Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 638 Filed 12/14/20 Page 1 of 31
`
`
`
`Juanita R. Brooks (CA SBN 75934), brooks@fr.com
`Frank J. Albert (CA SBN 247741), albert@fr.com
`Oliver J. Richards (CA SBN 310972), ojr@fr.com
`FISH & RICHARDSON P.C.
`12860 El Camino Real, Suite 400
`San Diego, CA 92130
`Telephone: (858) 678-5070 / Fax: (858) 678-5099
`
`Robert Courtney (CA SBN 248392), courtney@fr.com
`FISH & RICHARDSON P.C.
`60 South Sixth Street, Suite 3200
`Minneapolis, MN 55402
`Tel: (612) 335-5070 / Fax: (612) 288-9696
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff, FINJAN, INC.
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
`
`FINJAN, INC.,
`
` Plaintiff,
`
`
`v.
`
`
`JUNIPER NETWORKS, INC.,
`
` Defendant.
`
`Case No. 3:17-cv-05659-WHA
`
`FINJAN, INC.’S OPPOSITION TO JUNIPER
`NETWORKS, INC.’S MOTION FOR
`ATTORNEYS’ FEES PURSUANT TO 35
`U.S.C. § 285
`
`Date: January 7, 2021
`Time: 8:00 a.m.
`U.S. District Judge William H. Alsup
`Courtroom 12
`
`
`
`
`Case No. 3:17-cv-05659-WHA
`FINJAN’S OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES
`
`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 638 Filed 12/14/20 Page 2 of 31
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................ 1
`BACKGROUND .......................................................................................................................... 2
`FINJAN AND THE ASSERTED PATENTS ...................................................... 2
`THIS CASE’S HISTORY ...................................................................................... 4
`FINJAN’S APPEAL .............................................................................................. 5
`III.
`LEGAL STANDARD ................................................................................................................... 5
`ARGUMENT ................................................................................................................................ 6
`JUNIPER IS NOT ENTITLED TO ATTORNEYS FEES .................................. 6
`A.
`Finjan’s Infringement Case Was Rooted in the Evidence
`and the Law, and No Part of It Was “Exceptional” Under §
`285 ............................................................................................................. 7
`1.
`As to the ’494 Patent, Finjan won on all but one
`limitation at summary judgment, and presented
`reasonable evidence that the accused Juniper
`products met the last limitation. ..................................................... 7
`a)
`Finjan’s good faith prosecution of its
`infringement case turned on a single
`limitation that went to the jury. ........................................... 7
`Nothing about Finjan’s ’494 infringement
`case warrants fee-shifting. ................................................... 9
`Finjan’s infringement case for the ’780 Patent was
`based on a claim construction adopted by other
`district courts, which this Court rejected. ...................................... 10
`Finjan’s ’154 case was based on a reasonable
`construction of the claim language................................................ 11
`a)
`Finjan’s ’154 loss resulted from the Court
`deciding two reasonably disputed issues of
`claim construction. ........................................................... 12
`Nothing about Finjan’s ’154 infringement
`case warrants fee shifting. ................................................. 13
`Finjan’s Damages Case Had Ample Legal and Factual
`Support, and No Part of It Was “Exceptional” Under § 285 .................... 14
`1.
`Finjan’s reliance on its damages expert was
`reasonable and, after the Court excluded that expert
`a week before trial, Finjan’s presentation of a fact-
`only damages case was also reasonable ......................................... 15
`
`b)
`
`b)
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`B.
`
`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 No. 3:17-cv-05659-WHA
`i
`FINJAN’S OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 638 Filed 12/14/20 Page 3 of 31
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`IV.
`V.
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`There is no basis for fee-shifting in
`Finjan’s reliance on Mr. Arst’s damages
`model prior to its exclusion ............................................. 16
`There is no basis for fee-shifting in Finjan’s
`attempt to establish ’494 damages at trial on
`a fact-only basis ................................................................ 17
`As to ’780 damages, Finjan’s plan to rely on actual
`and constructive notice to establish pre-expiration
`damages was reasonable. .............................................................. 19
`a)
`Finjan’s pre-complaint notice case
`reasonably relied on undisputed
`communications with Juniper’s predecessor
`that named both the patent and the accused
`product, and there was no dispute of
`Finjan’s pre-complaint marking. ....................................... 19
`Finjan’s case for actual notice under the ’780
`Patent was reasonable and good-faith ............................... 20
`Finjan’s case for constructive notice under
`the ’780 Patent was reasonable and good-
`faith .................................................................................. 21
`Finjan’s Dismissal of Remaining Claims Promoted
`Efficiency, Conferred a Windfall to Juniper, and Reflects
`Neither a Lack of Merit Nor Bad Faith .................................................... 22
`Juniper’s Claims of Procedural Wastage are Meritless ............................... 23
`Finjan’s Appeal Was Not “Exceptional” Under § 285 .............................. 24
`E.
