Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 353 Filed 01/10/19 Page 1 of 31
`
`
`
`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 FINJAN, INC.’S NOTICE OF
`MOTION AND RENEWED MOTION FOR
`JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW
`PURSUANT TO FED. R. CIV. P. 50(B);
`MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL UNDER FED. R.
`CIV. P. 59; AND MOTION FOR
`CERTIFICATION FOR IMMEDIATE
`APPEAL IN THE ALTERNATIVE
`
`Date:
`Time:
`Courtroom:
`Before:
`
`
`TBD
`TBD
`12, 19th Floor
`Hon. William Alsup
`
`REDACTED VERSION OF DOCUMENTS FILED UNDER SEAL
`
`
`
`__________________________________________________________________________________
`FINJAN’S RENEWED MOTION FOR JMOL, NEW TRIAL, OR
`CASE NO. 17-cv-05659-WHA
`ALTERNATIVELY, CERTIFICATION FOR IMMEDIATE APPEAL
`
`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 353 Filed 01/10/19 Page 2 of 31
`
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS ........................................................................................................................... i 
`NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION .................................................................................................. 1 
`I. 
`Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 3 
`II. 
`Finjan is entitled to JMOL that JUNIPER INFRINGES CLAIM 10 ........................................... 4 
`Finjan Presented Overwhelming Evidence that the Accused Products Store
`A. 
`Downloadable Security Profile Data in a Database. ......................................................... 5 
`Juniper Failed to Rebut Finjan’s Proof of Infringement. .................................................. 7 
`1. 
`Dr. Rubin Did not Rebut Dr. Cole’s Evidence that the ResultsDB Exists. .......... 7 
`2. 
`Dr. Rubin Did not Rebut Finjan’s Evidence that the ResultsDB has a
`“Database Schema.” .............................................................................................. 9 
`ALTERNATIVELY, FINJAN REQUESTS A NEW TRIAL UNDER Rule 59 ....................... 13 
`The Court Allowing Should Grant a New Trial to Prevent a Miscarriage of
`A. 
`Justice Regarding the Construction “Database Schema.” ............................................... 14 
`Juniper Improperly Presented Evidence of Claim 1 to the Jury. .................................... 15 
`Juniper Withheld and Misrepresented Damages for the Accused Products ................... 16 
`The Court Erred by Ruling that A Reasonable Royalty Cannot Exceed Revenues
`and Also That Finjan’s Reasonable Royalty Request Exceeded Juniper’s
`Revenues. ........................................................................................................................ 19 
`REQUEST FOR A FINAL ORDER AND FOR CERTIFICATION FOR IMMEDIATE
`INTERLOCUTORY APPEAL, AND TO STAY THE CASE .................................................. 21 
`A. 
`A Controlling Question of Law is at Issue. ..................................................................... 22 
`B. 
`Substantial Grounds for a Difference of Opinion Exists. ............................................... 22 
`C. 
`An Order for Immediate Interlocutory Appeal Could Materially Speed Up the
`Termination of the Litigation. ......................................................................................... 23 
`The Judgment of No Infringement of the ‘780 Patent Is Properly Subject to
`Simultaneous Appeal ...................................................................................................... 24 
`THE CASE SHOULD BE STAYED IN ITS ENTIRETY PENDING NEW TRIAL OR
`APPEAL ..................................................................................................................................... 24 
`CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................................... 25 
`
`B. 
`
`B. 
`C. 
`D. 
`
`D. 
`
`III. 
`
`IV. 
`
`V. 
`
`VI. 
