Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 370-8 Filed 02/14/19 Page 1 of 7
`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 370-8 Filed 02/14/19 Pa eia 7
`REDACTED VERSION OF DOCUMENT SOUGHT TO BE SE
`
`EXHIBIT 8
`EXHIBIT 8
` (REDACTED)
`(REDACTED)
`
`REDACTED VERSION OF DOCUMENT SOUGHT TO BE SEALED
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 370-8 Filed 02/14/19 Page 2 of 7
`
`HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY
`
`PAUL J. ANDRE (State Bar No. 196585)
`pandre@kramerlevin.com
`LISA KOBIALKA (State Bar No. 191404)
`lkobialka@kramerlevin.com
`JAMES HANNAH (State Bar No. 237978)
`jhannah@kramerlevin.com
`KRISTOPHER KASTENS (State Bar No. 254797)
`kkastens@kramerlevin.com
`KRAMER LEVIN NAFTALIS & FRANKEL LLP
`990 Marsh Road
`Menlo Park, CA 94025
`Telephone: (650) 752-1700
`Facsimile: (650) 752-1800
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff
`FINJAN, INC.
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
`
`FINJAN, INC., a Delaware Corporation,
`
`Case No.: 3:17-cv-05659-WHA
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`JUNIPER NETWORKS, INC., a Delaware
`Corporation,
`
`Defendant.
`
`HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL –
`ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY
`
`PLAINTIFF FINJAN, INC.’S OBJECTIONS
`AND RESPONSES TO DEFENDANT
`JUNIPER NETWORKS, INC.’S FIRST SET
`OF INTERROGATORIES (NOS. 1-10)
`
`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
`
`FINJAN’S OBJECTIONS & RESPONSES TO JUNIPER’S
`FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES (NOS. 1-10)
`
` CASE NO.: 3:17-cv-05659-WHA
`
`REDACTED VERSION OF DOCUMENT SOUGHT TO BE SEALED
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 370-8 Filed 02/14/19 Page 3 of 7
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Local Rules of this Court, and/or orders of the Court
`
`governing these proceedings.
`
`11.
`
`Finjan objects to each of Defendant’s Definitions and Instructions Nos. 1-31 to the
`
`extent that they impose obligations inconsistent with the Amended Case Management Order entered at
`
`Dkt. No. 35 or the protective order or ESI order to be entered in this case.
`
`12.
`
`Finjan objects to each of Defendant’s Definitions and Instructions Nos. 1-31 to the
`
`extent that they are they are overbroad, unduly burdensome, not reasonably calculated to lead to the
`
`discovery of admissible evidence and not proportional to the needs of the case.
`
`13.
`
`Finjan objects to each of Defendant’s Definitions and Instructions Nos. 1-31 to the
`
`extent that they are vague, ambiguous and/or unintelligible.
`
`INTERROGATORY RESPONSES
`
`Subject to and without waiving its general objections and objections to Definitions and
`
`Instructions set forth above, each of which is specifically incorporated into the specific Responses
`
`contained below, Finjan hereby responds to Defendant’s Interrogatories as follows:
`
`INTERROGATORY NO. 1:
`
`For each Patent-in-Suit, identify all entities or persons which have or ever have had a direct or
`
`indirect ownership interest, license interest, or other interest in the Patents-in-Suit, including all dates
`
`of ownership, transfer of ownership, or license.
`
`RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 1:
`
`Finjan objects to this Interrogatory as overbroad, unduly burdensome, and oppressive to the extent
`
`it seeks information not relevant to any claim or defense of any party and/or not reasonably calculated
`
`to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Finjan objects to this Interrogatory to the extent it is
`
`compound because it is comprised of multiple discrete subparts. Finjan objects to this Interrogatory to
`
`the extent it calls for a legal conclusion. Finjan objects to this Interrogatory to the extent that it seeks
`
`confidential, business, financial, proprietary or sensitive information or trade secrets of third parties,
`
`which is subject to pre-existing protective order(s) and/or confidentiality agreements; Finjan will not
`
`disclose any information subject to a confidentiality agreement without the express consent of the
`
`7
`FINJAN’S OBJECTIONS & RESPONSES TO JUNIPER’S CASE NO.: 3:17-cv-05659-WHA
`FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES (NOS. 1-10)
`
`REDACTED VERSION OF DOCUMENT SOUGHT TO BE SEALED
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 370-8 Filed 02/14/19 Page 4 of 7
`
`HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY
`
`concerned third party. Finjan also objects to this Interrogatory as vague and ambiguous, including the
`
`terms “direct or indirect ownership interest” or “other interest.”
`
`Subject to and without waiving the foregoing general and specific objections, Finjan responds as
`
`follows:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`8
`FINJAN’S OBJECTIONS & RESPONSES TO JUNIPER’S CASE NO.: 3:17-cv-05659-WHA
`FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES (NOS. 1-10)
`
`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
`
`
`
`REDACTED VERSION OF DOCUMENT SOUGHT TO BE SEALED
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 370-8 Filed 02/14/19 Page 5 of 7
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`continuing until today (See https://www.finjanmobile.com/). Finjan marked the VitalSecurity Browser
`
`with the ‘494 Patent starting on or around October 2016. As it was impractical to mark the
`
`VitalSecurity Browser application, Finjan has marked its software for its product on its website (i.e.,
`
`virtual patent markings), listing the patents that its software product practiced. Example documents
`
`related to this marking with the ‘154 and ‘494 Patents can be found at FINJAN-JN 045244-91.
`
`Finjan incorporates by reference the information set forth in Finjan’s Initial Disclosure of Asserted
`
`Claims and Infringement Contentions and Document Production Pursuant to Patent Local Rules 3-1
`
`and 3-2 (served on March 8, 2018), and in particular the disclosures made pursuant to Patent Local
`
`Rules 3-1(G) and 3-2(I). Furthermore, Finjan also identifies Yuval Ben-Itzhak and Phil Hartstein as
`
`having knowledge related to this Interrogatory.
`
`Additional information responsive to this Interrogatory can be found in the August 9, 2007
`
`Deposition of Yuval Ben-Itzhak, the August 10, 2007 Deposition of Yuval Ben-Itzhak, the November
`
`2, 2007 Deposition of Yuval Ben-Itzhak, the March 14, 2012 Deposition of Yuval Ben-Itzhak and the
`
`March 15, 2012 Deposition of Yuval Ben-Itzhak, the December 17, 2014 Deposition of Yuval Ben-
`
`Itzhak., the November 12, 2015 Deposition of Phil Hartstein, the June 9, 2017 Deposition of Phil
`
`Hartstein, the November 10, 2015 Deposition of Michael Kim, all of which have either been produced
`
`or are in the process of being produced based on consent of third parties.
`
`Contractual obligations for Finjan’s licensees can be determined from their patent license. As
`
`such, Finjan incorporates by reference the information set forth in Finjan’s Initial Disclosure of
`
`Asserted Claims and Infringement Contentions and Document Production Pursuant to Patent Local
`
`Rules 3-1 and 3-2 (served on March 8, 2018), and in particular the disclosures made pursuant to Patent
`
`Local Rule 3-2(G), which identifies the licenses to the asserted patents.
`
`Finjan’s investigation of this matter is ongoing and it will comply with Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(e) should
`
`additional information become known to it.
`
`INTERROGATORY NO. 4:
`
`For each Finjan Product or Licensee Product that was not marked, describe in detail (including
`
`identification of all relevant facts, documents, evidence, and persons with knowledge) whether any
`
`14
`FINJAN’S OBJECTIONS & RESPONSES TO JUNIPER’S CASE NO.: 3:17-cv-05659-WHA
`FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES (NOS. 1-10)
`
`REDACTED VERSION OF DOCUMENT SOUGHT TO BE SEALED
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 370-8 Filed 02/14/19 Page 6 of 7
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`current or prior owner of the Patents-in-Suit or the inventors of the Patents-in-Suit ever contended that
`
`such product practiced the claims of each Patent-in-Suit, and whether Finjan currently contends that
`
`such product need not be marked on the grounds that it does not practice any claim of the Patents-in-
`
`Suit.
`
`RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 4:
`
`Finjan objects to this Interrogatory as overbroad, unduly burdensome, and oppressive to the extent
`
`it seeks information not relevant to any claim or defense of any party and/or not reasonably calculated
`
`to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Finjan objects to this Interrogatory to the extent that it
`
`seeks confidential, business, financial, proprietary or sensitive information or trade secrets of third
`
`parties, which is subject to pre-existing protective order(s) and/or confidentiality agreements; Finjan
`
`will not disclose any information subject to a confidentiality agreement without the express consent of
`
`the concerned third party. Finjan objects to this Interrogatory to the extent it seeks information beyond
`
`Finjan’s actual knowledge, custody, or control. Finjan objects to this Interrogatory to the extent it
`
`seeks information protected by the attorney-client privilege, the work product doctrine, or any other
`
`applicable law, privilege, doctrine or immunity. Finjan objects to this Interrogatory to the extent it
`
`seeks information within Defendants’ possession, custody or control, or to the extent it seeks
`
`information in the public domain; Defendant can ascertain such information from its own records or
`
`from other sources at least as readily as Finjan. Finjan objects to this Interrogatory to the extent it is
`
`compound because it is comprised of multiple discrete subparts. Finjan also objects to this
`
`Interrogatory as vague and ambiguous, including the terms “ever contended” or “practice the claims of
`
`each Patent-in-Suit.” Finjan objects to this Interrogatory to the extent it requests a legal conclusion.
`
`Subject to and without waiving the foregoing general and specific objections, Finjan responds as
`
`follows:
`
`Finjan has consistently and continuously marked its products that practice its patents. Finjan
`
`marked Vital Security appliances version 7.0 and later with the ‘844 and ‘780 Patents sometime in or
`
`around 2004 and continuing until Finjan’s products line merged with M86 Security on or around 2009.
`
`Finjan consistently marked documents provided with the Vital Security appliances version 7.0 and
`
`15
`FINJAN’S OBJECTIONS & RESPONSES TO JUNIPER’S CASE NO.: 3:17-cv-05659-WHA
`FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES (NOS. 1-10)
`
`REDACTED VERSION OF DOCUMENT SOUGHT TO BE SEALED
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 370-8 Filed 02/14/19 Page 7 of 7
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`later, including user manuals, administration guides, and promotional material related to Vital Security
`
`appliances version 7.0 and later.
`
`Finjan marked the FinjanMobile VitalSecurity Browser (later renamed FinjanMobile VitalSecurity
`
`VPN Browser) (“VitalSecurity Browser”) with the ‘154 Patent starting around April 2016 and
`
`continuing until today (See https://www.finjanmobile.com/). Finjan marked the VitalSecurity Browser
`
`with the ‘494 Patent starting on or around October 2016 and continuing until on or around January 29,
`
`2017. Example documents related to this marking with the ‘154 and ‘494 Patents can be found at
`
`FINJAN-JN 045244-91. Finjan incorporates its response to Interrogatory No. 3.
`
`Finjan is unaware of the extent to which products of third parties have marked their products with
`
`the Finjan patents.
`
`Finjan’s investigation of this matter is ongoing and it will comply with Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(e) should
`
`additional information become known to it.
`
`INTERROGATORY NO. 5:
`
`For each of the Asserted Claims, state the complete legal and factual basis for any contention
`
`that the priority date is earlier than the filing date, including an identification of the alleged conception
`
`date; a detailed description of the circumstances of conception, diligence, and reduction to practice for
`
`such claim; the alleged filing priority date; activities constituting diligence; date of first reduction to
`
`practice; and any facts, test results, documents, evidence, and persons with knowledge relating to or
`
`corroborating any dates or contentions included in Your response.
`
`RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 5:
`
`Finjan objects to this Interrogatory as overbroad, unduly burdensome, and oppressive to the extent
`
`it seeks information not relevant to any claim or defense of any party and/or not reasonably calculated
`
`to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Finjan objects to this Interrogatory to the extent it
`
`seeks information beyond Finjan’s actual knowledge, custody, or control. Finjan objects to this
`
`Interrogatory to the extent it seeks information protected by the attorney-client privilege, the work
`
`product doctrine, or any other applicable law, privilege, doctrine or immunity. Finjan objects to this
`
`Interrogatory to the extent it seeks information within Defendants’ possession, custody or control, or to
`
`16
`FINJAN’S OBJECTIONS & RESPONSES TO JUNIPER’S CASE NO.: 3:17-cv-05659-WHA
`FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES (NOS. 1-10)
`
`REDACTED VERSION OF DOCUMENT SOUGHT TO BE SEALED
`
`