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 92 Filed 06/01/18 Page 1 of 29
`
`
`
`
`
`IRELL & MANELLA LLP
`Jonathan S. Kagan (SBN 166039)
`jkagan@irell.com
`Joshua P. Glucoft (SBN 301249)
`jglucoft@irell.com
`Casey Curran (SBN 305210)
`ccurran@irell.com
`Sharon Song (SBN 313535)
`ssong@irell.com
`1800 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 900
`Los Angeles, California 90067-4276
`Telephone: (310) 277-1010
`Facsimile: (310) 203-7199
`
`Rebecca L. Carson (SBN 254105)
`rcarson@irell.com
`Kevin Wang (SBN 318024)
`kwang@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.,
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`vs.
`
`
`
`
`JUNIPER NETWORKS, INC.,
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`10451943
`
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`
`
`Case No. 3:17-cv-05659-WHA
`
`JUNIPER NETWORKS, INC.’S ANSWER
`TO FINJAN, INC.’S FIRST AMENDED
`COMPLAINT FOR PATENT
`INFRINGEMENT AND COUNTER-
`CLAIMS
`
`
`DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`
`
`Action filed: September 29, 2017
`
`JUNIPER’S ANSWER TO FINJAN’S
`FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
`(Case No. 3:17-cv-05659-WHA)
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 92 Filed 06/01/18 Page 2 of 29
`
`
`
`Defendant Juniper Networks, Inc. (“Juniper”) hereby submits this Answer to the First
`
`Amended Complaint for Patent Infringement (Dkt. No. 88; the “FAC”) of plaintiff Finjan, Inc.
`
`(“Finjan”) as follows. Except as expressly admitted herein, Juniper denies each and every
`
`allegation contained in the FAC.
`
`THE PARTIES
`
`1.
`
`Juniper is without knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of
`
`the allegations contained in paragraph 1 of the FAC, and therefore Juniper denies these
`
`allegations.
`2.
`
`Juniper admits that it is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the
`
`State of Delaware, having a place of business at 1133 Innovation Way, Sunnyvale, California
`
`94089. Juniper admits that, for purposes of this action, Juniper may be served through its agent
`for service of process, CT Corporation System, at 717 W. 7th Street, Suite 930, Los Angeles,
`California 90017. To the extent paragraph 2 of the FAC may be construed as containing
`
`additional allegations, Juniper denies such allegations.
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`3.
`
`Juniper admits that the FAC purports to set forth claims for patent infringement
`
`under 35 U.S.C. § 101 et seq. Juniper further admits that jurisdiction is allegedly based on 28
`
`U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338. Except as expressly admitted herein, Juniper denies each and every
`
`allegation contained in paragraph 3 of the FAC.
`4.
`
`Juniper admits, for purposes of this lawsuit only, that venue is proper in this
`
`District.
`5.
`
`Juniper admits that this Court has personal jurisdiction over Juniper. Juniper
`
`admits that it regularly and continuously does business in this District. Except as expressly
`
`admitted herein, Juniper denies each and every allegation contained in paragraph 5 of the FAC.
`
`INTRADISTRICT ASSIGNMENT
`
`6.
`
`Juniper admits that pursuant to Civil Local Rule 3-2(c), this action is properly
`
`assigned on a district-wide basis because the FAC purports to allege claims for patent infringement.
`
`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
`
`10451943
`
`
`- 1 -
`
`JUNIPER’S ANSWER TO FINJAN’S
`FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
`(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 92 Filed 06/01/18 Page 3 of 29
`
`
`
`FINJAN’S [ALLEGED] INNOVATIONS
`
`7.
`
`Juniper is without knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of
`
`the allegations contained in paragraph 7 of the FAC, and therefore Juniper denies these
`
`allegations.
`8.
`
`Juniper is without knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of
`
`the allegations contained in paragraph 8 of the FAC, and therefore Juniper denies these
`
`allegations.