`
`
`i
`CASE NO. 17-cv-05659-WHA
`FINJAN’S RENEWED MOTION FOR JMOL, NEW TRIAL, OR
`ALTERNATIVELY, CERTIFICATION FOR IMMEDIATE APPEAL
`
`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 353 Filed 01/10/19 Page 3 of 31
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`
`Page(s)
`
`
`
`Cases
`
`800 Adept, Inc. v. Murex Securities, Ltd.,
`539 F.3d 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2008)......................................................................................................... 14
`
`Affinity Labs of Texas, LLC v. DIRECTV, LLC,
`838 F.3d 1253 (Fed. Cir. 2016)......................................................................................................... 15
`
`Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l,
`134 S.Ct. 2347 (2014) ....................................................................................................................... 15
`
`Apple Inc. v. Motorola, Inc.,
`757 F.3d 1286 (Fed. Cir. 2014), overruled on other grounds by Williamson v. Citrix
`Online, LLC, 792 F.3d 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2015) .................................................................................. 22
`
`Apple, Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co.,
`No. 12-cv-00630-LHK, 2014 WL 660857 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 20, 2014) ............................................. 23
`
`Banneck v. Fed. Nat’l Mortg. Ass’n,
`No. 17-CV-04657-WHO, 2018 WL 5603632 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 29, 2018) ......................................... 23
`
`Bascom Glob. Internet Servs., Inc. v. AT&T Mobility LLC,
`827 F.3d 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2016)......................................................................................................... 15
`
`Berkheimer v. HP Inc.,
`881 F.3d 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2018)......................................................................................................... 15
`
`Carnegie Mellon Univ. v. Marvell Tech. Grp., Ltd.,
`807 F.3d 1283 (Fed. Cir. 2015)......................................................................................................... 20
`
`In re Cement Antitrust Litig. (MDL No. 296),
`673 F.2d 1020 (9th Cir. 1981) .......................................................................................................... 22
`
`Cent. Admixture Pharmacy Servs., Inc. v. Advanced Cardiac Sols., P.C.,
`482 F.3d 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2007)......................................................................................................... 13
`
`Cordis Corp. v. Boston Sci. Corp.,
`561 F.3d 1319 (Fed. Cir. 2009)................................................................................................... 12, 13
`
`Couch v. Telescope Inc.,
`611 F.3d 629 (9th Cir. 2010) ............................................................................................................ 22
`
`CytoLogix Corp. v. Ventana Med. Sys., Inc.,
`424 F.3d 1168 (Fed. Cir. 2005)................................................................................................... 13, 23
`
`i
`CASE NO. 17-cv-05659-WHA
`FINJAN’S RENEWED MOTION FOR JMOL, NEW TRIAL, OR
`ALTERNATIVELY, CERTIFICATION FOR IMMEDIATE APPEAL
`
`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 353 Filed 01/10/19 Page 4 of 31
`
`
`Douglas Dynamics, LLC v. Buyers Prods. Co.,
`717 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2013)......................................................................................................... 20
`
`
`
`Dow Chem. Co. v. Mee Indus., Inc.,
`341 F.3d 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2003)......................................................................................................... 22
`
`Dukes v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.,
`No. 01-cv-02252 CRB, 2012 WL 6115536 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 10, 2012) ............................................ 23
`
`E.E.O.C. v. Go Daddy Software, Inc.,
`581 F.3d (9th Cir. 2009) ..................................................................................................................... 4
`
`Ericsson, Inc. v. D-Link Sys., Inc.,
`773 F.3d 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2014)......................................................................................................... 21
`
`Experience Hendrix L.L.C. v. Hendrixlicensing.com Ltd,
`762 F.3d 829 (9th Cir. 2014) ............................................................................................................ 14
`
`Fed. Deposit Ins. Corp. v. Jackson-Shaw Partners No. 46, Ltd.,
`No. 92-20556 SW, 1995 WL 594866 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 4, 1995) ....................................................... 22
`
`Finjan, Inc. v. Blue Coat Systems, Inc.,
`No. 13-cv-03999-BLF, 2014 WL 5361976 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 20, 2014) ............................................. 24
`
`Finjan, Inc. v. ESET, LLC,
`No. 17-cv-00183-CAB-(BGS), 2017 WL 5501338 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 14, 2017) ............................... 24
`
`Finjan, Inc. v. Secure Computing Corp.,
`626 F.3d 1197 (Fed. Cir. 2010)......................................................................................................... 20
`
`Landis v. North Am. Co.,
`299 U.S. 248 (1936) .......................................................................................................................... 24
`
`McGonigle v. Combs,
`968 F.2d 810 (9th Cir. 1992) .............................................................................................................. 4
`
`Moba, B.V. v. Diamond Automation, Inc.,
`325 F.3d 1306 (Fed. Cir. 2003)......................................................................................................... 12
