Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 325 Filed 12/13/18 Page 1 of 12
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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.
`
`
`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.
`
`Case No.: 3:17-cv-05659-WHA
`
`PLAINTIFF FINJAN, INC.’S OPPOSITION
`TO JUNIPER’S MOTION FOR JUDGMENT
`AS A MATTER OF LAW
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`____________________________________________________________________________________
`FINJAN, INC.’S OPPOSITION TO JUNIPER’S Case No.: 3:17-cv-05659-WHA
`MOTION FOR JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW
`
`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 325 Filed 12/13/18 Page 2 of 12
`
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Finjan, Inc. (“Finjan”) presented more than sufficient evidence at trial to support its
`
`infringement, notice and damages claims, including sworn testimony of Finjan’s CEO and Finjan’s
`
`Director of Business Development, the deposition testimony of several employees of Juniper
`
`Networks, Inc. (“Juniper”), the Accused Products’ source code, numerous Finjan and Juniper
`
`documents, and testimony of highly reputable expert witnesses. Finjan established that it has sufficient
`
`facts to support infringement and a jury’s award of a reasonable royalty for Juniper’s infringement
`
`under 35 U.S.C. § 271(a) for Juniper’s use, sale, and offer for sale of (1) the SRX with SkyATP and
`
`(2) SkyATP by itself (“Accused Products”). When all reasonable inferences are drawn in Finjan’s
`favor, the Court should deny Juniper’s motion for judgment as a matter of law (“Motion”).1
`DAMAGES
`II.
`
`Finjan presented substantial evidence so the jury can determine a reasonable royalty. In
`
`addition to relevant factual information regarding the Accused Products and how they functioned,
`
`Finjan had substantial testimony regarding the significant benefits of the patented technology,
`
`including the benefits to Juniper. This included the testimony of Finjan’s expert witnesses, the
`
`inventor of the ‘494 Patent and Finjan and Juniper’s employees. Finjan provided evidence and
`
`testimony regarding (1) relevant facts surrounding the hypothetical negotiation, including the
`
`considerations of both parties, (2) several different methods to calculate a royalty base, based upon
`
`Juniper’s use, offer for sale and sales of the Accused Products, (3) different methods to apply a royalty
`
`rate, (4) the significant technical advantages and pioneering nature of the patented technology at issue,
`
`and (5) factual evidence in Juniper’s confidential documents that will permit the fact finder to tie
`
`Juniper’s infringement to the footprint of the invention, i.e., apportion the royalty base to the footprint
`
`of the invention.
`
`
`1 Finjan incorporates by reference the arguments and evidence set forth in its (i) Motion for Judgment
`as a Matter of Law Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 50(a) (Dkt. No. 323).
`
`1
`FINJAN, INC.’S OPPOSITION TO JUNIPER’S Case No.: 3:17-cv-05659-WHA
`MOTION FOR JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW
`
`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 325 Filed 12/13/18 Page 3 of 12
`
`
`
`Finjan’s Apportionment
`
`A.
`Contrary to Juniper’s assertions, Finjan presented evidence and testimony regarding
`
`“apportionment.” Under Federal Circuit precedent, apportionment is not limited to specific
`
`methodologies, i.e. the jury can apportion either the rate or base, because flexibility is required to
`
`determine fact-dependent damages. Exmark Mfg. Co. Inc. v. Briggs & Stratton Power Prod. Grp.,
`
`LLC, 879 F.3d 1332, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (“We have held that apportionment can be addressed in a
`
`variety of ways, including “by careful selection of the royalty base to reflect the value added by the
`
`patented feature [or] ... by adjustment of the royalty rate so as to discount the value of a product’s non-
`
`patented features; or by a combination thereof.”)(citing Ericsson, Inc. v. D–Link Sys., Inc., 773 F.3d
`
`1201, 1226 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
`
`Finjan presented several different methods to apportion. For example, Finjan presented Mr.
