Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 376 Filed 02/19/19 Page 1 of 34
`
`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)
`ccurran@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.
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
`FINJAN, INC., a Delaware Corporation,
`)
`Case No. 3:17-cv-05659-WHA
`)
`DEFENDANT JUNIPER NETWORKS,
`Plaintiff,
`)
`INC.’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY
`)
`JUDGMENT REGARDING CLAIM 9 OF
`)
`U.S. PATENT NO. 6,804,780
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`vs.
`
`JUNIPER NETWORKS, INC., a Delaware
`Corporation,
`
`Defendant.
`
`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
`
`IRELL & MANELLA LLP
`A Registered Limited Liability
`Law Partnership Including
`Professional Corporations
`
`10642154
`
`JUNIPER’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
` REGARDING CLAIM 9
`(Case No. 3:17-cv-05659-WHA)
`
`REDACTED VERSION OF DOCUMENT SOUGHT TO BE SEALED
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 376 Filed 02/19/19 Page 2 of 34
`
`NOTICE OF MOTION
`TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD:
`PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on May 2, 2019, at 8:00 a.m., or as soon thereafter as the
`matter may be heard, in Courtroom 12, 19th Floor, of the San Francisco Courthouse, 450 Golden
`Gate Avenue, San Francisco, California 94102, before the Honorable William Alsup, Defendant
`Juniper Networks, Inc. (“Juniper”) will and hereby does move for an order finding that claim 9 of
`U.S. Patent No. 6,804,780 (“Claim 9” of “the ’780 Patent”) is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 101,
`that Juniper’s accused products do not infringe Claim 9, and that any damages available to plaintiff
`Finjan, Inc. (“Finjan”) are limited under 35 U.S.C. § 287. This motion is based on: this Notice of
`Motion; the Memorandum of Points and Authorities below; the Declaration of Rebecca Carson and
`exhibits attached thereto; the Declaration of Dr. Aviel D. Rubin attached hereto; the Declaration of
`Frank Jas attached hereto; all documents in the Court’s file, including the Declaration of Yuly
`Nerida Becerra Tenorio; and such other written or oral argument as may be presented at or before
`the time this motion is heard by the Court.
`STATEMENT OF RELIEF REQUESTED
`Juniper seeks an order holding that Juniper does not infringe Claim 9 based on any alleged
`making, using, selling, offering to sell, or importing SRX Series Services Gateway (“SRX”)
`products, the Sky Advanced Threat Prevention (“Sky ATP”) service, or ATP Appliance products
`(formerly sold under the Cyphort brand), individually or in combination with each other; that Claim
`9 of the ’780 Patent is invalid as directed to unpatentable subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101; that
`damages for any potential infringement of Claim 9 by Juniper’s SRX and Sky ATP products are
`limited under 35 U.S.C. § 287 to those accrued based on acts of infringement occurring after
`September 29, 2017 (the filing of the complaint in this matter); and that no damages for any potential
`infringement of Claim 9 by the ATP Appliance are owed on account of Finjan’s failure to comply
`with 35 U.S.C. § 287 until after November 6, 2017 (the expiration date of the ’780 Patent).
`
`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
`
`IRELL & MANELLA LLP
`A Registered Limited Liability
`Law Partnership Including
`Professional Corporations
`
`10642154
`
`- 1 -
`
`JUNIPER’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
` REGARDING CLAIM 9
`(Case No. 3:17-cv-05659-WHA)
`
`REDACTED VERSION OF DOCUMENT SOUGHT TO BE SEALED
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 376 Filed 02/19/19 Page 3 of 34
`
`STATEMENT OF ISSUES TO BE DECIDED1
`1.
`Whether Juniper’s SRX products do not infringe Claim 9.
`2.
`Whether Juniper’s Sky ATP service does not infringe Claim 9.
`3.
`Whether Juniper’s ATP Appliance products do not infringe Claim 9.
`4.
`Whether the combination of Juniper’s SRX products with the Sky ATP service or
`ATP Appliance products do not infringe Claim 9.