`JUNIPER’S CALCULATION OF FEES IS UNREASONABLE ....................... 24
`ANY DETERMINATION OF FEES MUST INVOLVE
`FINJAN’S PRIOR COUNSEL ............................................................................ 25
`CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................................... 25
`
`
`
`2.
`
`a)
`
`b)
`
`b)
`
`c)
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. 3:17-cv-05659-WHA
`ii
`FINJAN’S OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 638 Filed 12/14/20 Page 4 of 31
`
`
`
`
`Cases
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`
`Page(s)
`
`Auto. Techs. Int’l, Inc. v. Siemens VDO Auto. Corp.,
`744 F. Supp. 2d 646 (E.D. Mich. 2010) ..................................................................................... 23
`
`Blue Coat Sys., Inc. v. Finjan, Inc.,
`IPR2016-00492 (PTAB June 8, 2016) ......................................................................................... 3
`
`Checkpoint Sys., Inc. v. All-Tag Sec. S.A.,
`858 F.3d 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2017) .................................................................................................... 9
`
`Deepsouth Packing Co. v. Laitram Corp.,
`406 U.S. 518 (1972) ................................................................................................................... 15
`
`Eon-Net LP v. Flagstar Bancorp,
`653 F.3d 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2011) .................................................................................................. 13
`
`Finjan, Inc. v. Blue Coat System, Inc.,
`2015 WL 3630000 (N.D. Cal. June 2, 2015) ....................................................................... 11, 12
`
`Finjan Software, Ltd. v. Secure Computing Corp.,
`(D. Del. Mar. 28, 2008) ................................................................................................................ 3
`
`Finjan, Inc. v. Blue Coat Sys., Inc., No. 13-cv-3999, slip op. (N.D. Cal. Aug. 19,
`2016), ........................................................................................................................................... 3
`
`Finjan, Inc. v. Blue Coat Sys., LLC, No. 15-cv-03295, slip op. (N.D. Cal. Dec. 13,
`2016), ECF #156 .......................................................................................................................... 3
`
`Finjan, Inc. v. Secure Computing Corp.,
`626 F.3d 1197 (Fed. Cir. 2010) .................................................................................................. 16
`
`Finjan, Inc. v. Secure Computing Corp.,
`879 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2018) ............................................................................................. 2, 22
`
`Finjan, Inc. v. Sophos Inc., No. 14-cv-1197,
`(N.D. Cal. Oct. 31, 2016) ..................................................................................................... 3, 4, 5
`
`Forest Laboratories, Inc. v. Abbott Laboratories,
`339 F.3d 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2003) .................................................................................................... 6
`
`Gart v. Logitech, Inc.,
`254 F.3d 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2001) .................................................................................................. 21
`
`Juniper Networks, Inc. v. Finjan, Inc.,
`IPR2019-00031 (PTAB Mar. 25, 2019) ....................................................................................... 3
`
`
`
`Case No. 3:17-cv-05659-WHA
`iii
`FINJAN’S OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES
`
`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 638 Filed 12/14/20 Page 5 of 31
`
`
`
`Maxwell v. J. Baker, Inc.,
`86 F.3d 1098 (Fed. Cir. 1996) .................................................................................................... 22
`
`Monsanto Co. v. Bowman,
`657 F.3d 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2011), aff’d, 569 U.S. 278 (2013) ..................................................... 21
`
`Nat’l Presto Indus., Inc. v. West Bend Co.,
`76 F.3d 1185 (Fed. Cir. 1996) ...................................................................................................... 5
`
`Octane Fitness, LLC v. ICON Health & Fitness, Inc.,
`572 U.S. 545 (2014) ........................................................................................................... 5, 6, 19
`
` Powell v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc.,
`663 F.3d 1221 (Fed. Cir. 2011) .................................................................................................. 16
`
`Palo Alto Networks, Inc. v. Finjan, Inc., IPR2016-00159 (PTAB Apr. 11, 2017),
