`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 230-11 Filed 11/12/18 Page 1 of 3
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT 9
`EXHIBIT 9
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 230-11 Filed 11/12/18 Page 2 of 3
`Case 3:14-cv-01197-WHO Document 364 Filed 09/13/16 Page 1 of 213
`
` Volume 5
`
` Pages 699 - 910
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`BEFORE THE HONORABLE WILLIAM H. ORRICK, JUDGE
`
`)
`FINJAN, INC., a Delaware
`corporation, )
` )
` Plaintiff, )
` )
` VS. ) No. C 14-1197 WHO
` )
`SOPHOS, INC., a Massachusetts )
`corporation, )
` )
` Defendant.
`)
` ) San Francisco, California
` Monday, September 12, 2016
`
`
`TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS
`
`
`APPEARANCES:
`
`For Plaintiff:
` KRAMER, LEVIN, NAFTALIS & FRANKEL LLP
` 990 Marsh Road
` Menlo Park, California 94025
` BY: PAUL J. ANDRE, ESQUIRE
` LISA KOBIALKA, ESQUIRE
` JAMES HANNAH, ESQUIRE
` HANNAH YUNKYUNG LEE, ESQUIRE
`
`For Defendant: DLA PIPER LLP
` 401 B Street, Suite 1700
` San Diego, California 92101
` BY: JOHN ALLCOCK, ESQUIRE
` SEAN CUNNINGHAM, ESQUIRE
` KATHRYN RILEY GRASSO, ESQUIRE
`
`
`Reported By: Katherine Powell Sullivan, CSR #5812, RMR, CRR
` Pamela A. Batalo, CSR No. 3593, RMR, FCRR
` Official Reporters - U.S. District Court
`
`
`
`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 230-11 Filed 11/12/18 Page 3 of 3
`Case 3:14-cv-01197-WHO Document 364 Filed 09/13/16 Page 127 of 213
`
`LAYNE-FARRAR - DIRECT / KOBIALKA
`
` 825
`
` 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
`
`issue in that particular --
`
`Q.
`
`Did you have any take-homes after reviewing all of these
`
`agreements?
`
`A.
`
`Yes. So I think that the evidence establishes that Finjan
`
`has an established licensing rate: 8 percent of total revenues
`
`on hardware; 16 percent of total revenues on software.
`
`And just to be conservative, I then put ranges around
`
`those. I said okay, let's go with 6 to 8 for hardware, and 8
`
`to 16 percent for software Cloud products.
`
`Q.
`
`So let's turn back to the Georgia-Pacific Factors and, we
`
`have the Factors 8 through 11 under the benefits of the
`
`technology.
`
`What did you find with regard to the utility and
`
`advantages of Finjan's patents over old modes or devices and
`
`benefits of the technology?
`
`A.
`
`Right. So this was another part of my conversation with
`
`Dr. Medvidovic, but also Dr. Cole and Dr. Mitzenmacher. And my
`
`understanding is, you know, the old modes were the
`
`signature-based stuff. And the new stuff that Finjan has in
`
`its patented technology is this zero-day behavioral analysis,
`
`you know, realtime threat protection. So if you were to take
`
`that piece away, you'd be left with sort of old school. It
`
`would be just that one slice. It wouldn't be the layered
`
`protection. It wouldn't be what customers and consumers are
`
`demanding today, which is established in the industry analysts'
`
`