Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 360 Filed 01/24/19 Page 1 of 31
`
`IRELL & MANELLA LLP
`Jonathan S. Kagan (SBN 166039)
`jkagan@irell.com
`Alan Heinrich (SBN 212782)
`aheinrich@irell.com
`Joshua Glucoft (SBN 301249)
`jglucoft@irell.com
`Casey Curran (SBN 305210)
`ccuran@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.
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
`FINJAN, INC., a Delaware Corporation,
`)
`Case No. 3:17-cv-05659-WHA
`)
`
`
`JUNIPER NETWORKS, INC.’S
`)
`)
`OPPOSITION TO FINJAN, INC.’S
`)
`MOTION FOR JUDGMENT AS A
`)
`MATTER OF LAW (DKT. NO. 353)
`)
`
`)
`Judge: Hon. William Alsup
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`vs.
`
`
`JUNIPER NETWORKS, INC., a Delaware
`Corporation,
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`10634940
`
`
`
`
`
`JUNIPER’S OPPOSITION TO FINJAN’S MOTION
`FOR JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW
`(Case No. 3:17-cv-05659-WHA)
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 360 Filed 01/24/19 Page 2 of 31
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`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
`
`
`
`I.
`II.
`
`III.
`
`IV.
`
`
`10634940
`
`
`
`Page
`INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................... 1
`FINJAN IS NOT ENTITLED TO JMOL OF INFRINGEMENT ...................................... 1
`A.
`Legal Standard. ........................................................................................................ 1
`B.
`Substantial Evidence Supports The Jury Verdict Of Non-
`Infringement. ........................................................................................................... 2
`Finjan Mischaracterizes The Trial Record And Misapplies
`1.
`The Law. ...................................................................................................... 2
`There Is Substantial Evidence That Juniper Does Not Store
`Security Profile Data In A “Database” As Construed ................................. 3
`The Jury Was Justified In Rejecting Cole’s Testimony As
`Not Credible ................................................................................................ 6
`Finjan Is Not Entitled To A New Trial Under Rule 59 ..................................................... 12
`A.
`Legal Standard. ...................................................................................................... 12
`B.
`Dr. Rubin’s Testimony On The “Database” Limitation Was
`Appropriate. ........................................................................................................... 12
`Evidence Regarding The PTAB’s Obviousness Finding Regarding
`Claim 1 Was Relevant To Juniper’s § 101 Defense. ............................................. 12
`Finjan’s Allegations That Juniper Withheld And Misrepresented
`Damages For The Accused Products Are Baseless. .............................................. 14
`Juniper Timely Produced Accurate And Complete Revenue
`1.
`Information For The Accused Products. ................................................... 15
`Juniper’s Representations Concerning Damages Were
`Accurate. ................................................................................................... 17
`Finjan Misrepresents The Court’s Daubert Order. ............................................... 21
`Finjan’s Request For An Interlocutory Appeal Is Premature. ............................... 23
`Juniper Does Not Oppose Finjan’s Request To Stay This Case As
`To The ’844, ’926, ’154, ’633 And ’731 Patents. ................................................. 25
`CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................. 25
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`E.
`F.
`G.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`2.