`
`Monsanto Co. v. Ralph,
`382 F.3d 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2004)......................................................................................................... 20
`
`Reese v. BP Expl. (Alaska) Inc.,
`643 F.3d 681 (9th Cir. 2011) ...................................................................................................... 20, 23
`
`Shurance v. Planning Control Int’l, Inc.,
`839 F.2d 1347 (9th Cir. 1988) .......................................................................................................... 22
`
`TiVo, Inc. v. EchoStar Commc’ns Corp.,
`516 F.3d 1290 (Fed. Cir. 2008)........................................................................................................... 8
`ii
`CASE NO. 17-cv-05659-WHA
`FINJAN’S RENEWED MOTION FOR JMOL, NEW TRIAL, OR
`ALTERNATIVELY, CERTIFICATION FOR IMMEDIATE APPEAL
`
`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 353 Filed 01/10/19 Page 5 of 31
`
`
`Union Carbide Chems. & Plastics Tech. Corp. v. Shell Oil Co.,
`308 F.3d 1167 (Fed. Cir. 2002)......................................................................................................... 14
`
`
`
`Versata Software, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc.,
`717 F.3d 1255 (Fed. Cir. 2013)......................................................................................................... 21
`
`In re Wilson,
`No. BR 13-11374 AJ, 2014 WL 122074 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 10, 2014) ................................................. 22
`
`WundaFormer, LLC v. Flex Studios, Inc.,
`680 F. App’x 925 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ..................................................................................................... 9
`
`Zyme Solutions, Inc. v. InfoNow Corp.,
`No. C 13–04082 WHA, 2013 WL 6699997 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 19, 2013) ........................................... 24
`
`Statutes
`
`28 U.S.C. § 1292 .............................................................................................................................. passim
`
`35 U.S.C. § 101 ....................................................................................................................................... 15
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102 ....................................................................................................................................... 15
`
`Other Authorities
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 50 ...................................................................................................................... 1, 4, 14, 20
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 59 ......................................................................................................................... 1, 13, 14
`
`
`
`
`iii
`CASE NO. 17-cv-05659-WHA
`FINJAN’S RENEWED MOTION FOR JMOL, NEW TRIAL, OR
`ALTERNATIVELY, CERTIFICATION FOR IMMEDIATE APPEAL
`
`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 353 Filed 01/10/19 Page 6 of 31
`
`
`
`
`
`TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD:
`
`NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION
`
`NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that as soon as the matter may be heard by the Court, Finjan,
`
`Inc. (“Finjan”) will and hereby does move the Court for an order granting its renewed motion for
`
`judgment as a matter of law and, alternatively, for a new trial and a stay of the second “shootout
`
`procedure.” This Motion is based on this Notice of Motion, the Memorandum of Points and
`
`Authorities, the trial record, the pleadings and papers on file, and any evidence and argument presented
`
`to the Court.
`
`RELIEF REQUESTED
`
`Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 50(b), Finjan moves for renewed judgment as a
`
`matter of law (“JMOL”) that Juniper’s (1) SRX Gateways with SkyATP and (2) Sky ATP by itself (the
`
`“Accused Products”) infringe Claim 10 of the ‘494 Patent (“Claim 10”). Finjan presented
`
`overwhelming evidence that the Accused Products meet the “database” limitation of Claim 10, and the
`
`Court found on summary judgment that the Accused Products meet every other limitation of Claim 10.
`
`Juniper failed to present a legally sufficient evidentiary basis to support its defenses to that
`
`infringement.
`
`In the alternative, Finjan requests a new trial on the issue of infringement under Rule 59.
`
`Finjan further requests a new trial under Rule 59 on the bases that (1) the incorrect construction of
`
`“database schema” was applied by Juniper; (2) Juniper improperly presented evidence of Claim 1 to
`
`the jury; and (3) withheld and misrepresented revenue information during discovery, both of which
`
`substantially prejudiced Finjan at trial. Granting a new trial on these issues will mean that the first trial
`
`is not completed, such that a stay of the second shootout is appropriate.
`
`Should the Court not grant Finjan’s request for JMOL, or its request for a new trial, then Finjan
`
`requests a final judgment or certification of these issues for immediate interlocutory appeal, and that
`
`the case be stayed pending the outcome of that appeal. All issues related to the first “shootout”
`
`procedure, namely the issues involving the ‘494 Patent and the ‘780 Patent, should be certified for
`
`immediate appeal so that they may be addressed by the Federal Circuit to preserve judicial economy
`
`1
`CASE NO. 17-cv-05659-WHA
`FINJAN’S RENEWED MOTION FOR JMOL, NEW TRIAL, OR
`ALTERNATIVELY, CERTIFICATION FOR IMMEDIATE APPEAL
`
`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 353 Filed 01/10/19 Page 7 of 31
`
`
`
`
`
`and ensure no errors of law are promulgated throughout the case, as the Court has already instructed
`
`that there will be a second “shootout” phase and a second trial.
