`
`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 268 Filed 11/27/18 Page 1 of 12
`
`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.
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
`
`FINJAN, INC., a Delaware Corporation,
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`
`
`
`JUNIPER NETWORKS, INC., a Delaware
`Corporation,
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`10596986
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`
`
`Case No. 3:17-cv-05659-WHA
`
`JUNIPER NETWORKS, INC.’S MOTION
`IN LIMINE NO. 5 TO EXCLUDE
`EVIDENCE AND ARGUMENT
`CONTRARY TO EXISTING CLAIM
`CONSTRUCTIONS
`
`December 4, 2018
`
`Date:
`9:00 a.m.
`Time:
`Courtroom: Courtroom 12, 19th Floor
`Before:
`Hon. William Alsup
`
`JUNIPER’S MIL NO. 5 TO EXCLUDE
`INCONSISTENT CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ARGUMENTS
`(Case No. 3:17-cv-05659-WHA)
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 268 Filed 11/27/18 Page 2 of 12
`
`
`
`1
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`Juniper respectfully requests an order precluding Finjan and its technical expert Dr. Eric
`
`Cole from arguing for claim constructions that are inconsistent with this Court’s prior rulings on
`
`claim constructions and/or constructions on which the parties have agreed. Specifically, Juniper
`
`believes that Finjan may attempt to make the following two arguments that are inconsistent with
`
`the existing claim constructions in this case: (1) the Court’s construction of “database manager”
`
`necessarily or logically requires the existence of the claimed “database”; and (2) a “database
`
`schema” is not a “description of a database to a database management system (DBMS) in the
`
`language provided by the DBMS.”
`
`10
`
`II.
`
`FACTUAL BACKGROUND
`
`11
`
`Claim 10 of U.S. Patent No. 8,677,494 (“the ’494 Patent”) recites “a database manager . . .
`
`12
`
`for storing the Downloadable security profile data in a database.” In the Court’s Order on early
`
`13
`
`summary judgment, the Court construed the term “database manager” and found that the accused
`
`14
`
`products contain the claimed “database manager.” The Court also held, however, that there is a
`
`15
`
`genuine factual dispute about whether the accused products contain the claimed “database” as that
`
`16
`
`term is used in the ’494 Patent. Dkt. No. 189 at 15-17.
`
`17
`
`The parties agree that the term “database” is properly construed as “a collection of
`
`18
`
`interrelated data organized according to a database schema to serve one or more applications.”
`
`19
`
`Dkt. No. 189 at 16. Juniper has also agreed to the definition of “database schema” that Finjan
`
`20
`
`previously proposed in an inter partes review (IPR) of the ’494 Patent and that Dr. Cole adopted
`
`21
`
`in this case. Specifically, Finjan defined “database schema” as “a description of a database to a
`
`22
`
`database management system (DBMS) in the language provided by the DBMS.” Ex. 12,
`
`23
`
`IPR2015-01892, Paper 27 (Finjan’s Patent Owner’s Response) at 38-39 (quoting Medvidovic
`
`24
`
`Dec.).1 Finjan’s technical expert in this case, Dr. Cole, confirmed this definition of “database
`
`25
`
`schema” when he was deposed on June 21, 2018. See Ex. 14 (6/21/18 Cole Depo. Tr.) at 115:17-
`
`26
`
`116:1 (“Q. Would you agree that a database schema is a description of a database to a database
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`1 Finjan proposed the identical construction in a 2016 IPR involving the same claim. See
`IPR2016-00159. Ex. 13, Paper 17 at 35 (quoting Medvidovic Dec.).
`
`10596986
`
`
`
`
`
`- 1 -
`
`JUNIPER’S MIL NO. 5 TO EXCLUDE
`INCONSISTENT CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ARGUMENTS
`(Case No. 3:17-cv-05659-WHA)
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 268 Filed 11/27/18 Page 3 of 12
`
`
`
`1
`
`management system in the language provided by the database management system? THE
`
`2
`
`WITNESS: That would generally fit my understanding.”2). After Dr. Cole confirmed this
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`definition, Juniper and its technical expert in this case, Dr. Aviel Rubin, agreed to adopt Finjan’s
`
`definition. See Dkt. No. 126-1 (Rubin Declaration) at ¶ 15 (“I have adopted the meaning of
`
`‘database schema’ articulated by Finjan’s experts Dr. Medvidovic and Dr. Cole.”).
