throbber
Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 224 Filed 11/09/18 Page 1 of 50
`
`
`
`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.
`
`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.
`
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
`
`
`Case No.: 3:17-cv-05659-WHA
`
`SUPPLEMENTAL JOINT CLAIM
`CONSTRUCTION AND PRE-HEARING
`STATEMENT
`
`
`FINJAN, INC.,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`
`JUNIPER NETWORKS, INC.,
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`SUPPLEMENTAL JOINT CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`AND PRE-HEARING STATEMENT
`
`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 224 Filed 11/09/18 Page 2 of 50
`
`
`
`Pursuant to Patent L.R. 4-3, Plaintiff Finjan, Inc. (“Finjan”) and Defendant Juniper Networks,
`
`Inc. (“Juniper”) hereby submit this Supplemental Joint Claim Construction and Pre-Hearing Statement.
`
`I.
`
`PATENT L.R. 4-3(A): PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION OF EACH AGREED TERM
`The parties’ agreed-upon claim constructions are provided below.
`U.S. Patent No. 6,154,844
`Claim Term
`Claim(s)
`Downloadable
`1, 15, 41
`
`Agreed Construction
`an executable application program, which is downloaded from a
`source computer and run on the destination computer.
`
`Agreed Construction
`an executable application program, which is downloaded from
`a source computer and run on the destination computer
`a collection of interrelated data organized according to a
`database schema to serve one or more applications
`
`Agreed Construction
`an executable application program, which is downloaded from a
`source computer and run on the destination computer.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,677,494
`Claim Term
`Claim(s)
`Downloadable
`10, 14, 18
`
`database
`
`10
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,804,780
`Claim Term
`Claim(s)
`Downloadable
`1, 9
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,613,926
`Claim Term
`Claim(s)
`Downloadable
`15, 22
`
`Agreed Construction
`an executable application program, which is downloaded from a
`source computer and run on the destination computer.
`a collection of interrelated data organized according to a
`database schema to serve one or more applications
`PATENT L.R. 4-3(b): PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION OF EACH DISPUTED TERM
`
`database
`
`15, 22
`
`II.
`
`The parties’ proposed additional claim constructions are provided below. All supporting
`
`evidence for the parties’ claim constructions is provided in Exhibit A. The parties reserve their rights
`
`to cite additional supporting evidence based on arguments raised in the claim construction briefs.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,154,844
`Claim Term
`Claim(s)
`
`inspector
`
`1, 15, 41
`
`Finjan’s Proposed
`Construction
`No construction necessary
`– Plain and ordinary
`
`Juniper’s Proposed
`Construction
`A content inspection engine
`located within an external
`
`1
`SUPPLEMENTAL JOINT CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`AND PRE-HEARING STATEMENT
`
`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 224 Filed 11/09/18 Page 3 of 50
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,154,844
`Claim Term
`Claim(s)
`
`1, 15, 41
`
`before a web
`server makes the
`Downloadable
`available to web
`clients
`
`Juniper’s Proposed
`Construction
`computer network, that is separate
`from the network gateway
`Before the Downloadable is
`available on a web server to be
`called up or forwarded to a web
`client
`
`Finjan’s Proposed
`Construction
`meaning.
`
`Plain and ordinary
`meaning. Plain and
`ordinary meaning of “web
`client” is “an application
`on the computer of an end
`user that requests a
`Downloadable from the
`web server.”
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,613,926
`Claim Term
`Claim(s) Finjan’s Proposed
`Construction
`No construction necessary –
`Plain and ordinary meaning.
`
`15, 22
`
`transmitting the
`incoming
`Downloadable and a
`representation of the
`retrieved
`Downloadable
`security profile data
`to a destination
`computer, via a
`transport protocol
`transmission
`
`a transmitter coupled
`with said receiver, for
`transmitting the
`incoming
`Downloadable and a
`representation of the
`retrieved
`Downloadable
`security profile data
`to a destination
`computer, via a
`transport protocol
`transmission
`
`
`Juniper’s Proposed
`Construction
`Sending the incoming
`Downloadable along with a
`representation of the retrieved
`Downloadable security profile
`data to a user/client computer,
`via a transport protocol
`transmission
`
`
`A transmitter coupled with said
`receiver, for sending the
`incoming Downloadable along
`with a representation of the
`retrieved Downloadable
`security profile data to a
`user/client computer, via a
`transport protocol transmission
`
`15, 22
`
`No construction necessary –
`Plain and ordinary meaning.