`
`- i -
`
`JUNIPER’S OPPOSITION TO FINJAN’S MOTION
`FOR JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW
`(Case No. 3:17-cv-05659-WHA)
`
`

`

`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 360 Filed 01/24/19 Page 3 of 31
`
`
`
`Cases
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`
`Page(s)
`
`ADC Telecomms., Inc. v. Switchcraft, Inc.,
`281 F. App’x 989 (Fed. Cir. 2008) .............................................................................................15
`
`AVM Techs., LLC v. Intel Corp.,
`334 F.Supp.3d 623 (D. Del. 2018) .............................................................................................15
`
`Bayer AG v. Sony Elecs., Inc.,
`229 F. Supp. 2d 332 (D. Del. 2002), aff’d, 83 F. App’x 334 (Fed. Cir. 2003) ............................8
`
`Castillo v. City & Cty. of S.F.,
`2006 WL 1305214 (N.D. Cal. May 11, 2006) (Alsup, J.), aff’d, 283 F. App’x
`536 (9th Cir. 2008) .....................................................................................................................12
`
`Douglas Dynamics, LLC v. Buyers Prods. Co.,
`717 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2013) ..................................................................................................22
`
`Finjan, Inc. v. Blue Coat Sys., Inc.,
`No. 13-cv-03999-BLF, 2014 WL 5361976 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 20, 2014) ......................................25
`
`Finjan, Inc. v. ESET, LLC et al.,
`No. 3:17-cv-00183 (S.D. Cal Oct. 9, 2017) ...............................................................................25
`
`Finjan, Inc. v. Secure Computing Corp.,
`626 F.3d 1197 (Fed. Cir. 2010) ..................................................................................................23
`
`G. David Jang, M.D. v. Bos. Sci. Corp.,
`872 F.3d 1275 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ....................................................................................................2
`
`HTC Corp. v. IPCom GMBH & Co., KG,
`285 F.R.D. 130 (D.D.C. 2012) ...................................................................................................24
`
`InTouch Techs., Inc. v. VGO Commc’ns, Inc.,
`751 F.3d 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ....................................................................................................3
`
`Jang v. Bos. Sci. Corp.,
`767 F.3d 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ..................................................................................................24
`
`In re Katz Interactive Call Processing Patent Litig.,
`2009 WL 1351043 (C.D. Cal. May 1, 2009) ..............................................................................20
`
`Key Pharm. v. Hercon Labs. Corp.,
`161 F.3d 709 (Fed. Cir. 1998) ......................................................................................................6
`
`Medeva Pharma Suisse A.G. v. Par Pharm., Inc.,
`430 F. App’x. 878 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ............................................................................................24
`
`10634940
`
`
`
`- ii -
`
`JUNIPER’S OPPOSITION TO FINJAN’S MOTION
`FOR JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW
`(Case No. 3:17-cv-05659-WHA)
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 360 Filed 01/24/19 Page 4 of 31
`
`Monsanto Co. v. Ralph,
`382 F.3d 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2004) ..................................................................................................22
`
`Motorola Inc. v. J.B. Rogers Mech. Contractors,
`177 F. App’x 754 (9th Cir. 2006) ...............................................................................................13
`
`Nazomi Comm’cns, Inc. v. Nokia Corp.,
`739 F.3d 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ..................................................................................................23
`
`Pena v. Meeker,
`2014 WL 4684800 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 18, 2014) ...........................................................................12
`
`Prism Techs. LLC v. AT&T Mobility, LLC,
`2014 WL 4843874 (D. Neb. Sept. 29, 2014) ...............................................................................6
`
`Promega Corp. v. Life Techs. Corp.,
`875 F.3d 651 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ....................................................................................................25
`
`Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., Inc.,
`530 U.S. 133 (2000) .................................................................................................................2, 3
`
`Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Stiffel Co.,
`376 U.S. 225 (1964) ...................................................................................................................20
`
`Sentilles v. Inter-Caribbean Shipping Corp.,
`361 U.S. 107 (1959) ...................................................................................................................12
`
`Star Sci., Inc. v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.,
`655 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ....................................................................................................8
`
`Telemac Cellular Corp. v. Topp Telecom, Inc.,
`247 F.3d 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2001) ..................................................................................................23
`
`Transamerica Life Ins. Co. v. Lincoln Nat. Life Ins. Co.,
`597 F. Supp. 2d 897 (N.D. Iowa 2009) ..................................................................................6, 13
`
`Transocean Offshore Deepwater Drilling, Inc. v. Maersk Drilling USA, Inc.,
`699 F.3d 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ............................................................................................14, 15
`
`TVIIM, LLC v. McAfee, Inc.,