`
`Icasiano’s testimony regarding how Juniper’s infringement of SkyATP is tied to the footprint of the
`
`invention based on how many scans sent to Sky ATP relate to the specific accused functionality of
`
`SkyATP, i.e. dynamic analysis, through the patent expiration date of January 2017. See, e.g., Ex. 498
`
`at 24:5-33:19 (Testimony of Mr. Icasiano that 40% of SkyATP files are sent for dynamic analysis, i.e.,
`
`sandboxed); see also Trial Exhibit 88 at 514137, 514169 (Juniper presentation showing that over
`
`500,000 files scanned in one week, 31% of those files processed are attributed to the infringing
`
`technology and that the components of SkyATP are Cache Lookup, Anti-Virus Scanning, Static
`
`Analysis and Dynamic Analysis). Additionally, Dr. Cole testified and identified the specific infringing
`
`functionality in SkyATP as Static and Dynamic Analysis. See Trial Tr. at 428:11-429:25.
`
`Juniper’s assertion that Finjan should have apportioned the components of SkyATP shown at
`
`Dkt. 323 at 3 (Juniper’s Motion) is misplaced. Finjan’s base of 10 million files are sent to Sky ATP.
`
`40% of these files are dynamically analyzed in Sky ATP, according to Mr. Icasiano. As Dr. Cole
`
`explained, there is a malware inspection pipeline that analyzes each of the files. See Trial Tr. at vol. 3
`
`at 428:11-429:25 (explaining the components of the malware inspection pipeline). The 40% of all files
`sent to Sky ATP only accounts for a portion of those files that are scanned using the infringing
`
`2
`FINJAN, INC.’S OPPOSITION TO JUNIPER’S Case No.: 3:17-cv-05659-WHA
`MOTION FOR JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW
`
`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 325 Filed 12/13/18 Page 4 of 12
`
`
`
`technology, i.e., the dynamic analysis. It does not include static analysis, which is also infringing. As
`
`a result, the 40% apportionment is conservative and does not capture all the infringement.
`
`Juniper’s argument that a multitude non-infringing features and functionality are somehow
`included in Finjan’s damages is a red herring. As stated above, Finjan is only accounting for the 10
`
`million files that are sent to Sky ATP, which Sky ATP scans. Finjan is not including any files that get
`
`blocked from the SRX based on C&C, compromised hosts, GeoIP, whitelists and blacklists. Finjan is
`
`not capturing files that are blocked. Furthermore, Finjan is not including the web user interface, which
`
`utilizes the results database and therefore could be part of the infringing use, but is not captured within
`
`the 10 million files that are scanned that makes up the royalty base. Also, Finjan played deposition
`
`testimony of Mr. Chandra Nagarajan, who is responsible for the team developing Sky ATP, and
`
`identified the sending and scanning of files as the “key component of Sky ATP.” Nagarajan Depo.
`
`12:24-13:19.
`
`Finally, the current apportionment is nothing like the Federal Circuit determination in the
`
`Finjan v. Blue Coat case where the Federal Circuit found that the infringing functionality of DRTR
`
`included non-infringing functionality. 879 F.3d 1299, 1310 (Fed. Cir. 2018). Here, Finjan is not
`
`seeking to capture all the infringing functionality because it is only seeking to capture the files sent for
`
`dynamic analysis. Thus, Finjan has removed all non-infringing functionality and even some infringing
`
`functionality (i.e., the static analysis) in its overly aggressive apportionment of 40%. Moreover,
`
`Juniper does not claim that the dynamic analysis contains non-patented technology. See Dkt 323 at 3
`
`(identifying alleged non patented features of Sky ATP, not dynamic analysis). Thus, Finjan provided
`
`sufficient facts for apportioning Juniper’s infringing use of the patented technology for Sky ATP.
`
`With respect to the SRX, the 10 million scans and 40% apportionment only captures Sky ATP,
`
`or, at the very least, only captures the files scanning relationship between SRX and Sky ATP. Thus,
`
`the jury has sufficient evidence to apportion the infringing revenues of SRX and Sky ATP, including
`
`through apportionment of the revenues based on number of files SRX sends to Sky ATP, and the
`
`profits gained from those infringing sales.