`
`Since the time this Court issued its claim construction Order on “database manager” and
`
`Juniper adopted Finjan’s definition of “database schema,” Finjan has indicated that it will attempt
`
`to make arguments contrary to both constructions. With respect to “database manager,” Dr. Cole
`
`intends to argue that because “a ‘database manager’ was found to be present, it is necessary that a
`
`10
`
`‘database’ is also present” (Ex. 1 (Cole Report) at ¶ 43), notwithstanding that this Court found
`
`11
`
`precisely the opposite—that the accused products have a “database manager” but there is a factual
`
`12
`
`dispute about whether they use a “database” as that term is construed in the ’494 Patent. With
`
`13
`
`respect to “database,” Dr. Cole’s testimony at his recent November 14, 2018 deposition suggests
`
`14
`
`that he intends to back away from Finjan’s previously proposed (and accepted) construction of
`
`15
`
`“database schema,” and he now intends to argue that a “database schema” can be anything that
`
`16
`
`“sets forth the structure of the data.” See Ex. 15 (11/14/18 Cole Depo. Tr.) at 181:22-182:2 (“Q.
`
`17
`
`What is your understanding of what a ‘database schema’ is? THE WITNESS: A schema basically
`
`18
`
`sets forth the structure of the data.”)
`
`19
`
`III. ARGUMENT
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`A.
`
`Finjan Should Be Precluded From Offering Claim Construction Evidence
`Inconsistent With The Court’s Construction Of “Database Manager.”
`
`This Court has held that there is a genuine factual dispute over whether the accused
`
`products, which contain a “database manager,” also contain a “database,” as that term is used in
`
`the ’494 Patent. Dkt. No. 189 at 16-17. Dr. Cole intends to argue, however, that “as a ‘database
`
`manager’ was found to be present, it is necessary that a ‘database’ is also present,” and that
`
`“[b]ased on the fact the Court held that the Accused Products include a database manager, it seems
`
`only logical that the Accused Products also contain a database.” Ex. 1 (Cole Report) at ¶¶ 43, 84.
`
`
`2 Objections by counsel have been omitted. All emphasis is added unless indicated otherwise.
`
`10596986
`
`
`
`
`
`- 2 -
`
`JUNIPER’S MIL NO. 5 TO EXCLUDE
`INCONSISTENT CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ARGUMENTS
`(Case No. 3:17-cv-05659-WHA)
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 268 Filed 11/27/18 Page 4 of 12
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`In other words, Dr. Cole intends to argue that the presence of a “database manager” necessarily or
`
`logically requires the use of a “database,” notwithstanding that this argument contradicts the
`
`Court’s findings. Dr. Cole should not be permitted to misrepresent the Court’s claim construction
`
`Order regarding the term “database manager.” See Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v. Quanta
`
`Computer, Inc., No. C-00-4524 VRW, 2006 WL 2850028, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 4, 2006) (noting
`
`“the non-controversial proposition that the evidence and argument at trial should conform to the
`
`7
`
`court’s claim construction”).
`
`8
`
`9
`
`Dr. Cole mischaracterizes the Court’s previous Order, claiming that the Court’s
`
`construction of “database manager” necessarily or logically includes a “database.” The Court
`
`10
`
`made no such finding, and the fact that the Court ordered a trial to determine whether the accused
`
`11
`
`products (which the Court found contain a “database manager”) contain the claimed “database”
`
`12
`
`fully undermines Finjan’s argument. Finjan’s argument is thus improper, as a party may not
`
`13
`
`“advocate for interpretations that are inconsistent with the Court’s claim construction ruling.” See
`
`14
`
`ActiveVideo Networks, Inc. v. Verizon Communications, Inc., No. 2:10cv248, 2011 WL 7036048,
`
`15
`
`at *2 (E.D. Va. July 5, 2011); see also Fujifilm Corp. v. Motorola Mobility LLC, No. , 2015 WL
`
`16
`
`12622055, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 19, 2015) (“Neither party shall make arguments inconsistent with
`
`17
`
`[] the claim construction order in this case”); Ex. 18 at 10-11 ((Dkt. No. 162, Orthoarm, Inc. v.
