`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
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