`
`
`
`2
`CASE NO. 17-cv-05659-WHA
`FINJAN’S RENEWED MOTION FOR JMOL, NEW TRIAL, OR
`ALTERNATIVELY, CERTIFICATION FOR IMMEDIATE APPEAL
`
`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 353 Filed 01/10/19 Page 8 of 31
`
`
`
`MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
`
`INTRODUCTION
`Finjan should be granted JMOL that the Accused Products infringe Claim 10 because there was
`
`
`
`I.
`
`no legally sufficient basis for the jury’s non-infringement verdict. In particular, Finjan provided
`
`overwhelming evidence that these Accused Products include “a database” as used in the element “a
`
`database manager coupled with said Downloadable scanner, for storing the Downloadable security
`
`profile data in a database,” which was the only element still at issue for trial. Finjan presented
`
`unrefuted evidence that the Accused Products store “Downloadable security profile data in a database”
`
`when the Accused Products store the results from the “malware analysis pipeline” in the “results
`
`database” or “ResultsDB.” Juniper failed to properly rebut with any supporting evidence or a legally
`
`relevant non-infringement theory, but instead denied the veracity of Juniper’s own internal documents
`
`and applied new and improper claim constructions arguments.
`
`In the alternative, Finjan should be granted a new trial because the great weight of evidence
`
`presented to the jury supported Juniper’s infringement of Claim 10 of the ‘494 Patent, and it would be
`
`a miscarriage of justice to let the current verdict stand. First, another trial should be granted because
`
`Juniper’s improper argument regarding the scope of “database schema” results in a miscarriage of
`
`justice. Further, another trial should be granted because Juniper improperly compared Claim 1 of the
`
`‘494 Patent, which was not at issue at trial and had been found not valid by the Patent Trial and Appeal
`
`Board (“PTAB”), with Claim 10 of the ‘494 Patent. Thus, any mention or comparison of Claim 1 to
`
`Claim 10 was irrelevant to any issue at trial, created an improper negative impression of Claim 10 of
`
`the ‘494 Patent, and was prejudicial to Finjan’s right to a fair trial. Additionally, Finjan should be
`
`granted a new trial as a reasonably remedy to Juniper’s misrepresentations of its revenue information
`
`to the Court and also because it belatedly produced relevant information regarding the extent of its use
`
`of the accused products. Finally, Finjan there were also manifest errors of law with respect to
`
`damages, including the Court’s ruling that no reasonable royalty can be assessed on services offered
`
`for free. For these reasons, Finjan should be granted a new trial on liability and damages for Juniper’s
`
`infringement of Claim 10 of the ‘494 Patent.
`
`3
`CASE NO. 17-cv-05659-WHA
`FINJAN’S RENEWED MOTION FOR JMOL, NEW TRIAL, OR
`ALTERNATIVELY, CERTIFICATION FOR IMMEDIATE APPEAL
`
`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 353 Filed 01/10/19 Page 9 of 31
`
`
`
`
`
`In the event the Court denies Finjan’s request for a judgment as a matter of law or a new trial,
`
`Finjan submits that the issue is appropriate for interlocutory appeal to the Federal Circuit under 28
`
`U.S.C. § 1292(b) and (c). The infringement and damages related orders for both the ‘494 and ‘780
`
`Patents are final orders requiring immediate appeal. 28 U.S.C. § 1292(c). Finjan submits that in the
`
`interest of fairness to the parties and conservation of judicial resources, the remainder of the case, and
`
`the second “shootout,” should be stayed pending the outcome of the appeal, as the outcome will inform
`
`all concerned regarding the remainder of the parties’ dispute.
`II.
