Case 3:18-cv-02621-WHO Document 264-14 Filed 03/27/20 Page 1 of 14
`
`
`
`Exhibit M
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-02621-WHO Document 264-14 Filed 03/27/20 Page 2 of 14
`
`Caridis, Alyssa
`
`From:
`Sent:
`To:
`Cc:
`
`Subject:
`
`Brewer, Evan
`Tuesday, October 1, 2019 11:30 AM
`Xu, Linda
`Roberts, Clement; Caridis, Alyssa; Cheever, Frances; Feeman, Vickie L.; Hannah, James;
`Kobialka, Lisa; Andre, Paul; Kastens, Kris; Manes, Austin
`Re: Finjan v. Check Point: Issues with Finjan's Second Amended Infringement Contentions
`
`Linda,
`
`Regarding number 2, we cannot stipulate that an (unspecified) appliance is “representative” of all the other appliances in
`any number of (unspecified) ways. However, if you prepare a chart that uses one appliance and explains the ways that you
`contend it is representative of the other appliances, we may well be able to stipulate to your using it as a substitute for the
`other appliance charts.
`
`For number 3, we are fine with a stipulation that all instances of “such as,” “for example,” and other exemplary language be
`treated as “which is/are,” as you suggested earlier. If you agree, there would be no need to serve replacement charts.
`
`For 11, we do not understand what you mean, but if you want to show us what you are proposing we can discuss it.
`
`Evan
`_________________
`Evan Brewer
`ebrewer@orrick.com
`T: 650.614.7497
`M: 650.422.0967
`
`
`
`
`
`
`On Sep 27, 2019, at 16:23, Xu, Linda <LXu@KRAMERLEVIN.com> wrote:
`
`Evan,
`We are available next Wednesday at 3pm for the meet and confer. Please confirm it works for your
`schedule.
`It sounds like Check Point is not interested in working with Finjan on Check Point’s complaints of the
`infringement contentions. Regarding the alleged issues in the infringement contentions, below are our
`responses.
`For #1, we don’t understand what new allegations Check Point is referring to.
`For #2, Finjan’s position is set forth in my Sept 25 email.
`For #3, we will serve replacement charts for the “such as” language that we are able to locate.
`For #4, the parties disagree on this point.
`For #5, Finjan’s position is set forth in my Sept 25 email.
`For #6, we will not withdraw and disagree with your characterization of the Court’s order.
`For #7, we don’t understand what Check Point’s issues are, which is why we requested a meet and confer.
`For #8, we don’t understand what Check Point’s issues are.
`For #9, we will not withdraw our allegations.
`For #10, we disagree with Check Point.
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-02621-WHO Document 264-14 Filed 03/27/20 Page 3 of 14
`For #11, we are willing to provide a supplement to the cover pleading that identifies the asserted claims
`against the instrumentalities, as long as Check Point agrees that we can group those instrumentalities in
`that portion and will not object to it.
`For #12, We will serve a replacement chart for “D-731-IPS” so this issue is resolved and we can address
`similar instances if you identify them.
`
`
`
`Linda Xu
`Associate
`Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel LLP
`990 Marsh Road, Menlo Park, California 94025
`T 650.752.1728 F 650.752.1800
`This communication (including any attachments) is intended solely for the recipient(s) named above and may contain information
`that is confidential, privileged or legally protected. Any unauthorized use or dissemination of this communication is strictly prohibited.
`If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify the sender by return e-mail message and delete all
`copies of the original communication. Thank you for your cooperation.
`Per our earlier correspondence, we do not have a complete list of what you are referring to. Thus, we will
`serve one set of replacements after you have provided us with the complete list of issues.
