Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 474 Filed 05/14/19 Page 1 of 17
`
`
`PAUL J. 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 CORRECTED
`RESPONSE TO ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
`
`
`REDACTED VERSION OF DOCUMENT
`SOUGHT TO BE SEALED
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`PLAINTIFF FINJAN’S RESPONSE TO
`ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
`
`CASE NO. 3:17-cv-05659-WHA
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 474 Filed 05/14/19 Page 2 of 17
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`II.
`
`Page
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................1
`ARGUMENT ................................................................................................................................1
`
`A.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`B.
`
`Juniper Sandbagged Finjan by Adding “Modified Content” to its Construction of
`“Content Processor” ....................................................................................................... 11
`CONCLUSION ...........................................................................................................................14
`
`
`III.
`
`i
`PLAINTIFF FINJAN’S RESPONSE TO
`ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
`
`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 474 Filed 05/14/19 Page 3 of 17
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`
`Page(s)
`
`Federal Cases
`
`Graver Tank & Manufacturing Co. v. Linde Air Products Co.,
`339 U.S. 605 (1950) ........................................................................................................................... 9
`
`Other Authorities
`
`P.L.R. 3-6 ............................................................................................................................................... 11
`
`
`
`ii
`PLAINTIFF FINJAN’S RESPONSE TO
`ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
`
`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 474 Filed 05/14/19 Page 4 of 17
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`Finjan, Inc. (“Finjan”) has cause to present a case regarding Juniper Networks, Inc.’s
`(“Juniper”) infringement of Claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 8,141,154 (the “’154 Patent”) because: (1)
`Juniper’s accused products infringe under the Court’s new construction of “content processor”; and (2)
`a granting of summary judgment for nonmovant Juniper is procedurally improper because Juniper
`sandbagged Finjan by springing a new construction of “content processor” after Finjan had already
`submitted its summary judgment briefing and expert declaration. As such, Finjan has cause to present
`Claim 1 of the ‘154 Patent at trial because triable issues of fact remain.
`
`II.
`
`ARGUMENT
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`PLAINTIFF FINJAN’S RESPONSE TO
`ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
`
`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 474 Filed 05/14/19 Page 5 of 17
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`PLAINTIFF FINJAN’S RESPONSE TO
`ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
`
`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 474 Filed 05/14/19 Page 6 of 17
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`nd
`
`
`
`
`1 All exhibits are to the Declaration of Kristopher Kastens filed herewith.
`
`3
`PLAINTIFF FINJAN’S RESPONSE TO
`ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
`
`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 474 Filed 05/14/19 Page 7 of 17
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`PLAINTIFF FINJAN’S RESPONSE TO
`ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
`
`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 474 Filed 05/14/19 Page 8 of 17
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`5
`PLAINTIFF FINJAN’S RESPONSE TO
`ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
`
`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 474 Filed 05/14/19 Page 9 of 17
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`6
`PLAINTIFF FINJAN’S RESPONSE TO
`ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
`
`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 474 Filed 05/14/19 Page 10 of 17
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`7
`PLAINTIFF FINJAN’S RESPONSE TO
`ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
`
`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 474 Filed 05/14/19 Page 11 of 17
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`.
`
`
`
`
`
`8
`PLAINTIFF FINJAN’S RESPONSE TO
`ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
`
`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 474 Filed 05/14/19 Page 12 of 17
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`9
`PLAINTIFF FINJAN’S RESPONSE TO
`ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
`
`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 474 Filed 05/14/19 Page 13 of 17
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`10
`PLAINTIFF FINJAN’S RESPONSE TO
`ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
`
`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 474 Filed 05/14/19 Page 14 of 17
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`.
`
`B.
`
`Juniper Sandbagged Finjan by Adding “Modified Content” to its Construction of
`“Content Processor”
`In addition to the fact that Juniper infringes Claim 1 of the ‘154 Patent under the Court’s
`Construction of “content processor,” Finjan also has cause because it would be procedurally unfair to
`exclude Finjan from presenting a full infringement case for Claim 1 of the ‘154 Patent when Juniper
`did not raise the claim construction argument of “modified content” for a “content processor” until
`after Finjan had already filed its Motion for Summary Judgment and submitted its expert declaration
`on infringement. Before this, Juniper had raised a range of proposed constructions for “content
`processor,” including that a content processor was just a processor at a “client” and arguing in its Inter
`Partes Review (“IPR”) petition that a content processor was a “web browser or Java virtual machine.”
`As such, the equities weigh in favor of allowing Finjan the opportunity to prepare and present a full
`expert report under the Court’s construction of “content processor.”
`Juniper continually hid the construction of “content processor” that it intended to use during
`summary judgment and waited to spring its construction that the content processor processes modified
`content until after Finjan had already submitted it open Motion for Summary Judgment and supporting
`expert declaration. First, despite being required to present its final proposed construction of “content
`processor” in the Joint Claim Construction Statement filed on June 22, 2018, Juniper did not raise that
`the content processor must process “modified content.” Instead, Juniper presented the following as its
`final proposed construction for “content processor”:
`
`
`
`11
`PLAINTIFF FINJAN’S RESPONSE TO
`ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
`
`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 474 Filed 05/14/19 Page 15 of 17
`
`
`Claim Term
`
`Juniper’s June 22, 2018 Proposed
`Construction
`A processor on a client computer for processing
`A content processor (i) for processing content
`content received over a network, the content
`received over a network, the content including a
`including a call to a first function, and the call
`call to a first function, and the call including an
`including an input, and for invoking a second
`input, and (ii) for invoking a second function
`function with the input, only if a security
`with the input, only if a security computer
`computer indicates that such invocation is safe
`indicates that such invocation is safe
`Dkt. No. 115 at 4. As shown, Juniper’s initial proposed construction did not mention, nor suggested,
`that the content processor was required to process modified content.