`FINJAN IS ENTITLED TO JMOL THAT JUNIPER INFRINGES CLAIM 10
`The Court should grant JMOL on infringement for Finjan because Juniper did not rebut
`
`Finjan’s overwhelming evidence that the Accused Products infringe Claim 10 of the ‘494 Patent, such
`
`that the jury had no legally sufficient evidentiary basis to find for Juniper. JMOL is appropriate if “the
`
`court finds that a reasonable jury would not have a legally sufficient evidentiary basis to find for the
`
`party on [an] issue.’” Fed. R. Civ. P. 50(a); E.E.O.C. v. Go Daddy Software, Inc., 581 F.3d, 951, 961-
`
`62 (9th Cir. 2009); McGonigle v. Combs, 968 F.2d 810, 816 (9th Cir. 1992) (holding JMOL should be
`
`granted “when the evidence permits only one reasonable conclusion as to the verdict.”). Here, the
`
`Court already ruled that Juniper infringes every element of Claim 10 except for the “database”
`
`limitation in the last claim element, which reads in its entirety: “a database manager coupled with said
`
`Downloadable scanner, for storing the Downloadable security profile data in a database.” Dkt. No.
`
`185 at 4–18; ‘494 Patent, Claim 10. Thus, the only question for the jury was whether the Accused
`
`Products store Downloadable security profile data in a “database,” which was construed as “a
`
`collection of interrelated data organized according to a database schema to serve one or more
`
`applications.” Dkt. 126 at 6; Dkt. 189 at 16.
`
`In response to the evidence presented by Finjan, Juniper’s expert relied on nearly no evidence
`
`to support Juniper’s position, and instead, presented unsupported and irrelevant arguments. Given the
`
`overwhelming evidence Finjan presented, and Juniper’s failure to rebut this evidence, no reasonable
`
`jury could find that the Accused Products do not store Downloadable security profile data in a
`
`“database,” and the Accused Products thereby infringe Claim 10.
`
`4
`CASE NO. 17-cv-05659-WHA
`FINJAN’S RENEWED MOTION FOR JMOL, NEW TRIAL, OR
`ALTERNATIVELY, CERTIFICATION FOR IMMEDIATE APPEAL
`
`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 353 Filed 01/10/19 Page 10 of 31
`
`
`
`
`
`A.
`
`Finjan Presented Overwhelming Evidence that the Accused Products Store
`Downloadable Security Profile Data in a Database.
`Finjan presented unrefuted evidence that the Accused Products store Downloadable security
`
`profile data in a database when the results from their “malware analysis pipeline” are stored in the
`ResultsDB. Ex. 11, Trial Tr. at 447:4-25. As already determined by the Court, the results from the
`malware analysis pipeline are a “downloadable security profile that includes a list of suspicious
`
`computer operations.” Dkt. 189 at 14. These full results are stored in the ResultsDB, which is a
`
`custom database that Juniper built to be used in its Accused Products, and was built using components
`
`provided by Amazon. Ex. 1, Trial Tr. at 449:5-25.
`
`Finjan’s infringement expert, Dr. Eric Cole, provided detailed testimony describing this
`
`analysis and storage process, including evidence describing how the “malware analysis pipeline” scans
`
`files using static and dynamic analysis to generate downloadable security profile data, and that this
`
`profile data is stored in the ResultsDB. Id., Trial Tr. at 390:2-394:11, 427:2-459:23. Dr. Cole
`
`supported his opinions with overwhelming evidence, including citations to Juniper’s own internal
`
`source code, internal confidential technical documents, marketing materials, and the testimony of its
`
`own engineers. Id., Trial Tr. at 390:2-394:11, 427:2-459:23; Dkt. 224 at 1. In particular, Dr. Cole
`
`explained how numerous Juniper documents established that Juniper uses its ResultsDB as a database,
`
`as determined under the appropriate construction, to store generated Downloadable security profile
`
`data. Ex. 1, Trial Tr. at 440:9-444:4; Ex. 2, Trial Ex. 78 at FINJAN-JN 0044763 (describing how
`
`“[w]hen a file is analyzed, a file hash is generated, and the results of the analysis are stored in a
`
`database.”); Ex. 3, Trial Ex. 94 at JNPR-FNJN_29018_00963212 (figure showing described as the
`
`“Results DB Architecture” and showing the architecture of the ResultsDB developed by Juniper for the
`
`Accused Products) and at JNPR-FNJN_29018_00963213 (describing how Juniper built the ResultsDB
`
`because “[i]t is difficult to find one database that could satisfy may different storage needs in one shot,
`
`especially if needs are very different,” “So we built a hybrid solution on top of AWS existing storages
`
`services.”); Ex. 4, Trial Ex. 99 at 115 (showing how the ResultsDB source code at
`
`” describes retrieving the results of the scan from the ResultsDB through a
`“
`
`1 All “Ex.” Citations are to the Declaration of Kristopher Kastens (“Kastens Decl.”) filed herewith.