`
`2
`SUPPLEMENTAL JOINT CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`AND PRE-HEARING STATEMENT
`
`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 224 Filed 11/09/18 Page 4 of 50
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,647,633
`Claim Term
`Claim(s)
`
`mobile protection
`code
`
`
`1, 8, 14 19
`
`14
`
`1, 8, 14, 19
`
`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:
`information-
`destination/downlo
`adable-information
`destination
`
`If the
`downloadable-
`information is
`determined to
`include executable
`code
`
`
`determining, by the
`computer, whether
`the downloadable
`information
`
`Juniper’s Proposed
`Construction
`Code that itself, at runtime,
`monitors or intercepts
`actually or potentially
`malicious code operations
`
`Indefinite under IPXL (mixed
`statutory classes) and/or
`Nautilus
`
`User/client device
`
`Finjan’s Proposed
`Construction
`code that, at runtime, monitors
`or intercepts actually or
`potentially malicious code
`operations without modifying
`the code operations
`
`The typographical error in the
`preamble is corrected to read:
`
` 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…
`
`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.
`
`1, 8
`
`Plain and ordinary meaning.
`
`1, 8
`
`Plain and ordinary meaning.
`
`Distinguishing between two
`alternative possibilities:
`executable code is included in
`the downloadable-
`information and executable
`code is not included in the
`downloadable-information
`
`Distinguishing between two
`alternative possibilities:
`executable code is included in
`
`3
`SUPPLEMENTAL JOINT CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`AND PRE-HEARING STATEMENT
`
`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 224 Filed 11/09/18 Page 5 of 50
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,647,633
`Claim Term
`Claim(s)
`
`includes
`executable code
`
`Finjan’s Proposed
`Construction
`
`Finjan’s Proposed
`Construction
`Plain and ordinary meaning.
`
`Juniper’s Proposed
`Construction
`the downloadable-
`information and executable
`code is not included in the
`downloadable-information
`
`Juniper’s Proposed
`Construction
`A processor on a client
`computer for processing
`content received over a
`network, the content including
`a call to a first function, and the
`call including an input, and for
`invoking a second function with
`the input, only if a security
`computer indicates that such
`invocation is safe
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,141,154
`Claim Term
`Claim(s)
`
`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
`invoking a second
`function with the
`input
`
`Safe
`
`1
`
`1
`
`1
`
`Plain and ordinary meaning.
`
`Plain and ordinary meaning.
`
`Executing a second function by
`using the input to the first
`function as the input to the
`second function
`
`Security profile does not violate
`the client computer’s security
`policy
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,418,731
`Claim Term
`Claim(s)
`
`a file cache for
`storing files
`that have been
`scanned by the
`
`1
`
`Finjan’s Proposed
`Construction
`No construction necessary –
`Plain and ordinary meaning.
`
`Juniper’s Proposed
`Construction
`A file cache for storing files
`that have been scanned by the
`scanner for use in response to
`
`4
`SUPPLEMENTAL JOINT CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`AND PRE-HEARING STATEMENT
`
`CASE NO.: 3:17-cv-05659-WHA
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 224 Filed 11/09/18 Page 6 of 50
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,418,731
`Claim Term
`Claim(s)
`
`Finjan’s Proposed
`Construction
`
`scanner for future
`access
`storing the
`retrieved
`file within a file
`cache for
`future access
`cache
`
`17
`
`No construction necessary –
`Plain and ordinary meaning.
`
`1, 17
`
`No construction necessary –
`Plain and ordinary meaning.
`
`the security
`policies each
`including a list of
`restrictions
`
`1
`
`No construction necessary –
`Plain and ordinary meaning.
`
`Juniper’s Proposed
`Construction
`subsequent requests by a client
`to an Internet server
`
`storing the retrieved file within
`a file cache for use in response
`to subsequent requests by a
`client to an Internet server
`
`high-speed memory used to
`temporarily store duplicated
`data for quick access
`
`the security policies each
`including a list of operations or
`computer commands that are to
`be blocked
`
`PATENT L.R. 4-3(C): IDENTIFICATION OF TERMS FOR CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`BRIEFING
`Finjan’s Statement:
`Patent [Claim]
`
`III.
`
`No.