`
`3
`FINJAN, INC.’S OPPOSITION TO JUNIPER’S Case No.: 3:17-cv-05659-WHA
`MOTION FOR JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW
`
`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 325 Filed 12/13/18 Page 5 of 12
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`Finally, Finjan provided sufficient evidence regarding the substantial benefits to Juniper and its
`
`customers through the sale, use and offer for sale of the accused products. Finjan’s technical experts,
`
`Dr. Cole and Dr. Bims, identified the significant benefits and novelty of the patented technology, and
`
`Finjan provided the jury with the testimony of Juniper’s witnesses regarding its extensive use and need
`
`for the patented technology, including the number of customers, the volume of units for the accused
`
`products and the extensive use of the infringing technology by Juniper and its customers. Trial Tr. at
`
`225:19-239:5 (Testimony of Dr. Bims) and Trial Exhibit 496 (Nagarajan Testimony identifying need
`
`for SkyATP). Given Juniper’s substantial benefit received from its infringing use, Finjan further
`
`substantiates that Finjan’s apportionment is conservative.
`B.
`Finjan presented testimony and facts regarding how to calculate an appropriate royalty base for
`
`Finjan’s Royalty Base
`
`the Accused Products, including the revenues and number of units/licenses/enrollments tied to the
`
`infringing sales, the use of the patented invention through the number of files processed and number of
`
`Juniper’s customers for the Accused Products. See Trial Exhibits 88, 490, 494, 499 at 23:14-53:08
`
`(Testimony of Ms. Gupta, Juniper’s Senior Financial Director regarding the revenues associated with
`
`SRX and SkyATP and number of infringing units/enrollments), Exhibit 496 at 53:17-61:10 (Testimony
`
`of Mr. Nagarajan, Juniper’s Senior Director in the Security Business Group regarding 10 million scans
`
`analyzed by SkyATP a month and the number of customers for Sky ATP was between 300-500), Ex.
`
`58 (Sky Advanced Threat Prevention Administration Guide at 116-117 showing between 200-100,000
`
`files processed per day for Premium Licenses and 25-5000 files processed per day with free
`
`enrollment), Ex. 498 at 53:09-53:16 (Testimony of Mr. Icasiano, Juniper’s Manager of the DevOps
`
`team for SkyATP, regarding number of SRX devices with free enrollments); Trial Tr. at 471:19-473:9,
`
`525:9-527:5 (Dr. Cole’s Testimony regarding 535,000 files processed in seven days). Thus, contrary
`
`to Juniper’s claim, Finjan’s evidence above provides an identification of several appropriate royalty
`
`bases, including (1) for sales, the infringing sales based on the revenues of the Accused Products and
`
`(2) for use, the use based on the number of units and enrollments/licenses for of the Accused Products
`
`and use based on the number of files processed.
`
`4
`FINJAN, INC.’S OPPOSITION TO JUNIPER’S Case No.: 3:17-cv-05659-WHA
`MOTION FOR JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 325 Filed 12/13/18 Page 6 of 12
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`While Juniper questions the veracity of its own witness, it provides no citation for its claim that
`
`Ms. Gupta’s testimony is not limited to the accused products because she admits that the revenues
`
`recited are tied to the Accused Products. See, e.g. Exhibit 499 at 23:15-21 (“My understanding of this
`
`document is that it contains information about SRX units on which the free Sky ATP license was
`
`enabled.”). As such, the cases that Juniper cites are irrelevant because Juniper’s Senior Financial
`
`Director confirmed that the revenues in the record are for the Accused Products and not any non-
`
`accused products.
`C.