`5
`CASE NO. 17-cv-05659-WHA
`FINJAN’S RENEWED MOTION FOR JMOL, NEW TRIAL, OR
`ALTERNATIVELY, CERTIFICATION FOR IMMEDIATE APPEAL
`
`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 353 Filed 01/10/19 Page 11 of 31
`
`
`
`
`
`function that will “Get full object from the database”); Ex. 5, Trial Ex. 92 at JNPR-
`
`FNJN_29017_00553166 (showing how the ResultsDB is a database and that a user can “Verify that
`
`hash_lookup adapter results are stored in the results db”) and at JNPR-FNJN_29017_00553178
`
`(describing how the ResultsDB can be used to “Verify the Score inserted in Results Db is correct,
`
`which can be used by Verdict engine”); Ex. 4, Ex. 99 at 8 (describing how the ResultsDB source code
`
`at “’
`
`” includes a function that will “return: All of the info from
`
`ResultsDB for all provided sample IDs as a nested dictionary. The sha256 is the key. See resultsdb
`
`schema for full description of data included.”). As such, Finjan presented substantial, unrefuted
`
`evidence that the ResultsDB is a database that stores “downloadable security profile data” as required
`
`in the Claim 10 of the ‘494 Patent.
`
`Furthermore, Dr. Cole presented overwhelming evidence that Juniper stores Downloadable
`
`security profile data in a “database” according to the adopted construction, including that this database
`
`is organized according to a “database schema.” Ex. 1, Trial Tr. at 459:24-468:3. Finjan presented this
`
`evidence through Dr. Cole and his supporting documents that included specific citations to the
`
`ResultsDB source code, which showed that the ResultsDB includes a “schema” for the information
`
`that is stored. Id., Trial Tr. at 463:5-466:12; Ex. 4, Ex. 99 at 8 (describing how the ResultsDB source
`
`code at “’
`
`” includes “return: All of the info from ResultsDB for all
`
`provided sample IDs as a nested dictionary. The sha256 is the key. See resultsdb schema for full
`
`description of data included.”); Ex. 6, Trial Ex. 399 at JNPR-FNJN_29032_00590607 (describing how
`
`the ResultDB has a schema because “[i]n Argon a schema is the format in which the results are stored
`in our database. This helps us to index our results as well as fetch them with ease.”)2; Ex. 7, Trial Ex.
`65 at JNPR-FNJN_29030_00553972 (describing how the ResultsDB uses a “Schema validation in
`
`Argon”), JNPR-FNJN_29030_00553974 (further describing how the ResultsDB includes a “Schema
`
`Validation in ResultsDB,” and describing how “[t]he format of the JSON data for records stored in the
`
`ResultsDB adhere to a strict schema.”); Ex. 4, Trial Ex. 99 at 78 (describing how the ResultsDB source
`
`
`2 “Argon” is the code name for the Sky ATP service that includes the ResultsDB. Ex. 1, Trial Tr.
`437:20-438:2.
`
`6
`CASE NO. 17-cv-05659-WHA
`FINJAN’S RENEWED MOTION FOR JMOL, NEW TRIAL, OR
`ALTERNATIVELY, CERTIFICATION FOR IMMEDIATE APPEAL
`
`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 353 Filed 01/10/19 Page 12 of 31
`
`
`
`code at “
`
`
`
`” describes an “
`
`” that is
`
`used as the schema for the results stored in the ResultsDB); Ex. 99 at 297 (describing how the
`
`ResultsDB source code at “
`
`” includes a function for creating a
`
`table structure to store the results of scanning with the function “
`
`
`
`”). As shown, the evidence establishes that the
`
`ResultsDB has a “database schema.”
`
`As shown, Finjan presented overwhelming, unrefuted evidence establishing Juniper’s
`
`infringement of Claim 10 of the ‘494 Patent.
`B.
