`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 182-13 Filed 08/20/18 Page 1 of 4
`
`EXHIBIT 12
`EXHIBIT 12
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 182-13 Filed 08/20/18 Page 2 of 4
`
` 1
`
` 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
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`
`FINJAN, INC., a Delaware )
`Corporation, )
` )
` Plaintiff and Counter- ) Case No. 17CV0183-CAB
` Defendant, )
` )
` vs. )
` )
`ESET, LLC, a California Limited )
`Liability Corporation, and ESET )
`SPOL. S.R.O., a Slovak Republic )
`Corporation, )
` )
` Defendants and Counter-)
` Plaintiffs. )
`
`
`
`
`Reporter's Transcript of Claims Construction Hearing
`Volume 2, pages 1-198
`Before The Honorable Cathy Ann Bencivengo
`Tuesday, September 26, 2017, 9:00 a.m.
`San Diego, California
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Proceedings recorded by stenography, transcript produced by
`computer assisted software
`____________________________________________________________
`
`Mauralee Ramirez, RPR, CSR No. 11674
` Federal Official Court Reporter
`ordertranscript@gmail.com
`
`
`
`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 182-13 Filed 08/20/18 Page 3 of 4
`
` 2
`
`Appearances:
`For The Plaintiff:
` Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel, LLP
` Paul Andre
` James Hannah
` 990 Marsh Road
` Menlo Park, California 94025
`
`For The Defendants:
` Foley & Lardner LLP
` Nicola A. Pisano
` Scott A. Penner
` Wendy Cheung
` 3579 Valley Center Drive, Suite 350
` San Diego, California 92130
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` 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
`
`
`
`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 182-13 Filed 08/20/18 Page 4 of 4
`
` 6
`
` 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
`
`issues.
`
`THE COURT: Well, I understand that I may not just be
`following their lead, but that's my fair reading of the patent,
`of the prosecution history, where the patent holder came in and
`said no, what's different about this patent is that it is not
`the work being done at the network gateway where it all had to
`be done before, it's being done prior to that by this
`investigator. That is, again, streamlining and creating an
`efficiency here.
`And the words "investigator" were specifically
`included into that claim specifically with the language that
`this happens before it's made available, and it is consistent
`with the rest of the claims where subsequent investigation or
`review of the Downloadable is done where each of those -- it
`says that the Downloadable was linked to a Security Profile
`before the web server made it available to the web client.
`And that's in the Network Gateway System claim 32.
`It's in 41, it's in 42.
`And so that's one of the fun things about being a
`district judge, I can listen to what other district judges have
`to say, but I don't have to follow it. Until the Federal
`Circuit says it means something else, I'm on my own.
`MR. ANDRE: That's correct. And I'm not saying there
`is anything binding from those other district court judges. I
`guess what I'm asking is -- I will respect your Honor's
`
`