`
`THE ASSERTED PATENTS
`
`9.
`
`Juniper admits that a copy of what Finjan alleges to be United States Patent No.
`
`6,154,844 (“the ‘844 Patent”) was attached to the FAC as Exhibit 1. Juniper admits that Exhibit 1
`
`bears on its face the title “System And Method For Attaching A Downloadable Security Profile To
`
`A Downloadable.” Juniper admits that Exhibit 1 states on its face that the alleged invention was
`
`invented by Shlomo Touboul and Nachshon Gal. Juniper denies that the ‘844 Patent was duly or
`
`legally issued. Except as expressly admitted herein, Juniper is without knowledge or information
`
`sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the allegations contained in paragraph 9 of
`
`the FAC, and therefore Juniper denies these allegations.
`10.
`
`Juniper is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the
`
`truth or falsity of the allegations contained in paragraph 10 of the FAC, and therefore Juniper
`
`denies these allegations.
`11.
`12.
`
`Juniper denies each and every allegation contained in paragraph 11 of the FAC.
`
`Juniper admits that a copy of what Finjan alleges to be United States Patent No.
`
`6,804,780 (“the ‘780 Patent”) was attached to the FAC as Exhibit 2. Juniper admits that Exhibit 2
`
`bears on its face the title “System And Method For Protecting A Computer And A Network From
`
`Hostile Downloadables.” Juniper admits that Exhibit 2 states on its face that the alleged invention
`
`was invented by Shlomo Touboul. Juniper denies that the ‘780 Patent was duly or legally issued.
`
`Except as expressly admitted herein, Juniper is without knowledge or information sufficient to
`
`form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the allegations contained in paragraph 12 of the FAC, and
`
`therefore Juniper denies these allegations.
`
`10451943
`
`
`- 2 -
`
`JUNIPER’S ANSWER TO FINJAN’S
`FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
`(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 92 Filed 06/01/18 Page 4 of 29
`
`13.
`
`Juniper is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the
`
`truth or falsity of the allegations contained in paragraph 13 of the FAC, and therefore Juniper
`
`
`
`denies these allegations.
`14.
`15.
`
`Juniper denies each and every allegation contained in paragraph 14 of the FAC.
`
`Juniper admits that a copy of what Finjan alleges to be United States Patent No.
`
`7,647,633 (“the ‘633 Patent”) was attached to the FAC as Exhibit 3. Juniper admits that Exhibit 3
`
`bears on its face the title “Malicious Mobile Code Runtime Monitoring System And Methods.”
`
`Juniper admits that Exhibit 3 states on its face that the alleged invention was invented by Yigal
`
`Mordechai Edery, Nimrod Itzhak Vered, David R. Kroll, and Shlomo Touboul. Juniper denies
`
`that the ‘633 Patent was duly or legally issued. Except as expressly admitted herein, Juniper is
`
`without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the
`
`allegations contained in paragraph 15 of the FAC, and therefore Juniper denies these allegations.
`16.
`
`Juniper is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the
`
`truth or falsity of the allegations contained in paragraph 16 of the FAC, and therefore Juniper
`
`denies these allegations.
`17.
`18.
`
`Juniper denies each and every allegation contained in paragraph 17 of the FAC.
`
`Juniper admits that a copy of what Finjan alleges to be United States Patent No.
`
`7,613,926 (“the ‘926 Patent”) was attached to the FAC as Exhibit 4. Juniper admits that Exhibit 4
`
`bears on its face the title “Method And System For Protecting A Computer And A Network From
`
`Hostile Downloadables.” Juniper admits that Exhibit 4 states on its face that the alleged invention
`
`was invented by Yigal Mordechai Edery, Nimrod Itzhak Vered, David R. Kroll, and Shlomo
`
`Touboul. Juniper denies that the ‘926 Patent was duly or legally issued. Except as expressly
`
`admitted herein, Juniper is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the
`
`truth or falsity of the allegations contained in paragraph 18 of the FAC, and therefore Juniper
`
`denies these allegations.
