Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 393 Filed 03/14/19 Page 1 of 45
`
`
`
`PAUL 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,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`
`JUNIPER NETWORKS, INC., a Delaware
`Corporation,
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`Case No.: 3:17-cv-05659-WHA
`
`PLAINTIFF FINJAN, INC.’S OPPOSITION
`TO DEFENDANT JUNIPER NETWORKS,
`INC.’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY
`JUDGMENT
`
`Date:
`Time:
`Courtroom:
`Before:
`
`
`May 2, 2019
`8:00 a.m.
`Courtroom 12, 19th Floor
`Hon. William Alsup
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`REDACTED VERSION OF DOCUMENT SOUGHT TO BE SEALED
`
`FINJAN’S OPPOSITION TO JUNIPER’S
`MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`
`
`
`CASE NO. 3:17-cv-05659-WHA
`
`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 393 Filed 03/14/19 Page 2 of 45
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES TO BE DECIDED............................................................................... i(cid:3)
`
`I.(cid:3)
`
`II.(cid:3)
`
`INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................... 1(cid:3)
`
`BACKGROUND ......................................................................................................................... 2(cid:3)
`
`A.(cid:3)
`
`B.(cid:3)
`
`C.(cid:3)
`
`D.(cid:3)
`
`E.(cid:3)
`
`Overview of the ‘780 Patent and the Elements of Claim 9 ............................................... 2(cid:3)
`
`Claim 9 of the ‘780 Patent ................................................................................................ 2(cid:3)
`
`Claim Construction ........................................................................................................... 3(cid:3)
`
`1.(cid:3)
`
`2.(cid:3)
`
`“Performing a hashing function on the Downloadable and the fetched
`software components to generate a Downloadable ID” ........................................ 3(cid:3)
`
`“Fetching at least one software component identified by the one or more
`references” ............................................................................................................ 4(cid:3)
`
`Benefits of the ‘780 Patent ................................................................................................ 9(cid:3)
`
`Overview of Juniper’s Accused Products ....................................................................... 10(cid:3)
`
`1.(cid:3)
`
`2.(cid:3)
`
`Juniper’s Acquisition of the ATP Appliance and Finjan’s Notice to
`Cyphort ............................................................................................................... 10(cid:3)
`
`Functionality of the ATP Appliance ................................................................... 12(cid:3)
`
`III.(cid:3)
`
`JUNIPER’S MOTION FAILS BECAUSE ITS PRODUCTS INFRINGE CLAIM 9 .............. 13(cid:3)
`
`A.(cid:3)
`
`The ATP Appliance Infringes Claim 9 of the ‘780 Patent .............................................. 13(cid:3)
`
`1.(cid:3)
`
`2.(cid:3)
`
`3.(cid:3)
`
`Preamble – “A system for generating a Downloadable ID to identify a
`Downloadable, comprising:” .............................................................................. 14(cid:3)
`
`Element 9(a) – “a communications engine for obtaining a Downloadable
`that includes one or more references to software components required to
`be executed by the Downloadable” ..................................................................... 14(cid:3)
`
`Element 9(b) – “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” .............................................................................................. 16(cid:3)
`
`B.(cid:3)
`
`C.(cid:3)
`
`Juniper’s Non-Infringement Arguments ......................................................................... 17(cid:3)
`
`Doctrine of Equivalents .................................................................................................. 20(cid:3)
`
`FINJAN’S OPPOSITION TO JUNIPER’S
`MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`
`i
`
`CASE NO. 3:17-cv-05659-WHA
`
`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 393 Filed 03/14/19 Page 3 of 45
`
`IV.(cid:3)
`
`CLAIM 9 IS ELIGIBLE UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 101................................................................... 20(cid:3)
`
`A.(cid:3)
`
`Claim 1 Is Directed to a Non-Abstract Idea at Step 1 ..................................................... 21(cid:3)
`
`1.(cid:3)
`
`The ’780 Patent Is Directed To Improvements In Computer
`Functionality. ...................................................................................................... 21(cid:3)
`
`a)(cid:3)
`
`b)(cid:3)
`
`Claim 9 Is A Specific Departure From Prior Techniques. ...................... 24(cid:3)
`
`Juniper’s Arguments Mischaracterize the Invention of Claim 9. ........... 25(cid:3)
`
`B.(cid:3)
`
`C.(cid:3)
`
`Claim 1 Contains Inventive Concepts ............................................................................. 29(cid:3)
`
`Questions of Material Fact Preclude Juniper’s Section 101 Challenge of Claim 9 ........ 30(cid:3)
`
`V.(cid:3)
`
`FINJAN COMPLIED WITH 35 U.S.C. § 287 AND IS ENTITLED TO PRE-SUIT
`DAMAGES ................................................................................................................................ 31(cid:3)
`
`VI.(cid:3)
`
`CONCLUSION .......................................................................................................................... 36(cid:3)