`851 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ....................................................................................................3
`
`United States v. 4.0 Acres of Land,
`175 F.3d 1133 (9th Cir. 1999) ....................................................................................................12
`
`Wi-Lan, Inc. v. Apple, Inc.,
`811 F.3d 455 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ......................................................................................................2
`
`
`
`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
`
`10634940
`
`
`
`- iii -
`
`JUNIPER’S OPPOSITION TO FINJAN’S MOTION
`FOR JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW
`(Case No. 3:17-cv-05659-WHA)
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 360 Filed 01/24/19 Page 5 of 31
`
`
`
`Statutes
`
`35 U.S.C. § 101 ........................................................................................................................ passim
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102 ................................................................................................................................14
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103 ................................................................................................................................14
`
`Rules
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(6) ....................................................................................................................19
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 50(a) .........................................................................................................2, 22, 23, 24
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b) .....................................................................................................................1, 24
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 59 .............................................................................................................................12
`
`Local Rule 3-4 ..................................................................................................................................16
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`10634940
`
`
`
`- iv -
`
`JUNIPER’S OPPOSITION TO FINJAN’S MOTION
`FOR JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW
`(Case No. 3:17-cv-05659-WHA)
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 360 Filed 01/24/19 Page 6 of 31
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`Finjan’s request for a judgment as a matter of law (“JMOL”) on the issue of infringement is
`baseless. Finjan’s motion is based on an apparent misunderstanding of the legal standard for
`obtaining JMOL, as well as a willful ignorance of the substantial evidence presented by Juniper to
`support the jury’s finding that the accused Juniper products do not satisfy the “database” limitation.
`Rather than crediting the evidence presented by Juniper—as required on a JMOL—Finjan instead
`argues that the jury should have accepted the testimony of Finjan’s technical expert instead of
`accepting the testimony of Juniper’s technical expert. This is not a proper basis for obtaining a
`JMOL, and the Court should therefore reject Finjan’s attempt to reverse the jury’s sound verdict.
`Finjan’s request for a new trial is similarly flawed. Finjan first claims that it should be granted
`a new trial on infringement because Juniper supposedly applied an incorrect construction of
`“database.” But Juniper and its expert properly applied the very construction to which the parties
`agreed, and Finjan waived any argument that “database” needed any further construction by failing
`to raise the issue with the Court—and in fact opposing Juniper’s request for further construction of
`“database.” Finjan next claims that it was an error to allow Juniper to introduce evidence concerning
`the PTAB’s decision to invalidate Claim 1. But this evidence was relevant to Juniper’s § 101
`
`defense, and Finjan provides no explanation for why allowing Juniper to introduce legitimate
`evidence concerning its § 101 invalidity defense would somehow entitle it to a new trial on
`infringement. Finjan’s only other purported grounds for requesting a new trial pertain to damages-
`related issues that are moot in view of the jury’s finding of no infringement. Even if they were not
`moot, however, Finjan’s arguments rely on misrepresentations of the factual record and a complete
`mischaracterization of the Court’s Daubert ruling.
`II.
`FINJAN IS NOT ENTITLED TO JMOL OF INFRINGEMENT
`A.
`Legal Standard.
`Judgment as a matter of law (“JMOL”) is improper unless “a reasonable jury would not have
`a legally sufficient evidentiary basis to find for the party on that issue.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 50(a). A
`court “must draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the nonmoving party, and it may not make
`credibility determinations or weigh the evidence.” Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., Inc., 530
`
`10634940
`
`
`
`JUNIPER’S OPPOSITION TO FINJAN’S MOTION
`FOR JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW
`(Case No. 3:17-cv-05659-WHA)
`
`- 1 -
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 360 Filed 01/24/19 Page 7 of 31
`
`
`
`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
`
`U.S. 133, 150 (2000). “Credibility determinations, the weighing of the evidence, and the drawing
`of legitimate inferences from the facts are jury functions, not those of a judge.” Id.
`B.
`Substantial Evidence Supports The Jury Verdict Of Non-Infringement.
`1.
`Finjan Mischaracterizes The Trial Record And Misapplies The Law.
`Finjan’s entire motion is based on a false premise: that it presented “unrefuted evidence”
`that Juniper’s accused products store “Downloadable security profile data in a database” as required
`by Claim 10 of the ’494 Patent. Dkt. No. 353 at 3; id. at 5 (“unrefuted evidence”), 6 (same), 7 (same).