`5.
`Whether Claim 9 is invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
`6.
`Whether damages for any potential infringement of Claim 9 by Juniper’s SRX
`product and Sky ATP service are limited under 35 U.S.C. § 287 to those accrued after September
`29, 2017 (the filing of the complaint in this matter).
`7.
`Whether the damages for any potential infringement of Claim 9 by Juniper’s ATP
`Appliance product are foreclosed on account of Finjan’s failure to comply with 35 U.S.C. § 287
`until after November 6, 2017 (the expiration date of the ’780 Patent).
`
`
`
`1 Claim 9 of the ’780 Patent is also invalid under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103 in view of additional prior
`art not discussed herein but which Juniper timely identified in its invalidity contentions under P.L.R.
`3-3. Moreover, the fundamental differences between Juniper’s accused products and the ’780 Patent
`may provide several additional non-infringement arguments beyond those specifically addressed in
`this motion. If there is a trial on Claim 9, Juniper may make other invalidity or non-infringement
`arguments not specifically addressed in this motion. Juniper may also raise one or more affirmative
`defenses not addressed specifically in this motion.
`
`
`
`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
`
`IRELL & MANELLA LLP
`A Registered Limited Liability
`Law Partnership Including
`Professional Corporations
`
`10642154
`
`
`- 2 -
`
`JUNIPER’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
` REGARDING CLAIM 9
`(Case No. 3:17-cv-05659-WHA)
`
`REDACTED VERSION OF DOCUMENT SOUGHT TO BE SEALED
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 376 Filed 02/19/19 Page 4 of 34
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`D.
`
`Page
`INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................... 1
`BACKGROUND ................................................................................................................. 2
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ................................................................................................ 5
`A.
`Previously Construed Term. .................................................................................... 5
`B.
`Additional Term For Construction. ......................................................................... 5
`JUNIPER DOES NOT INFRINGE CLAIM 9 OF THE ’780 PATENT ............................ 8
`A.
`Legal Standard. ........................................................................................................ 8
`B.
`The SRX Does Not Infringe Claim 9. ..................................................................... 8
`C.
`Sky ATP Does Not Infringe Claim 9. ..................................................................... 9
`1.
`Sky ATP Does Not Meet The “Hashing” Limitation. ............................... 10
`2.
`Sky ATP Does Not Have an “ID Generator” That “Fetches”
`Software Components. .............................................................................. 11
`ATP Appliance Does Not Infringe Claim 9. ......................................................... 12
`1.
`ATP Appliance Does Not Have An “ID Generator” That
`“Fetches.” .................................................................................................. 13
`ATP Appliance Does Not Meet The “Hashing” Limitation...................... 14
`2.
`Combining Sky ATP Or ATP Appliance With SRX Does Not
`Resolve The Deficiencies In Finjan’s Infringement Claims. ................................ 15
`The Accused Products Do Not Infringe Under The Doctrine Of
`Equivalence. .......................................................................................................... 16
`CLAIM 9 IS UNPATENTABLE UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 101 ............................................ 17
`A.
`Claim 9 Is Directed Towards An Abstract Idea. ................................................... 18
`B.
`Claim 9 Does Not Have A Transformative Inventive Concept. ........................... 20
`FINJAN’S FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH 35 U.S.C. § 287 LIMITS
`DAMAGES ....................................................................................................................... 23
`A.
`Finjan Failed To Provide Constructive Notice. ..................................................... 24
`B.
`Finjan Failed To Provide Actual Notice. .............................................................. 25
`CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................. 25
`
`E.
`
`F.
`
`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
`IRELL & MANELLA LLP
`A Registered Limited Liability
`Law Partnership Including
`Professional Corporations
`
`I.
`II.
`III.
`
`IV.
`
`V.
`
`VI.
`
`VII.
