Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 369 Filed 02/14/19 Page 1 of 30
`
`
`
`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 SECOND MOTION FOR
`EARLY SUMMARY JUDGMENT,
`REGARDING INFRINGEMENT OF CLAIM 1
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,141,154;
`MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND
`AUTHORITIES
`
`Date:
`Time:
`Courtroom:
`Before:
`
`
`May 2, 2019
`8:00 a.m.
`Courtroom 12, 19th Floor
`Hon. William Alsup
`
`
`
`
`
`REDACTED VERSION OF DOCUMENT SOUGHT TO BE SEALED
`
`
`FINJAN’S NTC. OF MOT. & 2ND EARLY MOT. FOR S.J.
`
`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 369 Filed 02/14/19 Page 2 of 30
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ............................................. 1
`
`STATEMENT OF RELIEF SOUGHT ..................................................................................................... 1
`
`STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES.............................................................................................................. 1
`
`MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES .......................................................................... 1
`
`I. 
`
`II. 
`
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................... 1 
`
`STATEMENT OF FACTS .............................................................................................................. 2 
`
`A.  The ‘154 Patent .......................................................................................................................2 
`
`B. 
`
`Juniper and the Accused Products ..........................................................................................4 
`
`1. 
`
`2. 
`
`SRX Gateway.................................................................................................................4 
`
`Sky ATP .........................................................................................................................4 
`
`3.  ATP Appliance...............................................................................................................5 
`
`III.  CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ............................................................................................................. 6 
`
`IV.  ARGUMENT ................................................................................................................................... 8 
`
`A.  The SRX Gateway Infringes Claim 1 .....................................................................................8 
`
`1. 
`
`2. 
`
`3. 
`
`4. 
`
`The Preamble is Non-Limiting, but Still Met by the SRX Gateway. ............................9 
`
`The SRX Gateway has a Content Processor (Element 1(a)). .........................................9 
`
`The SRX Gateway has a Transmitter (Element 1(b)). .................................................12 
`
`The SRX Gateway has a Receiver (Element 1(c)). ......................................................14 
`
`B. 
`
`Sky ATP Infringes Claim 1...................................................................................................15 
`
`1. 
`
`2. 
`
`3. 
`
`4. 
`
`The Preamble is Non-Limiting, but Still Met by Sky ATP. ........................................15 
`
`Sky ATP has a Content Processor (Element 1(a)). ......................................................16 
`
`Sky ATP has a Transmitter (Element 1(b)). ................................................................17 
`
`Sky ATP has a Receiver (Element 1(c)). .....................................................................18 
`
`C.  The ATP Appliance Infringes Claim 1 .................................................................................19 
`
`i
`FINJAN’S NTC. OF MOT. & 2ND EARLY MOT. FOR S.J.
`
`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 369 Filed 02/14/19 Page 3 of 30
`
`
`
`1. 
`
`2. 
`
`3. 
`
`4. 
`
`The Preamble is Non-Limiting, but Still Met by the ATP Appliance. ........................19 
`
`The ATP Appliance has a Content Processor (Element 1(a)). .....................................20 
`
`The ATP Appliance has a Transmitter (Element 1(b)). ...............................................22 
`
`The ATP Appliance has a Receiver (Element 1(c)). ....................................................22 
`
`D.  The Accused Products Infringe under Juniper’s Proposed Constructions ............................23 
`
`E. 
`
`In the Alternative, Juniper Infringes under the Doctrine of Equivalents ..............................24 
`
`V.  CONCLUSION .............................................................................................................................. 25 
`
`
`
`
`ii
`FINJAN’S NTC. OF MOT. & 2ND EARLY MOT. FOR S.J.