`
`
`
`FINJAN’S OPPOSITION TO JUNIPER’S
`MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`
`ii
`
`CASE NO. 3:17-cv-05659-WHA
`
`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 393 Filed 03/14/19 Page 4 of 45
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`
`Page(s)
`
`Cases
`
`24/7 Customer, Inc. v. LivePerson, Inc.,
`No. 15-cv-02897-JST, 2017 WL 2311272 (N.D. Cal. May 25, 2017) .............................................25
`
`Aatrix Software, Inc. v. Green Shades Software, Inc.,
`882 F.3d 1121 (Fed. Cir. 2018).........................................................................................................31
`
`Accent Packaging, Inc. v. Leggett & Platt, Inc.,
`707 F.3d 1318 (Fed. Cir. 2013)...........................................................................................................7
`
`Accuscan, Inc. v. Xerox Corp.,
`No. 96 CIV. 2579(HB), 1998 WL 60991 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 11, 1998) ................................................35
`
`Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int'l,
`134 S.Ct. 2347 (2014) ...........................................................................................................20, 24, 25
`
`Ancora Techs., Inc. v. HTC Am., Inc.,
`908 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2018).......................................................................................20, 24, 27, 29
`
`Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.,
`477 U.S. 242 (1986) ..........................................................................................................................13
`
`Arctic Cat Inc. v. Bombardier Recreational Prod. Inc.,
`876 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2017).............................................................................................31, 34, 35
`
`Bascom Global Internet Servs., Inc. v. AT&T Mobility LLC,
`827 F.3d 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2016)...................................................................................................21, 30
`
`Berkheimer v. HP Inc.,
`881 F.3d 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2018).............................................................................................21, 30, 31
`
`Blitzsafe Texas, LLC v. Honda Motor Co.,
`No. 2:15-cv-1274-JRG-RSP, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 58358 (E.D. Tex. Jan. 26,
`2017) ...........................................................................................................................................35, 36
`
`Brocade Commc’ns Sys., Inc. v. A10 Networks, Inc.,
`873 F. Supp. 2d 1192 (N.D. Cal. 2012) ............................................................................................13
`
`Content Extraction & Transmission LLC v Wells Fargo Bank, Nat’l Ass’n,
`776 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2014).........................................................................................................26
`
`Core Wireless Licensing S.A.R.L. v. LG Elecs., Inc.,
`880 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2018).........................................................................................................20
`
`FINJAN’S OPPOSITION TO JUNIPER’S
`MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`
`i
`
`CASE NO. 3:17-cv-05659-WHA
`
`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 393 Filed 03/14/19 Page 5 of 45
`
`Crane Security Techs., Inc. v. Rolling Optics AB,
`No. 14-12428-LTS, 2018 WL 575697 (D.Mass. Jan. 26, 2018) ......................................................33
`
`Creo Prods., Inc. v. Presstek, Inc.,
`305 F.3d 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2002).........................................................................................................20
`
`DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P.,
`773 F.3d 1245 (Fed. Cir. 2014)...................................................................................................23, 28
`
`Eastman Kodak Co. v. GAF Corp.,
`No. 75 Civ. 925, 1977 WL 22726 (S.D.N.Y. 2000) .........................................................................33
`
`Elec. Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A.,
`830 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016).........................................................................................................26
`
`Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp.,
`822 F.3d 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2016).........................................................................................................23
`
`Exergen Corp. v. Kaz USA, Inc.,
`725 Fed. App’x 959 (Fed. Cir. 2018) ................................................................................................31
`
`Finjan Inc. v. Bitdefender, Inc.,
`No. 17-cv-04790-HSG, Dkt. No. 101 (N.D. Cal. February 14, 2019) ............................................4, 6
`
`Finjan, Inc. v. Blue Coat Sys., Inc.,
`879 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2018)................................................................................................. passim
`
`Finjan, Inc. v. Blue Coat Sys., Inc.,
`No. 13-cv-03999-BLF, 2015 WL 3630000 (N.D. Cal. June 2, 2015) ................................................4
`
`Finjan, Inc. v. Cisco, Inc.,
`No. 17-cv-00072-BLF, Dkt. No. 134 (N.D. Cal July 22, 2018) .........................................................6
`