`From: Brewer, Evan <ebrewer@orrick.com>
`Sent: Friday, September 27, 2019 1:15 PM
`To: Xu, Linda <LXu@KRAMERLEVIN.com>
`Cc: Roberts, Clement <croberts@orrick.com>; Caridis, Alyssa <acaridis@orrick.com>; Cheever, Frances
`<fcheever@orrick.com>; Feeman, Vickie L. <vfeeman@orrick.com>; Hannah, James
`<JHannah@KRAMERLEVIN.com>; Kobialka, Lisa <LKobialka@KRAMERLEVIN.com>; Andre, Paul
`<PAndre@KRAMERLEVIN.com>; Kastens, Kris <KKastens@KRAMERLEVIN.com>; Manes, Austin
`<AManes@KRAMERLEVIN.com>
`Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: Finjan v. Check Point: Issues with Finjan's Second Amended Infringement
`Contentions
`Hi Linda,
`
`2.
`
`1. We do not think an in person meet and confer is necessary on our motion to strike because it is not
`a discovery motion and because the issues have been so well vetted in writing and through the
`multiple motions that have been litigated. At this point you have yet to provide your position on 9
`of the 12 issues we raised and we therefore understand Finjan is not willing to fix any of these
`problems.
`If you can confirm you will serve a replacement chart for “D – 731 – IPS”, and you agree to remedy
`any similar instances we identify, item 12 can be removed from the list of issues.
`3. We are happy to discuss our discovery responses and IDC / Cloud Harmonics. Next week we could
`do a call on Wednesday or Thursday to discuss those issues. Note, however, that Orrick has a firm-
`wide retreat next week and our availability will be somewhat limited.
`4. We are working on hitcounts. I cannot confirm next week (this weekend is rosh hashanah), but I will
`circle back and give you a better sense of timing.
`5. Check Point believes that none of Finjan’s current claim charts comply with the Court’s orders and
`we will be moving to strike all of them.
`6. We gave you the raw data and that was what you asked for. We are working to get you some
`additional information about context as a courtesy. I expect we can have that for you next week.
`7. We expect to update our interrogatory response regarding smallest salable units next week.
`Generally speaking, we believe the individual products are the appropriate smallest saleable units,
`but we will give you a more precise answer in an amended discovery response.
`
`Evan
`_________________
`Evan Brewer
`ebrewer@orrick.com
`T: 650.614.7497
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-02621-WHO Document 264-14 Filed 03/27/20 Page 4 of 14
`M: 650.422.0967
`On Sep 27, 2019, at 12:46, Xu, Linda <LXu@KRAMERLEVIN.com> wrote:
`Evan,
`We haven’t heard back from you regarding the meet and confer. Please provide times that
`you are available next week. Also, you previously mentioned that you will send us a list of
`other instances regarding item 12 in Vickie’s email. We still haven’t received the list. When
`will you send it? In general, we are agreeable to address item 12 without the Court’s
`intervention.
`In addition, we would like to discuss the following items at the meet and confer.
`Check Point’s responses to RFPs 10-14, 18, 28, 29-33, 71, 83-88, 89-96. Specifically we
`would like to discuss Check Point’s positions in view of the limited production to date,
`including what systems that Check Point has searched, what it has produced, and what
`Check Point is withholding. We would also like to discuss the timing of exchanging initial
`privilege logs.
`Check Point’s production of material regarding IDC and Cloud Harmonics.
`We also need an update on the following items that Check Point promised weeks ago but
`has not delivered:
`Check Point has not provided hit counts for its ESI custodians. We provided the
`custodians well over a month ago. Confirm that you will at least be able to provide hit
`counts for the terms we provided by next week
`Check Point’s listing of instrumentalities that it agrees are still in the case. When will this
`be provided? Again, it has been several weeks since it was promised.
`Check Point’s description of the information included in each of the usage/scanning
`spreadsheets that Check Point provided. Again, these are indecipherable without some
`context and we have been waiting for weeks for the promised description.
`Supplementation of Check Point’s interrogatory response on the smallest salable unit. We
`provided in writing our clarification to this interrogatory weeks ago, as requested. When
`will Check Point supplement its response as agreed?