`
`10642154
`
`- iii -
`
`JUNIPER’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
` REGARDING CLAIM 9
`(Case No. 3:17-cv-05659-WHA)
`
`REDACTED VERSION OF DOCUMENT SOUGHT TO BE SEALED
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 376 Filed 02/19/19 Page 5 of 34
`
`
`
`Cases
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`
`Page(s)
`
`Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l,
`134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014) .............................................................................................17, 18, 19, 20
`
`Amsted Indus., Inc. v. Buckeye Steel Castings Co.,
`24 F.3d 178 (Fed. Cir. 1994) ......................................................................................................25
`
`Apple, Inc. v. Ameranth, Inc.,
`842 F.3d 1229 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ..................................................................................................18
`
`Arctic Cat Inc. v. Bombardier Recreational Prod. Inc.,
`876 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ............................................................................................23, 24
`
`Aventis Pharm. Inc. v. Amino Chem. Ltd.,
`715 F.3d 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2013) ....................................................................................................5
`
`Becton, Dickinson & Co. v. Tyco Healthcare Grp., LP,
`616 F.3d 1249 (Fed. Cir. 2010) ..................................................................................................12
`
`Berkheimer v. HP Inc.,
`2018 WL 2437140 (Fed. Cir. May 31, 2018) .............................................................................17
`
`Blue Spike LLC v. Google Inc.,
`2015 WL 5260506 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 8, 2015) .............................................................................21
`
`buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc.,
`765 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ..................................................................................................21
`
`Cal. Inst. of Tech. v. Hughes Commc’ns Inc.,
`59 F. Supp. 3d 974 (C.D. Cal. 2014) ..........................................................................................18
`
`Celotex Corp. v. Catrett,
`477 U.S. 317 (1986) .....................................................................................................................8
`
`Cephalon, Inc. v. Abraxis Bioscience, LLC,
`618 Fed. Appx. 663 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ...........................................................................................8
`
`Content Extraction & Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, Nat’l Ass’n,
`776 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ..................................................................................................19
`
`Creo Products, Inc. v. Presstek, Inc.,
`305 F.3d 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2002) ..................................................................................................16
`
`CyberFone Sys. LLC v. Lexmark Int’l, Inc.,
`137 F. Supp. 3d 648 (D. Del. 2015) ...........................................................................................21
`
`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
`
`IRELL & MANELLA LLP
`A Registered Limited Liability
`Law Partnership Including
`Professional Corporations
`
`10642154
`
`
`- iv -
`
`JUNIPER’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
` REGARDING CLAIM 9
`(Case No. 3:17-cv-05659-WHA)
`
`REDACTED VERSION OF DOCUMENT SOUGHT TO BE SEALED
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 376 Filed 02/19/19 Page 6 of 34
`
`CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc.,
`654 F.3d 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ............................................................................................17, 21
`
`Digitech Image Techs., LLC v. Elecs. For Imaging, Inc.,
`758 F.3d 1344, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ........................................................................................20
`
`Elec. Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A.,
`830 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ..................................................................................................19
`
`Exigent Tech., Inc. v. Atrana Sols., Inc.,
`442 F.3d 1301 (Fed. Cir. 2006) ....................................................................................................8
`
`Finjan Software, Ltd. v. Aladdin Knowledge Sys., Inc.,
`1:08-cv-00300-GMS (D. Del.), Dkt. 1 ¶¶ 16-18 ........................................................................24
`
`Finjan Software, Ltd. v. Secure Comput. Corp.,
`1:06-cv-00369-GMS (D. Del.), Dkt. 226 ...................................................................................24
`
`Finjan Software, Ltd. v. Secure Comput. Corp.,
`1:06-cv-00369-GMS, Dkt. 226 (D. Del. Mar. 14, 2008) ...........................................................24
`
`Finjan, Inc. v. Bitdefender Inc.,
`Case No. 4:17-cv-04790-HSG (N.D. Cal. May 4, 2018) .............................................................6