`
`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 369 Filed 02/14/19 Page 4 of 30
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`
`Page(s)
`
`Cases
`
`Accent Packaging, Inc. v. Leggett & Platt, Inc.,
`707 F.3d 1318 (Fed. Cir. 2013)........................................................................................................... 8
`
`Catalina Mktg. Int’l, Inc. v. Coolsavings.com, Inc.,
`289 F.3d 801 (Fed. Cir. 2002)............................................................................................................. 9
`
`Chef Am., Inc. v. Lamb-Weston, Inc.,
`358 F.3d 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2004)) ......................................................................................................... 8
`
`Finjan, Inc. v. Bitdefender, Inc.,
`No. 17-cv-04790-HSG, Dkt. 101 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 14, 2019) .............................................................. 6
`
`Finjan, Inc. v. Cisco Sys., Inc.,
`17-cv-00072-BLF, 2018 WL 3537142 (N.D. Cal. July 23, 2018) .................................................. 2, 3
`
`Finjan, Inc. v. Proofpoint, Inc.,
`No. 13-cv-05808-HSG, 2015 WL 7770208 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 3, 2015) ........................................... 6, 8
`
`Finjan, Inc. v. Sophos, Inc.,
`244 F.Supp.3d 1016 (N.D. Cal. 2017) ................................................................................................ 2
`
`Finjan, Inc. v. Symantec Corp.,
`No. 14-cv-02998-HSG, Dkt. No. 170 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 10, 2017) ....................................................... 7
`
`Palo Alto Networks, Inc. v. Finjan, Inc.,
`IPR2015-00151, Paper 51 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 15, 2017) ......................................................................... 3
`
`Palo Alto Networks, Inc. v. Finjan, Inc.,
`IPR2015-01979, Paper 62 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 15, 2017) ......................................................................... 3
`
`Pfizer, Inc. v. Teva Pharms., USA, Inc.,
`429 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2005)........................................................................................................... 8
`
`Phillips v. AWH Corp.,
`415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005)........................................................................................................... 7
`
`TechSearch, L.L.C. v. Intel Corp.,
`286 F.3d 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2002)........................................................................................................... 8
`
`Visto Corp. v. Sproqit Tech., Inc.,
`445 F. Supp. 2d 1104 (N.D. Cal. 2006) .............................................................................................. 7
`
`i
`FINJAN’S NTC. OF MOT. & 2ND EARLY MOT. FOR S.J.
`
`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 369 Filed 02/14/19 Page 5 of 30
`
`
`
`Statutes
`
`35 U.S.C. § 271 ......................................................................................................................................... 4
`
`Rules
`
`Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(a) ...................................................................................................... 8
`
`
`
`ii
`FINJAN’S NTC. OF MOT. & 2ND EARLY MOT. FOR S.J.
`
`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 369 Filed 02/14/19 Page 6 of 30
`
`
`
`NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`
`PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on May 2, 2019, at 8:00 a.m., or as soon thereafter as the
`
`matter may be heard by the Honorable William Alsup in Courtroom 12, 19th Floor of the
`
`United States District Court for the Northern District of California, 450 Golden Gate Avenue, San
`
`Francisco, CA 94102, Plaintiff Finjan, Inc. (“Finjan”) moves the Court for an Order granting summary
`
`judgment of infringement in favor of Finjan, that Defendant Juniper Networks, Inc. (“Juniper”)
`infringes claim 1 (“Claim 1”) of U.S. Patent No. 8,141,154 (the “’154 Patent”). Ex. 1.1
`
`This Motion is based on this Notice of Motion, the following Memorandum of Points and
`
`Authorities, the Declarations of Dr. Michael Mitzenmacher and Kristopher Kastens, the pleadings and
`
`papers on file herein, and any other evidence and argument presented to the Court.
`
`STATEMENT OF RELIEF SOUGHT
`
`Finjan seeks an Order that Juniper infringes Claim 1 of the ‘154 Patent because it makes, uses,
`
`sells, and offers for sale in the United States the following products that provide advanced malware
`detection capabilities: (1) the SRX Series Gateways (“SRX Gateway”); (2) Sky ATP; and (3) the
`Advanced Threat Prevention Appliance (“ATP Appliance”) (collectively, the “Accused Products”).
`
`STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES
`
`Whether summary judgment of infringement should be granted as to Claim 1 of the ’154 Patent
`with respect to: (1) the SRX Gateway; (2) Sky ATP; and (3) the ATP Appliance.
`MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Juniper infringes Claim 1 of Finjan’s ‘154 Patent through its making, using, selling, and
`
`offering for sale the Accused Products in the United States. These products satisfy the following four
`
`elements of Claim 1:
`
`1. A system for protecting a computer from dynamically generated malicious
`content, comprising:
`
`1(a) a content processor (i) for processing content received over a network, the
`content including a call to a first function, and the call including an input, and
`(ii) for invoking a second function with the input, only if a security computer
`
`1 All “Ex.” citations are to the Declaration of Kristopher Kastens (“Kastens Decl.”) filed herewith.
`1
`FINJAN’S NTC. OF MOT. & 2ND EARLY MOT. FOR S.J.
`
`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 369 Filed 02/14/19 Page 7 of 30
`
`
`
`indicates that such invocation is safe;
`1(b) a transmitter for transmitting the input to the security computer for inspection,
`when the first function is invoked; and
`1(c) a receiver for receiving an indicator from the security computer whether it is
`safe to invoke the second function with the input.
`‘154 Patent, Claim 1. Juniper’s Accused Products map directly to the language of Claim 1 because
`
`they analyze content received over a network using a security computer for advanced analysis.
`
`For example, Juniper’s SRX Gateway by itself infringes because it processes content that it
`
`receives over a network (like webpages), detects functions calls (e.g. to contact a website or execute a
`
`file/script) in this content that have URLs or files as an “input,” transmits these inputs to a security
`
`computer, and receives a verdict back indicating whether it is safe to invoke a function that involves
`
`contacting the URL or executing the file. Juniper’s Sky ATP and ATP Appliance also infringe Claim
`
`1 of the ‘154 Patent because they process files and other web content that they receive, identify
`
`functions and their corresponding input through a pipeline analysis (including a dynamic analysis), and
`
`then utilize a security computer, such as a Reputation Server or Sky ATP’s Verdict Engine, to
`
`determine if processing the file is safe. Because the overwhelming evidence shows that these products
`
`operate in this manner, there is no issue of material fact that they satisfy each element of Claim 1, and
`
`thus summary judgment of infringement is warranted.
`II.
`
`STATEMENT OF FACTS
`A.
`The ‘154 Patent stems directly from Finjan’s pioneering use of “behavioral analysis
`
`The ‘154 Patent
`
`technology” to detect “day-zero” malware that was otherwise apt to circumvent security technologies
`in place.2 ‘154 Patent at 4:30-34. The technology of the ‘154 Patent generally relates to “new
`behavioral analysis technology [that] affords protection against dynamically generated malicious
`
`code.” See Finjan, Inc. v. Cisco Sys., Inc., 17-cv-00072-BLF, 2018 WL 3537142, at *2 (N.D. Cal. July
`
`23, 2018); ‘154 Patent at 3:32-33; 4:31-34; Declaration of Michael Mitzenmacher (“Mitz. Decl.”) filed
`
`herewith, ¶¶13-14. The ‘154 Patent describes embodiments where a system receives content from the
`
`
`2 In September 2016, a jury determined that Sophos’s Unified Threat Management (gateway) and
`Endpoint products infringed Claim 1 and the Court upheld this verdict. Finjan, Inc. v. Sophos, Inc.,
`244 F.Supp.3d 1016, 1050-51 (N.D. Cal. 2017).
`
`2
`FINJAN’S NTC. OF MOT. & 2ND EARLY MOT. FOR S.J.
`
`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 369 Filed 02/14/19 Page 8 of 30
`
`
`
`Internet, such as webpages and other files, and where this content includes a call to a function (which
`
`may include a request for the service of a particular function) and an input to this function. ‘154 Patent
`
`at 5:26–36; Mitz. Decl., ¶13. In the ‘154 Patent, functions are statements or instructions that request a
`
`particular service to be performed by the function using the input. Mitz. Decl., ¶¶13-14; see also Palo
`
`Alto Networks, Inc. v. Finjan, Inc., IPR2015-01979, Paper 62 at 16 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 15, 2017); Palo
`
`Alto Networks, Inc. v. Finjan, Inc., IPR2015-00151, Paper 51 at 9 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 15, 2017). For
`
`example, a function may include an instruction to fetch a webpage, while the input to this function
`
`would be the address of the webpage. ‘154 Patent at 3:19-23 (describing functions as including file
`
`system and network system calls); Mitz. Decl., ¶13. In another example, a function could be an
`
`instruction to execute (or “run”) a particular piece of code, while the input to the function would be the
`
`code that is to be run. ‘154 Patent at 3:40-64; Mitz. Decl., ¶13.