`Linda Xu
`Associate
`Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel LLP
`990 Marsh Road, Menlo Park, California 94025
`T 650.752.1728 F 650.752.1800
`This communication (including any attachments) is intended solely for the recipient(s)
`named above and may contain information that is confidential, privileged or legally
`protected. Any unauthorized use or dissemination of this communication is strictly
`prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify the
`sender by return e-mail message and delete all copies of the original communication. Thank
`you for your cooperation.
`From: Xu, Linda
`Sent: Wednesday, September 25, 2019 1:56 PM
`To: 'Brewer, Evan' <ebrewer@orrick.com>
`Cc: Roberts, Clement <croberts@orrick.com>; Caridis, Alyssa <acaridis@orrick.com>;
`Cheever, Frances <fcheever@orrick.com>; Feeman, Vickie L. <vfeeman@orrick.com>;
`Hannah, James <JHannah@KRAMERLEVIN.com>; Kobialka, Lisa
`<LKobialka@KRAMERLEVIN.com>; Andre, Paul <PAndre@KRAMERLEVIN.com>; Kastens,
`Kris <KKastens@KRAMERLEVIN.com>; Manes, Austin <AManes@KRAMERLEVIN.com>
`Subject: RE: Finjan v. Check Point: Issues with Finjan's Second Amended Infringement
`Contentions
`Evan,
`It sounds like we need to have a meet and confer. We want confirmation that the 9-17
`email from Vickie and your 9-19 email include a full list of issues, so we can work through
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-02621-WHO Document 264-14 Filed 03/27/20 Page 5 of 14
`them. Part of that is reaching an agreement on the accused instrumentalities that Finjan
`sent over on August 16 that are reflected in Finjan’s last set of contentions.
`Here are preliminary responses to the 3 issues below that may be subject to change if
`Check Point has other issues, as we do not want to be in a position, believing we reached
`agreement, only to have Check Point raise additional issues.
`1. If Check Point wants to enter into a stipulation regarding the charts, we can discuss this
`issue.
`2. Check Point is assuming that there are many instances of exemplary citations. We have
`not located any others beyond the two below. We already said any use of the phrase “such
`as” in infringement contentions are inadvertent and are not meant to be open-ended.
`3. The parties just disagree on this point. Finjan was required to provide source code
`citations, which it did. Can Check Point tell us where in the order Finjan was prohibited
`from citing the same or overlapping source code in its citations?
`From: Brewer, Evan <ebrewer@orrick.com>
`Sent: Wednesday, September 25, 2019 9:11 AM
`To: Xu, Linda <LXu@KRAMERLEVIN.com>
`Cc: Roberts, Clement <croberts@orrick.com>; Caridis, Alyssa <acaridis@orrick.com>;
`Cheever, Frances <fcheever@orrick.com>; Feeman, Vickie L. <vfeeman@orrick.com>;
`Hannah, James <JHannah@KRAMERLEVIN.com>; Kobialka, Lisa
`<LKobialka@KRAMERLEVIN.com>; Andre, Paul <PAndre@KRAMERLEVIN.com>; Kastens,
`Kris <KKastens@KRAMERLEVIN.com>; Manes, Austin <AManes@KRAMERLEVIN.com>
`Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: Finjan v. Check Point: Issues with Finjan's Second Amended
`Infringement Contentions
`Hi Linda, as I stated last Friday, we cannot commit to a “complete list of issues” as your
`infringement contentions are hundreds of thousands of pages long. To date you have
`responded, in part, as to three of the 12 issues we have identified. Nothing is being or has
`ever been “piecemealed,” and there is no cause for continued delay. Check Point requests a
`fulsome response by tomorrow.
`Regarding your partial answers as to three of the 12 issues:
`1. This is the same information you stated in your 9/19/19 email. I pointed to the Court’s
`order authorizing representative charts where appropriate. Your response is not entirely
`clear, but I take it to mean that Finjan is unwilling to use representative charts to condense
`the ~150,000 appliance charts. Please correct me if I am wrong.