`1
`
`‘633 Patent [1,
`8, 14, 19]
`‘633 Patent
`[14]
`
`‘633 Patent
`[1, 8, 14, 19]
`‘633 Patent [1, 8]
`
`‘844 Patent [1,
`15, 41]
`‘844 Patent [1,
`15, 41]
`‘154 Patent [1]
`‘731 Patent [1]
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`8
`
`9
`10
`
`‘731 Patent [1]
`‘731 Patent [1,
`17]
`
`Term
`
`mobile protection code
`
`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
`information-destination/downloadable-information destination
`
`If the downloadable-information is determined to include executable
`code / determining, by the computer, whether the downloadable
`information includes executable code
`Inspector
`
`Before a web server makes the Downloadable available to web clients
`
`safe
`a file cache for storing files that have been scanned by the scanner for
`future access
`storing the retrieved file within a file cache for future access
`cache
`
`5
`SUPPLEMENTAL JOINT CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`AND PRE-HEARING STATEMENT
`
`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 224 Filed 11/09/18 Page 7 of 50
`
`
`
`No.
`11
`
`Patent [Claim]
`
`Term
`the security policies each including a list of restrictions
`‘731 Patent [1]
`This Court made clear that it construes six terms rather than ten during the claim construction
`
`process. See Amended Case Management Order (Dkt. 35) at page 7. To that end, Finjan identified the
`
`first three terms, namely “mobile protection code,” “a computer program product…,” and “information
`
`destination,” for its half of the six total terms that the Court will construe.
`
`Over Finjan’s objection, Juniper insisted on identifying eight additional terms in this Patent
`
`L.R. 4-3(c) disclosure. Notably, Juniper’s identification of eight terms is in addition to the three more
`
`terms from the ‘780 Patent that it sought to have construed as part of its opening early summary
`
`judgment motion and the further seven terms that Juniper sought a construction on related to Finjan’s
`
`early summary judgment motion for on Claim 10 of the ‘494 Patent. See Dkt. 96 at 4-9. Furthermore,
`
`Juniper improperly attempts to identify the terms “a file cache for storing files that have been scanned
`
`by the scanner for future access” and “storing the retrieved file within a file cache for future access” as
`
`a single term, even though there are differences in the language and they have proposed two separate
`
`constructions. Finjan objects to Juniper’s attempt to include additional claims terms for construction
`
`beyond what is allowed by the Court.
`
`Juniper’s argument below that it will be “highly prejudiced” by following the Court’s Amended
`
`Case Management Order for six terms is specious as it never sought relief in light of the Court’s ruling.
`
`To the extent Juniper wished to construe more than 6 terms, it should have brought a motion to the
`
`Court. Further, Juniper’s argument below regarding plain and ordinary meaning is also misplaced,
`
`since “claim terms should be given their ordinary and customary meaning” unless there is a clear
`
`disavowal in the specification. Finjan, Inc. v. Proofpoint, Inc., No. 3:13-cv-05808-HSG, 2015 WL
`
`7770208, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 3, 2015) (citing Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312-13 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2005) (en banc). As such, it is completely appropriate for Finjan to propose the plain and ordinary
`
`meaning for terms when there is no disavowal in the intrinsic record and those of skill in the art readily
`
`understand the terms.
`
`Finjan does not consider any of the disputed terms case or claim dispositive.
`
`6
`SUPPLEMENTAL JOINT CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`AND PRE-HEARING STATEMENT
`
`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 224 Filed 11/09/18 Page 8 of 50
`
`
`
`Juniper’s Statement
`Patent [Claim]
`
`No.
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`
`
`mobile protection code
`
`Term
`
`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
`information-destination/downloadable-information destination
`
`If the downloadable-information is determined to include executable
`code / determining, by the computer, whether the downloadable
`information includes executable code
`Inspector
`
`Before a web server makes the Downloadable available to web clients
`
`‘633 Patent [1,
`8, 14, 19]
`‘633 Patent
`[14]
`
`‘633 Patent
`[1, 8, 14, 19]
`‘633 Patent [1, 8]
`
`‘844 Patent [1,
`15, 41]
`‘844 Patent [1,
`15, 41]
`‘154 Patent [1]
`‘731 Patent [1,
`17]
`
`safe
`a file cache for storing files that have been scanned by the scanner for
`future access / storing the retrieved file within a file cache for future
`access
`cache
`
`‘731 Patent [1,
`17]
`the security policies each including a list of restrictions
`‘731 Patent [1]
`Juniper considers each term identified above pursuant to Patent L.R. 4-3(c) to be highly
`
`significant to the resolution of the case because each term is individually claim dispositive and may be
`
`collectively case dispositive.
