`
`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
`IRELL & MANELLA LLP
`A Registered Limited Liability
`Law Partnership Including
`Professional Corporations
`
`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 634 Filed 11/30/20 Page 1 of 31
`
`IRELL & MANELLA LLP
`Jonathan S. Kagan (SBN 166039)
`jkagan@irell.com
`1800 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 900
`Los Angeles, California 90067-4276
`Telephone: (310) 277-1010
`Facsimile: (310) 203-7199
`
`Rebecca Carson (SBN 254105)
`rcarson@irell.com
`Ingrid M. H. Petersen (SBN 313927)
`ipetersen@irell.com
`840 Newport Center Drive, Suite 400
`Newport Beach, California 92660-6324
`Telephone: (949) 760-0991
`Facsimile: (949) 760-5200
`
`Attorneys for Defendant
`JUNIPER NETWORKS, INC.
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
`FINJAN, INC., a Delaware Corporation,
`)
`Case No. 3:17-cv-05659-WHA
`
`)
`
`JUNIPER NETWORKS, INC.’S MOTION
`Plaintiff,
`)
`FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES PURSUANT
`
`)
`TO 35 U.S.C. § 285
`vs.
`
`)
`
`
`)
`JUNIPER NETWORKS, INC., a Delaware
`)
`Hearing Date: January 7, 2021
`Corporation,
`)
`Hearing Time: 8:00 a.m.
`
`)
`Judge: Hon. William Alsup
`)
`Courtroom: 12
`)
`
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`10891473
`
`
`
`
`JUNIPER’S MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES
`Case No. 3:17-cv-05659-WHA
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 634 Filed 11/30/20 Page 2 of 31
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`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
`IRELL & MANELLA LLP
`A Registered Limited Liability
`Law Partnership Including
`Professional Corporations
`
`
`
`I.
`II.
`
`III.
`IV.
`
`V.
`
`10891473
`
`
`Page
`INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................... 1
`FACTUAL & PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND ............................................................. 3
`A.
`Round One Of The “Patent Showdown” ................................................................. 3
`B.
`Finjan’s Damages Theory As To The ’494 Patent .................................................. 4
`C.
`December 2018 Trial On The ’494 Patent .............................................................. 4
`D.
`Juniper’s Motion For Sanctions .............................................................................. 5
`E.
`The Second Round Of The “Patent Showdown” .................................................... 5
`F.
`Post-Showdown Proceedings .................................................................................. 6
`G.
`Federal Circuit Appeal Resulting In Summary Affirmance .................................... 7
`LEGAL STANDARD ......................................................................................................... 7
`ARGUMENT ...................................................................................................................... 7
`A.
`Juniper Is The Prevailing Party ............................................................................... 7
`B.
`This Case Is Exceptional ......................................................................................... 8
`Finjan’s Shifting Sands Approach To Damages And Its
`1.
`Pursuit Of A “Woefully Inadequate” Damages Case At Trial
`Was Exceptional .......................................................................................... 9
`Finjan’s Self-Selected “Strongest” Claim Was Based On A
`“Smoke and Mirrors” Infringement Theory .............................................. 12
`Finjan’s Motion For Summary Judgment On Its “Second-
`Best” Claim Was So Baseless It Ended In A Dispositive
`Ruling For Juniper. .................................................................................... 14
`Finjan Lacked A Good Faith Argument That It Complied
`With The Notice Requirements Of § 287 For The ’780
`Patent. ........................................................................................................ 17
`Finjan Repeatedly Forced Juniper To Waste Time And
`Money On Claims Finjan Did Not Intend To Pursue. ............................... 21
`Finjan Further Prolonged This Case By Appealing Five
`Different Issues, And The Federal Circuit Summarily
`Rejected Finjan’s Arguments .................................................................... 22
`Juniper Should Be Awarded $8,656,971 In Reasonable Attorneys’
`Fees ........................................................................................................................ 23
`CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................. 25
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`C.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`- i -
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 634 Filed 11/30/20 Page 3 of 31
`
`
`
`Cases
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`
`
`
`Page(s)
`
`3form, Inc. v. Lumicor, Inc.,
`No. 2:12-cv-293, 2018 WL 4688348 (D. Utah Sep. 28, 2018) ..................................................16
`
`Arctic Cat, Inc. v. Bombardier Recreational Prods. Inc.,