`2. There are many such instances of exemplary citations and contentions throughout
`Finjan’s nearly 200,000 pages of charts. You appear to have limited your search to the
`exemplary citations I gave. Please confirm that Finjan is unable to search its own charts to
`find other instances. Otherwise, please confirm that Finjan will remove these admittedly
`improper exemplary citations/contentions.
`3. We disagree Finjan has met its burden to explain how the same code applies to different
`limitations and products, including because your response ignores the fact that Finjan has
`recycled code for different products. Please explain why Finjan considers this proper.
`_________________
`Evan Brewer
`ebrewer@orrick.com
`T: 650.614.7497
`M: 650.422.0967
`On Sep 24, 2019, at 17:51, Xu, Linda <LXu@KRAMERLEVIN.com> wrote:
`Evan,
`We will respond once we receive your complete list of issues, as we
`understand that thus far you have piecemealed your issues. As we
`repeatedly mentioned, we can work with Check Point to resolve some of
`your concerns and will do so once we have all of them.
`Furthermore, we are still waiting on a list of instrumentalities that Check
`Point agrees are still in the case. Please confirm that you agree with that
`4
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-02621-WHO Document 264-14 Filed 03/27/20 Page 6 of 14
`list, which is based on our last set of infringement contentions, so we can
`move forward with discovery.
`Below are our responses with respect to your late Friday afternoon email.
`Regarding Finjan’s use of separate charts for each hardware appliance, and
`due to Check Point’s claim that Finjan grouped products, the Court directed
`Finjan to provide a chart based on the instrumentality. As such, Finjan
`provided charts that separate out each accused appliance with the
`corresponding software.
`We have reviewed the citations Check Point provided for the alleged “open
`ended language” and we have still not find any occurrences of “for
`example.” However, to the extent “such as” appears, these were
`inadvertent and not meant to be a non-limiting example. They mean
`“which is/are”.
`We also looked at the identified charts below for the allegedly duplicative
`source code citations. First, you identified elements 1b and 14e of the ‘731
`Patent which are nearly identical claim elements and it is not clear to us
`what is not explained. That some of the same source code is implicated
`makes sense given the elements are nearly identical. Second, for Claim 10b
`and 10c, Finjan has cited differentiated source code for this elements.
`There is a small amount of source code relevant to different elements that
`is cited for both. In these limited cases where the same code is identified,
`Finjan provided a different explanation for how the code relates to the
`specifically identified element. The Court directed Finjan to provide an
`explanation specific to the particular element, which Finjan did. Finjan has
`done so in the examples you provided.
`Linda Xu
`Associate
`Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel LLP
`990 Marsh Road, Menlo Park, California 94025
`T 650.752.1728 F 650.752.1800
`This communication (including any attachments) is intended solely for the
`recipient(s) named above and may contain information that is confidential,
`privileged or legally protected. Any unauthorized use or dissemination of
`this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this
`communication in error, please immediately notify the sender by return e-
`mail message and delete all copies of the original communication. Thank
`you for your cooperation.
`From: Brewer, Evan <ebrewer@orrick.com>
`Sent: Tuesday, September 24, 2019 4:44 PM
`To: Xu, Linda <LXu@KRAMERLEVIN.com>
`Cc: Roberts, Clement <croberts@orrick.com>; Caridis, Alyssa
`<acaridis@orrick.com>; Cheever, Frances <fcheever@orrick.com>;
`Feeman, Vickie L. <vfeeman@orrick.com>; Hannah, James
`<JHannah@KRAMERLEVIN.com>; Kobialka, Lisa
`<LKobialka@KRAMERLEVIN.com>; Andre, Paul
`<PAndre@KRAMERLEVIN.com>; Kastens, Kris
`<KKastens@KRAMERLEVIN.com>; Manes, Austin
`<AManes@KRAMERLEVIN.com>
`Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: Finjan v. Check Point: Issues with Finjan's Second
`Amended Infringement Contentions
`Linda,
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-02621-WHO Document 264-14 Filed 03/27/20 Page 7 of 14
`In addition to the issues identified below in Vickie’s email, it appears there
`are a number of other instances akin to point #12, and we will pass those
`along once we’ve identified them all.