`
`Patent Local Rule 4-3(c) states that the Joint Claim Construction Statement must include an
`
`“identification of the terms whose construction will be most significant to the resolution of the case up
`
`to a maximum of 10.” There are 10 terms still in dispute between the parties, each of which is highly
`
`significant to the resolution of the case because they are each claim dispositive, and therefore each of
`
`the 10 terms is presented in the Patent L.R. 4-3(c) table above as required.
`
`Juniper understands that the Court has indicated that it prefers 6 terms rather than 10. See Dkt.
`
`No. 35 at ¶ 20. However, in view of Finjan’s overbroad and ungrounded application of the disputed
`
`claim terms in its Infringement Contentions, Juniper would be highly prejudiced if it was relegated to
`
`construing only 6 claim terms across 5 patents (the ‘844, ‘926, ‘633, ‘154, and the ‘731 Patents).
`
`7
`SUPPLEMENTAL JOINT CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`AND PRE-HEARING STATEMENT
`
`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 224 Filed 11/09/18 Page 9 of 50
`
`
`
`Notably, Finjan implicated even more claim terms for construction by introducing additional claims for
`
`an entirely new patent (the ‘731 Patent) after the parties’ original claim construction statement. In an
`
`effort to streamline discovery, Juniper has prioritized 10 of the disputed terms for purposes of this
`
`Supplemental Joint Claim Construction Statement despite additional terms being previously identified.
`
`Juniper maintains that each disputed term identified in the parties’ original Joint Claim Construction
`
`Statement (Dkt. No. 115) is highly significant to the resolution of the case because they are each claim
`
`dispositive, and therefore construction of each of the terms is necessary.
`
`Juniper notes Finjan’s objection to the identification of “a file cache for storing files that have
`
`been scanned by the scanner for future access / storing the retrieved file within a file cache for future
`
`access” as a single term. Finjan’s position is untenable and inconsistent with its own behavior. Indeed,
`
`the portions of the term subject to construction are substantially identical and so too is the
`
`corresponding construction. Indeed, Finjan itself has proposed “information-destination /
`
`downloadable-information destination” as a single term for the ‘633 Patent under the same reasoning.
`
`Therefore, “a file cache for storing files that have been scanned by the scanner for future access /
`
`storing the retrieved file within a file cache for future access” must be construed as a single term.
`
`Additionally, Finjan proposes construing 8 of the 10 disputed terms as simply “plain and
`
`ordinary” meaning without clarification as to what exactly that “plain and ordinary” meaning actually
`
`is (for example, whether such “plain and ordinary” meaning may be ascertained from any random
`
`technical or non-technical dictionary) or how that “plain and ordinary” meaning comports with the
`
`incredibly broad application of those terms as they appear in Finjan’s Infringement Contentions.
`
`Under these circumstances, Juniper believes that all 10 terms in dispute should be construed. See O2
`
`Micro Intern. Ltd. v. Beyond Innovation Technology Co., Ltd., 521 F.3d 1351, 1361-62 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2008) (“A determination that a claim term ‘needs no construction’ or has the ‘plain and ordinary
`
`meaning’ may be inadequate when a term has more than one ‘ordinary’ meaning or when reliance on a
`
`term’s ‘ordinary’ meaning does not resolve the parties’ dispute. . . . When the parties present a
`
`fundamental dispute regarding the scope of a claim term, it is the court’s duty to resolve it.”).
`
`8
`SUPPLEMENTAL JOINT CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`AND PRE-HEARING STATEMENT
`
`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 224 Filed 11/09/18 Page 10 of 50
`
`
`
`The parties have already briefed the disputed terms identified in the parties’ previous Joint
`
`Claim Construction Statement. For claim terms implicated by Finjan’s introduction of the ‘731 Patent,
`
`the parties have already collected the evidence. Thus, Finjan’s opposition to construing more than 6
`
`terms cannot be based on any additional burden that will be borne by Finjan in briefing the remaining
`
`10 disputed terms; rather, Finjan’s opposition is evidence that Finjan’s motive is to avoid attaching any
`
`meaning to the claim terms by hiding behind their “plain and ordinary” meaning (whatever that is) so
`
`that it can continue to assert the claims in the overbroad and untethered manner shown in their
`
`Infringement Contentions.
`IV.