`876 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ......................................................................................21, 22, 23
`
`Auto. Techs. Int’l, Inc. v. Siemens VDO Auto. Corp.,
`744 F. Supp. 2d 646 (E.D. Mich. 2010) .....................................................................................26
`
`Banas v. Volcano Corp.,
`47 F. Supp. 3d 957 (N.D. Cal. 2014) .........................................................................................28
`
`Big Baboon, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc.,
`No. 17-cv-02082-HSG, 2019 WL 5088784 (N.D. Cal. Sep. 9, 2019) .......................................29
`
`Elec. Commcn’s Techs., LLC v. ShoppersChoice.com, LLC,
`963 F.3d 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2020) ..................................................................................................11
`
`Finjan, Inc. v. Blue Coat Sys., Inc.,
`879 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2018) ..................................................................................................14
`
`Funai Elec. Co. v. Daewoo Elecs. Corp.,
`616 F.3d 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2010) ..................................................................................................23
`
`Gilead Sciences, Inc. v. Merck & Co., Inc.,
`No. 13-cv-04057-BLF, 2017 WL 3007071 (N.D. Cal. July 14, 2017) ......................................29
`
`In re High-Tech Emp. Antitrust Litig.,
`No. 11-cv-02509-LHK, 2015 WL 5158730 (N.D. Cal. Sep. 2, 2015) .......................................29
`
`Inventor Holdings, LLC v. Bed Bath & Beyond, Inc.,
`876 F.3d 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ..................................................................................................27
`
`Ketab Corp. v. Mesriani & Assoc.,
`P.C., 734 F. App’x 401 (9th Cir. 2018) ......................................................................................18
`
`Kilopass Tech., Inc. v. Sidense Corp.,
`82 F. Supp. 3d 1154 (N.D. Cal. 2015) .......................................................................................28
`
`Lans v. Digital Equip. Corp.,
`252 F.3d 1320 (Fed. Cir. 2001) ..................................................................................................21
`
`Linex Techs., Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co.,
`No. C 13-159 CW, 2014 WL 4616847 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 15, 2014) ...........................................20
`
`10891473
`
`
`- ii -
`
`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
`IRELL & MANELLA LLP
`A Registered Limited Liability
`Law Partnership Including
`Professional Corporations
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 634 Filed 11/30/20 Page 4 of 31
`
`Logic Devices, Inc. v. Apple Inc.,
`Page
`No. C 13-02943 WHA, 2014 WL 6844821 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 4, 2014) .......................................25
`
`Nilssen v. Osram Sylvania, Inc.,
`528 F.3d 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ..................................................................................................12
`
`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) ............................24
`
`Palo Alto Networks, Inc. v. Finjan, Inc.,
`752 F. App’x 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2018) ...........................................................................................20
`
`In re PersonalWeb Technologies, LLC, Patent Litig.,
`No. 18-md-2834, 2020 WL 5910080 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 9, 2020) ......................................... passim
`
`Phigenix, Inc. v. Genentech, Inc.,
`No. 15-cv-1238, 2018 WL 3845998 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 13, 2018) .........................................12, 15
`
`Phonometrics, Inc. v. Westin Hotel Co.,
`350 F.3d 1242 (Fed. Cir. 2003) ..................................................................................................20
`
`Princeton Digital Image Corp. v. Office Depot Inc.,
`No. C 13-239, 2016 WL 1533697 (D. Del. Mar. 31, 2016) .......................................................22
`
`Raniere v. Microsoft Corp.,
`887 F.3d 1298 (Fed. Cir. 2018) ..................................................................................................12
`
`Raniere v. Microsoft Corp.,
`No. 3:15-cv-0540, 2016 WL 4626584 (N.D. Tex. Sep. 2, 2016) ...............................................22
`
`SRI Int’l, Inc. v. Cisco Sys., Inc.,
`No. 13-1534, 2020 WL 1285915 (D. Del. Mar. 18, 2020) ........................................................28
`
`Straight Path IP Grp., Inc. v. Cisco Sys., Inc.,
`411 F. Supp. 3d 1026 (N.D. Cal. 2019) ...................................................................15, 18, 25, 28
`
`Straight Path IP Grp., Inc. v. Cisco Sys., Inc.,
`No. C 16-03463 WHA, 2020 WL 5522993 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 4, 2020) .................................20, 27
`
`Takeda Chem. Indus., Ltd. v. Mylan Labs., Inc.,