`More importantly, however, we have yet to receive a response on our
`additional comments to the three issues below, or the remaining nine
`issues in Vickie’s email. Please respond as to whether Finjan will withdraw
`its deficient contentions as outlined below by noon on Thursday, otherwise
`we will move forward with our motion. Beyond the months of back and
`forth on this issue and multiple court orders, it has now been a week since
`we identified the issues below and have received limited response only as
`to 3 of 12 issues, including no indication of whether Finjan will withdraw its
`deficient contentions.
`Evan
`_________________
`Evan Brewer
`ebrewer@orrick.com
`T: 650.614.7497
`M: 650.422.0967
`On Sep 20, 2019, at 14:30, Brewer, Evan
`<ebrewer@orrick.com> wrote:
`Linda, our responses are interlineated below.
`_________________
`Evan Brewer
`ebrewer@orrick.com
`T: 650.614.7497
`M: 650.422.0967
`On Sep 19, 2019, at 10:30, Xu, Linda
`<LXu@KRAMERLEVIN.com> wrote:
`Vickie,
`We’ve reviewed your response and we
`believe that we can resolve a large number
`of these without Court intervention with
`minor revisions. However, we’d like to set
`a date certain when Check Point will
`provide a complete list of issues with the
`contentions so that Finjan can review them
`and see if they need to be addressed. Can
`you agree to provide a complete list by
`next Friday the 27th? It does not make
`sense to do this in a piecemeal fashion.
`Given the volume of Finjan’s contentions,
`Check Point cannot commit to providing
`Finjan a “complete” list of issues next
`week. However, Check Point will provide a
`list of additional issues we’ve uncovered
`(i.e., beyond the 12 enumerated below) by
`early next week.
`Some preliminary responses and questions
`are provided below:
` The SAICs include thousands
`of charts purportedly directed to
`Check Point’s appliances. From
`our review, it does not appear
`that these charts have any
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-02621-WHO Document 264-14 Filed 03/27/20 Page 8 of 14
`substantive differences (though
`it is near impossible to make
`sure given the number of
`charts). Please confirm whether
`Finjan will select one (or a
`limited subset if Finjan believes
`multiple are necessary) chart
`per patent as exemplary and
`withdraw the remaining charts.
`We’ve provided charts as
`required by the Court, who
`indicated that they did not want
`any grouping of
`instrumentalities. We agree that
`these charts are largely similar
`and the appliances can be
`properly grouped together in a
`manner that would drastically
`reduce the number of charts. As
`this was done based on a Court
`order we’d need to file a
`stipulation stating that grouping
`the appliances is proper and
`serve revised charts that group
`the appliances. Does Check
`Point agree?
`A stipulation is not necessary. The Court
`made clear that where multiple
`instrumentalities are alleged to infringe in
`the same way, a combination chart can be
`appropriate. See, e.g., ECF No. 84, at 5-6
`("While under certain circumstances a
`plaintiff may use a single chart to chart a
`number of representative products,
`plaintiff must still, at a minimum, “chart a
`single product against all elements.” Cap
`Co. v. McAfee, Inc., No. 14-cv-05068-JD,
`2015 WL 4734951, at 2* (N.D. Cal. Aug. 10,
`2015). … Combination claim charts
`(whereby the party asserting infringement
`describes how multiple products infringe
`the asserted patent(s) in a single chart) can
`provide the required specificity under
`Patent Local Rule 3–1(c), if each accused
`product allegedly infringes in the same
`way. See Creagri, Inc. v. Pinnaclife Inc., LLC,
`No. 11-cv-06635-LHK-PSG, 2012 WL
`5389775, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 2, 2012)”).