`Finjan, Inc. v. Cisco Systems, Inc.,
`No. 17-cv-00072-BLF, 2018 WL 3537142 (N.D. Cal July 23, 2018) ................................................4
`
`Finjan, Inc. v. Proofpoint, Inc.,
`No. 13-cv-05808-HSG, 2015 WL 7770208 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 3, 2005) ...........................................4, 8
`
`Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Financial Corp.,
`850 F.3d 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2017).........................................................................................................26
`
`Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indemnity Co.,
`200 F. Supp. 3d 565 (W.D. Penn. 2016) .....................................................................................26, 27
`
`Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp.,
`100 F. Supp. 3d 371 (D. Del. 2015), reversed in part on other grounds by
`Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ............................27
`
`FINJAN’S OPPOSITION TO JUNIPER’S
`MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`
`ii
`
`CASE NO. 3:17-cv-05659-WHA
`
`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 393 Filed 03/14/19 Page 6 of 45
`
`Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp,
`838 F.3d 1307 (Fed. Cir. 2016)...................................................................................................28, 29
`
`KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc.,
`550 U.S. 398 (2007) ..........................................................................................................................28
`
`Landmark Tech. LLC v. Assurant, Inc.,
`No. 15-cv-76-RWS-SDL, 2015 WL 4388311 (E.D. Tex. July 14, 2015) ........................................27
`
`Maudlin v. Pac. Decision Scis. Corp.,
`137 Cal. App. 4th 1001 (2006) .........................................................................................................33
`
`Maxwell v. J. Baker, Inc.,
`86 F.3d 1098 (Fed. Cir. 1996)...........................................................................................................33
`
`McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc.,
`837 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2016).........................................................................................................23
`
`Moe v. Transamerica Title Ins. Co.,
`21 Cal. App. 3d 289 (1971) ..............................................................................................................33
`
`Novo Nordisk A/S v. Becton Dickinson & Co.,
`96 F. Supp. 2d 309 (S.D.N.Y. 2000), aff'd, 304 F.3d 1216 (Fed. Cir. 2002) ...................................33
`
`Palo Alto Networks, Inc. v. Finjan, Inc.,
`IPR2016-00165, Paper 7 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 21, 2016) ..................................................22, 23, 25, 30, 31
`
`Realtime Data, LLC v. Actian Corp.,
`No. 15-cv-463 RWS-JDL, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 56950 (E.D.Tex. April 4, 2017) .................35, 36
`
`RecogniCorp, LLC v. Nintendo Co.,
`855 F.3d 1322 (Fed. Cir. 2017)...................................................................................................28, 29
`
`SRI Int’l v. Matsushita Elec. Corp.,
`775 F.2d 1107 (Fed. Cir. 1985).........................................................................................................20
`
`Symantec Corp. v. Zscaler, Inc.,
`No. 17-cv-04426-JST, 2018 WL 1456678 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 23, 2018) .................................27, 29, 30
`
`Thales Visionix Inc. v. United States,
`850 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2017)...................................................................................................25, 28
`
`Trading Techs. Int'l, Inc. v. CQG, Inc.,
`675 F. App’x 1001 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ...............................................................................20, 21, 23, 28
`
`Tranxition, Inc. v. Lenovo (U.S.) Inc.,
`No. 12-cv-01065-HZ, 2015 WL 4203469 (D. Or. July 9, 2015) ......................................................27
`
`FINJAN’S OPPOSITION TO JUNIPER’S
`MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`
`iii
`
`CASE NO. 3:17-cv-05659-WHA
`
`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 393 Filed 03/14/19 Page 7 of 45
`
`Von Holdt v. A-1 Tool Corp.,
`714 F. Supp. 2d 863 (N.D. Cal. 2010) ..............................................................................................32
`
`Wine Ry. Appliance Co. v. Enter. Ry. Equip. Co.,
`297 U.S. 387 (1936) ..........................................................................................................................36
`
`Statutes
`
`35 U.S.C. § 101 ............................................................................................................................... passim
`
`35 U.S.C. § 287 ............................................................................................................................... passim
`
`35 U.S.C. § 287(a) ............................................................................................................................33, 36
`
`
`
`FINJAN’S OPPOSITION TO JUNIPER’S
`MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`
`iv
`
`CASE NO. 3:17-cv-05659-WHA
`
`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 393 Filed 03/14/19 Page 8 of 45
`
`STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES TO BE DECIDED
`
`1.