`
`The ‘154 Patent describes how content received over a network can be processed so that the
`
`input to a function call can be transmitted to a security computer for inspection. ‘154 Patent at 7:8-18.;
`
`see also id., Element 1(b); Mitz. Decl., ¶¶13-14. As one example, the security computer processes the
`
`content in real-time to determine whether such invocation is safe, and sends this result back. See ‘154
`
`Patent at 5:35-43; 6:27-34; 6:66-7:43; Mitz. Decl., ¶14. These steps of processing the received
`
`content, transmitting an input to a security computer, and receiving results from a security computer
`
`are reflected in Claim 1 of the ‘154 Patent. “In this approach, the patent provides technology that
`
`protects computers from dynamically generated malicious code.” See Cisco, 2018 WL 3537142, at *2.
`
`Claim 1 has withstood at least seven different validity challenges before District Courts and the
`
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”). Each time, Claim 1 was found to be valid over numerous
`
`prior art references. For example, Claim 1 was challenged in the following six inter partes review
`
`proceedings (“IPR”): IPR2015-01547, IPR2015-01979, IPR2016-00151, IPR2016-00919, IPR2016-
`
`00937, and IPR2016-01071. Five of these IPRs resulted in a Final Written Decision by the PTAB
`
`upholding the validity of Claim 1, and in one of these IPRs the PTAB declined to institute a challenge
`
`to Claim 1 at all. Claim 1 was also found valid by a jury over the prior art raised by the defendant in
`
`Finjan, Inc. v. Sophos, Inc., N.D. Cal. Case No. 14-cv-1197, Dkt. Nos. 383, 395, Trial Tr. at 1448-
`
`1456, 1791 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 9, 2016).
`
`3
`FINJAN’S NTC. OF MOT. & 2ND EARLY MOT. FOR S.J.
`
`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 369 Filed 02/14/19 Page 9 of 30
`
`
`
`Juniper and the Accused Products
`
`B.
`Juniper was traditionally a router company, who has added a line of security products to its
`
`offerings to remain relevant and competitive in the marketplace. The SRX Gateway is one of its
`
`security products. Sky ATP and the ATP Appliance are newer, offering further technologies to combat
`
`the ever changing security landscape, and are both focused on behavioral analysis of downloaded
`
`executable content. It is undisputed that Juniper makes, offers to sell, and sells the Accused Products
`
`in the United States, and thus directly infringes under 35 U.S.C. § 271 (direct infringement is found
`
`when a party “makes, uses, offers to sell, or sells any patented invention”).
`1.
`The SRX Gateway operates between the untrusted Internet and a trusted internal network.
`
`SRX Gateway
`
`Mitz. Decl., ¶15. The SRX Gateway analyzes and potentially blocks content entering a network,
`
`thereby preventing harmful content from infecting a network. Id. The SRX Gateway uses Juniper’s
`
`custom operating system, which is called “Junos OS.” Mitz. Decl., ¶15. In 2015, the SRX Gateway
`
`underwent a major overhaul where it was upgraded and integrated with additional advanced security
`
`features. In particular, the SRX Gateway was upgraded so that when it receives content from the
`
`Internet that may include malicious or suspicious content, the SRX Gateway can send the content to
`
`security servers for analysis, and then decide whether to continue processing the content after receiving
`
`an indicator or “verdict” indicating that it is safe to do so according to the installed security policy. Ex.
`
`3, JNPR-FNJN_29017_ 00552582-83 (showing SRX submits files to a security computer and
`
`
`
`); Mitz. Decl., ¶15. This feature allows the SRX Gateway to detect new zero day
`
`viruses in real-time. Ex. 4, JNPR-FNJN_29040_01042912 at 913-14 (showing SRX examines content
`
`in real time to trigger potential inspection); Mitz. Decl., ¶15.
