Case 3:18-cv-02621-WHO Document 264-9 Filed 03/27/20 Page 1 of 9
`
`
`
`Exhibit H
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-02621-WHO Document 264-9 Filed 03/27/20 Page 2 of 9
`
`
`
`PAUL J. ANDRE (State Bar No. 196585)
`pandre@kramerlevin.com
`LISA KOBIALKA (State Bar No. 191404)
`lkobialka@kramerlevin.com
`JAMES HANNAH (State Bar No. 237978)
`jhannah@kramerlevin.com
`KRISTOPHER B. KASTENS (State Bar No. 254797)
`kkastens@kramerlevin.com
`KRAMER LEVIN NAFTALIS & FRANKEL LLP
`990 Marsh Road
`Menlo Park, CA 94025
`Telephone: (650) 752-1700
`Facsimile: (650) 752-1800
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff
`FINJAN, INC.
`
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
`
`Case No.: 5:18-cv-02621-WHO
`
`PLAINTIFF FINJAN, INC.’S RESPONSES
`AND OBJECTIONS TO DEFENDANT
`CHECK POINT SOFTWARE
`TECHNOLOGIES, INC.’S SECOND SET
`OF INTERROGATORIES (NO. 4)
`
`
`
`FINJAN, INC., a Delaware Corporation,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`
`CHECK POINT SOFTWARE
`TECHNOLOGIES INC., a Delaware
`Corporation, CHECK POINT SOFTWARE
`TECHNOLOGIES LTD., an Israeli Limited
`Company,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`FINJAN, INC.’S RESPONSES TO CHECK POINT’S
`SECOND SET OF INTERROGATORIES (NO. 4)
`
`
`
` CASE NO.: 5:18-cv-02621-WHO
`
`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 3:18-cv-02621-WHO Document 264-9 Filed 03/27/20 Page 3 of 9
`
`
`
`Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. Rule 33, Plaintiff Finjan, Inc. (“Finjan”) responds to Defendant, Check
`
`Point Software Technologies, Inc.’s (“Check Point” or “Defendant”) Second Set of Interrogatories
`
`(“Interrogatories”). Finjan makes these objections and responses herein (collectively “Responses”)
`
`based solely on its current knowledge, understanding, and belief as to the facts and information
`
`reasonably available to it as of the date of the Responses.
`
`Additional discovery and investigation may lead to additions to, changes in, or modifications of
`
`these Responses. The Responses, therefore, are given without prejudice to Finjan’s right to
`
`supplement these Responses pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(e), or to provide subsequently discovered
`
`information and to introduce such subsequently discovered information at the time of any trial or
`
`proceeding in this action.
`
`GENERAL OBJECTIONS
`
`1.
`
`Finjan hereby incorporates by reference each and every general objection set forth
`
`below into each and every specific Response. From time to time, a specific Response may repeat a
`
`general objection for emphasis or for some other reason. The failure to include a general objection in a
`
`specific Response shall not be interpreted as a waiver of that general objection to that Response.
`2.
`
`Finjan objects to each and every Interrogatory, Definition, and Instruction to the extent
`
`that they are vague, ambiguous, unintelligible, or compound.
`3.
`
`Finjan objects to each and every Interrogatory, Definition, and Instruction to the extent
`
`that they are overly broad, unduly burdensome, seek information not relevant to the claim or defense of
`
`any party, and are not proportional to the needs of this case.
`4.
`
`Finjan objects to each and every Interrogatory, Definition, and Instruction to the extent
`
`that they are not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible information.
`5.
`
`Finjan objects to each and every Interrogatory, Definition and Instruction to the extent
`
`they are not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence because they are not
`
`properly limited in time.
`
`1
`FINJAN, INC.’S RESPONSES TO CHECK POINT’S
`SECOND SET OF INTERROGATORIES (NO. 4)
`
`
`
` CASE NO.: 5:18-cv-02621-WHO
`
`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 3:18-cv-02621-WHO Document 264-9 Filed 03/27/20 Page 4 of 9
`
`
`
`6.
`
`Finjan objects to each and every Interrogatory, Definition, and Instruction to the extent
`
`that they are unduly burdensome and oppressive, to the extent they subject Finjan to unreasonable and
`
`undue effort or expense.
`7.