`
`Finjan, Inc. v. Blue Coat Sys., Inc.,
`2015 WL 3640694 (N.D. Cal. June 11, 2015) ...........................................................................10
`
`Finjan, Inc. v. Sophos, Inc.,
`3:14-cv-01197-WHO, Dkt. 398 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 21, 2016) ......................................................24
`
`Gemalto S.A. v. HTC Corp.,
`754 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ..................................................................................................17
`
`Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank,
`792 F.3d 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ..................................................................................................18
`
`Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Fin. Corp.,
`850 F.3d 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ............................................................................................19, 20
`
`Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indem. Co.,
`200 F.Supp.3d 565 (W.D. Penn. 2016) ......................................................................................19
`
`Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp.,
`100 F. Supp. 3d 371 (D. Del. 2015), aff’d in relevant part, rev’d on other
`grounds, 838 F.3d 1307 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ...................................................................................18
`
`Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp.,
`838 F.3d 1307 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ............................................................................................19, 20
`
`
`
`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
`
`IRELL & MANELLA LLP
`A Registered Limited Liability
`Law Partnership Including
`Professional Corporations
`
`10642154
`
`
`- v -
`
`JUNIPER’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
` REGARDING CLAIM 9
`(Case No. 3:17-cv-05659-WHA)
`
`REDACTED VERSION OF DOCUMENT SOUGHT TO BE SEALED
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 376 Filed 02/19/19 Page 7 of 34
`
`
`
`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
`
`Juno Mfg., LLC v. Nora Lighting, Inc.,
`2015 WL 11438613 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 13, 2015) .........................................................................25
`
`Landers v. Sideways, LLC,
`142 Fed. Appx. 462 (Fed. Cir. 2005) ...........................................................................................5
`
`Lans v. Dig. Equip. Corp.,
`252 F.3d 1320 (Fed. Cir. 2001) ..................................................................................................25
`
`Novartis Corp. v. Ben Venue Labs, Inc.,
`271 F.3d 1043 (Fed. Cir. 2001) ....................................................................................................8
`
`Palo Alto,
`IPR2016-00165, Paper 7 ............................................................................................................21
`
`RecogniCorp, LLC v. Nintendo Co.,
`855 F.3d 1322 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ..................................................................................................19
`
`RecogniCorp, LLC v. Nintendo Co., Ltd,
`855, F.3d 1322 (Fed. Cir. 2017) .................................................................................................22
`
`Regents of Univ. of Cal. v. Dako N. Am., Inc.,
`No. 05-03955 MHP, 2009 WL 1083446 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 22, 2009) ............................................8
`
`Roche Diagnostics Operations, Inc. v. Lifescan Inc.,
`660 Fed. Appx. 932 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ...........................................................................................7
`
`Smart Sys. Innovations, LLC v. Chicago Transit Auth.,
`873 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ............................................................................................19, 21
`
`Smartflash LLC. v. Apple, Inc.,
`680 F. App’x 977 (Fed. Cir. 2017) .............................................................................................18
`
`Solannex, Inc. v. MiaSole, Inc.,
`2013 WL 1701062 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 18, 2013) ...........................................................................10
`
`Symantec Corp. v. Zscaler, Inc.,
`2018 WL 1456678 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 23, 2018) ...........................................................................19
`
`SynQor, Inc. v. Artesyn Techs., Inc.,
`635 F’ App’x 891 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ..............................................................................................8
`
`In re TLI Commc’ns LLC Patent Litig.,
`87 F. Supp. 3d 773 (E.D. Va. 2015), aff’d, 823 F.3d 607 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ...............................21
`
`Tranxition, Inc. v. Lenovo (U.S.) Inc.,
`2015 WL 4203469 (D. Ore. July 9, 2015) .................................................................................21
`