`2.
`Sky ATP is Juniper’s security service that is integrated with its SRX Gateway, and is freely
`
`Sky ATP
`
`available on the SRX Gateway. Mitz. Decl., ¶16. When Juniper integrated Sky ATP with the SRX
`
`Gateway, it allowed the SRX Gateway to provide advanced malware scanning and protection in an
`
`increasingly dangerous and fast moving Internet. Mitz. Decl., ¶¶16-17. Sky ATP provides this benefit
`
`by scanning files with its “Malware Analysis Pipeline” of technologies that create a complete
`4
`FINJAN’S NTC. OF MOT. & 2ND EARLY MOT. FOR S.J.
`
`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 369 Filed 02/14/19 Page 10 of 30
`
`
`
`behavioral profile for the Downloadable. Ex. 5, JNPR-FNJN_29017_00552807 (describing sample
`
`malware analysis processing pipeline); Mitz. Decl., ¶17. The Malware Analysis Pipeline also
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3.
`ATP Appliance is a hardware or virtual appliance loaded with malware analysis software that
`
`ATP Appliance
`
`performs many similar functions to Juniper’s cloud-based Sky ATP, but is located on the customer’s
`own network.3 ATP Appliance’s primary purpose is to inspect Internet content using a series of
`analyses including dynamic analysis, determine whether that content is safe, and return a verdict or
`
`score indicating whether it is safe to continue processing that file. Mitz. Decl., ¶20 (describing that
`
`ATP appliance receives network traffic from web collectors). The ATP Appliance contains software
`
`that forms a
`
`
`
`
`3 Juniper acquired the technology for the ATP Appliance when it acquired Cyphort on September 14,
`2017. Juniper’s November 2017 10-Q (Dkt. 67-4). By December 14, 2017, Juniper had incorporated
`this technology into its own products and rebranded Cyphort’s “Advanced Threat Defense Platform”
`as Juniper’s “Advanced Threat Prevention Appliance” or ATP Appliance. December 14, 2017 press
`release (Dkt. 67-5).
`
`5
`FINJAN’S NTC. OF MOT. & 2ND EARLY MOT. FOR S.J.
`
`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 369 Filed 02/14/19 Page 11 of 30
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`III. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`None of the terms in Claim 1 of the ‘154 Patent require construction because they are used in a
`
`manner consistent with their plain and ordinary meaning, all of which a person of ordinary skill in the
`
`art understands without further construction. To avoid duplicative briefing, Finjan references the claim
`
`construction briefing it previously submitted for these terms explaining why the plain and ordinary
`
`meaning applies. Dkt. No. 176 at 17-19; Dkt. No. 187 at 13-14. Finjan also provides further limited
`
`arguments below regarding Juniper’s proposed constructions to provide context for this Motion.
`
`Juniper identified two terms in Claim 1 of the ‘154 Patent for construction, neither of which
`needs to be construed.4 First, Juniper seeks to rewrite element 1(a), which recites:
`
`a content processor (i) for processing content received over a network, the content
`including a call to a first function, and the call including an input, and (ii) for
`invoking a second function with the input, only if a security computer indicates that
`such invocation is safe;
`Second, Juniper seeks to construe the single word “safe.”
`
`As a preliminary matter, neither of these terms requires additional construction because they
`
`are readily understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art. Both of these terms are composed of
`
`straightforward computing words, such as processor, function, call, input, network, security, and safe,
`
`whose meanings are well-known in the computer security industry. Further, both of these terms have
`
`already been construed to have their plain and ordinary meaning in this District. Finjan, Inc. v.
`
`Proofpoint, Inc., No. 13-cv-05808-HSG, 2015 WL 7770208, at *9-10 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 3, 2015)
`
`(applying plain and ordinary meaning to element 1(a)); Finjan, Inc. v. Bitdefender, Inc., No. 17-cv-
`
`
`4 Juniper originally identified the term, “invoking a second function with the input” from element 1(a)
`as requiring construction. Dkt. No. 182 at 19-23. Juniper confirmed that, since only two terms per
`claim can be construed, it is pursing the two terms identified above. See Dkt. No. 219. The plain and
`ordinary meaning applies to this third term for the reasons described above and in Finjan’s claim
`construction briefing. Dkt. No. 176 at 17-19; Dkt. No. 187 at 13-14.