`
`Finjan objects to each and every Interrogatory, Definition, and Instruction to the extent
`
`that they seek information beyond Finjan’s actual knowledge, custody, or control.
`8.
`
`Finjan objects to each and every Interrogatory, Definition, and Instruction to the extent
`
`they are unreasonably cumulative or duplicative.
`9.
`
`Finjan objects to each and every Interrogatory, Definition, and Instruction to the extent
`
`they seek information that is obtainable from some other source that is more convenient, less
`
`burdensome, or less expensive.
`10.
`
`Finjan objects to each and every Interrogatory, Definition, and Instruction to the extent
`
`that they seek information within Defendant’s possession, custody or control.
`11.
`
`Finjan objects to each and every Interrogatory, Definition, and Instruction to the extent
`
`they seek information in the public domain, information equally available to Defendant from another
`
`source and/or information that can be obtained more efficiently by Defendant through other means of
`
`discovery. Defendant can ascertain such information from its own records or from other sources at
`
`least as readily as Finjan.
`12.
`
`Finjan objects to each and every Interrogatory, Definition, and Instruction to the extent
`
`that they seek confidential, business, financial, proprietary or sensitive information, or trade secrets of
`
`third parties, which may be subject to pre-existing protective order(s) and/or confidentiality
`
`agreements or in which any third party has an expectation of privacy. Such information shall not be
`
`provided absent an express order to the contrary from a court of competent jurisdiction, or an
`
`authorization from the third party having the interest in the information’s confidentiality.
`13.
`
`Finjan objects to each and every Interrogatory, Definition, and Instruction to the extent
`
`they seek information protected by the attorney-client privilege, the work product doctrine, or any
`
`other applicable law, privilege, doctrine or immunity. Finjan will not disclose any information so
`
`2
`FINJAN, INC.’S RESPONSES TO CHECK POINT’S
`SECOND SET OF INTERROGATORIES (NO. 4)
`
`
`
` CASE NO.: 5:18-cv-02621-WHO
`
`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 3:18-cv-02621-WHO Document 264-9 Filed 03/27/20 Page 5 of 9
`
`
`
`protected, and the inadvertent disclosure or identification of any such information is not intended as,
`
`and will not constitute, a waiver of such privilege, doctrine, or immunity.
`14.
`
`Finjan objects to each and every Interrogatory, Definition, and Instruction to the extent
`
`they call for a legal conclusion. Finjan’s responses shall not be construed as providing legal
`
`conclusions concerning the meaning or application of any terms used in Defendant’s Interrogatories.
`15.
`
`Finjan objects to each and every Interrogatory, Definition, and Instruction to the extent
`
`that they are premature, as they seek documents that are set to be disclosed on scheduled dates directed
`
`by the Court or the Northern District of California Patent Local Rules.
`16.
`
`Finjan objects to each and every Interrogatory, Definition, and Instruction to the extent
`
`that they are premature as the Court has not yet entered a claim construction order in this action.
`17.
`
`Finjan objects to each and every Interrogatory, Definition, and Instruction as premature
`
`to the extent they seek information that will be the subject of expert testimony.
`18.
`
`Finjan objects to each and every Interrogatory, Definition, and Instruction to the extent
`
`that they impose obligations inconsistent with the Amended Case Management Order entered at Dkt.
`
`No. 35 or the protective order or ESI order to be entered in this case.
`19.
`
`Finjan objects to each and every Interrogatory, Definition, and Instruction to the extent
`
`they assume or mischaracterize any facts. Finjan’s responses shall not be construed as agreeing to any
`
`facts or characterizations contained in Defendant’s Interrogatories.
`20.
`
`Finjan objects to each and every Interrogatory, Definition, and Instruction to the extent
`
`that they purport to impose any requirement or discovery obligation greater than or different from
`
`those imposed by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Local Rules of this Court, or orders of the
`
`Court governing these proceedings.
`21.