`
`18
`
`Forestadent USA, Inc., Case No. 4:06-cv-00730-CAS (E.D. Mo. July 17, 2008)) (“[T]he jury
`
`19
`
`cannot be encouraged to depart from the Court’s claim construction. . . . [T]he evidence presented
`
`20
`
`at trial must be consistent with the Court’s Claim Construction Order. . . . [T]he Court [must] not
`
`21
`
`permit argument or evidence reflecting a claim construction other than the Court’s [] Claim
`
`22
`
`Construction Order.”).
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`B.
`
`Finjan Should Be Precluded From Offering Claim Construction Evidence
`Inconsistent With The Agreed Construction Of “Database.”
`
`The parties agree that the term “database” is properly construed as “a collection of
`
`interrelated data organized according to a database schema to serve one or more applications.”
`
`See Dkt. No. 189 at 16. In his June 28, 2018 declaration, Juniper’s expert, Dr. Rubin, expressly
`
`adopted the definition of “database schema” that Finjan has used in multiple IPR proceedings and
`
`10596986
`
`
`
`
`
`- 3 -
`
`JUNIPER’S MIL NO. 5 TO EXCLUDE
`INCONSISTENT CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ARGUMENTS
`(Case No. 3:17-cv-05659-WHA)
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 268 Filed 11/27/18 Page 5 of 12
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`that Dr. Cole had agreed was appropriate in this case—specifically that “database schema” means
`
`“a description of a database to a database management system (DBMS) in the language provided
`
`by the DBMS.” Ex. 12 (IPR2015-01892, Paper 27) at 38-39; Ex. 13 (IPR2016-00159, Paper 17)
`
`at 35; Ex. 14 (6/21/18 Cole Depo. Tr.) at 115:17-116:1; and Dkt. No. 126-1 at ¶ 15.
`
`After receiving Dr. Rubin’s June declaration, however, Dr. Cole suddenly reversed course.
`
`Because the parties’ agreement for the definition of “database schema” was not enshrined in the
`
`Court’s summary judgment Order, Dr. Cole felt free to ignore it. As he stated in his September 10
`
`expert report, Dr. Cole did not feel bound by the agreed construction of “database schema”
`
`because he “understand[s] that the Court has not adopted this construction and that it is not
`
`10
`
`required by the claim.”3 Ex. 1 (Cole Report) at ¶ 106. Then, at his second deposition, Dr. Cole
`
`11
`
`proposed a new and substantially broader definition for “database schema”; he now argued it is
`
`12
`
`anything that sets forth the structure of data. Ex. 15 (11/14/18 Cole Depo. Tr.) at 181:22-182:2
`
`13
`
`(“Q. What is your understanding of what a ‘database schema’ is? THE WITNESS: A schema
`
`14
`
`basically sets forth the structure of the data.”).
`
`15
`
`The Court should preclude Dr. Cole from introducing or discussing his newfound
`
`16
`
`understanding of “database schema” at the upcoming trial. The original construction of “database
`
`17
`
`schema” was proposed by Finjan, adopted by Dr. Cole, and then agreed to by Dr. Rubin. Any
`
`18
`
`attempt to back away from this construction now—or present multiple constructions of this term
`
`19
`
`to the jury—would certainly lead to jury confusion and is improper. See SPX Corp. v. Bartec
`
`20
`
`USA, No. 06-14888, 2008 WL 3850770, at *11 (E.D. Mich. Aug. 12, 2008) (“The Court finds that
`
`21
`
`evidence that would advance the defendants’ proposed claim construction inconsistent with that
`
`22
`
`declared by the Court and previously agreed to by the parties ought not be admitted.”).
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`3 There is no dispute that a “database” requires a “database schema.” See Ex. 1 (Cole Report at
`¶ 83) (“I have used the plain and ordinary meaning of the term ‘database,’ which refers to ‘a
`collection of interrelated data organized according to a database schema to serve one or more
`applications.’”). The change in Dr. Cole’s position instead relates to what a “database schema” is.