`6
`FINJAN’S NTC. OF MOT. & 2ND EARLY MOT. FOR S.J.
`
`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 369 Filed 02/14/19 Page 12 of 30
`
`
`
`04790-HSG, Dkt. 101 at 19-23 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 14, 2019)(finding no construction necessary for the
`
`terms “a content processor for (i) processing content received over a network,” “a call to a first
`
`function” and “a second function”); Finjan, Inc. v. Symantec Corp., No. 14-cv-02998-HSG, Dkt. No.
`
`170 at *4-5 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 10, 2017)(citing Visto Corp. v. Sproqit Tech., Inc., 445 F. Supp. 2d 1104,
`
`1107-08 (N.D. Cal. 2006))(holding “the degree of deference should be greater where the prior claim
`
`construction order was issued in the same jurisdiction,” noting the importance of intrajurisdictional
`
`uniformity in claim construction). Juniper’s expert, Dr. Aviel Rubin, agrees. He asserted that the plain
`
`and ordinary meaning applies to Claim 1 of the ‘154 Patent in his sworn declaration submitted to the
`
`PTAB. IPR2016-00151, Ex. 1002 (Rubin Decl.)(applying plain and ordinary meaning to every term in
`
`the ‘154 Patent except for a term in dependent Claims 3, 5, 8, and 11).
`
`Juniper shuns its expert’s plain and ordinary construction of element 1(a) before the PTAB and
`
`seeks to have element 1(a) rewritten as follows:
`
`A processor on a client computer for processing content received over a network, the
`content including a call to a first function, and the call including an input, and for
`invoking a second function with the input, only if a security computer indicates that
`such invocation is safe
`Dkt. No. 224 at 4. First, Juniper’s proposed construction contravenes the plain and ordinary meaning
`
`of the language already present because it requires all processing to be done on a client computer even
`
`though the claim itself contains no such limitation, and in fact Claim 1 never uses the words “client
`
`computer.” Because the claims themselves “define the scope of the patented invention,” the inquiry
`
`should end here and Juniper’s proposed construction should be denied on this basis alone. Phillips v.
`
`AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2005)(citation and internal quotations omitted). Second,
`
`Finjan never disavowed claim scope during prosecution, so there is no intrinsic evidence to support
`
`such a narrow interpretation. Third, the ‘154 Patent’s specification provides multiple preferred
`
`embodiments that do not require the content to be processed on a client computer and do not require
`
`the use of any “client computer” at all. See ‘154 Patent at 6:27-34 (a preferred embodiment not
`
`requiring the use of a client computer and not mandating where the content is processed); 6:66-7:7
`
`(same); 7:8-19 (same); 7:20-31 (same); 7:32-43 (same). Thus, contrary to law, Juniper’s proposed
`
`construction imports limitations not found in the claims and improperly excludes specific embodiments
`
`7
`FINJAN’S NTC. OF MOT. & 2ND EARLY MOT. FOR S.J.
`
`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 369 Filed 02/14/19 Page 13 of 30
`
`
`
`identified in the specification. Proofpoint, 2015 WL 7770208, at *1 (“it is improper to read limitations
`
`from the specification into the claims”); Accent Packaging, Inc. v. Leggett & Platt, Inc., 707 F.3d
`
`1318, 1326 (Fed. Cir. 2013)(“a claim interpretation that excludes a preferred embodiment from the
`
`scope of the claim is rarely, if ever, correct.”)(citation omitted). There is no legal or factual basis for
`
`the Court to rewrite nearly half of Claim 1 of the ‘154 Patent.