`In fact, this was the one disputed infringement issue at trial, so much of the evidence from both
`parties addressed this issue. Indeed, Juniper’s technical expert, Dr. Rubin, expressly refuted Finjan’s
`infringement theory and explained in detail (including with citations to Juniper source code), how
`Juniper’s Sky ATP does not store downloadable security profile data in a “database” under the
`agreed construction for that term. Trial Tr. 717:14-718:14, 733:1-760:16, 763:13-770:23.
`Finjan tries to brush aside Dr. Rubin’s testimony, arguing that “Juniper’s expert relied on
`nearly no evidence to support Juniper’s position” on non-infringement. Dkt. No. 353 at 4. Finjan
`ignores the fact that Dr. Rubin’s testimony is itself evidence. G. David Jang, M.D. v. Bos. Sci.
`Corp., 872 F.3d 1275, 1283-84 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (testimony of accused infringer’s technical expert
`constituted substantial evidence supporting jury verdict of non-infringement); Wi-Lan, Inc. v. Apple,
`Inc., 811 F.3d 455, 463 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (same). The testimony of Dr. Rubin, who spent “a
`significant amount of time reviewing the source code for Sky ATP,” Trial Tr. 733:3-20, along with
`the other evidence of non-infringement in the record, more than suffices to support the jury verdict
`of non-infringement.
`Having ignored the most obvious evidence of non-infringement Juniper presented at trial,
`Finjan then compounds its legal error by arguing for JMOL based on a rehash of the infringement
`theory advanced by its own expert witness, Dr. Cole—a theory that the jury squarely rejected. Dkt.
`No. 353 at 5-7. On JMOL, the Court must uphold the jury’s verdict so long as it is supported by
`substantial evidence, “even if it is also possible to draw a contrary conclusion.” TVIIM, LLC v.
`McAfee, Inc., 851 F.3d 1356, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2017); Reeves, 530 U.S. at 150 (court “must draw all
`reasonable inferences in favor of [the prevailing party], and it may not make credibility
`
`10634940
`
`
`
`- 2 -
`
`JUNIPER’S OPPOSITION TO FINJAN’S MOTION
`FOR JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW
`(Case No. 3:17-cv-05659-WHA)
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 360 Filed 01/24/19 Page 8 of 31
`
`
`
`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
`
`determinations or weigh the evidence.”).
`As discussed in more detail below, the parties presented the jury with two very different
`theories regarding the parties’ core infringement dispute. Dr. Rubin analyzed each of the Amazon
`storage solutions Juniper uses in Sky ATP and explained how none of them both (1) stores a
`downloadable security profile, including a list of suspicious computer operations, and also
`(2) satisfies the agreed construction for “database,” which is “a collection of interrelated data
`organized according to a database schema to serve one or more applications.” Trial Tr. 750:3-
`755:19; 963:22-24 (Jury Charge). As a result, Dr. Rubin concluded that Juniper does not store a
`“downloadable security profile” in a “database” as Claim 10 requires. Id., 755:12-19. Dr. Cole, on
`the other hand, did not separately analyze each storage solution to determine whether any one
`satisfied all elements of the claim; he simply lumped them all together and argued that, collectively,
`they satisfied all elements of the claim. Trial Ex. 1179; Trial Tr. 758:7-22. Given these two divergent
`theories, the jury had to decide which expert proposed the more credible and persuasive approach
`for assessing infringement. For JMOL purposes, the “jury had the right to rely upon [Dr. Rubin’s]
`testimony and to reject any testimony proffered by [Finjan] to the contrary.” InTouch Techs., Inc. v.
`VGO Commc’ns, Inc., 751 F.3d 1327, 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (affirming denial of JMOL of
`infringement; courts “do not decide what evidence seems more persuasive,” but only “whether there
`was substantial evidence upon which the jury could predicate its non-infringement judgment”).
`2.
`There Is Substantial Evidence That Juniper Does Not Store Security
`Profile Data In A “Database” As Construed
`
`Dr. Rubin’s opinion was well reasoned and well supported. He explained Sky ATP does not
`store a “downloadable security profile,” including a “list of suspicious computer operations,” in a
`“database.” Trial Tr. 742:1-758:4. He based his opinion on the agreed construction for “database”:
`“a collection of interrelated data organized according to a database schema to serve one or more
`applications.” Trial Tr. 963:22-24 (Jury Charge).