`
`10596986
`
`
`
`
`
`- 4 -
`
`JUNIPER’S MIL NO. 5 TO EXCLUDE
`INCONSISTENT CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ARGUMENTS
`(Case No. 3:17-cv-05659-WHA)
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 268 Filed 11/27/18 Page 6 of 12
`
`
`
`Dated: November 19, 2018
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`IRELL & MANELLA LLP
`
`By: /s/ Rebecca Carson
`Rebecca Carson
`Attorneys for Defendant
`JUNIPER NETWORKS, 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
`
`10596986
`
`
`
`
`
`- 5 -
`
`JUNIPER’S MIL NO. 5 TO EXCLUDE
`INCONSISTENT CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ARGUMENTS
`(Case No. 3:17-cv-05659-WHA)
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 268 Filed 11/27/18 Page 7 of 12
`
`
`
`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’S FINJAN INC.’S
`OPPOSITION TO JUNIPER
`NETWORKS, INC.’S MOTION IN
`LIMINE NO. 5 TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE
`AND ARGUMENT CONTRARY TO
`EXISTING CLAIM CONSTRUCTIONS
`
`
`December 4, 2018
`
`Date:
`9:00 a.m.
`Time:
`Courtroom: Courtroom 12, 19th Floor
`Before:
` 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
`
`
`
`PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO JUNIPER’S
`MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 5
`
`CASE NO.: 3:17-cv-05659-WHA
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 268 Filed 11/27/18 Page 8 of 12
`
`
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Dr. Cole has properly applied all the claim language that has been decided by the Court.
`
`Juniper’s Motion in Limine No. 5 is nothing but a last gasp attempt to keep the last shred of its “thin”
`
`non-infringement case by forcing new constructions into the term “database.” Dkt. No. 189 at 16-17.
`
`First, the Court has determined that the accused products include a “database manager,” which Dr.
`
`Cole correctly applied using the Court’s construction of “a program or programs that control a
`
`database so that the information it contains can be stored, retrieved, updated and sorted.” Second, Dr.
`
`Cole has properly applied the agreed construction of database as “a collection of interrelated data
`
`organized according to a database schema to serve one or more applications” under the plain and
`
`ordinary meaning of the term. In fact, Juniper has waived the ability to raise further construction of
`
`this term by explicitly agreeing that this is the correct construction on multiple occasions, including in
`
`the most recently filed Supplemental Joint Claim Construction Statement. Dkt. No. 224 at 1. Juniper
`
`also misrepresents or ignores portions of the record that directly contradict its assertions regarding its
`
`construction of “database schema.”
`A.
`
`Dr. Cole has properly applied the findings of the Court in concluding that a “database
`
`Dr. Cole Correctly Applied the Findings of the Court for “Database Manager”
`
`manager,” must manage a database. The Court concluded in response to Finjan’s Motion to Summary
`
`Judgment on Claim 10 of the ‘494 Patent, that the term “database manager” is “a program or programs
`
`that control a database so that the information it contains can be stored, retrieved, updated and sorted.”
`
`Dkt. No. 189 at 15. Furthermore, the Court found that “there is no genuine dispute that the accused
`
`system meets this limitation [of a database manager].” Id. As the Court concluded that that accused
`
`products “control a database,” Dr. Cole followed the Court’s construction and its findings in
`
`determining that the accused products do in fact “control a database.”
`
`Dr. Cole’s interpretation is also support by the undisputed facts in this case. Namely, the Court
`
`found that “Sky ATP stores results in three different storage solutions provided by Amazon: (1)
`
`DynamoDB, (2) S3, and (3) MySQL.” Dkt. No. 189 at 15. Juniper and its expert concede that the
`
`MySQL database used in the accused products is a “database” under the agreed construction.
`
`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
`
`
`
`PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO JUNIPER’S
`MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 5
`
`1
`
`CASE NO.: 3:17-cv-05659-WHA
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 268 Filed 11/27/18 Page 9 of 12
`
`
`
`Declaration of Kristopher Kastens in Support of Finjan’s Motions in Limine Nos. 1-4 (“Kastens
`
`Decl.”), Ex. 6, Rubin 10/11/18 Rebuttal Report, ¶ 100 (“… MySQL would constitute a ‘database’
`
`under the parties agreed construction …”). As such, Juniper cannot argue that its database manager
`
`does not manage a database, when they admit that they manage a MySQL database. Dkt. No.189 at 15
`
`(“Nevertheless, there is no genuine dispute that the accused system meets this limitation. Sky ATP
`
`stores results in three different storage solutions provided by Amazon: (1) DynamoDB, (2) S3, and (3)
`
`MySQL … ResultsDB management is an interface overlaying these three storage components.”). As
`
`such, Dr. Cole’s assumption that the Court has already found that a “database manager” must manage a
`
`“database” is correct and undisputed determination in this matter.