`Uniloc USA, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc.,
`243 F. Supp. 3d 797 (E.D. Tex. 2017) .......................................................................................22
`
`IRELL & MANELLA LLP
`A Registered Limited Liability
`Law Partnership Including
`Professional Corporations
`
`10642154
`
`
`- vi -
`
`JUNIPER’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
` REGARDING CLAIM 9
`(Case No. 3:17-cv-05659-WHA)
`
`REDACTED VERSION OF DOCUMENT SOUGHT TO BE SEALED
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 376 Filed 02/19/19 Page 8 of 34
`
`Voit Technologies, LLC v. Del-ton, Inc.,
`2019 WL 495163 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 8, 2019) .................................................................................22
`
`Von Holdt v. A-1 Tool Corp.,
`714 F. Supp. 2d 863 (N.D. Ill. 2010) .........................................................................................23
`
`Voter Verified, Inc. v. Election Sys. & Software LLC,
`887 F.3d 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2018) ..................................................................................................20
`
`Statutes
`
`35 U.S.C. § 101 ........................................................................................................................ passim
`
`35 U.S.C. § 287 ................................................................................................................2, 23, 24, 25
`
`35 U.S.C. § 287(a) ............................................................................................................................23
`
`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
`
`IRELL & MANELLA LLP
`A Registered Limited Liability
`Law Partnership Including
`Professional Corporations
`
`10642154
`
`- vii -
`
`JUNIPER’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
` REGARDING CLAIM 9
`(Case No. 3:17-cv-05659-WHA)
`
`REDACTED VERSION OF DOCUMENT SOUGHT TO BE SEALED
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 376 Filed 02/19/19 Page 9 of 34
`
`
`
`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
`The Court may feel like it is experiencing déjà vu because Juniper is moving for summary
`judgment on Claim 9 of the ’780 Patent, which is substantially similar to Claim 1 of the ’780
`Patent—the claim which Juniper selected during the first round of the patent showdown, and on
`which the Court entered summary judgment of non-infringement. Dkt. 180. Despite the Court’s
`ruling on Claim 1, Finjan has insisted on pursuing its allegations related to Claim 9 against Juniper’s
`SRX and Sky ATP products (which were addressed during the Claim 1 proceedings), as well as
`Juniper’s ATP Appliance product (which was not added to the case until May 2018 and was
`therefore excluded from the first round of the patent showdown).
`The problem for Finjan is that Claim 9 contains the exact same “hashing” element that the
`Court determined was dispositive of non-infringement on Claim 1. And, Finjan’s claims against the
`ATP Appliance are even more facetious than its claims against the SRX and Sky ATP products
`were. Finjan’s infringement theory for the ATP Appliance is grounded in the same “dropped file”
`infringement theory that was rejected by the Court because it does not satisfy the “hashing” element.
`Even if that had been a viable theory (which was not), Finjan’s contention that the ATP Appliance
`hashes dropped files during dynamic analysis is spun from whole cloth. Had Finjan conducted
`proper pre-suit diligence, it would have known that—unlike Sky ATP—the ATP Appliance does
`not even hash any “dropped files” or other components that are collected during dynamic analysis.
`As a result, Finjan’s infringement theory for ATP Appliance is not viable even under Finjan’s
`flawed—and rejected—construction of the “hashing” element.
`Finjan’s “dropped file” infringement theory—which it relies on for all of the accused
`products—fails to meet the limitations of Claim 9 for another, independent reason. Unlike Claim
`1—which merely requires “fetching at least one software component identified by the one or more
`references” without specifying what component does the fetching—Claim 9 specifically recites that
`an “ID generator” must perform the fetching function. There can be no real dispute that when a
`“dropped file” is retrieved during dynamic analysis, it is retrieved by the code in the file that is being
`executed, not by any alleged ID generator contained within the accused products.
`Finjan’s allegations related to Claim 9 are also futile because Claim 9 is invalid under 35
`
`IRELL & MANELLA LLP
`A Registered Limited Liability
`Law Partnership Including
`Professional Corporations
`
`10642154
`
`
`- 1 -
`
`JUNIPER’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
` REGARDING CLAIM 9
`(Case No. 3:17-cv-05659-WHA)
`
`REDACTED VERSION OF DOCUMENT SOUGHT TO BE SEALED
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 376 Filed 02/19/19 Page 10 of 34
`
`
`
`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.C. § 101. Claim 9 is directed to the abstract idea of generating a unique ID for a file using
`generic computer components such as a “communications engine” and an “ID generator.”