`aff’d, 777 F. App’x 501 (Fed. Cir. 2019) ............................................................................... 3, 19
`
`
`Palo Alto Networks, Inc. v. Finjan, Inc.,
`IPR2015-01979 (PTAB Mar. 15, 2017) ...................................................................................... 3
`
`Palo Alto Networks, Inc. v. Finjan, Inc.,
`IPR2016-00151 (PTAB Mar. 15, 2017) ....................................................................................... 3
`
`Palo Alto Networks, Inc. v. Finjan, Inc.,
`IPR2016-00165 (PTAB Apr. 21, 2016) ....................................................................................... 3
`
`Prism Techs. LLC v. Sprint Spectrum L.P.,
`849 F.3d 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2017) .................................................................................................. 16
`
`ResQNet.com, Inc. v. Lansa, Inc.,
`594 F.3d 860 (Fed. Cir. 2010) ...................................................................................................... 9
`
`SRI Int’l, Inc. v. Advanced Tech. Labs., Inc.,
`127 F.3d 1462 (Fed. Cir. 1997) .................................................................................................. 20
`
`State Indus., Inc. v. Mor-Flo Indus., Inc.,
`883 F.2d 1573 (Fed. Cir. 1989). ........................................................................................... 17, 18
`
`Symantec Corp. v. Finjan, Inc.,No. IPR2015-01892, slip op. (PTAB Mar. 15,
`2017), aff’d, 777 F. App’x 501 (Fed. Cir. 2019) .......................................................................... 3
`
`Thorner v. Sony Computer Entm’t Am. LLC,
`669 F.3d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2012) .................................................................................................. 13
`
`Tech. for Energy Corp. v. Hardy,
`2018 WL 8460252 (E.D. Tenn. Feb. 15, 2018) ......................................................................... 23
`
`Wedgetail Ltd. v. Huddleston Deluxe, Inc.,
`576 F.3d 1302 (Fed. Cir. 2009) .................................................................................................... 6
`
`
`
`Case No. 3:17-cv-05659-WHA
`iv
`FINJAN’S OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES
`
`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 638 Filed 12/14/20 Page 6 of 31
`
`
`
`Statutes
`
`Patent Act Section 285 .............................................................................................................. passim
`
`Other Authorities
`
`Fed Rule Civ. Proc. 12 ..................................................................................................................... 22
`
`Fed Rule Civ. Proc. 56 ..................................................................................................................... 22
`
`S. Rep. No. 1503, 79th Cong. 2d Sess. (1946) ............................................................................... 5, 6
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. 3:17-cv-05659-WHA
`v
`FINJAN’S OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES
`
`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 638 Filed 12/14/20 Page 7 of 31
`
`
`
`
`
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`This was a hard-fought and complex case, involving patent claims on which Finjan had
`
`repeatedly prevailed in case after case after case. While Finjan won a number of battles along the way—
`
`including defeating motions seeking to invalidate its patents and getting to trial on one of its patents—
`
`Juniper ended up the victor, winning a judgment that it does not infringe any of the patents asserted by
`
`Finjan. Having prevailed, Juniper now seeks to recover its fees, claiming this case is exceptional. Juniper
`
`is mistaken, and its motion should be denied. Contrary to Juniper’s contention, this case was resolved
`
`on entirely unexceptional grounds, and though Juniper ended up prevailing in the end, Finjan vigorously
`
`pursued claims it reasonably and in good faith believed were meritorious. Nothing about this case calls
`
`for fee shifting.
`
`As to the ’494 Patent (Dkt. No. 1-6), Juniper’s victory came through a jury finding non-
`
`infringement. While making much of that result, Juniper’s brief ignores what happened along the way.
`
`Crucially, this Court granted summary judgment in favor of Finjan that Juniper’s accused products
`
`infringed all but one element of the claim—whether the products utilized a “database.” Juniper also
`
`ignores that Finjan presented evidence (including documents from Juniper’s marketing materials and
`
`Juniper’s own engineers) confirming that Juniper’s product uses a database. While Juniper ended up
`
`prevailing with the jury, this evidence at a minimum shows Finjan’s case was far from frivolous.
`
`The same story is true for both the ’780 and ’154 Patents. At summary judgment, this Court
`
`decided against Finjan on issues of claim construction. As to the ’780 Patent (Dkt. No. 1-2), Finjan
`
`urged this Court to adopt a claim construction previously accepted by another district court. As to the
`
`’154 Patent (Dkt. No. 1-5), Finjan presented a claim construction firmly based on the text of the asserted
`
`claim. Both constructions advanced by Finjan were reasonably based on established law and evidence
`
`from the patents. Neither was frivolous. That this Court ultimately disagreed with Finjan’s
`
`constructions does not make this case exceptional, nor does it call for fee shifting.
`
`Juniper also makes much of this Court’s orders finding Finjan had failed to present a damages
`
`case for two patents. These determinations extended from the Court’s resolution of disputed legal
`
`issues, and do not signal frivolousness in either Finjan’s evidence or its legal theories. As to the ’494
`
`patent, Finjan reasonably relied on an expert damages model approved by past Federal Circuit law and
`
`
`
`Case No. 3:17-cv-05659-WHA
`1
`FINJAN’S OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES
`
`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 638 Filed 12/14/20 Page 8 of 31
`
`
`
`aligning with a reasonable interpretation that the infringing act was Juniper’s sale of its product—not
`
`the consumers’ post-sale use. The fact the Court disagreed does not make Finjan’s position frivolous.
`
`After the Court struck Finjan’s damages expert, Finjan reasonably attempted to put forth a fact-based
`
`case for damages. And while Juniper was again victorious on this issue, Finjan’s case at all times was
`
`pursued in good faith and with a strong belief in its merits. As to the ’780 Patent, the Court rejected
`
`Finjan’s reasonable views of how the law of pre-complaint notice applied to the marking of Finjan’s
`
`products and the months of interactions between Finjan and Juniper’s predecessor. Once again, the
`
`fact that Finjan’s position did not carry the day does not turn reasonable arguments put forth in good
`
`faith into unreasonable ones.
`
`Finally, nothing about Finjan’s dismissal of remaining claims or its appeal calls for fee shifting.
`
`These actions promoted efficient resolution of this case. After the Court rejected Finjan’s damages
`
`theory and entered judgment on three of the patents, Finjan elected to dismiss remaining claims so as
`
`to appeal, with the hope of correcting what Finjan reasonably believed was an erroneous rejection of
`
`its damages theory and other reversible errors. And while this Finjan did not prevail on appeal, its
`
`actions in dismissing the remaining patents in order to bring what it believed were meritorious issues
`
`before the Federal Circuit were done in good faith and for the sake of efficiency.
`
`None of this makes this case exceptional. Finjan vigorously and reasonably pursued claims it
`
`believed in good faith were meritorious; and gave up its other claims and took the case to appeal when
`
`it saw the writing on the wall. Finjan therefore requests that the Court deny Juniper’s motion and
`
`declare that each party bear its own fees, as is generally the case.
` BACKGROUND
`I. FINJAN AND THE ASSERTED PATENTS
`
`This was a complex patent case in which Finjan, whose portfolio addresses pillar cybersecurity
`
`technologies, claimed patent infringement by Juniper, a cybersecurity company.
`
`As this Court no doubt recalls, Finjan came into this case with considerable success in both
`
`licensing and litigation. Finjan’s innovative technology allows networks to analyze the behavior of code
`
`and dynamically evaluate threats even where the threats had not previously been seen. This pioneering
`
`work allowed Finjan to obtain a portfolio of security patents that has received wide recognition. The
`
`
`
`Case No. 3:17-cv-05659-WHA
`2
`FINJAN’S OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES
`
`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 638 Filed 12/14/20 Page 9 of 31
`
`
`
`Federal Circuit has described how Finjan “pioneered” the technology of this case, behavior-based
`
`scanning. Finjan, Inc. v. Secure Computing Corp., 879 F.3d 1299, 1304 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (part-affirming
`
`infringement judgment). Finjan has successfully licensed its patents to prominent security companies
`
`like Microsoft, Avira, Trend Micro, Symantec (now part of Broadcom), FireEye, and Sophos. Where
`
`necessary, Finjan has asserted its rights in court, defending the validity of its patents and requiring that
`
`those who use Finjan’s technology provide fair compensation for that use.
`
`The patents involved in this case are no exception. For example, prior to the determinations
`
`that ended Finjan’s case here, Finjan had successfully defended the patentability of the ’154 patent
`
`against numerous challenges, including challenges brought by Juniper. Juniper Networks, Inc. v. Finjan,
`
`Inc., No. IPR2019-00031 (PTAB Mar. 25, 2019) (denying institution). And in two other IPRs, the PTAB
`
`confirmed that Finjan’s claims were patentable. E.g., Palo Alto Networks, Inc. v. Finjan, Inc., No. IPR2015-
`
`01979 (PTAB Mar. 15, 2017) (confirming patentability); Palo Alto Networks, Inc. v. Finjan, Inc., No.
`
`IPR2016-00151 (PTAB Mar. 15, 2017) (same). As to the ’780 patent, Finjan has twice successfully
`
`asserted it against others in the security industry (as the technology invented by Finjan has now become
`
`standard); and Finjan successfully defended the validity of the ’780 patent on numerous occasions. E.g.,
`
`Finjan, Inc. v. Sophos, Inc., No. 14-cv-1197 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 31, 2016), ECF #407 (judgment of
`
`infringement); Finjan, Inc. v. Blue Coat Sys., Inc., No. 13-cv-3999, slip op. (N.D. Cal. Aug. 19, 2016), ECF
`
`#556 (judgment of infringement); Blue Coat Sys., Inc. v. Finjan, Inc., IPR2016-00492 (PTAB June 8, 2016)
`
`(denying institution); Palo Alto Networks, Inc. v. Finjan, Inc., No. IPR2016-00165 (PTAB Apr. 21, 2016)
`
`(denying institution); Finjan Software, Ltd. v. Secure Computing Corp., No. 06-cv-369, slip op. (D. Del. Mar.
`
`28, 2008), ECF #242 (judgment of infringement). The ’494 patent has withstood numerous challenges
`
`to validity, both in district court and before the PTAB. Palo Alto Networks, Inc. v. Finjan, Inc., No.
`
`IPR2016-00159 (PTAB Apr. 11, 2017), aff’d, 777 F. App’x 501 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (confirming validity for
`
`asserted claims); Symantec Corp. v. Finjan, Inc., No. IPR2015-01892, slip op. (PTAB Mar. 15, 2017) (same),
`
`aff’d, 777 F. App’x 501 (Fed. Cir. 2019); Finjan, Inc. v. Blue Coat Sys., LLC, No. 15-cv-03295, slip op.
`
`(N.D. Cal. Dec. 13, 2016), ECF #156 (denying S.J. of patent ineligibility). And Finjan has similarly
`
`succeeded in asserting the ’494 patent against others using its now-standard technology. Finjan, Inc. v.
`
`Sophos Inc., No. 14-cv-1197, slip op. (N.D. Cal. Oct. 31, 2016), ECF #407 (judgment of infringement).
`
`
`
`Case No. 3:17-cv-05659-WHA
`3
`FINJAN’S OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES
`
`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 638 Filed 12/14/20 Page 10 of 31
`
`
`
`
`Finjan did not come into this case hoping for a quick payout, nor with unreasonable
`
`expectations. Finjan reasonably believed Juniper was infringing its battle-tested patents, and that
`
`Juniper should and would be required compensate Finjan for that infringement—i.e., the same result
`
`Finjan had obtained against others in the past.
`II. THIS CASE’S HISTORY
`
`This case began when Finjan filed its complaint in September 2017. (Dkt. No. 1.) Shortly after
`
`this case was filed, this Court instituted a “show-down” procedure, hoping to promote early resolution.
`
`In June of 2018, the first showdown began with cross-motions for summary judgment. Finjan’s motion
`
`alleged infringement of ’494 claim claim 10; Juniper alleged no infringement and invalidity of ’780 claim
`
`1. (See generally Dkt. Nos. 96 and 98.)
`
`In August of 2018, the Court resolved the motions in a split result. It entered summary
`
`judgment of no infringement for claim 1 of the ’780 Patent. (Dkt. No. 177.) As to Finjan’s ’494
`
`infringement motion, the Court granted nearly complete relief. (Dkt. No. 185.) It agreed with Finjan
`
`that there was no material fact question that Juniper infringed every limitation of ’494 claim 10, except
`
`for one: the claim’s requirement of a “database.” (Id.) As to this final limitation, the presence of a
`
`material fact question precluded summary judgment, and the Court scheduled a trial to determine
`
`whether Juniper’s accused products employed a “database” and to determine damages if they did.
`
`Trial on the ’494 Patent began on December 10, 2018. Mid-trial, the Court entered judgment
`
`from the bench that Finjan had failed to present a legally sufficient damages case. (Dkt. No. 339 at
`
`839:6-15.) As discussed in more detail below, that judgment extended from the Court’s pre-trial
`
`exclusion of Finjan’s damages expert. (Dkt. No. 283.) In any event, on December 14, 2018, the jury
`
`entered a verdict that Juniper did not infringe. (Dkt. No. 333.)
`
`At this point, the parties inquired about the possibility of interlocutory appeal. The Court
`
`denied that request, and instructed that the parties file a second set of cross-motions for summary
`
`judgment. (E.g. Dkt. Nos. 382, 386, 219.) Thus, in February 2019, Finjan moved for summary judgment
`
`of infringement of claim 1 of the ’154 Patent, and Juniper moved for summary judgment of no
`
`infringement for claim 9 of the ’780 Patent, and also moved that Finjan could not establish ’780 damages
`
`for one accused product. (Dkt. Nos. 369 and 371.)
`
`
`
`Case No. 3:17-cv-05659-WHA
`4
`FINJAN’S OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES
`
`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 638 Filed 12/14/20 Page 11 of 31
`
`
`
`
`This time, Juniper prevailed across the board. In May 2019, the Court granted Juniper’s motion
`
`as to both noninfringement and damages for the ’780 Patent. (Dkt. No. 459.) As to the ’154 Patent,
`
`the Court’s order reinterpreted the patent claim in a manner different from other courts. (Id.) The
`
`Court not only denied Finjan’s motion for summary judgment, it ordered Finjan to show-cause why
`
`summary judgment of noninfringement should not be entered in view of the Court’s interpretation.
`
`Finjan submitted argument, but the Court was unconvinced and in July 2019 entered summary
`
`judgment of no infringement for claim 1 of the ’154 Patent. (Dkt. No. 590.)
`
`At this point, Finjan recognized the case was lost without correction it believed would be found
`
`in an appeal. Therefore, in August 2019, despite the fact that discovery had not yet closed, Finjan
`
`voluntarily dismissed its remaining claims. (Dkt. No. 601.) Final judgment followed. (Dkt. No. 606.)
`III. FINJAN’S APPEAL
`
`Finjan appealed. (Dkt. No. 607.) Finjan argued that the Court had reversibly erred on each of
`
`the issues above, and had also reversibly erred when it granted summary judgment of no infringement
`
`for the ’780 Patent. The appeal was straightforward, with both Finjan and Juniper timely briefing the
`
`arguments and presenting them to the Federal Circuit. The Federal Circuit summarily affirmed this
`
`Court’s final judgment, but did not provide an opinion and did not discuss or approve any specific
`
`aspect of the Court’s reasoning. (Dkt. No. 628.)
`
`LEGAL STANDARD
`
`Pursuant to section 285 of the Patent Act, a “court in exceptional cases may award reasonable
`
`attorney fees to the prevailing party.” 35 U.S.C. § 285. As the legislative history makes clear, this section
`
`was not designed to make “the recovery of attorney’s fees . . . an ordinary thing in patent suits.” S. Rep.
`
`No. 1503, 79th Cong. 2d Sess. (1946). Indeed, section 285 should not lead to an automatic award of
`
`fees for the victorious party, “even for the extraordinary case.” E.g., Nat’l Presto Indus., Inc. v. West Bend
`
`Co., 76 F.3d 1185, 1197 (Fed. Cir. 1996). To the contrary, fees should only be awarded in cases that
`
`“stand[] 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 case in which the
`
`case was litigated.” Octane Fitness, LLC v. ICON Health & Fitness, Inc., 572 U.S. 545, 554 (2014).
`
`In determining whether a case “stands out,” there are multiple factors a Court should consider.
