Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 387 Filed 03/11/19 Page 1 of 5
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`FINJAN, INC.,
`Plaintiff,
`
` v.
`JUNIPER NETWORKS, INC.,
`Defendant.
` /
`
`No. C 17-05659 WHA
`
`ORDER ON RENEWED MOTIONS
`FOR JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF
`LAW, MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL,
`AND CERTIFICATION FOR
`INTERLOCUTORY APPEAL
`
`INTRODUCTION
`In this patent infringement action, both sides move for judgment as a matter of law.
`For the reasons stated below, patentee’s motion is DENIED and accused infringer’s motion is
`HELD IN ABEYANCE.
`
`STATEMENT
`The parties bring these motions at the end of this action’s first trial in the first
`“showdown” procedure regarding whether defendant Juniper Networks, Inc.’s accused
`products SRX Gateways with Sky ATP and Sky ATP alone infringe Claim 10 of plaintiff
`Finjan, Inc.’s United States Patent No. 8,677,494 (“the ’494 patent”).
`By way of background, an order dated August 9, 2018, granted Juniper’s motion for
`summary judgment for noninfringement of Claim 1 of the United States Patent No. 6,804,780
`(“the ’780 patent”). An order dated August 24, 2018, granted in part Finjan’s motion for
`summary judgment for infringement of Claim 10 of the ’494 patent, and found a triable issue
`
`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
`
`For the Northern District of California
`
`United States District Court
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 387 Filed 03/11/19 Page 2 of 5
`
`of fact. Trial was then set for December 10, 2018. A Daubert order dated December 3, 2018,
`struck Finjan’s damages expert report (Dkt. No. 283).
`The remaining issues left for trial were whether Juniper’s accused products satisfied the
`“database” limitation within Claim 10’s last element, “a database manager coupled with said
`Downloadable scanner, for storing the Downloadable security profile data in a database,” and
`damages. As such, the jury was directed to decide, inter alia, whether the accused products
`store Downloadable security profile data in a “database.” The parties agreed on (and the Court
`adopted) the following construction for the “database” limitation: “a collection of interrelated
`data organized according to a database schema to serve one or more applications” (Dkt. Nos.
`126 at 6, 189 at 16).
`On December 13, 2018, both sides filed motions for judgment as a matter of law — (1)
`Finjan for infringement, validity under Section 101, and damages, and (2) Juniper for
`noninfringement, lack of notice, and no damages (Dkt. Nos. 322, 323). On December 14,
`2018, the jury found noninfringement in favor of Juniper (Dkt. No. 333). A post-trial order
`dated January 2, 2019, required the parties to file any post-trial briefing by January 10 (Dkt.
`No. 348), which the parties did (Dkt. Nos. 352–53). This order follows full briefing and oral
`argument.
`
`ANALYSIS
`Under Rule 50(a), judgment as a matter of law is appropriate if “the court finds that a
`reasonable jury would not have a legally sufficient evidentiary basis to find for the party on
`[an] issue.” A district 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 U.S. 133, 150 (2000).
`FINJAN’S RENEWED MOTION FOR JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW,
`1.
`MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL, CERTIFICATION FOR INTERLOCUTORY APPEAL.
`A.
`Renewed Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law.
`Finjan contends that Juniper failed to rebut its “overwhelming evidence” that the
`accused products infringe Claim 10 of the ’494 patent such that the jury had no legally
`sufficient evidentiary basis to find noninfringement. This order disagrees.
`
`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
`
`2
`
`For the Northern District of California
`
`United States District Court
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 387 Filed 03/11/19 Page 3 of 5
`
`At trial, Finjan’s technical expert Dr. Eric Cole pointed to various Juniper internal
`documents, which labeled ResultsDB as a “database.” Dr. Cole further testified that those
`documents described ResultsDB as including a “schema” for stored information.
`Contrary to Finjan’s contention, Juniper’s technical expert Dr. Aviel D. Rubin did not
`focus his arguments “on unsupported or legally irrelevant points” (Dkt. No. 353 at 7). Finjan
`complains that Dr. Rubin’s testimony that the Juniper software engineers’ referral to “results
`database” or “ResultsDB” was a misnomer and mere shorthand (at least in the context of the
`parties’ agreed-upon construction of “database”) was without evidentiary support (Dkt. No.
`353 at 7). As Juniper points out, however, Dr. Rubin’s testimony itself constitutes evidence
`upon which the jury could rely. G. David Jang, M.D. v. Bos. Sci. Corp., 811 F.3d 1275,
`1283–84.
`And, Dr. Rubin’s point that ResultsDB is not a “database” because Dr. Cole’s
`identification of the “database” actually comprised of three distinct storage components —
`including MySQL, DynamoDB, and S3 databases — was not irrelevant, as Finjan contends.
`Rather, this point went to Dr. Rubin’s noninfringement theory that the accused products do not
`use a database that both stores downloadable security profile data and satisfy the agreed-upon
`claim construction for “database.” (On the other hand, Dr. Cole argued that all three storage
`components, which are collectively referred to as Results Database (ResultsDB), satisfied
`Claim 10.) The jury “had the right to rely upon” Dr. Rubin’s testimony and “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).