`Dr. Rubin explained the distinction between a database with a “database schema” and
`“schema-less” databases (i.e., a storage solution that does not meet the agreed construction of
`“database”). Trial Tr. 742:1-749:24. He testified that a database with a “database schema” has a set
`
`10634940
`
`
`
`- 3 -
`
`JUNIPER’S OPPOSITION TO FINJAN’S MOTION
`FOR JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW
`(Case No. 3:17-cv-05659-WHA)
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 360 Filed 01/24/19 Page 9 of 31
`
`
`
`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
`
`of pre-defined fields. Id., 742:1-743:4. He gave the example of a database for students in a school,
`with predefined fields of “name,” “gender,” “age” and “GPA.” Id. These fields provide a “very strict
`structure for that database.” Id. For example, one could not simply enter the country of birth for a
`given student in this database “because there’s no field for that.” Id. In contrast, a “schema-less”
`database does not have pre-defined fields. One can associate whatever information one wants, in
`any format, with a key, and include it in the database. Id., 745:1-746:13. Using this example, if the
`student database were schema-less, one could include country of birth for a student because “there’s
`no schema. It’s schema-less. So I can put whatever I want whenever I want into it.” Id.1
`Dr. Rubin further explained the pros and cons of each type of database. Database schemas
`provide “efficiencies for querying.” Id., 742:20-743:4 (“You want to ask the question ‘Show me all
`the students who are 18 years old and who are GPA of 3.5 or better.’ In a database with a schema
`you can create a query exactly like the one I just described and immediately it will spit out all the
`students that meet that. That’s very powerful. Okay? And that is why you have a schema in a
`database.”). Schema-less databases, in contrast, are designed for storing large amounts of data that
`do not need to be frequently accessed: “databases that are schema-less are intentionally designed for
`applications where you’re not going to need to get to the data very often. It’s more important to be
`able to store it quickly than it is to retrieve it quickly, and that’s why these databases came around.”
`Id., 748:2-6; 752:14-753:15.2
`As Dr. Rubin testified, and Dr. Cole agreed, Juniper uses three different Amazon storage
`solutions in Sky ATP: DynamoDB, S3, and MySQL. Id., 750:3-755:19; 776:25-777:5; Trial Ex. 94-
`10; Trial Tr. 467:9-11 (admitting that Sky ATP uses “MySQL, the DynamoDB, and the S3”).
`Dr. Rubin explained that DynamoDB and S3 are both schema-less, and thus do not satisfy the agreed
`
`
`1 Dr. Cole, in contrast, claimed that a schema-less database is a database in which the user
`does not have to fill in information for every field. Trial Tr. 464:3-465:9. The jury was free to believe
`Dr. Rubin that Dr. Cole’s testimony on this issue was “not true.” Id., 745:1-6.
`2 In its JMOL motion, Finjan complains that Dr. Rubin’s understanding of “database schema”
`was inconsistent with the PTAB’s understanding in an IPR proceeding. Dkt. No. 353 at 9. But the
`PTAB document on which Finjan relies (Trial Ex. 122) was not admitted into evidence at trial.
`Notably, Finjan did not attempt to cross examine Dr. Rubin on any alleged inconsistencies between
`his understanding and the PTAB’s. Finjan’s attorney argument concerning a document that was not
`in evidence or even discussed at trial is not a proper basis for JMOL.
`
`10634940
`
`
`
`- 4 -
`
`JUNIPER’S OPPOSITION TO FINJAN’S MOTION
`FOR JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW
`(Case No. 3:17-cv-05659-WHA)
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 360 Filed 01/24/19 Page 10 of 31
`
`
`
`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
`
`“database” construction “database.” Trial Tr. 750:3-753:15. His opinion was based on his review of
`Juniper’s source code, Amazon’s own documentation, and his experience working with these
`Amazon storage solutions. Id., 733:3-20; 750:3-755:19; 785:11.
