computer
`readable program code adapted to be
`executed for computer security, comprising:
`providing a system…
`
`6
`FINJAN’S OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`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 176 Filed 08/06/18 Page 12 of 27
`
`
`
`
`
`This Court has already found that this claim’s typographical error can be corrected as Finjan
`
`requests here. Blue Coat Sys., Inc., 2014 WL 5361976, at *7-8. Specifically, Finjan asks that the
`
`claim be corrected so that the words “the method” are removed. As corrected, Claim 14 sets forth a
`
`Beauregard claim that is understandable to one of ordinary skill in the art. Indeed, neither the PTAB
`
`nor Dr. Rubin disputed that this term was indefinite in IPR. See generally, Ex. 6 (IPR 2015-01974,
`
`Final Written Decision); Ex. 8 (Rubin Decl.) at 63, 67 (not disputing whether the term is indefinite).
`
`Under Nautilus, Judge Freeman concluded that this term, as corrected, “can be reasonably interpreted
`
`to set forth a computer readable program code that, when executed, performs the limitations of the
`
`claim.” 2014 WL 5361976, at *7-8 (citing Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc., 134 S. Ct. 2120,
`
`2124 (2014)).
`
`
`
`This result does not change under IPXL Holdings, LLC v. Amazon.com, Inc. Under IPXL, a
`
`claim must not include both method and apparatus limitations in the same claim. IPXL Holdings, LLC
`
`v. Amazon.com, Inc., 430 F.3d 1377, 1383-84 (Fed. Cir. 2005). Unlike the claim at issue in IPXL, this
`
`preamble does not contain method: rather, it describes “capability” of the code to be executed for
`
`computer security. In other words, unlike method claim, this element can be met without actually
`
`executing for computer security. As soon as the computer readable program code is “adapted” to be
`
`executed for computer security, infringement can be found (granted that the rest of elements of the
`
`claim are also met). Thus, this claim is just like the system claim at issue in MasterMine Software, Inc.
`
`v. Microsoft Corp., where the Federal Circuit Court distinguished IPXL by finding that the claim at
`
`issue “merely use permissible functional language to describe the capabilities of the claimed system,”
`
`and therefore “it is clear that infringement occurs when one makes, uses, offers to sell, or sells the
`
`claimed system.” 874 F.3d 1307, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2017). This Court should also find this claim not
`
`indefinite for the same reason because this claim uses permissible function language to describe the
`
`capabilities of the claimed computer program product.
`
`7
`FINJAN’S OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`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 176 Filed 08/06/18 Page 13 of 27
`
`
`
`Term 3.
`
`
`
`“information-destination/downloadable-information destination”
`(‘633 Patent, Claims 1, 8, 14 and 19)
`
`Finjan’s Proposed Construction
`
`Plain and ordinary meaning.
`
`The plain and ordinary meaning of the terms “information-destination”
`and “downloadable-information destination” is a device or process that
`is capable of receiving and initiating or otherwise hosting a mobile
`code execution.
`Finjan’s proposed construction of these terms is correct because it sets forth a plain and
`
`Juniper’s Proposed
`Construction
`User/client device
`
`ordinary meaning for “information-destination of the downloadable-information” and “downloadable-
`
`information destination” in a manner that is explicitly supported by the ‘633 Patent. Namely, and
`
`consistent with Finjan’s proposal, the ‘633 Patent describes that “[a] suitable information destination”
`
`is something that is “capable of receiving and initiating or otherwise hosting a mobile code execution.”
`
`‘633 Patent at Col. 7, ll. 58–62. Finjan’s proposed construction is consistent with this Court’s prior
`
`construction of this term in the Proofpoint action, which confirmed this understanding. See
`
`Proofpoint, 2015 WL 7770208, at *5 (construing this term as “a device or process that is capable of
`
`receiving and initiating or otherwise hosting a mobile code execution”) (citing Vitronics, 90 F.3d at
`
`1582 (“The specification acts as a dictionary when it expressly defines terms used in the claims or
`
`when it defines terms by implication.”)); see also Blue Coat Sys., Inc., 2014 WL 5361976, at *2
`
`(adopting the parties’ construction on these terms). As such, Finjan’s construction should be adopted
`
`because it is supported by the intrinsic record and prior claim construction orders from this Court.
`
`Juniper’s proposed construction, on the other hand, is contrary to embodiments disclosed in the
`intrinsic evidence. For example, Juniper’s construction requires that the term be a “user/client device,”
`
`but the specification includes “processes” such as an email or web browser other than “devices” as
`
`examples of the “information-destination.” See, e.g., ‘633 Patent at Col. 7, ll. 58–62 (noting that the
`
`information-destination may be a process, such as an email or web browser); see also id. at Col. 3, ll.
`
`22–25 (“A sandbox protection system according to an embodiment of the invention comprises an
`
`installer for enabling a received MPC to be executed within a Downloadable-destination
`
`8
`FINJAN’S OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`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 176 Filed 08/06/18 Page 14 of 27
`
`
`
`(device/process)”) (emphasis added). Accordingly, the ‘633 Patent discloses a broad interpretation of
`
`an “information-destination” encompassing components that are not “user/client devices.”
`
`Juniper’s proposed construction also appears to exclude embodiments that are in the
`
`specification of the ‘633 Patent. Accent Packaging, Inc. v. Leggett & Platt, Inc., 707 F.3d 1318, 1326
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2013). Namely, the ‘633 Patent describes components that are information-destinations,
`
`which would not be typically considered a “user device,” such as a “‘re-communicator’ (e.g. ISP
`
`server…)” (‘633 Patent at Col. 7, ll. 1-4) or components “operating as a firewall/server, or other
`
`information-supplier or intermediary (i.e., as a ‘re-communicator’ or ‘server’”). Id. at Col. 7, ll. 50-54.
`
`Furthermore, it is unclear what Juniper even means by a “user/client,” as these terms are not used in
`
`t