`549 F.3d 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ..................................................................................................29
`
`Taurus IP, LLC v. DaimlerChrysler Corp.,
`726 F.3d 1306 (Fed. Cir. 2013) ............................................................................................16, 21
`
`Technology for Energy Corp. v. Hardy,
`No. 3:16-cv-91, 2018 WL 8460252 (E.D. Tenn. Feb. 15, 2018) ...............................................26
`
`Therasense, Inc. v. Becton, Dickinson & Co.,
`745 F.3d 513 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ..............................................................................................27, 28
`
`10891473
`
`
`- iii -
`
`
`
`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
`IRELL & MANELLA LLP
`A Registered Limited Liability
`Law Partnership Including
`Professional Corporations
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 634 Filed 11/30/20 Page 5 of 31
`
`Therasense, Inc. v. Becton, Dickinson & Co.,
`Page
`No. C 04-02123 WHA, 2012 WL 1877895 (N.D. Cal. May 22, 2012) .....................................29
`
`Wynn v. Chanos,
`No. 14–cv–04329–WHO, 2015 WL 3832561 (N.D. Cal. Jun. 19, 2015) ..................................29
`
`Statutes
`
`35 U.S.C. § 285 ................................................................................................................5, 11, 18, 27
`
`35 U.S.C. § 287 ........................................................................................................................ passim
`
`Other Authorities
`
`Fed. Cir. R. 36 ..............................................................................................................................6, 11
`
`10891473
`
`
`- iv -
`
`
`
`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
`IRELL & MANELLA LLP
`A Registered Limited Liability
`Law Partnership Including
`Professional Corporations
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 634 Filed 11/30/20 Page 6 of 31
`
`
`
`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
`IRELL & MANELLA LLP
`A Registered Limited Liability
`Law Partnership Including
`Professional Corporations
`
`NOTICE OF MOTION
`TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD:
`PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on January 7, 2021, at 8:00 a.m., or as soon thereafter as the
`matter may be heard, in Courtroom 12, 19th Floor, of the San Francisco Courthouse, 450 Golden
`Gate Avenue, San Francisco, California 94102, before the Honorable William Alsup, Defendant
`Juniper Networks, Inc. (“Juniper”) will and hereby does move for an order pursuant to 35 U.S.C.
`§ 285 awarding Juniper its reasonable attorneys’ fees in the amount of $8,656,971. This motion is
`made pursuant to the Court’s order holding in abeyance the deadline to file a motion for attorneys’
`fees pending resolution of Plaintiff Finjan, Inc.’s appeal, Dkt. 606, and is based on: this Notice of
`Motion; the memorandum of points and authorities below; the Declaration of Jonathan S. Kagan
`and exhibits attached thereto; all documents in the Court’s file; and such other written or oral
`argument as may be presented at or before the time this motion is heard by the Court.
`STATEMENT OF RELIEF REQUESTED
`Juniper seeks an order pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 285 declaring this case exceptional and
`awarding Juniper its reasonable attorneys’ fees in the amount of $8,656,971.
`MEMORANDUM OF POINTS & AUTHORITIES
`INTRODUCTION
`In 2015, plaintiff Finjan invited Juniper to examine Finjan’s patent portfolio so Juniper could
`decide whether it would be interested in licensing any technology from Finjan. After reviewing
`several Finjan patents, Juniper respectfully declined, explaining that it used its own independent
`technology that did not derive from Finjan’s alleged inventions. That is when Finjan’s “invitation”
`morphed into a demand and then a threat—a threat that it would file a multi-headed hydra of lawsuit,
`in which Juniper’s best-case scenario would be to spend millions upon millions of dollars defeating
`each of Finjan’s meritless claims. True to its word, Finjan filed this lawsuit in 2017.
`This Court’s “Patent Showdown” procedure was intended to give the parties a relatively
`efficient way to determine the value of this case. By allowing each party to quickly litigate its best
`claims, the Court provided the parties an objective way to determine if their subjective opinions
`about the strength of this case were correct. Of course, this procedure can work only if the parties
`
`I.
`
`10891473
`
`
`- 1 -
`
`JUNIPER’S MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES
`Case No. 3:17-cv-05659-WHA
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 634 Filed 11/30/20 Page 7 of 31
`
`
`
`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
`IRELL & MANELLA LLP
`A Registered Limited Liability
`Law Partnership Including
`Professional Corporations
`
`are willing to reasonably reevaluate their claims based on the results of the showdown—something
`Finjan consistently failed to do.