`
`Whether the Court should deny Juniper’s Motion for Summary Judgment (the
`
`“Motion”) because Juniper infringes Claim 9 of U.S. Patent No. 6,804,780 (the “‘780 Patent”), or at
`
`least there are issues of material fact that require Juniper’s Motion be denied.
`
`2.
`
`Whether the Court should deny Juniper’s Motion because Claim 9 of the ‘780 Patent is
`
`non-abstract and patent eligible.
`
`3.
`
`Whether the Court should deny Juniper’s Motion seeking to improperly limit damages
`
`for infringement, because Juniper’s argument under 35 U.S.C. § 287 is not a proper subject for this
`
`Motion, and in any event material facts exist that require Juniper’s Motion be denied.
`
`
`
`FINJAN’S OPPOSITION TO JUNIPER’S
`MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`
`i
`
`CASE NO. 3:17-cv-05659-WHA
`
`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 393 Filed 03/14/19 Page 9 of 45
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`Juniper’s ATP Appliance infringes Claim 9 of the ‘780 Patent because it includes a
`
`“communications engine” that obtains executable files with references to other software components,
`
`and also an “ID generator” that fetches those components so that the Downloadable and its components
`
`can be hashed together to generate a single ID that identifies both the Downloadable and its
`
`components.
`
`Juniper’s ATP Appliance, a product that was not at issue in the first showdown procedure
`
`pursuant to Court Order (Dkt. No. 85 at 4), infringes because it has “collectors” that operate as a
`
`“communications engine” to obtain Downloadables and software components referenced by the
`
`Downloadables. The ATP Appliance is
`
`
`
`, including information that contains executable code, i.e., a
`
`“Downloadable.” The ATP Appliance also has an “ID generator” because it fetches these
`
`Downloadables and their referenced software components from the collectors, and uses this
`
`information to generate a single hash value that operates to identify that Downloadable and its fetched
`
`components.
`
`Further, Claim 9 of the ‘780 Patent is patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Claim 9 is not
`
`abstract at Step 1 because it is directed to an improvement in computer function, and specifically an
`
`improvement in computer security, which the Federal Circuit consistently holds is patent eligible.
`
`Although this inquiry should end at Step 1, Claim 9 also contains an inventive concept at Step 2
`
`because at the time of the invention no one knew how to protect against these new types of files called
`
`Donwloadables or to perform hashing on the Downloadable and its fetched components. Prior
`
`identification techniques were signature-based. At the very least, material questions of fact exist as to
`
`whether the combination of Claim 9’s elements was well-understood, routine, and conventional at the
`
`time, therefore summary judgment must be denied.