` The SAICs include countless
`instances of “for example” or
`“such as” when referring to
`contentions and/or source code
`citations. This type of open
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-02621-WHO Document 264-14 Filed 03/27/20 Page 9 of 14
`ended language does not serve
`to crystallize theories. Please
`confirm that Finjan will remove
`each instance of “for example”
`or “such as” in its charts. We
`looked for these but did not see
`them. Perhaps we are have a
`problem with the OCR in our
`charts. Can you provide some
`pin cites to where Check Point
`believes these occur? These
`should be easy fixes.
`We don’t understand how Finjan could
`possibly have difficulty searching for these
`phrases across the charts that Finjan
`drafted and served, particularly in light of
`the fact that the versions served on Check
`Point are OCR’ed and text searchable.
`Nevertheless, non-limiting examples
`include limitation 8b of the Endpoint Anti-
`Ransomware ’633 chart and limitation 10b
`of the SandBlast Mobile ’494.
` In many instances, Finjan’s
`SAICs continue to cite the same
`code for different limitations and
`different patents without
`explaining why the code applies
`to wholly different limitations,
`despite that the Court ordered
`Finjan to provide such
`explanation. If Finjan is willing to
`consider withdrawing all
`contentions where you cite the
`same code for different
`limitations without explaining
`why it applies to such different
`limitations, let us know and we
`can have a further discussion or
`provide a list. Can you identify
`the code you are referring to?
`We believe that all code that is
`cited for different elements that
`are not performing the
`same/similar function has been
`provided a unique description
`for why it is relevant to that
`element. If there is any duplicate
`code we will consider
`withdrawing it.
`You are mistaken—there is extensive
`duplication of code. Non-limiting examples
`include ’494 limitations 10b and 10c for
`Anti-Bot, Anti-Virus, and Anti-Spam &
`Email Security and ’731 limitations 1c and
`8
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-02621-WHO Document 264-14 Filed 03/27/20 Page 10 of 14
`14e for Anti-Virus, Anti-Spam & Email
`Security, and IPS in combination with Anti-
`Virus.
`Linda Xu
`Associate
`Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel LLP
`990 Marsh Road, Menlo Park, California
`94025
`T 650.752.1728 F 650.752.1800
`lxu@kramerlevin.com
`Bio
`This communication (including any
`attachments) is intended solely for the
`recipient(s) named above and may contain
`information that is confidential, privileged
`or legally protected. Any unauthorized use
`or dissemination of this communication is
`strictly prohibited. If you have received this
`communication in error, please
`immediately notify the sender by return e-
`mail message and delete all copies of the
`original communication. Thank you for
`your cooperation.
`From: Feeman, Vickie L.
`<vfeeman@orrick.com>
`Sent: Tuesday, September 17, 2019 6:51
`PM
`To: Xu, Linda <LXu@KRAMERLEVIN.com>;
`Roberts, Clement <croberts@orrick.com>;
`Caridis, Alyssa <acaridis@orrick.com>;
`Cheever, Frances <fcheever@orrick.com>;
`Brewer, Evan <ebrewer@orrick.com>
`Cc: Hannah, James
`<JHannah@KRAMERLEVIN.com>; Kobialka,
`Lisa <LKobialka@KRAMERLEVIN.com>;
`Andre, Paul
`<PAndre@KRAMERLEVIN.com>; Kastens,
`Kris <KKastens@KRAMERLEVIN.com>;
`Manes, Austin
`<AManes@KRAMERLEVIN.com>
`Subject: [EXTERNAL] Finjan v. Check Point:
`Issues with Finjan's Second Amended
`Infringement Contentions
`Linda,
`I am writing concerning Finjan’s
`Second Amended Infringement
`Contentions (“SAICs”). Our analysis of
`the SAICs is ongoing. While we identify
`specific issues below, this e-mail is not
`intended to be an exhaustive list and
`Check Point reserves all of its rights
`relating to deficiencies in the SAICs.
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-02621-WHO Document 264-14 Filed 03/27/20 Page 11 of 14
`(1) The SAICs impermissibly
`include new contentions.