`For example, Amazon touts that DynamoDB is “schema-less,” so “the data items in a table
`need not have the same attributes or even the same number of attributes.” Trial Ex. 1264-43; Trial
`Tr. 750:20-753:15. S3 has even less structure, storing data as “unstructured blobs.” Trial Ex. 1264-
`3. Testimony from Juniper engineer Chandra Nagarajan further confirmed that these Amazon
`storage solutions are schema-less. See, e.g., Nagarajan Tr. at 41:4-24 (“the database should qualify
`is a – is a schema LS [SIC-- schema-less] database, not a relational database where the data is
`structured. It’s really an unstructured schema [less] database. Q. What do you mean by unstructured?
`A: So there are – there are a couple of database kinds. … All those are very predefined. So – that is
`what I would call a schema-based database. Right? In a schema [less] database like the one we use
`– … you can add a data at any point of time without impacting the previous data stored”).
`MySQL, on the other hand, has a database schema, but Sky ATP does not use MySQL to
`store a “list of suspicious computer operations,” or anything else that could constitute a
`“downloadable security profile” as required by Claim 10. Trial Tr. 753:16-754:25. As a result,
`MySQL also does not meet the “database” requirements of Claim 10.
`Finjan contends that it is entitled to JMOL on the ground that Dr. Rubin “argued an improper
`claim construction,” Dkt. No. 353 at 12, but the trial record refutes Finjan’s claim. Dr. Rubin
`expressly applied the parties’ agreed claim construction for “database.” Trial Tr. 741:17-25. Finjan’s
`real complaint appears to lie with Dr. Rubin’s understanding of the term “database schema” that was
`part of that agreed construction. But Finjan cannot now complain about potential ambiguities about
`the term “database schema,” as Juniper filed a motion seeking further construction and clarification
`of this term before trial, and Finjan opposed, arguing that no further guidance from the Court was
`necessary for the jury to render its verdict. See Dkt. No. 275 at 5; Key Pharm. v. Hercon Labs. Corp.,
`
`
`3 Dr. Rubin further testified that Trial Ex. 1264 is the type of document that persons of skill
`in this field rely on, notwithstanding Finjan’s attempt to describe it as a “non-technical document.”
`Trial Tr. 785:2-11. Finjan identifies no proper legal basis for ignoring this Amazon document, which
`was admitted without objection, and plainly supports the jury verdict of non-infringement.
`
`10634940
`
`
`
`- 5 -
`
`JUNIPER’S OPPOSITION TO FINJAN’S MOTION
`FOR JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW
`(Case No. 3:17-cv-05659-WHA)
`
`

`

`
`
`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 360 Filed 01/24/19 Page 11 of 31
`
`161 F.3d 709, 715 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (holding that “doctrines of estoppel, waiver, invited error, or the
`like would prohibit a party from asserting as ‘error’ a position that it had advocated at the trial.”).
`As a result, it was proper for Dr. Rubin to present the jury with his understanding of the term (subject
`to cross-examination). See Prism Techs. LLC v. AT&T Mobility, LLC, 2014 WL 4843874, at *3 (D.
`Neb. Sept. 29, 2014) (“The Court is mindful that experts are permitted to reasonably disagree as to
`the interpretation and application of the Court’s Markman order.”); Transamerica Life Ins. Co. v.
`Lincoln Nat. Life Ins. Co., 597 F. Supp. 2d 897, 910 (N.D. Iowa 2009) (“[T]he parties may
`reasonably disagree about the interpretation and application of the court’s claim constructions….”).4
`3.
`The Jury Was Justified In Rejecting Cole’s Testimony As Not Credible
`The jury also had ample basis on which to reject Dr. Cole’s infringement theory as not
`credible. Dr. Cole did not contend that any of the three storage solutions used in Sky ATP satisfied
`the limitations of a “database” as used in Claim 10. Trial Tr. 500:20-501:6 (admitting he did not
`analyze whether Sky ATP’s individual storage solutions independently met “database” element of
`Claim 10). Instead, Dr. Cole lumped all of those storage solutions together and artificially drew a
`box around them which he called the “ResultsDB” database (as depicted below), arguing that this
`artificial “database” infringed:
`
`Trial Ex. 1179-10 (showing Dr. Cole’s annotations at deposition).