`
`PATENT L.R. 4-3(d): TIME FOR CLAIM CONSTRUCTION HEARING.
`
`Juniper understands that “[i]nstead of a claim construction hearing, claim construction will now
`
`be done on summary judgment or at trial in settling the jury instructions.” See Dkt. No. 35 at ¶ 16.
`
`Should the Court decide, however, to hold a claim construction hearing, Juniper anticipates that the
`
`parties will require at least four hours for the hearing, including a tutorial on the relevant technology.
`
`Finjan anticipates that the parties will not require more than three (3) hours for the entire claim
`
`construction hearing.
`V.
`
`PATENT L.R. 4-3(e): WITNESSES AT CLAIM CONSTRUCTION HEARING.
`
`Finjan’s Statement:
`
`Finjan intends to offer a declaration and may present live witness testimony from Dr. Nenad
`
`Medvidovic, University of Southern California, 941 Bloom Walk, Los Angeles, CA 90089, regarding a
`
`tutorial of the relevant technology, the technical background of the asserted patents, the qualifications
`
`of one of skill in the art at the time of the inventions, how the above terms are understood by one of
`
`skill in the art, and to support Finjan’s claim construction positions related to the ‘731 Patent.
`
`Furthermore, Dr. Nenad Medvidovic will and rebut any testimony or opinions offered by Defendant’s
`
`expert witness.
`
`Juniper’s Statement:
`
`Juniper may offer a rebuttal declaration and present live rebuttal testimony form Dr. Aviel D.
`
`Rubin, Professor at Johns Hopkins University, regarding the meaning of the disputed terms from the
`
`9
`SUPPLEMENTAL JOINT CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`AND PRE-HEARING STATEMENT
`
`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 224 Filed 11/09/18 Page 11 of 50
`
`
`
`perspective of one of ordinary skill in the art based on the intrinsic record and extrinsic evidence, and
`
`regarding the scope and intent of the disputed claims, the relevant technology, and the state of the art.
`
`Juniper may also offer a declaration and testimony from Dr. Rubin to establish that the term “A
`
`computer program product, comprising a computer usable medium having a computer readable
`
`program code therein, the computer readable program code adapter to be executed for computer
`
`security, the method comprising” is indefinite from the perspective of one of ordinary skill in the art.
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`By: /s/ Rebecca L. Carson
`
`Rebecca L. Carson (SBN 254105)
`rcarson@irell.com
`IRELL & MANELLA LLP
`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.
`
`10
`SUPPLEMENTAL JOINT CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`AND PRE-HEARING STATEMENT
`
`CASE NO.: 3:17-cv-05659-WHA
`
`
`
`Dated: November 9, 2018
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated: November 9, 2018
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`
`By: /s/ Kristopher Kastens
`Paul J. Andre (SBN 196585)
`Lisa Kobialka (SBN 191404)
`James Hannah (SBN 237978)
`Kristopher Kastens (SBN 254797)
`KRAMER LEVIN NAFTALIS
`& FRANKEL LLP
`990 Marsh Road
`Menlo Park, CA 94025
`Telephone: (650) 752-1700
`Facsimile: (650) 752-1800
`pandre@kramerlevin.com
`lkobialka@kramerlevin.com
`jhannah@kramerlevin.com
`kkastens@kramerlevin.com
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff
`FINJAN, INC.
`
`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 224 Filed 11/09/18 Page 12 of 50
`
`
`
`ATTESTATION PURSUANT TO L.R. 5-1(I)
`
`In accordance with Civil Local Rule 5-1(i)(3), I attest that concurrence in the filing of this
`
`document has been obtained from any other signatory to this document.
`
`
`
`/s/ Kristopher Kastens
`Kristopher Kastens
`
`
`
`11
`SUPPLEMENTAL JOINT CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`AND PRE-HEARING STATEMENT
`
`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 224 Filed 11/09/18 Page 13 of 50
`

`

`

`

`

`
`Exhibit A
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 224 Filed 11/09/18 Page 14 of 50
`
`I.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,154,844
`
`Claim Term
`inspector
`
`Claim (s)
`1, 15, 41
`
`EXHIBIT A
`
`
`Finjan’s Proposed Construction
`Plain and ordinary meaning
`
`Intrinsic Evidence
`Exemplary citations include:
`‘844 patent at:
`Abstract;
`Claims 1-41, 43;
`FIGS. 1-8;
`Col. 1, ll. 6-19, 23-58, 62-67;
`Col. 2, ll. 1-67;
`Col. 3, ll. 1-7, 32-67;
`Col. 4, ll. 1-67;
`Col. 5, ll. 1-67;
`Col. 6, ll. 1-24, 66-67;
`Col. 7, ll. 1-40, 49-67;
`Col. 8, ll. 1-5, 36-67;
`Col. 9, ll. 1-67;
`Col. 10, ll. 1-24;
`Col. 11, ll. 1-11.