`Finjan provided substantial evidence regarding Finjan’s licensing practices, Finjan’s general
`
`Finjan Presented Substantial Evidence to Support a Royalty Rate
`
`approach to licensing and history, Finjan’s licensing rates, including the 8 and 16% royalty rates
`
`applied total revenues, an $8 per user rate and 32 cents per scan rate, Finjan’s licensing discussions
`
`with Juniper and the relevant damages period, provisions in Finjan’s licenses regarding triggering
`
`events for additional royalties, including the testimony of Finjan’s CEO. See Trial Tr. at 244:13-
`
`333:22. Juniper’s citation to Finjan v. Blue Coat is misplaced because that case is nothing like this
`
`case. Here, Finjan’s CEO provided substantial evidence that substantiating the economic and
`
`technological comparability for using the $8 per user and 32 cents per scan rate. Trial Tr. (Hartstein)
`
`at 269:6-270:13, 271:7-19, 274:23-276:7, 308:15-309:9, 330:21-333:22 (discussing Finjan’s 8% on
`
`total software sales and 16% on total hardware sales starting points); Trial Tr. (Hartstein) at 270:14-
`
`271:6 (describing basis for $8 per user rate); Trial Tr. (Hartstein) at 271:20-273:24 (describing basis of
`
`32 cents per scan rate).
`III.
`
`FINJAN PROVIDED NOTICE TO JUNIPER OF ITS INFRINGEMENT
`
`Finjan presented substantial evidence to support that it provided Juniper with notice under 35
`
`U.S.C. § 287. First, Finjan provided unrebutted testimony from Mr. John Garland confirming that he
`
`gave Juniper notice in November 2015 of the ‘494 Patent and the Accused Products, including
`
`Juniper’s Sky ATP (which Mr. Garland referred to as Juniper’s Advanced Malware module, which was
`
`Juinper’s description of Sky ATP in its press release Trial Exh. 91), next generation firewall, and SRX
`
`Series, and introduced as a trial exhibit a transcript of this recorded call between Finjan and Juniper.
`
`5
`FINJAN, INC.’S OPPOSITION TO JUNIPER’S Case No.: 3:17-cv-05659-WHA
`MOTION FOR JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 325 Filed 12/13/18 Page 7 of 12
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`See e.g. Trial Tr. 553:24-554:10; 557:23-24; 559:13-560:13; 567:6-11; 561:21-562:10; Trial Exhibit
`
`256 at John – 10:53 (“Mr. Garland: And there’s a newer one, one you haven’t seen before. 86777494.
`
`Mr. Coonan: Okay. All right. And that’s significant because it’s – is it – is it a continuation? Mr.
`
`Garland: I don’t know. I don’t know. It’s reads on your advanced malware modules.”); id. at 5:01
`
`(“Yes, so I mean the products that we’re focused on is the – the SRX Series, including the virtual
`
`firewall, and – ”); id. at John 05:12 (“Because that's what the patents have led us to, I mean there's new
`
`security products, and so we don't think -- you know, really with your Junos operating system. But it
`
`looks like some of the modules that are supported in those products and the Next Generation firewall,
`
`which is your UTM, your antivirus, and your web filtering are three modules that we think about using
`
`three new patents.”); id. at 3:55 (“Okay. So I mean we have identified patents. We have identified
`
`products . . .”); Trial Exhibit 257 (audio recording of call with same testimony). Finjan introduced
`
`evidence that Juniper refers to its advanced malware module as Sky ATP, including a Juniper in its
`
`press release. Trial Tr. at 551:22-553:19; Trial Ex. 91 (“Juniper Network Unveils Advanced Anti-
`
`Malware Cloud Service”). Finjan introduced evidence, including Juniper documents and the testimony
`
`of Juniper’s engineer, Chandra Nagarajan, that its next generation firewall is Sky ATP. Trial Exhibit
`
`496 (Nagarajan Trial Testimony at 35:20-36:1) (“Q. Why was Sky ATP developed? A. So in the – in
`
`the NG firewall, one of the – one of the firewall components of an NG firewall is advanced threat
`
`protection. And in order to – to get that functionality in an NG firewall, we started developing Sky
`
`ATP.”); Trial Exhibit 17.