`At the outset, the Court also warned Finjan that it could be liable for attorneys’ fees for
`“bringing a frivolous claim.” Dkt. 44 at 5:1-7, 8:17-24. This is a warning Finjan did not heed. Of
`the nine patents Finjan accused Juniper of infringing, only one, U.S. Patent No. 8,677,494 (“the ’494
`Patent”) was even capable of surviving to trial—the other eight patents were either defeated on
`summary judgment or voluntarily dismissed with prejudice (after Juniper incurred massive legal
`fees). Even Finjan’s mighty ’494 Patent claims were not so mighty: not only did a jury clear Juniper
`of infringement, but this Court ruled that, even if the jury found infringement, Finjan would not be
`entitled to any damages. Thus, Finjan’s entire case consisted of eight patents unable to survive to
`trial, and one patent that was twice rejected at trial, once by the jury (finding no infringement) and
`once by the Court (finding no damages). It is difficult to conceive of a weaker case.
`This is not a case where, upon realizing that its case had no merit, the plaintiff immediately
`took steps to end the case and minimize attorneys’ fees. Rather, as detailed below, the more losses
`Finjan accumulated, the more aggressive it became. In fact, the only reason this case is finally
`(almost) over is because the Federal Circuit summarily rejected (pursuant to Fed. Cir. R. 36) each
`of the five legal errors Finjan claimed this Court made in this case—errors that Finjan alleged
`infected each and every one of Finjan’s substantive defeats.
`Juniper is entitled to reasonable attorneys’ fees of $8,656,971 in this case because Finjan
`chose to relentlessly pursue objectively baseless claims in an unreasonable manner. Finjan
`employed a “shifting sands” litigation strategy, repeatedly made misrepresentations of fact and law
`to Juniper, the Court, and the jury, and continually refused to concede on basic, straight-forward
`issues. Finjan’s conduct goes far beyond ordinary litigation conduct and thus renders this case
`exceptional pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 285. Juniper also requests that the Court rule on Juniper’s
`previously filed motion for sanctions, Dkt. 409, which is fully briefed and which the Court deferred
`pending appeal, Dkt. 486 at 8.1
`
`1 Juniper’s prior sanctions motion was brought at the conclusion of the first round of the “patent
`showdown,” and is thus focused on Finjan’s conduct during that phase. Now that the case has
`concluded, this Motion is intended to address Finjan’s conduct more broadly. To the extent there is
`JUNIPER’S MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES
`Case No. 3:17-cv-05659-WHA
`
`- 2 -
`
`10891473
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 634 Filed 11/30/20 Page 8 of 31
`
`
`
`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
`IRELL & MANELLA LLP
`A Registered Limited Liability
`Law Partnership Including
`Professional Corporations
`
`II.
`
`FACTUAL & PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
`Finjan filed this case on September 29, 2017, accusing Juniper of infringing numerous claims
`from nine separate patents. Dkt. 1, Dkt. 100. Given the number of patents and claims, the Court
`required Finjan to narrow its case to sixteen claims, and adopted a “showdown” procedure whereby
`“of the 16 [claims], each of you get to pick one. Plaintiff gets to pick your strongest claim and
`Juniper gets to pick the weakest of the claims” and the parties would cross-move for summary
`judgment. Dkt. 44 (Hearing Tr. Feb. 22, 2018) at 4:16-5:1. The Court warned that, pursuant to this
`procedure, Finjan could be liable for attorneys’ fees for bringing a frivolous claim:
`It could turn out that . . . one side or the other is absolutely correct. What does that
`mean? It means that it either leads to an immediate preliminary injunction -- that
`would be bad for Juniper – or, it leads to a sanctions motion against the plaintiff.
`***
`Or it could be Mr. Andre has to pay $300,000 in fees to [Juniper] for bringing a
`frivolous claim.
`
`Id. at 5:1-7, 8:17-24 (emphasis added).
`A.
