`
`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 391-1 Filed 03/14/19 Page 1 of 2
`
`IRELL & MANELLA LLP
`Jonathan S. Kagan (SBN 166039)
`jkagan@irell.com
`Alan Heinrich (SBN 212782)
`aheinrich@irell.com
`Joshua P. Glucoft (SBN 301249)
`jglucoft@irell.com
`1800 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 900
`Los Angeles, California 90067-4276
`Telephone: (310) 277-1010
`Facsimile: (310) 203-7199
`
`Rebecca L. Carson (SBN 254105)
`rcarson@irell.com
`Ingrid Petersen (SBN 313927)
`ipetersen@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.,
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`vs.
`
`
`
`
`JUNIPER NETWORKS, INC.,
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. 3:17-cv-05659-WHA
`
`[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING
`JUNIPER NETWORKS, INC’S MOTION
`TO STRIKE NEW THEORIES FROM
`PLAINTIFF FINJAN, INC.’S MOTION
`FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`
`
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`
`10654504
`
`
`
`- 1 -
`
`[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING
`JUNIPER’S MOTION TO STRIKE
`
`
`
`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 391-1 Filed 03/14/19 Page 2 of 2
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`The Court, having carefully considered Defendant Juniper Networks, Inc.’s (“Juniper”)
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`Motion for To Strike New Theories From Plaintiff Finjan, Inc.’s Motion For Summary Judgment
`
`(the “Motion”) regarding claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 8,141,154, the related opposition and reply
`
`briefing, and the arguments of counsel, with good cause appearing, hereby orders that Juniper’s
`
`Motion is GRANTED. The following theories are struck from Finjan’s motion for summary
`
`judgment (Dkt. No. 369) and corresponding expert declaration (Dkt. No. 369-1):
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`Theories in which “http://” is the claimed “first function”;
`
`Theories in which the ATP Appliance’s SmartCore is the claimed “content
`
`processor” or in which the ATP Appliance’s chain heuristics engine is the claimed “security
`
`10
`
`computer”;
`
`11
`
`12
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`Theories in which Sky ATP’s “verdict engine” is the claimed “security computer”;
`
`Theories in which “whitelisting” or starting/stopping file analysis is the claimed
`
`13
`
`“second function” with respect to Sky ATP;
`
`14
`
`5.
`
`Theories in which marking an object as “clean” or moving an object to “END” state
`
`15
`
`is the claimed “second function” with respect to ATP Appliance; and
`
`16
`
`6.
`
`Finjan’s doctrine of equivalents theory.
`
`17
`
`IT IS SO ORDERED.
`
`18
`
`
`
`Dated: ______________________
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`____________________________________
`Hon. William Alsup
`United States District Court Judge
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`- 2 -
`
`[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING
`JUNIPER’S MOTION TO STRIKE
`
`