`Moreover, each of the elements of Claim 9—retrieving, fetching, and hashing—was routine,
`conventional and well-known. And, while Finjan has attempted to argue that there is an “ordered
`combination” that supplies the inventive concept, such an argument is in direct conflict with the
`infringement positions it has taken in this case, as well as against many other defendants.
`Finally, even if Finjan could somehow get over the insurmountable hurdles on the issues of
`infringement and invalidity (which it cannot), the damages period is severely restricted due to
`Finjan’s failure to comply with the notice requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 287. The undisputed factual
`record demonstrates that none of Finjan’s licensees marked their products with the ’780 Patent,
`despite the fact that Finjan accused many of those licensees of infringing the ’780 Patent and even
`obtained jury verdicts of infringement of the ’780 Patent against some of them. Thus, Finjan can
`only obtain damages from the date it provided Juniper with actual notice that Finjan believed a
`specific accused product was infringing the ’780 Patent. And, there is not a shred of evidence that
`Finjan made any allegation of infringement related to the ’780 Patent to either Juniper or Cyphort
`(the original manufacturer of the ATP Appliance) before filing suit against Juniper on September
`29, 2017. Moreover, Finjan’s original complaint was limited to SRX and Sky ATP, and Finjan did
`not allege that the ATP Appliance was infringing the ’780 Patent until March 2018, over four months
`after the ’780 Patent expired.
`Finjan’s pursuit of Claim 9 is a waste of time for the parties and the Court. Juniper
`respectfully requests that the Court grant Juniper’s motion, and dispose of Finjan’s claims under the
`’780 Patent once and for all.
`II.
`BACKGROUND
`Claim 1 of the ’780 Patent, which the Court addressed in the first round of summary
`judgment, is substantially similar to Claim 9, as shown below:
`
`Claim 1
`A computer-based method for generating
`a Downloadable ID to identify a
`Downloadable, comprising:
`obtaining a Downloadable that includes
`one or more references to software
`
`Claim 9
`A system for generating a Downloadable ID to
`identify a Downloadable, comprising:
`
`a communications engine for obtaining a
`Downloadable that includes one or more references
`
`IRELL & MANELLA LLP
`A Registered Limited Liability
`Law Partnership Including
`Professional Corporations
`
`10642154
`
`
`- 2 -
`
`JUNIPER’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
` REGARDING CLAIM 9
`(Case No. 3:17-cv-05659-WHA)
`
`REDACTED VERSION OF DOCUMENT SOUGHT TO BE SEALED
`
`

`

`
`
`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
`
`IRELL & MANELLA LLP
`A Registered Limited Liability
`Law Partnership Including
`Professional Corporations
`
`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 376 Filed 02/19/19 Page 11 of 34
`
`components required to be executed by
`the Downloadable;
`fetching at least one software component
`identified by the one or more references;
`and
`performing a hashing function on the
`Downloadable and the fetched software
`components to generate a Downloadable
`ID.
`
`to software components required to be executed by
`the Downloadable; and
`an ID generator coupled to the communications
`engine that fetches at least one software component
`identified by the one or more references,
`and for performing a hashing function on the
`Downloadable and the fetched software components
`to generate a Downloadable ID.
`
`
`
`As explained in Juniper’s prior summary judgment motion,2 hashing is a type of
`mathematical operation that has been around for at least half a century. See, e.g., Ex. 173 at 507-08.
`Hashing can transform any arbitrary input (such as a string of text or portions of computer code)
`into a unique output, known as a “hash,” which resembles a serial number. Id. Hashing algorithms
`are highly sensitive, and even a minor change to an input produces a drastically different result:
`
`MD54 Hash
`Input
`2408730ad248ad4e4aa36fb14f5e0631
`Te
`627fcdb6cc9a5e16d657ca6cdef0a6bb
`st
`0cbc6611f5540bd0809a388dc95a615b
`Test
`As illustrated, the hashes for “Te” and “st” do not add up, so to speak, to the hash of “Test”—i.e.,
`the hash of the combination of the components (“Test”) is entirely different from the hashes of the
`components themselves (“Te” and “st”), and one cannot determine the hash of the combination by
`simply combining the hashes of the components. Declaration of Aviel Rubin (“Rubin”) ¶ 17.