`B.
`
`Dr. Cole correctly applied the agreed construction of “database” as “a collection of interrelated
`
`Dr. Cole Applied the Correct Construction of “database”
`
`data organized according to a database schema to serve one or more applications.” Juniper’s
`
`arguments that Dr. Cole should be limited to a specific construction of “database schema” is an attempt
`
`to change the claim construction that Juniper already agreed to and presented to the Court. First,
`
`Juniper agreed in its discovery responses and during claim construction that “a collection of
`
`interrelated data organized according to a database schema to serve one or more applications” for
`
`“database” should be applied. Kastens Decl., Ex. 15 at 4, Juniper’s Response to Request for
`
`Admission No. 2; see also Dkt. No. 224, Supplemental Joint Claim Construction Statement at 1. Not
`
`until its opposition to Finjan’s Motion for Summary Judgment did Juniper change its position and add
`
`the new limitation of “description of a database to a database management system (DBMS) in the
`
`language provided by the DBMS” to its construction. There can be not dispute that what Juniper seeks
`
`is a different construction of “database,” as Juniper asks that a specific definition of this term to be
`
`applied. Juniper should be prohibited from seeking a different construction of “database,” after
`
`agreeing to another construction. As such, Juniper has waived the ability to shoehorn new specific
`
`constructions into the term. See e.g., Affinity Labs of Texas, LLC v. Ford Motor Co., No. 1-12-CV-
`
`580, 2014 WL 11462450, at *3 (E.D. Tex. Aug. 21, 2014) (evidence narrowing the claim terms
`
`beyond the agreed upon construction “… with an eye to ensuring that certain accused products are
`
`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
`
`
`
`PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO JUNIPER’S
`MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 5
`
`2
`
`CASE NO.: 3:17-cv-05659-WHA
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 268 Filed 11/27/18 Page 10 of 12
`
`
`
`non-infringing would be improper.”) (citing Every Penny Counts, Inc. v. Am. Express Co., 563. F.3d
`
`1378, 1383 (Fed. Cir. 2009)).
`
`Juniper also misrepresents Dr. Cole’s testimony in asserting that Dr. Cole somehow agreed that
`
`“database schema” is limited to a “description of a database to a database management system
`
`(DBMS) in the language provided by the DBMS.” As an initial matter, Dr. Cole’s original declaration
`
`submitted in support of Finjan’s Motion for Summary Judgment of Claim 10 of the ‘494 Patent does
`
`not mention or apply Juniper’s new proposed construction. See, generally, Dkt. No. 97-6. In fact,
`
`when asked what “database schema” meant during his first deposition for his declaration, Dr. Cole
`
`provided his interpretation as “some set fields or schema that’s used for storing the information.”
`
`Declaration of Austin Manes in Support of Finjan’s Oppositions to Juniper’s Motions in Limine
`
`(“Manes Decl.”), Ex. 1, Cole 6/21/18 Depo. Tr. at 115:1-8. This interpretation provided by Dr. Cole is
`
`exactly consistent with Dr. Cole’s position during his second deposition for the expert report he
`
`submitted for trial, where he states “[a] schema basically sets forth the structure of the data.” Id., Ex.
`
`2, Cole 11/14/18 Depo. Tr. at 181:22-182:2. This is also consistent with commonly used dictionary
`definitions for the term.1 Contrary to Juniper’s assertions, Dr. Cole never agreed with Juniper’s
`proposed construction of “database schema,” instead he stated that it would “generally fit his
`
`understanding” because Juniper’s proposed construction is an example—albeit a narrower example—
`
`of a database schema. Instead, Dr. Cole opined that Juniper infringed even if Juniper’s construction
`
`was adopted even though the Court had not adopted it. Declaration of Kevin Wang in Support of
`
`Juniper’s Motions in Limine Nos. 1-5, Ex. 1, Cole Report, ¶ 106.