`Finjan next asserts that Dr. Rubin “failed to rebut Finjan’s substantial evidence that
`ResultsDB is a database organized according to a database schema,” and argues that Dr. Rubin
`himself acknowledged that ResultsDB contained a schema, e.g., JSON schema (Dkt. No. 353
`at 9). Finjan complains that Dr. Rubin used “improper and arbitrary distinctions” that
`allegedly added unnecessary limitations to show that those schemas did not satisfy Claim 10’s
`“database” and takes issue with various aspects of Dr. Rubin’s testimony. The jury, however,
`was free to credit Dr. Rubin’s testimony over Dr. Cole’s testimony regarding whether the
`
`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
`
`3
`
`For the Northern District of California
`
`United States District Court
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 387 Filed 03/11/19 Page 4 of 5
`
`accused products included a “database schema,” and ultimately Dr. Rubin’s noninfringement
`theory, and there was substantial evidence to do so.
`At bottom, drawing all reasonable inferences in favor of Juniper (the nonmoving party),
`this order finds that there exists substantial evidence supporting the jury’s verdict of
`noninfringement. Accordingly, Finjan’s renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law is
`DENIED.
`
`Motion for New Trial.
`B.
`Finjan requests, in the alternative, for a new trial under Rule 59 based on (1) the issues
`it raised in connection with its renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law, and (2)
`Juniper’s alleged improper conduct at trial, including (a) error for not instructing the jury on
`the construction of “database schema,” (b) prejudice based on Juniper’s presentation of
`irrelevant evidence comparing Claim 1 of the ’494 patent to Claim 10, and (c) Juniper’s
`“intentional[] and detrimental[] withh[olding of] information regarding its revenues for the
`accused products” (Dkt. No. 353 at 14). This order finds that none of these are grounds for a
`new trial. Again, Finjan continues to argue about Juniper’s allegedly “overly restrictive
`definition” of “database schema” — an argument this order has already rejected. Nor does
`Finjan offer any evidence that Juniper’s evidence of Claim 1’s invalidity under Section 102
`presented at trial prejudiced Finjan in any way. That is, there is no evidence that this
`testimony, which relates to invalidity rather than noninfringement, “confused and prejudiced
`the jury against Claim 10” in any way. And, Finjan fails to show how an issue related to
`damages could serve grounds for a new trial based on a verdict finding noninfringement.1 The
`issue of damages is therefore moot. As such, Finjan has failed to show some miscarriage of
`justice such that it is entitled to a new trial. Accordingly, Finjan’s motion for a new trial is
`DENIED.
`
`1 And, contrary to Finjan’s repeated contention that the Court erred in capping Finjan’s reasonable royalty amount
`to Juniper’s actual revenues, the Court held, in connection with Finjan’s expert report, that Finjan’s asserted damages of
`$60–70 million simply was not credible in light of Juniper’s $1.8 million in actual revenue (see Dkt. No. 283 at 4). The
`Daubert order striking Finjan’s damages expert report had nothing to do with a per se capping of damages to Juniper’s
`revenue. To repeat, that order simply found that Finjan’s damages expert used an unreliable methodology. Moreover, Finjan
`was allowed to proceed with its damages case at trial, which it did, just without testimony from its damages expert. And,
`Juniper’s Rule 50 motion regarding damages was granted because Finjan failed to apportion its damages from accused and
`non-accused features (Dkt. No. 339 at 837:17–838:25).
`
`4
`
`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
`
`For the Northern District of California
`
`United States District Court
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 387 Filed 03/11/19 Page 5 of 5
`
`Motion for Certification for Interlocutory Appeal.
`C.
`Finjan next requests in the alternative for certification of the orders (1) denying
`Finjan’s motion for new trial on infringement, (2) granting Juniper’s Rule 50 motion of no
`damages, and (3) granting Juniper’s motion for summary judgment of nonfringement of Claim
`1 of the ’780 patent (Dkt. No. 353 at 21). It asserts that those orders “involve a controlling
`question of law,” including whether Dr. Rubin’s alleged use of his own claim construction can
`support a jury verdict, whether Finjan was entitled to a greater damages amount, and whether
`the Court properly construed Claim 1 of the ’780 patent (Dkt. No. 365 at 15). Finjan also
`argues that there is “substantial ground for difference of opinion,” such as other district courts’
`interpretation of Claim 1 of the ’780 patent, which do not require a Downloadable ID to be a
`“single hash value.” Therefore, according to Finjan, an “immediate appeal” can “materially
`advance the ultimate termination of the litigation” (ibid.). See 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b). As such,
`Finjan also requests a stay of the second showdown procedure currently underway.
`For the reasons stated at oral argument, and based on the parties’ joint letter dated
`March 8 (Dkt. No. 386), Finjan’s request for certification for interlocutory appeal is DENIED.
`2.
`JUNIPER’S RENEWED MOTION FOR JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW.
`Juniper moves for a motion for judgment as a matter of law on the issue of notice (Dkt.
`No. 352). Finjan argues that this post-trial motion is defective, as the jury found for Juniper on
`the issue of noninfringement and thus the issue of notice is moot (Dkt. No. 357 at 1–2).
`This order finds that Juniper’s motion on the notice issue is premature and thus defers
`ruling on this issue. Accordingly, the motion is HELD IN ABEYANCE.
`CONCLUSION
`For the foregoing reasons, Finjan’s motion is DENIED and Juniper’s motion is HELD IN
`ABEYANCE. We will continue on to the next round of claims for adjudication.
`
`IT IS SO ORDERED.
`
`Dated: March 11, 2019.
`
`
`WILLIAM ALSUP
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
`
`5
`
`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
`
`For the Northern District of California
`
`United States District Court
`
`