`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`FINJAN, INC.,
`Plaintiff,
`
` v.
`JUNIPER NETWORKS, INC.,
`Defendant.
` /
`
`No. C 17-05659 WHA
`
`REQUEST FOR BRIEFING
`RE SECTION 101 ISSUE
`
`The Court has reviewed defendant Juniper Networks, Inc.’s letter requesting
`clarification of issues (Dkt. No. 528). Regarding the Section 101 invalidity issue with respect
`to Claim 10 of the United States Patent No. 8,677,494 (“the ’494 patent”), both sides shall file
`a brief, not to exceed EIGHT PAGES, based on the trial record in our case under Rule 52 by
`JUNE 28 AT NOON. A response not exceeding FOUR PAGES may be filed by JULY 1 AT NOON.
`There will be no footnotes, declarations, or attachments to any of the aforementioned briefs.
`The parties shall please address Judge William Orrick’s Section 101 analysis in Finjan,
`Inc. v. Sophos, Inc., 244 F. Supp. 3d 1016 (N.D. Cal. 2017), and explain why the Court should
`not follow it with respect to Claim 10 of the ’494 patent. In doing so, please explain the origin
`and applicability of the standard with respect to viewing the patent in the light most favorable
`to plaintiff Finjan, Inc. in connection with a Rule 52 motion. See id. at 1060.
`IT IS SO ORDERED.
`
`Dated: June 19, 2019.
`
`
`WILLIAM ALSUP
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
`
`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
`
`For the Northern District of California
`
`United States District Court
`
`