`Juniper Failed to Rebut Finjan’s Proof of Infringement.
`Juniper’s expert, Dr. Rubin, failed to rebut Dr. Cole’s testimony and supporting evidence, and
`
`instead focused his arguments on unsupported or legally irrelevant points, including that the ResultsDB
`
`does not really exist, that the ResultsDB cannot be a database because it is composed of three
`
`subcomponents for storing the data, and that the schemas in the ResultsDB are not a “database
`
`schema.”
`
`1.
`Dr. Rubin Did not Rebut Dr. Cole’s Evidence that the ResultsDB Exists.
`Dr. Rubin denied that the ResultsDB was a component of the Accused Products, and instead
`
`argued – without any supporting evidence – that Juniper’s software engineers merely referred to a
`
`“results database” or “ResultsDB” without actually referring to it as a database. Ex. 1, Trial Tr. at
`
`758:23-759:17, 764:16-24, 771:17-772:11, 775:6-779:3. In support of its position, Juniper did not
`
`present testimony from its employees or engineers, or any other actual evidence, to support this
`argument, and instead relied on its attorneys and paid expert to make these bald assertions.3 In
`particular, Dr. Rubin did not present any evidence on which to base his opinion that Juniper’s
`
`engineers did not know what they meant when they referenced ResultsDB in their source code and
`
`technical documents. See id., Trial Tr. at 758:23-759:17, 764:16-24, 771:17-772:11, 775:6-779:3. Dr.
`
`Rubin also ignored Dr. Cole’s infringement allegations and identified no evidence rebutting the
`
`
`3 To allow Juniper’s attorneys’ arguments instead of Finjan’s fact-based evidence would fly in the face
`of the Court’s own admonitions to the jurors that they should ignore the attorneys’ arguments and rely
`only on the facts presented in the case.
`
`7
`CASE NO. 17-cv-05659-WHA
`FINJAN’S RENEWED MOTION FOR JMOL, NEW TRIAL, OR
`ALTERNATIVELY, CERTIFICATION FOR IMMEDIATE APPEAL
`
`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 353 Filed 01/10/19 Page 13 of 31
`
`
`
`
`
`numerous references in Juniper’s source code and other internal documents referring to the ResultsDB
`
`as a database.
`
`Dr. Rubin also makes the irrelevant argument that the ResultsDB is not a database because it is
`
`a combination of three storage components in the Accused Products, including a MySQL database, a
`
`DynamoDB database, and a S3 database. Ex. 1, Trial Tr. at 758:23-759:17, 764:16-24. However,
`
`even if this assertion was accepted as true, and the ResultsDB was considered to be nothing more than
`
`three separate storage components, Dr. Rubin’s argument is of not moment since the agreed
`
`construction of “database” provides that a database is “a collection of interrelated data,” and does not
`
`require or limit this data to being stored in a single location or storage solution. Id., Trial Tr. at 759:3-
`
`6 (Dr. Rubin arguing that the ResultsDB is not a database “[b]ecause these are three separate storage
`
`solutions.”). Instead, the agreed construction focuses of there being a “collection of data,” regardless
`
`of whether it is stored in one storage component, three, or a hundred. In fact, Juniper did not dispute at
`
`trial that it stores a collection of data related to the results from the Accused Products scanning files in
`
`the malware analysis pipeline. Id., Trial Tr. at 750:3-12 (Dr. Rubin testifying that “Sky ATP has a
`
`bunch of data to store and it stores it in three different storage solutions. One of them I’ve been talking
`
`about a little bit is Amazon’s DynamoDB, and Amazon DynamoDB stores verdicts as wells as some of
`
`the results of the analysis engines that are run. Some of the results, however, cannot be stored in
`
`DynamoDB because Amazon recommends not storing anything greater than 400K in DynamoDB.
`
`And so then what happens is the results are stored in S3 …”); id., Trial Tr. at 753:22-754:2 (Dr. Rubin
`
`describing how the MySQL database includes information about the scanned files, and that “[o]ne
`
`example is a time stamp on the last time that a particular file was accessed, things like that.”); see also
`
`id., Trial Tr. at 757:10-25. As shown, Juniper does not dispute that the ResultsDB includes interrelated
`
`data for the files that are scanned by the Accused Products, including the results of the files being
`
`scanned, which meets the requirem