`But as even Dr. Cole (at times) acknowledged, “ResultsDB” is an Application Programming
`
`
`
`
`4 Finjan also takes issue with Dr. Rubin’s application of Finjan’s expert’s definition of
`“database schema” in an IPR proceeding. Dkt. No. 353 at 13. But Finjan did not even object to
`Dr. Rubin’s testimony on this issue. Trial Tr. 768:2-769:21. Dr. Rubin also testified that his non-
`infringement opinion did not depend on Finjan’s IPR definition for this term. Trial Tr. 794:14-22.
`
`10634940
`
`
`
`- 6 -
`
`JUNIPER’S OPPOSITION TO FINJAN’S MOTION
`FOR JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW
`(Case No. 3:17-cv-05659-WHA)
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 360 Filed 01/24/19 Page 12 of 31
`
`
`
`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
`
`Interface (API)—it is not itself a database.” Id.; Trial Tr. 440:14-17 (“the Results Database API,
`application programming interface, this is something that interfaces with another component”). As
`Dr. Cole also acknowledged, no Sky ATP data is physically stored in a “ResultsDB database”; rather,
`data is stored in MySQL, DynamoDB, or S3. Id., 467:9-11.
`While Finjan points to documents in which Juniper refers loosely to a “database” or uses the
`term “ResultsDB,” Dkt. No. 353 at 5-6, Juniper engineer Chandra Nagarajan explained that “internal
`to the team, we refer to it as a results database,” but “the way it works is we’re using the
`DynamoDB” and “S3.” Nagarajan Tr. 24:18-25:6. Further, contrary to Finjan’s misrepresentation,
`Dr. Rubin’s opinion was not that Juniper engineers “did not know what they meant when they
`reference ResultsDB in their source code.” Dkt. No. 353 at 7. Instead, as Dr. Rubin testified, his
`opinion was that there was no evidence that the Juniper engineers were “applying the claim
`construction in this case when [they] said” the word “database.” Trial Tr. 778:10-21. The jury was
`not required to follow Finjan’s lead in lumping these storage components together, and was well
`within its discretion to consider each component individually as Dr. Rubin testified and explained.
`The fact that Juniper personnel would, for convenience, occasionally refer to the separate storage
`components altogether as ResultsDB does not render the jury’s verdict unsupported by substantial
`evidence. Bayer AG v. Sony Elecs., Inc., 229 F. Supp. 2d 332, 349 (D. Del. 2002), aff'd, 83 F. App’x
`334 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (finding no infringement of the claims dependent on the limitation “core,”
`despite the alleged infringer’s use of the word “cores” to describe components of the accused
`products, because the described “cores” did not “satisfy the number of ‘cores’ in [the asserted
`claims], as that term is construed by the Court”).
`Finjan claims that Dr. Rubin took the position that “the ResultsDB is not a database because
`it is a combination of three storage components.” Dkt. No. 353 at 8. This is not true; Dr. Rubin
`explained that DynamoDB, S3, and MySQL “are three different, separate storage solutions. They
`have different purposes. They are communicated with in different programming languages, and so
`you can’t just draw a box and say, ‘This is a database.’” Trial Tr. 759:3-6. Dr. Rubin further
`explained that none of those storage solutions both “has a schema and stores a list of suspicious
`computer operations,” as Claim 10 requires. Id., 755:17-19. In other words, Dr. Rubin opined that
`
`10634940
`
`
`
`- 7 -
`
`JUNIPER’S OPPOSITION TO FINJAN’S MOTION
`FOR JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW
`(Case No. 3:17-cv-05659-WHA)
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 360 Filed 01/24/19 Page 13 of 31
`
`
`
`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
`
`what Dr. Cole called “ResultsDB database” is not an actual database, and that Dr. Cole cannot create
`a database by drawing an arbitrary box around three fundamentally different storage solutions. The
`jury was free to