`Specifically, Finjan accuses
`products that were previously
`struck with prejudice (e.g.
`Network Firewall) and includes
`new allegations (e.g. accusing a
`product of infringing a certain
`claim where Finjan did not do so
`previously) where the Court did
`not give, and Finjan did not
`seek, leave to so amend. If
`Finjan is willing to consider
`dropping its improper
`allegations, let us know and we
`can have a further discussion.
`(2) The SAICs include
`thousands of charts purportedly
`directed to Check Point’s
`appliances. From our review, it
`does not appear that these
`charts have any substantive
`differences (though it is near
`impossible to make sure given
`the number of charts). Please
`confirm whether Finjan will
`select one (or a limited subset if
`Finjan believes multiple are
`necessary) chart per patent as
`exemplary and withdraw the
`remaining charts.
`(3) The SAICs include countless
`instances of “for example” or
`“such as” when referring to
`contentions and/or source code
`citations. This type of open
`ended language does not serve
`to crystallize theories. Please
`confirm that Finjan will remove
`each instance of “for example”
`or “such as” in its charts.
`(4) The SAICs also are replete
`with improper open ended
`contentions insofar as Finjan
`has copied excerpts of Check
`Point’s response to interrogatory
`no. 9 for most claim elements.
`Again, such open ended
`citations have been rejected by
`the Court. Please confirm that
`you will remove these and serve
`new charts.
`(5) In many instances, Finjan’s
`SAICs continue to cite the same
`code for different limitations and
`different patents without
`explaining why the code applies
`10
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-02621-WHO Document 264-14 Filed 03/27/20 Page 12 of 14
`to wholly different limitations,
`despite that the Court ordered
`Finjan to provide such
`explanation. If Finjan is willing to
`consider withdrawing all
`contentions where you cite the
`same code for different
`limitations without explaining
`why it applies to such different
`limitations, let us know and we
`can have a further discussion or
`provide a list.
`(6) The charts for SmartEvent
`(network security blade and
`endpoint versions) and
`Forensics improperly list a
`number of blades that Finjan
`alleges could, in combination
`with those products, infringe
`upon the ‘494 and ‘086 patents.
`The Court expressly rejected
`this type of open-ended
`contentions. Please confirm that
`you will withdraw these charts.
`(7) The charts combining
`Firewall with Threat Emulation
`are deficient with respect to the
`‘986, ‘154 and ‘731 patents
`because Finjan does not assert
`that Firewall practices any
`limitations of those patents.
`Accordingly, if Finjan refuses to
`withdraw its Firewall allegations
`in their entirety as requested
`above, please confirm that
`Finjan will at least remove
`Firewall from these charts.
`(8) Finjan’s chart combining
`Anti-Bot with Anti-Virus for the
`’154 patent is deficient because
`Finjan does not identify which
`instrumentality purportedly
`practices which limitation, or
`how the instrumentalities work
`together to practice the
`limitations. Please confirm that
`you will withdraw these charts
`and any accusations that Anti-
`Bot + Anti-Virus infringe the ’154
`patent.
`(9) There are many instances
`where Finjan fails to identify the
`particular features of the
`accused instrumentalities that
`map onto the claim language,
`how the code supports its
`infringement theories, or fails to
`11
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-02621-WHO Document 264-14 Filed 03/27/20 Page 13 of 14
`address limitations. For
`example, (a) Finjan fails to
`explain how IPS maps onto
`limitation 1b of the ‘731 patent;
`(b) Finjan fails to explain how
`Anti-Virus, Anti-Spam & Email
`Security, and IPS map onto
`limitation 10d of ‘494 patent or
`limitation 42c of ‘086 patent; (c)
`Finjan fails to explain how Anti-
`Virus, Anti-Spam & Email
`Security, IPS and Anti-Bot map
`onto limitations of 10c of the
`’494 patent or 24c of the ’086
`patent.; and (d) Finjan fails to
`explain how IPS maps onto
`limitation 1c, 15c, and 41c of
`‘844 patent. Please confirm that
`you will withdraw the allegations
`that IPS infringes ‘731 patent
`claim 1, ‘494 patent claim 10,
`‘086 patent claims 24 and 42,
`‘844 patent claims 1, 15 and 41;
`that Anti-Virus infringes ‘494
`patent claim 10, ‘086 patent
`claim 24 and 42; Anti-Spam &
`Email Security infringes ‘494
`patent claim 10, ‘086 patent
`claim 24 and 42; Anti-Bot
`infringes ‘494 patent claim 10,
`‘086 patent claim 24.