`Round One Of The “Patent Showdown”
`In the first round of the patent showdown, Finjan selected Claim 10 of the ’494 Patent as its
`“strongest claim,” and moved for summary judgment of infringement as to “(1) Juniper’s SRX
`Gateways used in combination with Sky ATP and (2) Sky ATP alone.” Dkt. 98 at 1.2 Juniper
`opposed on the grounds of non-infringement, § 101 invalidity, and Juniper’s affirmative defense of
`failure to comply with § 287’s notice requirements. Dkt. 126. The Court denied Finjan’s motion,
`finding there was a dispute of fact as to whether the accused products met the limitation of “storing
`the Downloadable security profile data in a database,” which the parties had stipulated should be
`construed as a “collection of interrelated data organized according to a database schema to serve
`one or more applications.” Dkt. 189 at 16-17 (emphasis added). The Court therefore ordered an
`early trial on infringement and damages for the ’494 Patent, as well as Juniper’s §§ 101 and 287
`
`
`any overlap between Juniper’s previous sanctions motion and this motion (such as with respect to
`Finjan’s conduct regarding the ’494 Patent), Juniper requests that the Court decide the issue on this
`motion under 35 U.S.C. § 285 now that Juniper has been confirmed as the prevailing party.
`2 The first round did not address Juniper’s ATP Appliance product, which was first sold by Cyphort
`and rebranded by Juniper after Juniper acquired Cyphort in 2017. This product was excluded from
`the first round because Finjan did not add it to the case until June 8, 2018. See Dkt. 67; Dkt. 100.
`
`10891473
`
`
`- 3 -
`
`JUNIPER’S MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES
`Case No. 3:17-cv-05659-WHA
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 634 Filed 11/30/20 Page 9 of 31
`
`
`
`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
`IRELL & MANELLA LLP
`A Registered Limited Liability
`Law Partnership Including
`Professional Corporations
`
`defenses. Id. at 20-21; Dkt. 196.
`Juniper selected Claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 6,804,780 (“the ’780 Patent”), and moved on
`the issues of non-infringement, § 101 invalidity, and Juniper’s affirmative defense that Finjan failed
`to comply with § 287 prior to the expiration date of the patent. See Dkt. 180. The Court ruled for
`Juniper on the issue of infringement, finding that the claim required “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.” Id. at 10.
`B.
`Finjan’s Damages Theory As To The ’494 Patent
`After the Court denied Finjan’s motion for summary judgment, the parties conducted fact
`and expert discovery on damages. This discovery confirmed that Juniper’s total revenues for the
`accused products (SRX in combination with Sky ATP, and Sky ATP alone) were less than $1.8
`million. Dkt. 228-3. Realizing that under prevailing law its damages would be minimal, Finjan
`then concocted a new infringement theory in its damages expert report, asserting for the first time
`that SRX devices alone infringed. Under this new theory, Finjan claimed a $142 million damages
`base. Dkt. 283 at 4-5.
`Juniper moved to exclude Finjan’s damages expert, and this Court did so, ruling that Finjan’s
`new infringement theory was “untimely,” “procedurally defective” and that “Finjan may not now,
`in an effort to hyper-inflate its damages claim, belatedly raise new infringement theories that it failed
`to assert in its summary judgment motion (and, in fact, disclaimed).” Dkt. 283 at 4-5.
`C.
`December 2018 Trial On The ’494 Patent
`Despite this ruling, Finjan barreled ahead to trial, claiming it would present a legally
`sufficient fact-based damages case. See, e.g., Dkt. 304-3 (claiming “Finjan has a multitude of ways
`to prove a reasonable royalty”); Dkt. 305 (Juniper Response). Finjan’s representation to the Court,
`however, was dishonest. Instead, Finjan tried to cobble together a damages theory by having its
`CEO testify—improperly--about the amount that Finjan had demanded from Juniper during
`settlement negotiations, Dkt. 336 (Trial Tr.) at 290:5-294:12, as well as reciting purported
`“standard” licensing rates that the Federal Circuit had previously rejected as a proper basis for
`deriving damages. See, e.g., Dkt. 323 at 4-5. Moreover, Finjan failed to present any evidence on
`
`10891473
`
`
`- 4 -
`
`JUNIPER’S MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES
`Case No. 3:17-cv-05659-WHA
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 634 Filed 11/30/20 Page 10 of 31
`
`
`
`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
`IRELL & MANELLA LLP
`A Registered Limited Liability
`Law Partnership Including
`Professional Corporations
`
`the key issue of apportionment. Juniper therefore moved for Judgment as a Matter of Law on
`damages during the trial. Dkt. 339 (Trial Tr.) at 835:13-22. The Court granted this motion, finding
`that “on this record it would be impossible for the jury to apportion the revenue between the patented
`item and the unpatented items.” Id. at 838:3-5. The Court added that Finjan’s damages case “was
`not sufficient. It was woefully inadequate. So there will be no damage award.” Id. at 839:6-8
`(emphasis added).