`Then, on August 20, 2018, after receiving Finjan’s opening claim construction brief, Juniper
`drastically changed its proposed construction for “content processor” in the brief it filed in response.
`This time, Juniper offered new and different construction for “content processor,” but one that still did
`not required it to process modified content:
`
`
`Claim Term
`
`Juniper’s August 20, 2018 Proposed
`Construction
`A processor on a client computer
`
`A content processor …
`Dkt. No. 182 at 20.
`Shockingly, on October 3, 2018, Juniper presented yet another proposed construction for this
`term in its IPR Petition for the ‘154 Patent, a construction that was entirely different from what Juniper
`had presented in the litigation. In its IPR Petition, Juniper argued the following proposed construction
`for the term:
`
`
`Claim Term
`
`Juniper’s October 3, 2018 Proposed
`Construction
`web browser or Java virtual machine
`content processor
`IPR2019-00031, Petition for IPR at 14-15. In the IPR Petition, Juniper argued that a “content
`processor” could be a standard “web browser or Java virtual machine.” Id. Furthermore, the PTAB
`determined that Juniper’s Petitions on Claim 1 of the ‘154 Patent was so weak that it did not even
`institute a trial and did not rely on the content processor processing “modified content” in its decision.
`IPR2019-00031, Decision Denying Institution at 35 (“We determine that [Juniper] has not established
`
`12
`PLAINTIFF FINJAN’S RESPONSE TO
`ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
`
`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 474 Filed 05/14/19 Page 16 of 17
`
`
`a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its assertion that claim 1 of the ‘154 patent is unpatentable
`based on the asserted ground …”).
`In its opening Motion for Summary Judgment and expert declaration for Claim 1 of the ‘154
`Patent filed on February 14, 2019, Finjan’s expert did not opine on a theory where the content
`processor processes “modified content,” given that neither party had ever proposed this as a
`construction. Furthermore, Finjan had no reason to guess Juniper change its construction, as Juniper’s
`consistent position throughout the case did not require this. Dkt. No. 368-6 at Pars. 59-60 (Finjan’s
`expert discussing Juniper’s proposed construction of “a processor on a client computer” and how
`Juniper still infringed under this construction).
`Instead, Juniper waited until its Opposition to Finjan’s Motion for Summary Judgment on
`March 14, 2019, to raise this new construction. Dkt. No. 390 at 6. Therefore, and despite its previous
`positions on the meaning of “content processor,” Juniper drastically modified it proposed construction
`during summary judgment briefing to reference “modified content” for the first time:
`
`
`Claim Term
`Content Processor
`
`Juniper’s Propose Construction
`Plain and ordinary meaning, which is a
`processor on a client/user computer that
`processes modified content
`Dkt. No. 390 at 6. However, when Juniper’s Opposition was filed, Finjan had already submitted its
`expert declaration supporting its infringement case based on Finjan’s proposed construction and the
`construction that Juniper had presented throughout claim construction.
`As such, Finjan did not have the opportunity to fully address this proposed construction
`through its briefing or through an expert declaration. Given Juniper’s shifting claim construction
`position on this term, Finjan has cause to present a full infringement case for Claim 1 of the ‘154
`Patent, as it would be procedurally unfair to Finjan to grant a motion to summary judgment of non-
`infringement for a non-moving party based on a claim construction position that the party did not raise
`until its Opposition. Such a bait and switch on Juniper’s part was highly prejudicial to Finjan. Indeed,
`because Juniper did not cross-move on noninfringement, Finjan had only 15-pages of briefing and 20-
`pages of exhibits to respond to all of Juniper’s noninfringement arguments, including Juniper’s
`13
`PLAINTIFF FINJAN’S RESPONSE TO
`ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
`
`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 474 Filed 05/14/19 Page 17 of 17
`
`
`entirely new claim construction and non-infringement positions, which Juniper should have raised
`during claim construction so that Finjan could have addressed it in its Open Motion for Summary
`Judgment.
`
`III. CONCLUSION
`Therefore, and for the reasons discussed above, Finjan has shown cause that summary
`judgment of noninfringement cannot be shown for nonmovant Juniper.
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`Dated: May 13, 2019
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`By: /s/ Kristopher Kastens
`
`Paul J. Andre (SBN 196585)
`Lisa Kobialka (SBN 191404)
`James Hannah (SBN 237978)
`Kristopher Kastens (SBN 254797)
`KRAMER LEVIN NAFTALIS
` & FRANKEL LLP
`990 Marsh Road
`Menlo Park, CA 94025
`Telephone: (650) 752-1700
`Facsimile: (650) 752-1800
`pandre@kramerlevin.com
`lkobialka@kramerlevin.com
`jhannah@kramerlevin.com
`kkastens@kramerlevin.com
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff
`FINJAN, INC.
`
`
`
`14
`PLAINTIFF FINJAN’S RESPONSE TO
`ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
`
`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
`
`