`‘844 Patent File History
`
`Extrinsic Evidence
`Testimony from Dr. Nenad Medvidovic
`regarding the proper construction of the
`term “inspector” from the perspective of
`one of skill in the art based on the
`intrinsic record and extrinsic evidence.
`
`Any intrinsic and extrinsic evidence
`relied upon by Juniper.
`
`
`1
`
`Juniper’s Proposed Construction
`Proposed Construction: a content
`inspection engine located within an
`external computer network, that is
`separate from the network gateway
`
`Supporting Evidence
`
`‘844 Patent, e.g.: 2:3-11; 2:61-3:2; 3:58-
`60; 3:66-4:34; 4:59-64; 5:1-13; 5:48-58;
`6:66-7:9; 7:33-40; 8:51-60; 9:5-18; Claims
`1, 11, 15, 41, 43; Figures 2, 4
`
`File History – 2000-05-16 Applicant
`Arguments/Remarks.
`
`Patent Application No. 08/964,388
`(incorporated into ‘844 Prosecution
`History) at, e.g.: p. 4, 5
`
`Provisional Application No. 60/030,639
`(incorporated into ‘844 Prosecution
`History) at, e.g.: p. 19
`
`Ex parte reexamination 90/013,653, e.g.:
`Decision Granting Ex Parte
`Reexamination, p. 6
`
`Juniper may provide rebuttal testimony
`from Dr. Avi Rubin, in response to any
`expert testimony offered by Finjan,
`regarding the meaning of this term from
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 224 Filed 11/09/18 Page 15 of 50
`
`before a web server makes
`the Downloadable available
`to web clients
`
`1, 15, 41
`
`Juniper’s invalidity contentions.
`
`Finjan reserves the right to supplement
`its disclosure of intrinsic and extrinsic
`evidence based on the construction
`Juniper proposes for this term.
`Plain and ordinary meaning. Plain and
`ordinary meaning of “web client” is “an
`application on the computer of an end
`user that requests a Downloadable from
`the web server.”
`
`Claim Construction Orders
`October 20, 2014 Claim Construction
`Order – Finjan, Inc. v. Blue Coat, Inc.,
`Case No. 5:13-cv-03999-BLF (N.D. Cal.)
`
`December 3, 2015 Claim Construction
`Order– Finjan, Inc. v. Proofpoint, Inc., et
`al., 3:13-cv-05808-HSG (N.D. Cal.)
`
`March 2, 2015 Claim Construction Order
`–Finjan, Inc. v. Sophos, Inc., Case No.
`14-cv-01197-WHO (N.D. Cal.)
`
`February 10, 2017 Claim Construction
`Order– Finjan, Inc. v. Symantec Corp.,
`Civ. No. 14-cv-02998-HSG.
`
`Intrinsic Evidence
`Exemplary citations include:
`‘844 patent at Abstract;
`Claims 1, 15, 22, 23, 32, 41, 42, 43, 44;
`Figs. 1-8 (Fig. 1 shows web server as
`distinct from network gateway);
`
`the perspective of one of ordinary skill in
`the art based on the intrinsic record and
`extrinsic evidence, and regarding the
`scope and intent of this claim, the relevant
`technology, and the state of the art.
`
`Proposed Construction: Before the
`Downloadable is available on a web server
`to be called up or forwarded to a web
`client
`
`Supporting Evidence
`
`‘844 Patent, e.g.: 3:32-52; 4:65-5:33;
`8:36-9:18; 10:25-50; Claims 22, 24, 32;
`Figures 1, 6, 8
`
`‘844 Prosecution History, e.g.: May 16,
`2000 Response to Non-Final Rejection at,
`e.g., p. 2, 5, 6
`
`Ex parte reexamination 90/013,653, e.g.:
`Decision Granting Ex Parte
`Reexamination, p. 6
`
`IPR2015-01894, e.g.: Paper 6 at, e.g., p.