`Although the Court ruled that Finjan would not be entitled to any damages if it prevailed on
`infringement, it allowed the jury to decide infringement. The jury returned a unanimous verdict of
`no infringement. Dkt. 333. Following trial, Finjan tried to overturn the jury verdict by moving for
`judgment as a matter of law on infringement. Dkt. 353. In denying the motion, this Court explained
`that Finjan’s infringement case had been “smoke and mirrors,” and that, after trial “the scales fell
`from my eyes. So I don’t agree with you on that point. I am not going to grant that motion.” Dkt.
`382 (Hearing Tr. Feb. 21, 2019) at 3:21-4:18 (emphasis added); see also Dkt. 387 at 3-4.
`D.
`Juniper’s Motion For Sanctions
`After the first round of the “patent showdown” concluded, Juniper filed a motion for
`sanctions (Dkt. 409) requesting that the Court sanction Finjan for its conduct, including specifically
`(1) misstating facts and law concerning notice with respect to the ’494 Patent, (2) failing to set forth
`a legally cognizable damages claim for the ’494 Patent, and (3) asserting groundless infringement
`theories as to the ’780 patent. Dkt. 409 at 1-2. The Court deferred ruling on this motion “until the
`end of trial” on the remaining issues. Dkt. 486 at 8. Juniper’s motion remains pending, and Juniper
`respectfully requests that the Court rule on that motion, in addition to this one.
`E.
`The Second Round Of The “Patent Showdown”
`In early 2019, after Finjan had witnessed the complete rejection of its self-selected
`“strongest” patent claim, the Court presided over the second round of the “patent showdown.” Dkt.
`348. But before selecting the claim and issues to be addressed in its summary judgment motion,
`Juniper asked Finjan to confirm that “Claim 9 of the ’780 Patent” was “only at issue for the ATP
`Appliance and no longer at issue for the SRX and Sky ATP products,” given that Claim 9 contained
`the same “hashing” limitation that the Court found dispositive as to Claim 1. Kagan Ex. 6. Finjan
`
`10891473
`
`
`- 5 -
`
`JUNIPER’S MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES
`Case No. 3:17-cv-05659-WHA
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 634 Filed 11/30/20 Page 11 of 31
`
`
`
`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
`IRELL & MANELLA LLP
`A Registered Limited Liability
`Law Partnership Including
`Professional Corporations
`
`refused, claiming that “Claim 9 of the ’780 Patent is an independent claim, therefore the Court’s
`finding of no infringement for Claim 1 of the ’780 Patent on summary judgment does not apply to
`this claim.” Id. Juniper therefore notified the Court and Finjan on January 24, 2019 that it was
`selecting claim 9 “which Finjan has asserted against SRX Series Services Gateways, Sky ATP, and
`ATP Appliance,” and filed a motion and expert declaration regarding all three products. Dkt. 361;
`Dkt. 371; Dkt. 371-3. When Finjan filed its response, however, it failed to oppose Juniper’s motion
`on infringement regarding the SRX and Sky ATP products. Dkt. 393. As to the ATP Appliance,
`the Court granted Juniper’s motion on the grounds that Finjan did not comply with the notice
`requirements of § 287 prior to the expiration of the patent. Dkt. 491 at 1.
`Finjan selected Claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 8,141,154 (“the ’154 Patent”) for the second
`round of the “patent showdown.” Dkt. 362. The Court denied Finjan’s motion and, even though
`Juniper had not cross-moved for summary judgment of non-infringement, ordered Finjan to show
`cause why summary judgment should not be granted in Juniper’s favor. Dkt. 491 at 12. Following
`further briefing on the OSC, the Court granted summary judgment in favor of Juniper. Dkt. 590.
`F.
`Post-Showdown Proceedings
`On May 8, 2019, after the Court had ruled on the second round of summary judgment
`motions—and while the OSC was pending—the Court ordered the parties to prepare for trial in
`October 2019 on all remaining claims and issues. Dkt. 491 at 19; Dkt. 487. On May 17, 2019,
`Juniper wrote to Finjan stating:
`We expected that Finjan would narrow the patents and claims that it is asserting per
`the Court’s directive in its submission on Wednesday, but we note that Finjan did
`not do so. Before we conduct any additional discovery, we think it makes sense for
`Finjan to identify the particular patents and claims it intends to pursue at the
`October trial. This is important because it will ensure that the parties are not
`wasting time on claims that Finjan has no intention of pursuing.