`
`Finjan objects to each and every Interrogatory, Definition, and Instruction to the extent
`
`that they are unduly burdensome and oppressive on the grounds that they purport to require Finjan to
`
`search its facilities and inquire of its employees other than those facilities and employees that would
`
`reasonably be expected to have responsive information. Finjan’s Responses and productions are based
`
`upon: (1) a search of facilities and files that could reasonably be expected to contain responsive
`
`3
`FINJAN, INC.’S RESPONSES TO CHECK POINT’S
`SECOND SET OF INTERROGATORIES (NO. 4)
`
`
`
` CASE NO.: 5:18-cv-02621-WHO
`
`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 3:18-cv-02621-WHO Document 264-9 Filed 03/27/20 Page 6 of 9
`
`
`
`information and (2) inquiries of Finjan’s employees and/or representatives who could reasonably be
`
`expected to possess responsive information.
`22.
`
`Finjan objects to each and every Definition, Instruction, and Interrogatory to the extent
`
`it is compound and/or contains multiple subparts. Finjan will count each subpart as a separate
`
`interrogatory pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 33(a). Finjan will not respond to
`
`interrogatories in excess of the allotted number of interrogatories established in the Court’s scheduling
`
`order.
`23.
`
`Finjan’s written responses and production of documents are not intended to waive, and
`
`do not constitute waiver of, any objection that Finjan may have to the admissibility, authenticity,
`
`competency, relevance, or materiality of any documents produced or referred to in response to an
`
`Interrogatory. For any and all written responses and production of documents, Finjan reserves all
`
`objections or other questions regarding the admissibility, authenticity, competency, relevance, or
`
`materiality of any documents produced or referred to in response to an Interrogatory, as evidence in
`
`this Litigation or any other proceeding, action, or trial.
`24.
`
`Finjan’s written responses and production of documents are based upon information and
`
`writings available to and located by its attorneys as of service of these Responses. Finjan has not
`
`completed its investigation of the facts relating to this case, has not completed discovery in this action,
`
`and has not completed preparation for trial. All the information supplied and documents and things
`
`produced are based only on such information and documents that are reasonably available and
`
`specifically known to Finjan and its attorneys as of the date of service of these Responses. Therefore,
`
`Finjan’s written responses and production of documents are without prejudice to its right to
`
`supplement and/or amend its written responses and production of documents and to present at trial or
`
`other proceeding evidence discovered hereafter.
`
`OBJECTIONS TO DEFINITIONS AND INSTRUCTIONS
`
`1.
`
`In addition to the objections set forth below, Finjan hereby specifically incorporates
`
`each and every general objection set forth above in its objections to Defendant’s definitions and
`
`instructions.
`
`4
`FINJAN, INC.’S RESPONSES TO CHECK POINT’S
`SECOND SET OF INTERROGATORIES (NO. 4)
`
`
`
` CASE NO.: 5:18-cv-02621-WHO
`
`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 3:18-cv-02621-WHO Document 264-9 Filed 03/27/20 Page 7 of 9
`
`
`
`2.
`
`Finjan objects to Defendant’s Definitions of the terms “Plaintiff,” “Finjan,” “you,” and
`
`“your,” and to each Interrogatory that incorporates any of these terms, to the extent they are overly
`
`broad and burdensome and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
`
`Finjan further objects to these definitions, and to each Interrogatory that incorporates any of these
`
`terms, to the extent that they call for a legal conclusion or seek documents or information protected
`
`from discovery by the attorney-client privilege, the work product doctrine, or any other applicable law,
`
`privilege, doctrine or immunity. Finjan further objects to these definitions, and to each Interrogatory
`
`that incorporates any of these terms, to the extent they include entities and persons over whom Finjan
`
`has no control.
`3.
`
`Finjan objects to Defendant’s Definition of the terms “any,” “all,” “each,” and “and/or,”
`
`and to each Interrogatory that incorporates either of these terms, to the extent they are overly broad,
`
`unduly burdensome, not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence and not
`
`proportional to the needs of the case.
`
`RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR INTERROGATORY
`
`Subject to and without waiving its general objections and objections to Definitions and
`
`Instructions set forth above, each of which is specifically incorporated into the specific Responses
`
`contained below, Finjan hereby responds to Defendant’s Interrogatories as follows:
`
`INTERROGATORY NO. 4:
`
`For each ACCUSED PRODUCT, separately and on a limitation-by-limitation basis in chart
`
`format, identify the source code, by listing the full directory path, file name, function, or procedure
`
`name (if applicable), and line numbers, that FINJAN will rely on to support its contentions that such
`
`ACCUSED PRODUCT meets each limitation of each asserted claim of each ASSERTED PATENT.