`19.
`
`Juniper is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the
`
`truth or falsity of the allegations contained in paragraph 19 of the FAC, and therefore Juniper
`
`denies these allegations.
`
`10451943
`
`
`- 3 -
`
`JUNIPER’S ANSWER TO FINJAN’S
`FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
`(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 92 Filed 06/01/18 Page 5 of 29
`
`
`
`20.
`21.
`
`Juniper denies each and every allegation contained in paragraph 20 of the FAC.
`
`Juniper admits that a copy of what Finjan alleges to be United States Patent No.
`
`8,141,154 (“the ‘154 Patent”) was attached to the FAC as Exhibit 5. Juniper admits that Exhibit 5
`
`bears on its face the title “System And Method For Inspecting Dynamically Generated Executable
`
`Code.” Juniper admits that Exhibit 5 states on its face that the alleged invention was invented by
`
`David Gruzman and Yuval Ben-Itzhak. Juniper denies that the ‘154 Patent was duly or legally
`
`issued. Except as expressly admitted herein, Juniper is without knowledge or information
`
`sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the allegations contained in paragraph 21 of
`
`the FAC, and therefore Juniper denies these allegations.
`22.
`
`Juniper is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the
`
`truth or falsity of the allegations contained in paragraph 22 of the FAC, and therefore Juniper
`
`denies these allegations.
`23.
`24.
`
`Juniper denies each and every allegation contained in paragraph 23 of the FAC.
`
`Juniper admits that a copy of what Finjan alleges to be United States Patent No.
`
`8,677,494 (“the ‘494 Patent”) was attached to the FAC as Exhibit 6. Juniper admits that Exhibit 6
`
`bears on its face the title “Malicious Mobile Code Runtime Monitoring System And Methods.”
`
`Juniper admits that Exhibit 6 states on its face that the alleged invention was invented by Yigal
`
`Mordechai Edery, Nirmrod [sic] Itzhak Vered, David R. Kroll, and Shlomo Touboul. Juniper
`
`denies that the ‘494 Patent was duly or legally issued. Except as expressly admitted herein,
`
`Juniper is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of
`
`the allegations contained in paragraph 24 of the FAC, and therefore Juniper denies these
`
`allegations.
`25.
`
`Juniper is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the
`
`truth or falsity of the allegations contained in paragraph 25 of the FAC, and therefore Juniper
`
`denies these allegations.
`26.
`
`Juniper denies each and every allegation contained in paragraph 26 of the FAC.
`
`10451943
`
`
`- 4 -
`
`JUNIPER’S ANSWER TO FINJAN’S
`FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
`(Case No. 3:17-cv-05659-WHA)
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 92 Filed 06/01/18 Page 6 of 29
`
`
`
`27.
`
`Juniper admits that the FAC refers to the ‘844 Patent, the ‘780 Patent, the ‘633
`
`Patent, the ‘926 Patent, the ‘154 Patent, and the ‘494 Patent, collectively as the “Asserted
`
`Patents.”
`
`FINJAN’S [ALLEGED] NOTICE OF INFRINGEMENT TO JUNIPER
`28.
`
`Juniper admits that Finjan and Juniper had discussions in June 2014. Juniper
`
`admits that Finjan contacted Defendant on or about June 10, 2014. Except as expressly admitted
`
`herein, Juniper denies each and every allegation contained in paragraph 28 of the FAC.
`29.
`
`Juniper admits that Finjan emailed Juniper a claim chart for the non-asserted ‘968
`
`patent on or about July 2, 2014. Juniper admits that Finjan’s email from on or about July 2, 2014
`
`states on its face: “We believe a license to Finjan’s patent portfolio could be beneficial to some
`
`Juniper’s security products and services. Besides, we could also explore possible common
`
`interests relating to other patent collaborations such as co-investments or M&A activities in
`
`technology companies.” Except as expressly admitted herein, Juniper denies each and every
`
`allegation contained in paragraph 29 of the FAC.
`30.
`
`Juniper admits that on or about January 12, 2015, Finjan met with Juniper’s Senior
`
`Director of IP, Litigation and Strategy. Except as expressly admitted herein, Juniper denies each
`
`and every allegation contained in paragraph 30 of the FAC.
`31.
`
`Juniper admits that on or about February 13, 2015, Juniper sent a letter to Finjan
`
`that listed ten patents. Juniper admits that Finjan contacted Juniper on February 18, 2015 and
`
`February 20, 2015. Except as expressly admitted herein, Juniper denies each and every allegation
`
`contained in paragraph 31 of the FAC.
`32.
`
`Juniper admits that on or about October 1, 2015, Finjan sent a letter to Juniper.
`
`Except as expressly admitted herein, Juniper denies each and every allegation contained in
`
`paragraph 32 of the FAC.
`33.
`
`Juniper admits that on or about October 15, 2015, Finjan contacted Juniper’s
`
`Deputy General Counsel. Except as expressly admitted herein, Juniper denies each and every
`
`allegation contained in paragraph 33 of the FAC.
`
`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
`
`10451943
`
`
`- 5 -
`
`JUNIPER’S ANSWER TO FINJAN’S
`FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
`(Case No. 3:17-cv-05659-WHA)
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 92 Filed 06/01/18 Page 7 of 29
`
`
`Juniper admits that on or about November 24, 2015, Finjan spoke with Juniper’s
`
`34.
`
`Senior Director of IP, Litigation and Strategy by telephone. Except as expressly admitted herein,
`
`Juniper denies each and every allegation contained in paragraph 34 of the FAC.
`35.
`
`Juniper admits that one or about February 3, 2016, Finjan contacted Defendant’s
`
`Deputy General Counsel. Except as expressly admitted herein, Juniper denies each and every
`
`allegation contained in paragraph 35 of the FAC.
`36.
`
`Juniper admits that it has not taken a license to Finjan’s patents. Except as
`
`expressly admitted herein, Juniper denies each and every allegation contained in paragraph 36 of
`
`the FAC.
`
`JUNIPER
`
`37.
`
`Juniper admits that it makes, uses, sells, offers for sale and/or imports the SRX
`
`Series Services Gateways, Sky Advanced Threat Prevention (“Sky ATP”), and Junos Space
`
`Security Director products. Except as expressly admitted herein, Juniper denies each and every
`
`allegation contained in paragraph 37 of the FAC.
`
`SRX Gateways
`
`38.
`
`Juniper admits that SRX Gateways include the: SRX110; SRX220; SRX300;
`
`SRX550; SRX1400; SRX1500; SRX3400; SRX3600; SRX5400; SRX5600; and SRX5800
`
`gateway appliances, as well as the vSRX Virtual Firewall and cSRX Container Firewall
`
`(collectively, “SRX Gateways”). Except as expressly admitted herein, Juniper denies each and
`
`every allegation contained in paragraph 38 of the FAC.
`
`Sky ATP
`
`39.
`40.
`41.
`42.
`43.
`44.
`
`Juniper denies each and every allegation contained in paragraph 39 of the FAC.
`
`Juniper denies each and every allegation contained in paragraph 40 of the FAC.
`
`Juniper denies each and every allegation contained in paragraph 41 of the FAC.
`
`Juniper denies each and every allegation contained in paragraph 42 of the FAC.
`
`Juniper denies each and every allegation contained in paragraph 43 of the FAC.
`
`Juniper denies each and every allegation contained in paragraph 44 of the FAC.
`
`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
`
`10451943
`
`
`- 6 -
`
`JUNIPER’S ANSWER TO FINJAN’S
`FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
`(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 92 Filed 06/01/18 Page 8 of 29
`
`
`
`Junos Space Security Director
`
`45.
`
`Juniper denies each and every allegation contained in paragraph 45 of the FAC.
`
`ATP Appliance
`
`46.
`
`Juniper denies each and every allegation contained in paragraph 46 of the FAC.
`
`JUNIPER’S [ALLEGED] INFRINGEMENT OF FINJAN’S PATENTS
`47.
`
`Juniper denies each and every allegation contained in paragraph 47 of the FAC.
`COUNT I
`([Alleged] Direct Infringement of the ‘844 Patent pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 271(a))
`
`Juniper incorporates its answers to paragraphs 1 through 47.
`
`Juniper denies each and every allegation contained in paragraph 49 of the FAC.
`
`Juniper denies each and every allegation contained in paragraph 50 of the FAC.
`
`Juniper denies each and every allegation contained in paragraph 51 of the FAC.
`
`Juniper denies each and every allegation contained in paragraph 52 of the FAC.
`
`Juniper denies each and every allegation contained in paragraph 53 of the FAC.
`
`Juniper denies each and every allegation contained in paragraph 54 of the FAC.
`
`Juniper denies each and every allegation contained in paragraph 55 of the FAC.
`
`Juniper denies each and every allegation contained in paragraph 56 of the FAC.
`
`Juniper denies each and every allegation contained in paragraph 57 of the FAC.
`
`Juniper denies each and every allegation contained in paragraph 58 of the FAC.
`
`Juniper denies each and every allegation contained in paragraph 59 of the FAC.
`
`Juniper denies each and every allegation contained in paragraph 60 of the FAC.
`
`Juniper denies each and every allegation contained in paragraph 61 of the FAC.
`
`48.
`49.
`50.
`51.
`52.
`53.
`54.
`55.
`56.
`57.
`58.
`59.
`60.
`61.
`62.
`
`Juniper denies each and every allegation contained in paragraph 62 of the FAC.
`COUNT II
`([Alleged] Direct Infringement of the ‘780 Patent pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 271(a))
`
`63.
`64.
`65.
`
`Juniper incorporates its answers to paragraphs 1 through 62.
`
`Juniper denies each and every allegation contained in paragraph 64 of the FAC.
`
`Juniper denies each and every allegation contained in paragraph 65 of the FAC.
`
`10451943
`
`
`- 7 -
`
`JUNIPER’S ANSWER TO FINJAN’S
`FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
`(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 92 Filed 06/01/18 Page 9 of 29
`
`66.
`67.
`68.
`69.
`70.
`71.
`72.
`73.
`
`
`
`Juniper denies each and every allegation contained in paragraph 66 of the FAC.
`
`Juniper denies each and every allegation contained in paragraph 67 of the FAC.
`
`Juniper denies each and every allegation contained in paragraph 68 of the FAC.
`
`Juniper denies each and every allegation contained in paragraph 69 of the FAC.
`
`Juniper denies each and every allegation contained in paragraph 70 of the FAC.
`
`Juniper denies each and every allegation contained in paragraph 71 of the FAC.
`
`Juniper denies each and every allegation contained in paragraph 72 of the FAC.
`
`Juniper denies each and every allegation contained in paragraph 73 of the FAC.
`COUNT III
`([Alleged] Direct Infringement of the ‘633 Patent pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 271(a))
`
`Juniper incorporates its answers to paragraphs 1 through 73.
`
`Juniper denies each and every allegation contained in paragraph 75 of the FAC.
`
`Juniper denies each and every allegation contained in paragraph 76 of the FAC.
`
`Juniper denies each and every allegation contained in paragraph 77 of the FAC.
`
`Juniper denies each and every allegation contained in paragraph 78 of the FAC.
`
`Juniper denies each and every allegation contained in paragraph 79 of the FAC.
`
`Juniper denies each and every allegation contained in paragraph 80 of the FAC.
`
`Juniper denies each and every allegation contained in paragraph 81 of the FAC.
`
`Juniper denies each and every allegation contained in paragraph 82 of the FAC.
`
`Juniper denies each and every allegation contained in paragraph 83 of the FAC.
`
`Juniper denies each and every allegation contained in paragraph 84 of the FAC.
`
`74.
`75.
`76.
`77.
`78.
`79.
`80.
`81.
`82.
`83.
`84.
`85.
`
`Juniper denies each and every allegation contained in paragraph 85 of the FAC.
`COUNT IV
`([Alleged] Direct Infringement of the ‘926 Patent pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 271(a))
`
`86.
`87.
`88.
`89.
`
`Juniper incorporates its answers to paragraphs 1 through 85.
`
`Juniper denies each and every allegation contained in paragraph 87 of the FAC.
`
`Juniper denies each and every allegation contained in paragraph 88 of the FAC.
`
`Juniper denies each and every allegation contained in paragraph 89 of the FAC.
`
`10451943
`
`
`- 8 -
`
`JUNIPER’S ANSWER TO FINJAN’S
`FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
`(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 92 Filed 06/01/18 Page 10 of 29
`
`90.
`91.
`92.
`93.
`94.
`95.
`96.
`97.
`
`
`
`Juniper denies each and every allegation contained in paragraph 90 of the FAC.
`
`Juniper denies each and every allegation contained in paragraph 91 of the FAC.
`
`Juniper denies each and every allegation contained in paragraph 92 of the FAC.
`
`Juniper denies each and every allegation contained in paragraph 93 of the FAC.
`
`Juniper denies each and every allegation contained in paragraph 94 of the FAC.
`
`Juniper denies each and every allegation contained in paragraph 95 of the FAC.
`
`Juniper denies each and every allegation contained in paragraph 96 of the FAC.
`
`Juniper denies each and every allegation contained in paragraph 97 of the FAC.
`COUNT V
`([Alleged] Direct Infringement of the ‘154 Patent pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 271(a))
`
`Juniper incorporates its answers to paragraphs 1 through 97.
`
`Juniper denies each and every allegation contained in paragraph 99 of the FAC.
`
`Juniper denies each and every allegation contained in paragraph 100 of the FAC.
`
`Juniper denies each and every allegation contained in paragraph 101 of the FAC.
`
`Juniper denies each and every allegation contained in paragraph 102 of the FAC.
`
`Juniper denies each and every allegation contained in paragraph 103 of the FAC.
`
`Juniper denies each and every allegation contained in paragraph 104 of the FAC.
`
`Juniper denies each and every allegation contained in paragraph 105 of the FAC.
`
`Juniper denies each and every allegation contained in paragraph 106 of the FAC.
`
`Juniper denies each and every allegation contained in paragraph 107 of the FAC.
`
`98.
`99.
`100.
`101.
`102.
`103.
`104.
`105.
`106.
`107.
`108.
`
`Juniper denies each and every allegation contained in paragraph 108 of the FAC.
`COUNT VI
`([Alleged] Direct Infringement of the ‘494 Patent pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 271(a))
`
`109.
`110.
`111.
`112.
`113.
`
`Juniper incorporates its answers to paragraphs 1 through 108.
`
`Juniper denies each and every allegation contained in paragraph 110 of the FAC.
`
`Juniper denies each and every allegation contained in paragraph 111 of the FAC.
`
`Juniper denies each and every allegation contained in paragraph 112 of the FAC.
`
`Juniper denies each and every allegation contained in paragraph 113 of the FAC.
`
`10451943
`
`
`- 9 -
`
`JUNIPER’S ANSWER TO FINJAN’S
`FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
`(Case No. 3:17-cv-05659-WHA)
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 92 Filed 06/01/18 Page 11 of 29
`
`
`Juniper denies each and every allegation contained in paragraph 114 of the FAC.
`
`Juniper denies each and every allegation contained in paragraph 115 of the FAC.
`
`Juniper denies each and every allegation contained in paragraph 116 of the FAC.
`
`Juniper denies each and every allegation contained in paragraph 117 of the FAC.
`
`Juniper denies each and every allegation contained in paragraph 118 of the FAC.
`
`Juniper denies each and every allegation contained in paragraph 119 of the FAC.
`
`Juniper denies each and every allegation contained in paragraph 120 of the FAC.
`
`Juniper denies each and every allegation contained in paragraph 121 of the FAC.
`
`Juniper denies each and every allegation contained in paragraph 122 of the FAC.
`
`114.
`115.
`116.
`117.
`118.
`119.
`120.
`121.
`122.
`
`AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
`
`123.
`
`Juniper reserves the right to supplement the affirmative defenses enumerated below
`
`and to add additional affirmative defenses as discovery progresses.
`
`FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
`124. Finjan’s claims are barred, in whole or in part, because the patents-in-suit are
`invalid for failing to comply with one or more provisions of Title 35 of the United States Code,
`
`including 35 U.S.C. §§ 101, 102, 103, 112, and 282.
`
`SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
`
`125.
`
`Juniper has not infringed and does not infringe any of the claims of the patents-in-
`
`suit, neither literally nor under the doctrine of equivalents.
`
`THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
`126. Finjan is estopped, by virtue of the cancellations, amendments, representations, and
`
`concessions made to the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) during the
`
`prosecution (including post-grant proceedings) of the patents-in-suit, from construing any claim of
`
`the patents-in-suit to have been infringed by Juniper.
`
`FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
`127. Title 35 of the United States Code, section 288 precludes Finjan from recovering
`
`costs for alleged infringement of a patent containing one or more invalid claims on account of
`
`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
`
`10451943
`
`
`- 10 -
`
`JUNIPER’S ANSWER TO FINJAN’S
`FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
`(Case No. 3:17-cv-05659-WHA)
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 92 Filed 06/01/18 Page 12 of 29
`
`
`Finjan’s failure to enter a disclaimer of the invalid claim at the USPTO before the commencement
`
`of the suit. For example, claims 1, 2, and 6 of the ‘494 Patent have been held not patentable.
`
`FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
`128. Title 35 of the United States Code, section 286 precludes Finjan from recovering
`
`damages, if any, for alleged infringement that occurred more than six years prior to the
`
`commencement of this action.
`
`SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
`129. Title 35 of the United States Code, section 287 limits and/or precludes recovery of
`
`damages, if any, by Finjan. On information and belief, Finjan has made, offered for sale, sold, or
`
`imported articles embodying one or more of the purported inventions of the patents-in-suit
`
`(including but not limited to the SurfinGate and SurfinShield products), but Finjan did not mark
`
`such articles as required under section 287.
`130. Similarly, on information and belief, Finjan has licensed the patents-in-suit to third
`
`parties that have made, offered for sale, sold, or imported articles embodying one or more of the
`
`purported inventions of the patents-in-suit (including but not limited to third parties that have
`
`settled litigation with Finjan, such as: Sophos Inc.; F5 Networks, Inc.; FireEye, Inc.; Proofpoint,
`
`Inc.; Armorize Technologies, Inc.; Symantec Corp.; Blue Coat Systems, Inc.; Websense, Inc.;
`
`AVG Technologies CZ, s.r.o. and related entities; Secure Computing Corporation; Cyberguard
`
`Corporation; WebSphere AG; Aladdin Knowledge Systems, Inc. and related entities; McAfee,
`
`Inc.; and Webroot Software, Inc.), but such third parties did not mark such articles as required
`
`under Section 287.
`
`SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
`131. Finjan is not entitled to injunctive relief because any injury to Finjan is not
`
`immediate or irreparable, Finjan has an adequate remedy at law, the balance of hardships between
`
`the parties favors Juniper, and the public interest would be disserved by imposing injunctive relief.
`
`For example, all of the patents-in-suit issued more than three years before Finjan filed suit against
`
`Juniper, and some of the patents-in-suit issued more than a decade before Finjan filed suit against
`
`Juniper. As a further example, Finjan has offered to license to its patent portfolio to Juniper, and,
`
`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
`
`10451943
`
`
`- 11 -
`
`JUNIPER’S ANSWER TO FINJAN’S
`FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
`(Case No. 3:17-cv-05659-WHA)
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 92 Filed 06/01/18 Page 13 of 29
`
`
`
`on information and belief, Finjan has also offered and granted licenses to its patent portfolio to
`
`third parties.
`
`EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
`132. On information and belief, Finjan’s purported claims are barred by the doctrine of
`
`patent exhaustion and/or because of the existence of an implied or express license. For example,
`
`one or more of Juniper’s accused products rely on products or services provided by third parties
`
`that are, on information and belief, licensed to some or all of the patents-in-suit, including without
`
`limitation: McAfee, Inc.; Sophos Inc.; and Symantec Corp.
`
`NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
`133. Finjan’s claims are barred, in whole or in part, to the extent that Finjan accuses
`
`products or services that are used by or manufactured for the government of the U.S., pursuant to
`
`28 U.S.C. § 1498.
`
`TENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
`134. Finjan’s claims based on the ‘494, ‘633, ‘926, and ‘154 Patents are barred because
`
`one or more of Finjan, the named inventors on those patents, their attorneys, representatives,
`
`predecessors in interest, and/or other persons with a duty of candor to the USPTO has unclean
`
`hands on account of violations of the duty of candor to the USPTO and misrepresentations of
`
`material fact to the USPTO. The factual basis of the allegations in this paragraph is described in
`
`Juniper’s counterclaims below, which are incorporated herein by reference.
`
`ELEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
`135. Finjan’s claims based on the patents-in-suit are barred because the patents-in-suit
`
`are unenforceable on account of prosecution laches. The non-provisional application that matured
`
`into the ‘926 Patent was not filed until March 2006 even though it claimed priority to a patent that
`
`was filed in November 1997. The non-provisional application that matured into the ‘633 Patent
`
`was not filed until June 2005 even though it claimed priority to the ‘780 Patent, which was filed in
`
`March 2000. The non-provisional application that matured into the ‘154 Patent was not filed until
`
`June 2010 even though it claimed priority to a patent that was filed in December 2005. The non-
`
`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
`
`10451943
`
`
`- 12 -
`
`JUNIPER’S ANSWER TO FINJAN’S
`FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
`(Case No. 3:17-cv-05659-WHA)
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 92 Filed 06/01/18 Page 14 of 29
`
`
`provisional application that matured into the ‘494 Patent was not filed until November 2011 even
`
`though it claimed priority to a patent that was filed in January 1997.
`
`TWELFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
`136. Finjan’s claims of infringement under the doctrine of equivalents are barred under
`
`the Ensnarement Doctrine, which bars Finjan from asserting an infringement theory under the
`
`doctrine of equivalents that encompasses, or “ensnares,” the prior art.
`
`THIRTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
`137. Finjan cannot prove that this is an exceptional case justifying an award of attorney
`
`fees against Juniper pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 285.
`
`FOURTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
`138. Finjan’s claims based on the ‘494 and ‘154 Patents are barred because one or more
`
`of Finjan, the named inventors on the ‘494 and ‘154 Patents, their attorneys, representatives,
`
`predecessors in interest, and/or other persons with a duty of candor to the USPTO has committed
`
`inequitable conduct. The factual basis of the allegations in this paragraph is described in Juniper’s
`
`counterclaims below, which are incorporated herein by reference.
`
`FIFTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
`139. On information and belief, Finjan’s claims based on the patents-in-suit are barred
`
`by one or more of the equitable doctrines of equitable estoppel, acquiescence, waiver, and unclean
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`hands.
`
`140. On or about July 2, 2014, Finjan contacted Juniper with a c