`
`Kagan Ex. 7. A few weeks later, Finjan filed a notice with the Court, identifying the claims it
`intended to pursue at the October trial, which included: (1) Claim 41 of U.S. Patent No. 6,154,844
`as to ATP Appliance, (2) Claim 14 of U.S. Patent No. 7,647,633 as to Sky ATP and ATP Appliance,
`(3) Claim 1 of the ’154 Patent as to SRX Gateway, Sky ATP, and ATP Appliance, (4) Claim 10 of
`the ’494 Patent as to ATP Appliance, and (5) Claim 17 of U.S. Patent No. 7,418,731 as to Sky ATP.
`
`10891473
`
`
`- 6 -
`
`JUNIPER’S MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES
`Case No. 3:17-cv-05659-WHA
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 634 Filed 11/30/20 Page 12 of 31
`
`
`
`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
`IRELL & MANELLA LLP
`A Registered Limited Liability
`Law Partnership Including
`Professional Corporations
`
`Dkt. 516. Throughout June and July 2019, Juniper spent significant resources conducting discovery,
`preparing opening expert reports, and conducting expert depositions on the claims that Finjan
`identified in its June 6, 2019 notice. Kagan Decl. ¶¶ 12–13, 19.
`On July 23, 2019, the Court issued its order on the OSC, granting Juniper summary judgment
`on the ’154 Patent. Dkt. 590. Six days later, Finjan told Juniper that it intended to dismiss all
`remaining claims, so that it could file an immediate appeal. Kagan Ex. 8. The parties filed a “Joint
`Stipulation of Dismissal With Prejudice” on August 2, 2019. Dkt. 601.
`G.
`Federal Circuit Appeal Resulting In Summary Affirmance
`
`Finjan’s appeal challenged this Court’s summary judgment orders finding non-infringement
`and a lack of notice, exclusion of Finjan’s damages expert and JMOL of no damages, and the jury
`verdict. No. 19-2405, Dkt. 18 (Finjan Opening Brief). The Federal Circuit heard argument on
`October 7, 2020. Two days later, the Federal Circuit issued a Rule 36 summary disposition
`affirming this Court in full. Dkt. 627. The Federal Circuit’s mandate issued on November 16, 2020,
`and Juniper now timely brings its motion for fees pursuant to the Court’s prior order holding in
`abeyance the deadline to bring a fees motion pending resolution of Finjan’s appeal. Dkt. 606.
`III. LEGAL STANDARD
`35 U.S.C. § 285 provides that “[t]he court in exceptional cases may award reasonable
`attorney fees to the prevailing party.” An exceptional case “is simply one that stands out from others
`with respect to the substantive strength of a party’s litigating position (considering both the
`governing law and the facts of the case) or the unreasonable manner in which the case was litigated.”
`Elec. Commcn’s Techs., LLC v. ShoppersChoice.com, LLC, 963 F.3d 1371, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2020).
`IV. ARGUMENT
`A.
`Juniper Is The Prevailing Party
`Juniper prevailed on every patent and claim in this case. Specifically, (1) the jury found that
`Juniper did not infringe the ’494 Patent, Dkt. 333; (2) the Court granted summary judgment that
`Juniper did not infringe the ’780 Patent and the ’154 Patent, Dkt. 180, 491, 590; (3) the Court granted
`JMOL of no damages as to the ’494 Patent, Dkt. 339 (Trial Tr. Dec. 14, 2018) at 835-839; and (4)
`Finjan dismissed its remaining patents and claims with prejudice, Dkt. 601. The Federal Circuit
`
`10891473
`
`
`- 7 -
`
`JUNIPER’S MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES
`Case No. 3:17-cv-05659-WHA
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 634 Filed 11/30/20 Page 13 of 31
`
`
`
`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
`IRELL & MANELLA LLP
`A Registered Limited Liability
`Law Partnership Including
`Professional Corporations
`
`affirmed the jury verdict and the Court’s orders. Dkt. 627. In contrast, Finjan did not prevail on
`any claims. Thus, Juniper is the prevailing party in this case. See, e.g., Nilss