`10
`
`IPR2016-00498, Paper 8 at, e.g., p. 17
`
`Juniper may provide rebuttal testimony
`from Dr. Avi Rubin, in response to any
`expert testimony offered by Finjan,
`regarding the meaning of this term from
`the perspective of one of ordinary skill in
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 224 Filed 11/09/18 Page 16 of 50
`
`the art based on the intrinsic record and
`extrinsic evidence, and regarding the
`scope and intent of this claim, the relevant
`technology, and the state of the art.
`
`Col. 1, ll. 62 – 63 (purpose of invention
`is “protecting a network from suspicious
`Downloadables”);
`Col. 2, ll. 65 – 67;
`Col. 3, ll. 1 – 2, 33-67;
`Col. 4, ll. 1-58;
`Col. 5, ll. 3-33, 59-65;
`Col. 6, ll. 13–24;
`Col. 7, ll. 41–67;
`Col. 8, ll. 1 – 36; 65-67;
`Col. 9, ll. 5-18;
`Col. 10, ll. 66-67;
`Col. 11, ll. 1-11;
`
`U.S. Pat. No. 6,092,194, including:
`Figs. 1-5;
`Col. 1, ll. 60-67;
`Col. 2, ll. 1-36; 65-67;
`Col. 3, ll. 1-67;
`Col. 4, ll. 1-67;
`Col. 5, ll. 1-3; 15-67;
`Col. 6, ll. 1-67;
`Col. 7, ll. 1-6;
`Col. 9, ll. 24 – 28, 34 – 42, 57-67;
`Col. 10, ll. 1-6.
`
`‘844 Patent File History including: First
`Office Action on September 2, 1999 at 6-
`7; November 23, 1999 Response to Non-
`Final Office Action; February 8, 2000
`Non-Final Rejection; Applicant
`Amendment on May16, 2000 at 5; and
`July 13, 2000 Notice of
`Allowance.
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 224 Filed 11/09/18 Page 17 of 50
`
`Symantec Corp. v. Finjan, Inc., IPR2015-
`01894, PTAB Decision Denying
`Institution of Inter Partes Review, Paper
`No. 7.
`
`Extrinsic Evidence
`Testimony from Dr. Nenad Medvidovic
`regarding the proper construction of the
`term “before a web server makes the
`Downloadable available to web clients”
`from the perspective of one of skill in the
`art based on the intrinsic record and
`extrinsic evidence.
`
`October 14, 2014, Joint Claim
`Construction and Pre-Hearing Statement
`Pursuant to Patent Local Rule 4-3,
`Finjan, Inc. v. Sophos Inc., Civ. No. 14-
`cv-01197-WHO.
`
`April 12, 2016 Summary Judgment Order
`- Finjan, Inc. v. Proofpoint, Inc. et al.,
`Case No. 3:13-cv-05808-HSG (N.D.
`Cal.)
`
`May 24, 2016 Summary Judgment Order
`Finjan, Inc. v. Sophos, Inc., Case No. 14-
`cv- 01197-WHO (N.D. Cal.)
`
`July 18, 2016 Post-Trial Order, Case No.
`13-CV-03999-BLF (N.D. Cal.)
`
`February 10, 2017 Claim Construction
`Order – Finjan, Inc. v. Symantec Inc.,
`Civ. No. 3:14-cv-02998-HSG (adopting
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 224 Filed 11/09/18 Page 18 of 50
`
`Finjan’s construction).
`
`Dictionary/Treatise Definitions
`Webster’s New World Dictionary of
`Computer Terms (1997) at 546.
`
`Any intrinsic and extrinsic evidence
`relied upon by Juniper.
`
`Juniper’s Invalidity Contentions.
`
`Finjan reserves the right to supplement
`its disclosure of intrinsic and extrinsic
`evidence based on the construction
`Juniper proposes for this term.
`
`
`Finjan’s Proposed Construction
`Plain and ordinary meaning.
`
`Intrinsic Evidence
`Exemplary citations include:
`Abstract;
`Figs. 1-12b;
`Claims 1, 8, 15, 22;
`Col. 3, ll. 49-62;
`Col. 8, ll. 17-64;
`Col. 9, ll. 49-62;
`Col. 11, ll. 41-57;
`Col. 12, ll. 3-13, 44-67;
`Col. 13, ll. 1-3, 25-38;
`Col. 14, ll. 56-63; and
`
`5
`
`J

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket