`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 371-18 Filed 02/14/19 Page 1 of 4
`
`EXHIBIT 14
`EXHIBIT 14
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 371-18 Filed 02/14/19 Page 2 of 4
`
` Pages 1 - 115
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`Before The Honorable William H. Alsup, Judge
`
`)
`FINJAN, INC.,
` )
` Plaintiff, )
` )
` VS. ) NO. C 17-05659 WHA
` )
`JUNIPER NETWORK, INC.,
`)
` )
` Defendant.
`)
` )
` San Francisco, California
` Thursday, July 26, 2018
`
`
`TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS
`
`
`APPEARANCES:
`For Plaintiff:
` KRAMER, LEVIN, NAFTALIS & FRANKEL LLP
` 990 Marsh Road
` Menlo Park, California 94025
` BY: PAUL J. ANDRE, ATTORNEY AT LAW
` KRISTOPHER KASTENS, ATTORNEY AT LAW
` JAMES HANNAH, ATTORNEY AT LAW
` PHUONG (STEPHANIE) NGUYEN, ATTORNEY AT LAW
`
`For Defendant:
` IRELL & MANELLA LLP
` 1800 Avenue of the Stars - Suite 900
` Los Angeles, California 90067
` BY: JONATHAN S. KAGAN, ATTORNEY AT LAW
` CASEY CURRAN, ATTORNEY AT LAW
` JOSHUA GLUCOFT, ATTORNEY AT LAW
` SHARON SONG, ATTORNEY AT LAW
`
` IRELL & MANELLA LLP
` 840 Newport Center Drive - Suite 400
` Newport Beach, California 92660
` BY: REBECCA CARSON, ATTORNEY AT LAW
`
`Reported By: Jo Ann Bryce, CSR No. 3321, RMR, CRR, FCRR
` Official Reporter
`
`
`
`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 371-18 Filed 02/14/19 Page 3 of 4
`
` 68
`
` 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
`
`(reading):
`
`"QUESTION: You mention a sample ID or SHA, SHA-256?
`
`"ANSWER: SHA-256.
`
`"QUESTION: What is a sample ID?
`
`"THE WITNESS: In order to identify samples or files
`
`that are coming into Sky ATP, we perform a hash, the
`
`SHA-256, on the contents of the files."
`
`So he admitted right there that they actually hash all the
`
`incoming files, and this is from the perspective of Sky ATP.
`
`THE COURT: Well, but she's saying that they do do a
`
`hash on the incoming files. What they don't do is a hash on
`
`the combined file of the downloadable plus the fetched file.
`
`MR. HANNAH: Well, Your Honor --
`
`THE COURT: So I don't see your point here.
`
`MR. HANNAH: But, Your Honor, the first one that I
`
`showed you on the right, that is the combined hash. That's a
`
`hash on the Word document that includes -- they hash in
`
`multiple instances. So we can -- we're just picking slices
`
`that are -- we're just picking slices. So that first document
`
`that comes in with the dropped ransom executable, that's number
`
`one. That Word file contains --
`
`THE COURT: Well, what is the fetch in that one?
`
`MR. HANNAH: Exactly. So it's the dropped ransom
`
`executable. So once you fetch that, they take that and store
`
`it in.
`
`
`
`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 371-18 Filed 02/14/19 Page 4 of 4
`
` 69
`
` 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
`
`So, I mean --
`
`THE COURT: Wait. Wait. Wait a minute. I thought
`
`you were saying that the Microsoft Word document was the
`
`downloadable.
`
`MR. HANNAH: It is.
`
`THE COURT: And so what would be the fetched document?
`
`MR. HANNAH: The dropped ransom executable, which is
`
`within the Microsoft Word document.
`
`THE COURT: But that's not a fetched if it's already
`
`in there when it comes into the system.
`
`MR. HANNAH: No. So, Your Honor --
`
`THE COURT: Your patent requires that you do two
`
`steps. It's -- well, first you do the -- obtain the
`
`downloadable, and then you go and fetch something to make it
`
`work.
`
`MR. HANNAH: Right. So when you're executing it --
`
`and I can turn to the specification of the '780, which
`
`specifically says that you prefetch the information that can
`
`include something that's embodied within that, and that's --
`
`they actually dropped this issue on their -- in their reply.
`
`THE COURT: Well, wait. You mean you're saying that
`
`the downloadable can include everything that's the malware and
`
`you don't have to go fetch anything?
`
`MR. HANNAH: Right. So it's fetching it from the --
`
`THE COURT: But didn't you say something to the PTO --
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