`
`In fact, Dr. Cole disputed during the rest of his deposition that aspects of Juniper’s proposed
`
`construction were required for a database. For example, Dr. Cole stated that “[t]here is nothing in
`
`Claim 10 that specifies a certain language be used.” Manes Decl., Ex. 1, Cole 6/21/18 Depo. Tr. at
`
`116:3-12. In an additional example, when Dr. Cole was asked about the application of a database
`
`
`1 Dictionary of Electrical and Computer Engineering (2003) defines a schema as “[a] logical
`description of the data in a data base, including definitions and relationships of data.” Manes Decl.,
`Ex. 4 at 506. The American Heritage Dictionary (2001) defines schema as “a diagrammatic
`representation; outline; model.” Id., Ex. 5 at 743.
`
`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
`
`
`
`PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO JUNIPER’S
`MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 5
`
`3
`
`CASE NO.: 3:17-cv-05659-WHA
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 268 Filed 11/27/18 Page 11 of 12
`
`
`
`schema he stated that “I don’t see anything in the claim language that would restrict or limit the
`
`languages or how it’s written.” Id. at 116:14-117:2; see also id. at 117:4-14. As shown, Dr. Cole
`
`never endorsed Juniper’s proposed construction of database. Instead, Juniper took one response out of
`
`context and ignored Dr. Cole’s declaration and the rest of his testimony during the deposition.
`
`Juniper’s reliance on the IPRs is similarly misplaced because the PTAB applied a broad
`
`understanding of “database schema,” finding that a database schema to be a clearly defined
`
`organizational structure. Manes Decl., Ex. 6, IPR2015-01892, Paper No. 58 at 41. The PTAB made
`
`this determination using the same standard as applied by district courts. Id. at 7 (“we construe claims
`
`of an expired patent according to the standard applied by the district courts.”). In particular, the PTAB
`
`found that “[t]hose data are organized according to a database schema, namely, the comma-delimited
`
`format ‘<code segment, RecType, StartTime, EndTime, function number, arg (...), ret (...)>’ analogous
`
`to the UNIX password database /etc/passwd cited by Petitioner, having the colon-delimited record
`
`schema ‘name:passwd:uid:gid:info:home:shell.’” Id. at 41. The PTAB found that this comma
`
`delimited file format for the storage of records was sufficient to be a “database schema.” As shown,
`
`the PTAB did not require any limitations related to the database schema being “in the language
`
`provided by the DBMS.” Furthermore, while issues related to the PTAB’s decision for the ‘494 Patent
`
`are currently on appeal to the Federal Circuit, the construction of “database schema” is not at issue.
`
`See Symantec Corp. v. Finjan, Inc., Appeal Nos. 2017-2034, -2047 (Fed. Cir.). Finally, while the ‘494
`
`Patent has been asserted at trial twice before, no Court has ever construed the claims to require the new
`
`limitation proposed by Juniper for “database schema.” Finjan, Inc. v. Symantec Corp., No. 14-cv-
`
`02998-HSG, 2017 WL 550453, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 10, 2017) (adopting agreed construction); Manes
`
`Decl., Ex. 7, Finjan, Inc. v. Blue Coat Systems, LLC, No. 15-cv-03295-BLF, Dkt. No. 79, Joint Claim
`
`Construction Statement at 1 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 12, 2016).
`
`As such, the Court would be taking an inconsistent position if it used a narrower construction
`
`of “database schema” than was used by the PTAB.
`
`CONCLUSION
`
`As such, Juniper’s Motion in Limine No. 5 should be denied in its entirety.
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO JUNIPER’S
`MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 5
`
`4
`
`CASE NO.: 3:17-cv-05659-WHA
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 268 Filed 11/27/18 Page 12 of 12
`
`
`
`
`
`DATED: November 26, 2018
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`By: /s/ Kristopher Kastens
`
`
`Paul J. Andre (State Bar No. 196585)
`Lisa Kobialka (State Bar No. 191404)
`James Hannah (State Bar No. 237978)
`Kristopher Kastens (State Bar No. 254797)
`KRAMER LEVIN NAFTALIS
` & FRANKEL LLP
`990 Marsh Road
`Menlo Park, CA 94025
`Telephone: (650) 752-1700
`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
`
`
`
`PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO JUNIPER’S
`MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 5
`
`5
`
`CASE NO.: 3:17-cv-05659-WHA
`
`