`
`Finjan’s notice does not need to be written, so long as it otherwise meets the requirements of
`
`notifying Juniper that its products infringe the ‘494 Patent. See, e.g., Minks v. Polaris Indus., Inc., 546
`
`F.3d 1364, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2008). The Federal Circuit has explicitly stated that there are no specific
`
`form requirements for this notice, and stated that “[a]lthough there are numerous possible variations in
`
`form and content, the purpose of the actual notice requirement is met when the recipient is notified,
`
`with sufficient specificity, that the patent holder believes that the recipient of the notice may be an
`
`infringer.” SRI Int'l, Inc. v. Advanced Tech. Labs., Inc., 127 F.3d 1462, 1470 (Fed. Cir. 1997); cited by
`
`Mosaid Techs. Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., 362 F. Supp. 2d 526, 555–56 (D.N.J. 2005) (“Actual notice
`
`6
`FINJAN, INC.’S OPPOSITION TO JUNIPER’S Case No.: 3:17-cv-05659-WHA
`MOTION FOR JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 325 Filed 12/13/18 Page 8 of 12
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`can take many forms, including sending a potential infringer a letter that charges a particular product
`
`with infringement of a specific patent or filing a patent infringement action.).
`
`Finjan introduced legally sufficient evidence that it provided constructive notice of the ‘494
`
`Patent by marking its Vital Security mobile application – which is Finjan’s product that practiced the
`
`‘494 Patent – in October or November 2016. Finjan introduced the testimony of its CEO, Mr. Philip
`
`Harstein, that Finjan marked its Gen3 Vital Security application with the ‘494 Patent as of its release in
`
`October or November 2016. Trial Tr. at 265:5-8 (“Q. For an earlier version of this mobile application,
`
`did Finjan identify the '494 patent in connection with it? A. We did. So specifically I mentioned Vital
`
`Security. It was in our Gen3 product that used the '494.”); 259:3-261:11; 324:3-15; 265:10-266:2
`
`(website marking). Finjan also introduced as a trial exhibit a document from the Google Play Store
`
`where customers can purchase Finjan’s Gen3 Vital Security product that identifies the ‘494 Patent.
`
`Trial Ex. 372; Trial Tr. at 261:4-11 (Q. I'd like you to take a look at what we've marked as Trial
`
`Exhibit 372, and it may also be in your book there. Could you just briefly describe what this is? A.
`
`Yeah. That is basically the bibliographical information that you would see when you go to the Google
`
`Play Store. It has a description of the product. You can see the logo. You can see the name. And in that
`
`description you also see the '494 patent listed.”); id. at 260:20-266:2. Juniper produced no evidence
`
`whatsoever that Finjan failed to substantially mark all of its own products with the ‘494 Patent.
`
`Juniper produced no evidence at all, let alone legally sufficient evidence, of any Finjan product that
`
`embodies the ‘494 Patent that Finjan failed to mark with the ‘494 Patent.
`
`Finjan presented legally sufficient evidence that it complied with all statutory marking
`
`methods, which includes the America Invents Act amendment that allows virtual marking. See 35
`
`U.S.C. § 287(a) (setting forth that patentees can give notice to the public by “fixing thereon the word
`
`‘patent’ or the abbreviation ‘pat.’, together with the number of patent with an address of a posting on
`
`the Internet, accessible to the public without charge for accessing the address, that associates the
`
`patented article with the number of the patent.”); Public Law 112-29, September 16, 2011 (Leahy-
`
`Smith America Invents Act); Philippi-Hagenbuch, Inc. v. W. Tech. Servs. Int’l, Inc., No. 12-1099,
`
`2015 WL 5725248, at *2 (C.D. Ill. Sept. 30, 2015) (“Notice can be either constructive, by marking the
`
`7
`FINJAN, INC.’S OPPOSITION TO JUNIPER’S Case No.: 3:17-cv-05659-WHA
`MOTION FOR JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 325 Filed 12/13/18 Page 9 of 12
`
`
`
`article with the patent number or the address of a website that provides the patent number, or actual.”).
`
`Juniper cites inapposite case law that addresses the marking of physical products. Stryker Corp. v.
`
`Intermedics Orthopedics, Inc., 891 F. Supp. 751, 820 (E.D.N.Y. 1995), aff'd, 96 F.3d 1409 (Fed. Cir.
`
`1996) (addressing marking of hip implants).