`
`Finally, Juniper’s argument regarding notice under 35 U.S.C. § 287 is an improper argument for
`
`this special early summary judgment procedure, as it is raising a defense to damages, and not
`
`addressing the liability issues which this procedure was intended to cover. Furthermore, Finjan
`
`FINJAN’S OPPOSITION TO JUNIPER’S
`MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`
`1
`
`CASE NO. 3:17-cv-05659-WHA
`
`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 393 Filed 03/14/19 Page 10 of 45
`
`specifically identified the ‘780 Patent as infringing the ATP Appliance during a power point
`
`presentation with Cyphort, the predecessor company that developed and sold the ATP Appliance before
`
`Juniper acquired Cyphort. Over the next two years of licensing negotiations, Finjan held discussions
`
`with Cyphort on a license to Finjan’s patents, including the ‘780 Patent, for the ATP Appliance. Those
`
`negotiations ended abruptly when Juniper bought Cyphort in September 2017. Juniper incorporated
`
`and made, used, sold and offered for sale the ATP Appliance after this acquisition.
`
`II.
`
`BACKGROUND
`
`Overview of the ‘780 Patent and the Elements of Claim 9
`A.
`The ’780 Patent describes protecting computer systems against a brand new class of threats that
`
`were never thought to be harmful, specifically “Downloadables,” which are executable application
`
`programs that are downloaded from a remote server and run on a destination computer. Dkt. No. 371-
`
`5, ‘780 Patent, Col. 1, ll. 36-63 (“However, these [prior art] security systems are not configured to
`
`recognize computer viruses which have been attached to or configured as Downloadable application
`
`programs, commonly referred to as ‘Downloadables.’ A Downloadable is an executable application
`
`program which is downloaded from a source computer and run on the destination computer . . .
`
`Therefore, a system and method are needed to protect a network from hostile Downloadables.”). A
`
`Downloadable may identify various software components that are called during execution.
`
`Declaration of Michael Mitzenmacher in Support of Finjan’s Opposition to Juniper’s Motion for
`
`Summary Judgment (“Mitz. Decl.”) filed herewith, ¶ 11; ‘780 Patent, Abstract.
`
`Claim 9 of the ‘780 Patent
`B.
`The ‘780 Patent describes a system with a component for obtaining Downloadables and a
`
`component for generating an ID for a Downloadable with at least one referenced software component.
`
`Claim 9 of the ‘780 Patent, in particular, describes a system with two components: (1) a
`
`“communications engine” for obtaining a Downloadable and an (2) “ID generator” that fetches “at
`
`least one” software component identified by the references, and performs a hashing function on the
`
`Downloadable and the fetched software component to generate a Downloadable ID. ‘780 Patent,
`
`Claim 9. The ‘780 Patent describes the communication engine as an “external communications
`
`FINJAN’S OPPOSITION TO JUNIPER’S
`MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`
`2
`
`CASE NO. 3:17-cv-05659-WHA
`
`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 393 Filed 03/14/19 Page 11 of 45
`
`interface 210 coupled between the communications channel 125 and the signal bus 220 for receiving
`
`Downloadables from external computer network 105.” ‘780 Patent, Col. 3, ll. 36-40. Therefore, the
`
`communications engine is described as the component that downloads files like Java Applets or HTML
`
`code from the Internet. See id., Claims 10 and 13. Next, the ‘780 Patent describes the ID generator as
`
`a component for creating a Downloadable ID that can be used to identify the Downloadable to
`
`determine if the Downloadable is already known to the system, and therefore does not require
`
`additional analysis. In particular, the “[t]he ID generator 315 receives a Downloadable (including the
`
`URL from which it came and the userID of the intended recipient) from the external computer network
`
`105 via the external communications interface 210, and generates a Downloadable ID for identifying
`
`each Downloadable.” ‘780 Patent, Col. 4, ll. 50-54. The ID generator is described in the specification
`
`of the ‘780 Patent as the component that “preferably prefetches all components embodied in or
`
`identified by the code for Downloadable ID generation.” ‘780 Patent, Col. 4, ll. 56-58. Notably,
`
`Claim 9 of the ‘780 Patent does not require that all components of the Downloadable to be fetched, but
`
`only at least one component.
`
`C.
`
`Claim Construction
`
`1.
`
`“Performing a hashing function on the Downloadable and the fetched
`software components to generate a Downloadable ID”
`For the purposes of this Opposition, Finjan applies the Court’s construction of “performing a
`
`hashing function on the Downloadable and the fetched software components” as “performing a
`
`hashing function on the Downloadable together with its fetched software components to generate a
`
`single hash value that identifies the contents of both the Downloadable and the fetched components.”
