`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 410-7 Filed 03/28/19 Page 1 of 3
`
`EXHIBIT G
`EXHIBIT G
`
`
`
`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 410-7 Filed 03/28/19 Page 2 of 3
`
`
`
`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
`
`EXPERT REBUTTAL REPORT
`OF DR. ALESSANDRO ORSO
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`ORSO REBUTTAL EXPERT REPORT
`
`CASE NO. 3:17-cv-05659-WHA
`
`
`
`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 410-7 Filed 03/28/19 Page 3 of 3
`
`
`
`v. Finjan, Inc. IPR2016-00159; Blue Coat Systems LLC v. Finjan, Inc. IPR2016-01443; Cisco Systems,
`
`Inc. v. Finjan, Inc. IPR2017-02155.
`A. Exhibit 3 – Swimmer
`79.
`As an initial matter, I note that Exhibit 3 is cited on the face of the ‘494 Patent as
`
`having been considered by the patent examiner before granting the ‘494 Patent. This demonstrates that
`
`Exhibit 3 does not disclose the invention of Claim 10, let alone show that the combination of Claim
`
`10’s elements was well-understood, routine, or conventional at the time. The PTAB has also upheld the
`
`invention of Claim 10 over Swimmer at least four times, which further demonstrates that Claim 10 had
`
`an inventive concept over Swimmer and was not well-understood, routine, or conventional at the time
`
`of invention. See, e.g., Symantec Corp. v. Finjan, Inc. IPR2015-01892; Palo Alto Networks, Inc. v.
`
`Finjan, Inc. IPR2016-00159; Blue Coat Systems LLC v. Finjan, Inc. IPR2016-01443.Furthermore,
`
`Swimmer describes an experimental system that Dr. Rubin does not establish was well-known, routine,
`
`or conventional at the priority date of Claim 10 of the ‘494 Patent. In fact, the implementation of the
`
`system presented in Swimmer is admittedly experimental and speculative: “experience gained by the
`
`use of such a system will not benefit DOS users, but should be applicable to users of various emerging
`
`32-bit operating systems which offer DOS support”. Swimmer, Page 8 (emphasis added).
`80.
`
`Claim 10 of the ‘494 Patent is distinct from Swimmer, at least because Swimmer
`
`covers logging everything (i.e., logging every DOS service) with no clear differentiation between types
`
`of DOS services (suspicious or not). This is clearly distinguished based on the Court’s construction of
`
`“a list of suspicious computer operation” as “a list of computer operations in a received Downloadable
`
`that are deemed hostile or potentially hostile.” Dkt. No. 189 at 5. Dr. Rubin does not provide any
`
`analysis under this construction, instead relying on a statement from the USPTO that also does not
`
`explain how Swimmer could possible disclose “a list of suspicious computer operations” under the
`
`Court’s construction. There are numerous other deficiencies in Swimmer that were briefed at length
`
`during the IPR. As stated by Finjan during these IPRs, Swimmer is not applicable to these claims and
`
`describes a system where the elements are different.
`81.
`
`Furthermore, Swimmer does not indicate that the elements of the ‘494 Patent, or
`
`their ordered combination, were well-understood, routine, or conventional at the time of the invention.
`
`ORSO REBUTTAL EXPERT REPORT
`
`28
`
`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
`
`