`
`Second, Juniper failed to produce any evidence that Finjan’s licensees are required to mark
`
`their products with the ‘494 Patent and did not even enter into evidence a single Finjan license. Finjan
`
`presented unrebutted testimony from Mr. Hartstein that none of Finjan’s licenses contain a marking
`
`requirement. Trial Tr. at 319:5-7 (Q. You don't believe that any of Finjan's licenses have marking
`
`provisions; correct? A. That is my understanding, that our agreements do not.”). Juniper did not
`
`establish that Finjan’s licenses mentioned at trial were during the life of the ‘494 Patent. Juniper did
`
`not introduce a single one of Finjan’s licenses or provide any testimony regarding the specific
`
`requirements of any license. Juniper’s citation to a trial exhibit introduced in Finjan’s case-in-chief,
`
`and not during Mr. Hartstein’s direct or cross examination (but rather during the cross-examination of
`
`Finjan’s infringement expert, Dr. Cole), regarding out-of-court statements made during an IPR
`
`proceeding and trial testimony regarding Finjan’s belief that its licensees practice any of Finjan’s
`
`“patents,” which Mr. Hartstein testified includes over 18 patents in the United States alone and
`
`approximately “less than 50” patents worldwide (Trial Tr. at 330:12-20), is not legally sufficient
`
`evidence that would allow a reasonable jury to conclude that Finjan’s licensees practiced the ‘494
`
`Patent during the life of the ‘494 Patent, were required to mark their products with the ‘494 Patent or
`
`that Finjan failed to provide constructive notice of the ‘494 Patent. Unlike the facts in U.S. Ethernet
`
`Innovations, LLC v. Acer, Inc., where there was disputed evidence that third-parties actually used
`
`premade components that practiced the patents, here Juniper produced no evidence that its licensees’
`
`products practice the ‘494 Patent. No. C 10-3724 CW, 2013 WL 4456161, at *5 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 16,
`
`2013) (“[defendants] contend that the evidence shows that IBM did not simply sell the premade
`
`components but instead used them to make its Licensed Products and then sold the completed item”).
`
`8
`FINJAN, INC.’S OPPOSITION TO JUNIPER’S Case No.: 3:17-cv-05659-WHA
`MOTION FOR JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW
`
`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 325 Filed 12/13/18 Page 10 of 12
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`IV.
`
`LITERAL INFRINGEMENT OF THE ‘494 PATENT
`
`Finjan presented substantial evidence, including expert testimony from Dr. Cole, Dr. Bims, that
`
`Juniper is liable for literal infringement of Claim 10 of U.S. Patent No. 6,154,844 (“‘494 Patent”). See
`
`generally Trial Tr. Trial Tr. 367:14-394:11; 426:16-478:5; and the following Trial Exhibits 1, 52, 57,
`
`65, 74, 78, 79, 88, 92, 94, 99, 382, and 399. Dr. Cole provided testimony and citations to exhibits
`
`relating to the technology of the ‘494 Patent, the technical advantages and benefits to Juniper and its
`
`products, the usage and functionality of the Accused Products and confirmed the specifics of how the
`
`Accused Products meet the claim limitation, such that the Accused Products have a database,
`
`consistent with the parties’ agreement of the construction of that term. To support his opinion Dr. Cole
`
`relied upon Mr. Nagarajan (Juniper’s Senior Director in the Security Business Group), Mr. Icasiano
`
`(Juniper’s Manager of the DevOps Team for SkyATP), Trial Exhibits 22, 23, his review of Juniper’s
`
`source code, the ‘494 Patent, and the Court’s claim construction.