`
`Dkt. No. 180 at 10. Although it applied the Court’s construction herein, Finjan maintains the same
`
`objections to this construction, as set forth previously. Dkt. No. 129 at *12-14. Finjan, thus, reserves
`
`all rights to appeal the Court’s construction on the same grounds based on the arguments raised
`
`previously in connection with Claim 1 of the ‘780 Patent. Further, Finjan reserves all rights to raise
`
`additional infringement positions Finjan disclosed for Claim 9 of the ’780 Patent, applying Finjan’s
`
`construction of this term. Finjan’s construction for this term is the same as previous constructions
`
`FINJAN’S OPPOSITION TO JUNIPER’S
`MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`
`3
`
`CASE NO. 3:17-cv-05659-WHA
`
`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 393 Filed 03/14/19 Page 12 of 45
`
`applied to this element. See Finjan Inc. v. Bitdefender, Inc., No. 17-cv-04790-HSG, Dkt. No. 101 at
`
`*14-16 (N.D. Cal. February 14, 2019)(“Bitdefender”)(declining to order that the Downloadable ID
`
`must consist of a single hash value)(citing and following the following claim construction orders:
`
`Finjan, Inc. v. Blue Coat Sys., Inc., No. 13-cv-03999-BLF, 2015 WL 3630000, at *6 (N.D. Cal. June 2,
`
`2015) and Finjan, Inc. v. Cisco Systems, Inc., No. 17-cv-00072-BLF, 2018 WL 3537142, at *13–14
`
`(N.D. Cal. July 23, 2018)). Thus, Juniper’s Sky ATP and ATP Appliance both infringe because they
`
`fetch software components that are
`
`
`
`. Dkt. No. 129 at *14-21.
`
`This understanding is consistent with the specification, which states that a “hash value” can be part of a
`
`Downloadable ID, but does not require that the entire Downloadable ID be single hash value. See, for
`
`example, ‘780 Patent, Col. 4, l. 50–Col. 5. l. 3; see also Bitdefender, Dkt. No. 101 at *14-16.
`
`2.
`
`“Fetching at least one software component identified by the one or more
`references”
`As Finjan previously set forth in its opposition to Juniper’s Motion for Summary Judgment on
`
`Claim 1 of the ‘780 Patent (Dkt. No. 129 at *9-11), the Court should find that this term has its plain
`
`and ordinary meaning because it is written in understandable language that does not require
`
`construction. “These are ordinary, simple English words whose meaning is clear and unquestionable
`
`. . . They mean exactly what they say.” Finjan, Inc. v. Proofpoint, Inc., No. 13-cv-05808-HSG, 2015
`
`WL 7770208, at *9 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 3, 2005)(“Proofpoint”)(citing Chef Am., Inc. v. Lamb-Weston,
`
`Inc., 358 F.3d 1371, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2004)). While Finjan does not believe that the term necessarily
`
`requires any construction, “retrieving” may provide the factfinder with additional clarity when
`
`applying the term.
