`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 231-8 Filed 11/12/18 Page 1 of 4
`
`
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT 6
`EXHIBIT 6
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 231-8 Filed 11/12/18 Page 2 of 4
`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 231-8 Filed 11/12/18 Page 3 of 4
`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'
`
`
`
`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 231-8 Filed 11/12/18 Page 4 of 4
`Case 3:14-cv-01197-WHO Document 364 Filed 09/13/16 Page 145 of 213
`
`LAYNE-FARRAR - DIRECT / KOBIALKA
`
` 843
`
` 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
`
`6.3 million. If both -- if either the '154 or the '154 plus
`
`the '494 are found valid and infringed, damages would be
`
`increased to 5.1 to 10.2 million.
`
`Q.
`
`And then the last one for Labs, if you could just give the
`
`same kind of summary with the ranges?
`
`A.
`
`Yeah. So the first three rows are the individual patent
`
`amounts. Those ranges are about 1.2 to 3.1 for an individual
`
`patent, if just one of them is found valid and infringed. And
`
`then the last row is if all four of them that are asserted
`
`against Labs are found valid and infringed, then the reasonable
`
`royalty would be 1.9 to 3.7.
`
`Q.
`
`A.
`
`Q.
`
`For just the '844 Patent, is that range 1.6 to 3.2?
`
`Right.
`
`Are these ranges as a result of the application of the
`
`royalty rates we talked about earlier?
`
`A.
`
`Right. So the UTM would be the 6 to 8 percent. If it's
`
`the endpoint or Labs, it's the 8 to 16 percent, and that's why
`
`you get a range because it's those two royalties rates.
`
`Q.
`
`If we could go to Slide 53, and if you could just explain
`
`what we're seeing here.
`
`A.
`
`This is just the bottom line. If you assume all five
`
`patents are valid and infringed, what range do you get for all
`
`three accused products? And that's 8.7 million to
`
`16.1 million.
`
`Q.
`
`Did you do any checks or benchmarks to make sure that your
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
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.
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.
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