`
`Dr. Cole provided substantial evidence that the Accused Products have a database manager
`
`under the parties’ stipulation of the construction of “database.” Both parties agree that the construction
`
`of “database” is “a collection of interrelated data organized according to a database schema to serve
`
`one or more applications (Dkt. No. 126 at 6). Finjan provided substantial evidence that Juniper’s
`
`Accused Products include a “database” as used in Claim 10 of the ‘494 Patent because ResultsDB
`
`stores the results of the analysis from static and dynamic analysis. Trial Tr. 367:14-394:11; 426:16-
`
`478:5; Trial Ex. 78 at (Page 20); Trial Ex. 94 at (Page 10), (Page 11); Trial Ex. 99 at 115; Trial Ex 92
`
`at (Page 20) (Page 32); Ex 99 (Page 8); Ex 399 at (Page 36); Ex 65 at (Page 1); Ex 99 at 78; Ex 99 at
`
`297. In fact, Juniper’s expert witness, Dr. Rubin, admitted that ResultsDB include a schema that is
`
`applied to how the data is organized in the ResultsDB. For example, Dr. Rubin also readily admitted
`
`that the data stored in the ResultsDB is organized according to a JSON schema. Trial Tr. at 783:21-23.
`
`This cannot reasonably be disputed, as this schema is even evident in the source code of the
`
`ResultsDB. Trial Ex. 99 at 115; Ex 99 at (Page 8); Ex 99 at 78; Ex 99 at 297. Furthermore, Dr. Rubin
`
`also admits that even if only the DynamoDB was considered in insolation, this component of Sky ATP
`
`still includes a “key schema” that allows the data to be accessed. Trial Tr. 786:10-16. Dr. Rubin did
`
`9
`FINJAN, INC.’S OPPOSITION TO JUNIPER’S Case No.: 3:17-cv-05659-WHA
`MOTION FOR JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 325 Filed 12/13/18 Page 11 of 12
`
`
`
`not prove his case otherwise and did not know of, a single Juniper document that described the
`
`ResultsDB, or even the DyanmoDB or S3 components, as “schema-less.” Trial Tr. 711:12-798:4.
`
`Given this failure of proof, Juniper’s motion must be denied.
`
`Furthermore, even if the Juniper sub-construction for “database schema” of “a description of a
`
`database to a database management system (DBMS) in the language provided by the DMBS” was
`
`adopted, Finjan also established that the ResultsDB is organized according to its JSON format. Trial
`
`Tr. 457:6-458:1; 461:21-462:14; 463:10-464:2. Juniper argument that certain components are
`
`“written” in the Python programming language is a complete red herring, as this construction states
`
`nothing about the programming language the database must be written. Instead, this construction only
`
`states the “language provided by the DBMS,” which can be any language that can be used describing
`
`the database to the database manager. Dr. Cole provided testimony showing that this was met, because
`
`Juniper uses its own JSON format as the language to interface with the ResultsDB. Trial Tr. 457:6-
`
`458:1; 461:21-462:14; 463:10-464:2; 486:8-487:8; Trial Ex. 99 at115; Ex 99 (Page 8); Ex 99 at 78; Ex
`
`99 at 297; Trial Ex. 65 at (Page 3). As stated in Juniper’s documents, this is a strict schema enforced
`
`on the data that is stored in the ResultsDB. Trial Ex. 65 at (Page 3). As such, Juniper’s argument that
`
`Finjan did not provide sufficient evidence that Juniper meets the “database” element in the claim is
`
`incorrect.
`V.
`
`CONCLUSION
`
`For the foregoing reasons, Finjan respectfully requests that the Court deny Juniper’s Motion for
`
`Judgment as a Matter of Law at the Close of Finjan’s case.
`
`///
`
`///
`
`///
`
`10
`FINJAN, INC.’S OPPOSITION TO JUNIPER’S Case No.: 3:17-cv-05659-WHA
`MOTION FOR JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW
`
`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 325 Filed 12/13/18 Page 12 of 12
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated: December 13, 2018
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`By: /s/ Paul J. Andre
`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
`Facsimile: (650) 752-1800
`pandre@kramerlevin.com
`lkobialka@kramerlevin.com
`jhannah@kramerlevin.com
`kkastens@kramerlevin.com
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff
`FINJAN, INC.
`
`11
`FINJAN, INC.’S OPPOSITION TO JUNIPER’S Case No.: 3:17-cv-05659-WHA
`MOTION FOR JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW
`
`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
`
`
`
`