`(10) Finjan’s ‘154 Charts do not
`explain how the First Function and
`Second Function limitations are
`present in any Check Point
`products. If Finjan is willing to
`consider withdrawing these charts,
`we can have a further discussion.
`(11) Please confirm that Finjan
`will revise its cover pleading to
`accurately identify which claims
`are being asserted against
`which products. An example of
`this issue is with the ’086
`Charts. Finjan’s cover pleading
`contends that a large number of
`products are accused of
`infringing claim 33 of the ’086
`patent, but that claim is only
`charted against a small subset
`of products. Please either revise
`the cover pleading so it
`accurately reflects Finjan’s
`contentions or otherwise explain
`this discrepancy.
`(12) Please confirm that the
`infringement chart labeled “D –
`12
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-02621-WHO Document 264-14 Filed 03/27/20 Page 14 of 14
`731 – IPS” should actually be “D
`– 731 – IPS + Network Anti-
`Virus” and provide a
`replacement chart.
`Let us know if you will agree to the
`above or if you would like to discuss.
`Regards, Vickie Feeman
`
`NOTICE TO RECIPIENT | This e-mail is meant for only the intended recipient of the transmission, and may be a communication privileged by law. If you
`received this e-mail in error, any review, use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this e-mail is strictly prohibited.
`error by return e-mail and please delete this message from your system. Thank you in advance for your cooperation.
`
`For more information about Orrick, please visit http://www.orrick.com.
`
`In the course of our business relationship, we may collect, store and transfer information about you. Please see our privacy
`athttps://www.orrick.com/Privacy-Policy to learn about how we use this information.
`
`NOTICE TO RECIPIENT | This e-mail is meant for only the intended recipient of the transmission, and may be a communication privileged by law. If you
`received this e-mail in error, any review, use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this e-mail is strictly prohibited. Please notify us immediately of the
`error by return e-mail and please delete this message from your system. Thank you in advance for your cooperation.
`
`For more information about Orrick, please visit http://www.orrick.com.
`
`In the course of our business relationship, we may collect, store and transfer information about you. Please see our privacy policy
`athttps://www.orrick.com/Privacy-Policy to learn about how we use this information.
`
`NOTICE TO RECIPIENT | This e-mail is meant for only the intended recipient of the transmission, and may be a communication privileged by law. If you
`received this e-mail in error, any review, use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this e-mail is strictly prohibited. Please notify us immediately of the
`error by return e-mail and please delete this message from your system. Thank you in advance for your cooperation.
`
`For more information about Orrick, please visit http://www.orrick.com.
`
`In the course of our business relationship, we may collect, store and transfer information about you. Please see our privacy policy at
`https://www.orrick.com/Privacy-Policy to learn about how we use this information.
`
`NOTICE TO RECIPIENT | This e-mail is meant for only the intended recipient of the transmission, and may be a communication privileged by law. If you
`received this e-mail in error, any review, use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this e-mail is strictly prohibited. Please notify us immediately of the
`error by return e-mail and please delete this message from your system. Thank you in advance for your cooperation.
`
`For more information about Orrick, please visit http://www.orrick.com.
`
`In the course of our business relationship, we may collect, store and transfer information about you. Please see our privacy policy
`athttps://www.orrick.com/Privacy-Policy to learn about how we use this information.
`
`
`
`13
`
`