`
`RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 4:
`
`Plaintiff incorporates by reference its General Objections as if fully set forth herein. Plaintiff
`
`objects to this Interrogatory to the extent it is not proportional to the needs of the case, especially
`
`considering the parties’ relative access to relevant information, the parties’ resources, the importance
`
`of the discovery in resolving the issues, and whether the burden or expense of the proposed discovery
`
`5
`FINJAN, INC.’S RESPONSES TO CHECK POINT’S
`SECOND SET OF INTERROGATORIES (NO. 4)
`
`
`
` CASE NO.: 5:18-cv-02621-WHO
`
`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 3:18-cv-02621-WHO Document 264-9 Filed 03/27/20 Page 8 of 9
`
`
`
`outweighs its likely benefit. Plaintiff objects to this Request to the extent that it seeks information
`
`beyond Plaintiff’s actual knowledge, custody, or control. Plaintiff objects to this Interrogatory as
`
`premature and overly burdensome because it calls for subsequent discovery in this action and/or expert
`
`testimony that will be provided according to deadlines set by the Court, and it seeks disclosure of
`
`documents and information subject to the Northern District of California Patent Local Rules and the
`
`Court-ordered schedule in this action.
`
`Subject to and without waiving the foregoing general and specific objections, Plaintiff responds
`
`as follows: Plaintiff will serve its infringement contentions in accordance with the schedule set forth in
`
`the Court’s Order issued September 10, 2018 (Dkt. No. 29), and in accordance with Patent Local Rule
`
`3-1 and 3-2.
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated: September 26, 2018
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`By: /s/ Kristopher Kastens
`Paul J. Andre
`Lisa Kobialka
`James Hannah
`Kristopher Kastens
`KRAMER LEVIN NAFTALIS
`& FRANKEL LLP
`990 Marsh Road
`Menlo Park, CA 94025
`Telephone: (650) 752-1700
`Facsimile: (650) 752-1800
`pandre@kramerlevin.com
`lkobialka@kramerlevin.com
`jhannah@kramerlevin.com
`kkastens@kramerlevin.com
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff
`FINJAN, INC.
`
`
`
`
`6
`FINJAN, INC.’S RESPONSES TO CHECK POINT’S
`SECOND SET OF INTERROGATORIES (NO. 4)
`
`
`
` CASE NO.: 5:18-cv-02621-WHO
`
`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 3:18-cv-02621-WHO Document 264-9 Filed 03/27/20 Page 9 of 9
`
`
`
`PROOF OF SERVICE
`
`I, Sarah Ackard, am employed in the Menlo Park, California office of Kramer Levin Naftalis &
`
`Frankel LLP. I am over the age of 18 and not a party to the within action. My business address is 990
`
`Marsh Road, Menlo Park, California 94025. I am readily familiar with the firm’s practice of collecting
`
`and processing of mail for mailing with the U.S. Postal Service and overnight delivery services.
`
`On September 26, 2018, I caused the following document(s) to be served:
`
`
`
`PLAINTIFF FINJAN, INC.’S RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO
`DEFENDANT CHECK POINT SOFTWARE TECHNOLOGIES, INC.’S
`SECOND SET OF INTERROGATORIES (NO. 4)
`by electronic mail addressed as follows:
`
`
`Clement Roberts
`ORRICK, HERRINGTON &
`SUTCLIFFE LLP
`405 Howard Street
`San Francisco, CA 94105
`croberts@orrick.com
`
`
`Amy K. Van Zandt
`Frances Cheever
`Vickie Feeman
`Evan Brewer
`Jason Yu
`ORRICK, HERRINGTON &
`SUTCLIFFE LLP
`1000 Marsh Road
`Menlo Park, CA 94025
`avanzant@orrick.com
`fcheever@orrick.com
`vfeeman@orrick.com
`ebrewer@orrick.com
`jasonyu@orrick.com
`
`
`I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the
`
`foregoing is true and correct. Executed on September 26, 2018, in Menlo Park, CA.
`
`
`
`_______________________________
`Sarah Ackard
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`7
`FINJAN, INC.’S RESPONSES TO CHECK POINT’S
`SECOND SET OF INTERROGATORIES (NO. 4)
`
`
`
` CASE NO.: 5:18-cv-02621-WHO
`
`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
`
`