`
`
`
`Case No. 3:17-cv-05659-WHA
`5
`FINJAN’S OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES
`
`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 638 Filed 12/14/20 Page 12 of 31
`
`
`
`As the Supreme Court has articulated, courts may consider “a nonexclusive list of factors, including
`
`frivolousness, motivation, objective unreasonableness (both in the factual and legal components of the
`
`case) and the need in particular circumstances to advance considerations of compensation and
`
`deterrence.” Id. n.6. However, fee awards are not to be used “as a penalty for failure to win a patent
`
`infringement suit.” Id. at 548. At base, “[t]he exercise of discretion in favor of [awarding attorney fees]
`
`should be bottomed upon a finding of unfairness or bad faith in the conduct of the losing party, or
`
`some other equitable consideration of similar force, which makes it grossly unjust that the winner of
`
`the particular law suit be left to bear the burden of his own counsel fees.” S. Rep. No. 1503, 79th Cong.,
`
`2d Sess. (1946); see also Octane Fitness, 572 U.S. at 549 (similar).
`
`Most importantly, the Federal Circuit has noted that there are only “limited circumstances” in
`
`which a fee award against a patentee is proper. See Forest Labs., Inc. v. Abbott Labs., 339 F.3d 1324, 1328–
`
`30 (Fed. Cir. 2003). These circumstances include “litigation misconduct; vexatious, unjustified, and
`
`otherwise bad faith litigation; [and] a frivolous suit or willful infringement.” See id. This is because
`
`section 285 “is limited to circumstances in which it is necessary to prevent ‘a gross injustice’” to the
`
`accused infringer”—and not to ordinary aggressive business or litigation conduct. See id.; see also
`
`Wedgetail Ltd. v. Huddleston Deluxe, Inc., 576 F.3d 1302, 1304–05 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (similar).
`
`I.
`
`JUNIPER IS NOT ENTITLED TO ATTORNEYS FEES
`
`ARGUMENT
`
`Whether considered independently or together, nothing about the issues in this case, nor about
`
`Finjan’s approach to them, qualifies as “exceptional” under § 285. This was a hard-fought litigation.
`
`Much was on the line, for both sides. Finjan honestly and reasonably believed its battle-tested patents
`
`were being infringed by Juniper on a massive scale, and Finjan set out to prove it. Juniper defended
`
`itself just as vigorously. At the end of the “shoot-out,” when the smoke cleared it was Juniper who—
`
`against Finjan’s hopes and expectations—prevailed.
`
`That Juniper prevailed, however, is not a basis for fee-shifting. As the Court knows, the general
`
`rule in all American litigation is that each party bears the costs of its own legal representation. District
`
`courts may abrogate that rule, but only upon powerful evidence that the case is exceptional—that it
`
`“stands out from the others”—with respect to the case’s lack of material strength, the overall approach
`
`
`
`Case No. 3:17-cv-05659-WHA
`6
`FINJAN’S OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES
`
`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 638 Filed 12/14/20 Page 13 of 31
`
`
`
`to litigation, or a combination of the two. Under any approach to that test, the evidence overwhelmingly
`
`establishes that Finjan’s case, though ultimately unsuccessful, was well within ordinary expectation in
`
`terms of substantive strength. And as to the manner litigated, the case was like any other high-stakes
`
`dispute. Finjan fought hard, and fair, for as long as it reasonably could. Once it became clear the day
`
`was lost, Finjan voluntarily dismissed three of its own patents—with prejudice—to save resources all
`
`around and undertake a standard appeal. When the appeal ended, Finjan viewed the case as done.
`
`It is now Juniper that seeks to litigate further. But unlike Finjan’s patent claims, Juniper’s fee-
`
`shifting claims fail even cursory comparison to the record. The Court should reject them.
`A. Finjan’s Infringement Case Was Rooted in the Evidence and the Law, and No
`Part of It Was “Exceptional” Under § 285
`We begin with Finjan’s infringement case. Contrary to Juniper’s contention, Finjan’s
`
`infringement claims were based soundly in evidence Finjan reasonably believed would allow it to prove
`
`its case. Juniper fails to point to any reason why Finjan’s infringement case exceptional in any way.
`1. As to the ’494 Patent, Finjan won on all but one limitation at summary
`judgment, and presented reasonable evidence that the accused Juniper
`products met the last limitation.
`Finjan’s infringement case for the ’494 Patent ended with a jury verdict in Juniper’s favor,
`
`finding that Juniper’s products used no “database.” Juniper makes much of this win, but ignores that,
`
`prior to this finding, this Court actually granted summary judgment in f