`
`The plain and ordinary meaning of this term is what the claim term recites: that the ID
`
`generator will fetch (or retrieve) at least one software component identified by one or more references
`
`in the Downloadable. Mitz. Decl., ¶ 32. This process is set out in the claims to be performed by the
`
`ID generator, a separate component form the communications engine that originally obtained the
`
`Downloadable for processing, but Claim 9 does not otherwise limit what it means to for the ID
`
`FINJAN’S OPPOSITION TO JUNIPER’S
`MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`
`4
`
`CASE NO. 3:17-cv-05659-WHA
`
`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 393 Filed 03/14/19 Page 13 of 45
`
`Generator to “fetch” these software components so that they can be used as part of creating a
`
`Downloadable ID. This process performed by the ID generator is described with examples in the
`
`specification, where the ‘780 Patent states that “[t]he ID generator 315 preferably prefetches all
`
`components embodied in or identified by the code for the Downloadable ID generation.” ‘780 Patent,
`
`Col. 4, ll. 56-58. As shown, the ‘780 Patent specifically discloses fetching components that are
`
`“embodied” in the Downloadable, where the term “embodied” is consistently used throughout the
`specification of the ‘780 Patent to mean included in the code for the received Downloadable.1
`Similarly, the ‘780 Patent’s specification uses the term “embodied in” to describe certificates that are
`
`included with the received Downloadable and can be scanned to determine if the Downloadable was
`
`“signed” by a trusted authority. ‘780 Patent, Col. 2, ll. 22-24 (“(4) a comparison of a certificate
`
`embodied in the Downloadable against trusted certificates”). These certificates that are “embodied” in
`
`the Downloadable are included as part of the Downloadable and can be scanned. ‘780 Patent, Col. 6,
`
`ll. 39-43 (“In path 3, the certificate scanner 340 determines whether the received Downloadable was
`
`signed by a certificate authority, such as VeriSign, Inc., and scans for a certificate embodied in the
`
`Downloadable. The certificate scanner 340 forwards the found certificate to the certificate comparator
`
`345.” (Explaining that in 1996 VeriSign certificates are attached to files for signing); Mitz. Decl., ¶ 38.
`
`Juniper’s expert, Dr. Rubin, admitted that where the ‘780 Patent uses the term “embodied in” with
`
`reference to certificates, such as those signed by Verisign, Inc., it means that those certificates are
`
`transmitted with or inside the downloadable. Ex. 1, Rubin 3/9/19 Tr.at 60:8-20.
`
`Additionally, this understanding is consistent with examples provided in the specification of the
`
`‘780 Patent, where the ‘780 Patent describes a “Downloadable” as a “Java Applet.” ‘780 Patent, Col.
`
`1, ll. 55-56. As was known to those of skill in the art, Java Applets can be distributed as a JAR file (a
`
`“Java ARchive”), which include multiple referenced software components in a single JAR file. Mitz.
`
`Decl., ¶ 40; Dkt. 129-12, Java in a Nutshell at 100 (“all (or many) of the files an applet needs can be
`
`combined into a single JAR file, which a applet viewer or Web browser can download with a single
`
`
`1 The American Heritage Dictionary defines “embody” as “1. To give bodily form to. 2. to personify.
`3. to make part of a system or whole; incorporate.” Ex. 25 at 282.
`5
`
`CASE NO. 3:17-cv-05659-WHA
`
`FINJAN’S OPPOSITION TO JUNIPER’S
`MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`
`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 393 Filed 03/14/19 Page 14 of 45
`
`HTTP request.”). For this Java Applet, multiple classes are aggregated into a single file for
`
`distribution, and can be referenced as a single file. Mitz. Decl., ¶¶ 40-41, 54. This understanding
`
`makes sense and is consistent with Claim 1 because when a JAR (a file with a .jar extension) file is
`
`first used it is “extracted,” thereby causing multiple class files to be exposed from a single file so that
`
`they can be retrieved to build the Java Applet. Mitz. Decl., ¶¶ 41, 60; Dkt. 129-12, Java in a Nutshell
`
`at 99-100. In fact, this is the same understanding of the patent as ascribed by the inventor, Shlomo
`
`Touboul, who was asked about what it meant for a Java applet to “reference” other Java classes, and
`
`Mr. Touboul responded that in the context of the ‘780 Patent, the “[Java Applet] can include class –
`
`other classes inside. It can be in a .jar file, if you know what’s a .jar. file.” Ex. 2, Touboul 7/23/18
`
`Eset Tr. at 156:2-16. As such, the specification supports that “fetching at least one software
`
`component identified by the one or more references” includes the fetching of a software component
`
`that is identified by a reference internal (i.e. embodied in) the Downloadable.
`
`Similarly, the ‘780 Patent identifies Downloadables as including HTML, which references
`
`scripts (like JavaScript and VBScript) as internal or separate software components using the same
`
`“<SCRIPT>” tags and are identified in the same way. ‘780 Patent, Claim 5 (Downloadable includes
`
`HTML); Dkt. 129-11, JavaScript for Dummies at 14-15 (“You can use <SCRIPT> and </SCRIPT>
`
`tags to include JavaScript code directly into an HTML file … [or] to include a separate exter