`For decades, computer scientists have been hashing files for a number of different purposes.
`Id. ¶¶ 17-18. For example, because each file will always generate the same hash value, early
`antivirus programs used hashing to identify malware. See, e.g., U.S. Patent No. 5,684,875 (filed
`1994) at 1:46-49. As technology evolved, some challenges to using a hash as a file ID arose.
`Developers began distributing files in pieces rather than as complete, self-contained packages
`because, for example, the files were too big to be sent as one complete package. See Rubin ¶ 21.
`Developers would link the pieces of the file together by reference so that the components could be
`later reassembled. In such situations, the hash of the pieces would be different than the hash of the
`
`
`2 See Dkt. 96 at 2-4.
`3 Citations to “Ex. ” refer to the Exhibits attached to the Declaration of Rebecca Carson.
`4 While many different types of hashing algorithms exist beyond the “MD5” hashing algorithm used
`in this table, they are all generally designed to perform the same function: generate a unique output
`for any particular input. Rubin ¶¶ 15-16.
`
`10642154
`
`
`- 3 -
`
`JUNIPER’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
` REGARDING CLAIM 9
`(Case No. 3:17-cv-05659-WHA)
`
`REDACTED VERSION OF DOCUMENT SOUGHT TO BE SEALED
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 376 Filed 02/19/19 Page 12 of 34
`
`whole file and would also depend on how the package was broken up into pieces, thus presenting
`challenges to using a hash as an ID that could be used to identify the file as a whole.
`To illustrate this, consider the scenario where a developer splits up a large file (e.g., File A)
`into two smaller files (e.g., Files B and C). File B could, in turn, contain a reference to File C such
`that when a user ran File B, the file would seek out and fetch File C, combine File C with File B,
`and thereby rebuild the original File A. In this case, the hash ID for File A would be different from
`the hash ID of File B, which would also be different from the hash ID of File C—even though Files
`B and C can be combined to recreate File A (i.e., Files B and C are just File A broken into two
`pieces). The ’780 Patent is intended to address this problem. Specifically, the ’780 Patent teaches
`obtaining File B, fetching File C, and then computing the hash value of the combined File B+C,
`which would equal the hash ID of the original File A.
`Because Finjan’s claimed system combines the original Downloadable file and the fetched
`software before performing the hashing operation, the system can produce the same hash value
`(Downloadable ID) regardless of which particular components are actually included and which are
`merely referenced. In fact, Finjan touted this as an advantage of its patent during prosecution:
`An advantage of the present invention is that it produces the same ID for a
`Downloadable, regardless of which software components are included with the
`Downloadable and which software components are only referenced (original
`specification / page 9, lines 18- 20; page 20, lines 5 and 6). The same Downloadable
`may be delivered with some required software components included and others
`missing, and in each case the generated Downloadable ID will be the same. Thus
`the same Downloadable is recognized through many equivalent guises.
`Ex. 2 at 6.5 As noted above, the only way for the same ID to be generated is by providing the
`hashing function with the same input. And the only way to provide the hashing function with the
`same input is, following the example above, to first fetch File C in order to include it within File B
`and then perform the hashing function on File B together with File C, because File B+C = File A.
`In sum, the invention of the ’780 Patent was described by the Court in its previous Order:
`[T]he perceived problem was that the malware might arrive attached to or configured
`as a Downloadable, but this Downloadable could arrive in whole or in pieces. The
`perceived solution was to fetch the missing components, incorporate them into the
`executable, and then hash the combination. Accordingly, the same ID would result
`regardless, whether the Downloadable arrived with or without the components.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`1