`
`Similarly, Juniper’s proposed construction of “safe” as meaning the “security profile does not
`
`violate the client computer’s security policy” is an attempt to unnecessarily import limitations into the
`
`construction. “Safe” is a plain English word that needs no construction. Proofpoint, 2015 WL
`
`7770208, at *9 (“These are ordinary, simple English words whose meaning is clear and
`
`unquestionable”)(citing Chef Am., Inc. v. Lamb-Weston, Inc., 358 F.3d 1371, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2004)
`
`(“They mean exactly what they say.”)). Further, Juniper’s proposed construction injects entirely new
`
`concepts into the claims, such as that of a “security profile” and a “client computer’s security policy,”
`
`both of which are otherwise not recited in the claims of the ‘154 Patent. Thus, neither of Juniper’s
`
`proposed terms requires further construction.
`IV. ARGUMENT
`Finjan should be granted summary judgment of infringement because “there is no genuine
`
`dispute as to any material fact” that the Accused Products infringe Claim 1. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a).
`
`Summary judgment of infringement is also appropriate because “it is apparent that only one conclusion
`
`as to infringement could be reached by a reasonable jury.” TechSearch, L.L.C. v. Intel Corp., 286 F.3d
`
`1360, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2002)(citation omitted). The overwhelming evidence demonstrates that the SRX
`
`Gateway, Sky ATP, and the ATP Appliance each “meet[] every claim limitation either literally or
`
`under the doctrine of equivalents,” and thus summary judgment of infringement of Claim 1 is
`
`warranted. See Pfizer, Inc. v. Teva Pharms., USA, Inc., 429 F.3d 1364, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2005)(citation
`
`omitted). Moreover, Juniper’s Accused Products infringe even under Juniper’s proposed claim
`
`constructions.
`A.
`The SRX Gateway infringes Claim 1 of the ‘154 Patent because it is a gateway, which means
`
`The SRX Gateway Infringes Claim 1
`
`that it typically receives both network traffic flowing into an internal network from the Internet and
`8
`FINJAN’S NTC. OF MOT. & 2ND EARLY MOT. FOR S.J.
`
`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 369 Filed 02/14/19 Page 14 of 30
`
`
`
`also network traffic flowing out of internal networks. Mitz. Decl., ¶¶15, 22. This network traffic
`
`includes potentially malicious files and links to malicious content. Id., ¶22. The SRX Gateway
`
`processes network traffic to identify URLs and files, where the URLs and files are inputs that reference
`
`malicious content with function calls. Id. The SRX Gateway then transmits these inputs (i.e. URLs
`
`and files) to a security computer, such as Sky ATP or the ATP Appliance. Id. The SRX Gateway then
`
`receives threat information from a security computer indicating whether it is safe to invoke the second
`
`function with the input and to process the content (and subsequent communications associated with the
`
`content) according to the security policy provided on the SRX Gateway. Id.
`1.
`The preamble of Claim 1 reads: “A system for protecting a computer from dynamically
`
`The Preamble is Non-Limiting, but Still Met by the SRX Gateway.
`
`generated malicious content, comprising.” While the preamble of Claim 1 of the ‘154 Patent is not
`limiting for purposes of infringement,5 the SRX Gateway meets the preamble because it analyzes
`network traffic and content downloaded from the Internet to detect malicious files. Mitz. Decl., ¶26.
`
`This content includes webpages with references to web content, such as a link to a compromised site
`
`or a malicious script. Ex. 3, JNPR-FNJN_29017_00552589 (
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`The system can detect unsafe
`
`dynamically generated content by utilizing an external security computer to analyze the content using
`
`The SRX Gateway has a Content Processor (Element 1(a)).
`
`advanced detection not available on the SRX Gateway. Id.
`2.
`The SRX Gateway is a “content processor” because it processes content, including network
`
`5 A preamble is typically not necessary to understand the rest of the claim when it does not introduce
`elements that are later referenced in the body of the claim. See Catalina Mktg. Int’l, Inc. v.
`Coolsavings.com, Inc., 289 F.3d 801, 808 (Fed. Cir. 2002)(preamble is non-limiting because it is not
`necessary to understand the rest of the claim).
`
`9
`FINJAN’S NTC. OF MOT. & 2ND EARLY MOT. FOR S.J.
`
`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 369 Filed 02/14/19 Page 15 of 30
`
`
`
`traffic entering the internal network from the Internet and also leavin