Case 3:18-cv-02621-WHO Document 84 Filed 02/27/19 Page 1 of 18
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`FINJAN, INC.,
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`CHECK POINT SOFTWARE
`TECHNOLOGIES, INC., et al.,
`Defendants.
`
`Case No. 18-cv-02621-WHO
`
`
`ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO
`STRIKE IN PART; GRANTING
`MOTIONS TO SEAL; GRANTING
`MOTION TO AMEND CLAIM
`CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE
`Re: Dkt. Nos. 54, 55, 58, 60, 69, 75
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`This is a patent infringement action. Plaintiff Finjan, Inc. (“Finjan”) accuses defendant
`
`Check Point Software Technologies, Inc. and Check Point Software Technologies Ltd.
`
`(collectively “Check Point”) of directly and indirectly infringing on several of its patents related to
`
`cyber security. Complaint at ¶¶ 8-9 [Dkt. No. 1]. Check Point moves to strike a number of
`
`Finjan’s infringement contentions for violations of my Order Re Case Narrowing and
`
`Infringement Contentions (the “Narrowing Order”) [Dkt. No. 29] and the Patent Local Rules.
`
`Check Point’s Motion to Enforce Court Order and Strike Infringement Contentions (“Mot.”) [Dkt.
`
`No. 55]. The motion to strike is granted in part and Finjan must amend its infringement
`
`contentions.
`
`BACKGROUND
`
`
`
`After receiving briefing from the parties on how to manage this litigation in compliance
`
`with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 1’s mandate of a “just, speedy, and inexpensive
`
`determination of this action,” I ordered Finjan to serve its infringement contentions under
`
`specifications that largely follow the provisions of this Court’s Patent Local Rules as well as the
`
`guidance provided in the 2013 Model Order. Narrowing Order. Finjan was instructed to “include
`
`pinpoint source code citations . . . accompanied by the document production required by Patent
`
`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
`
`Northern District of California
`United States District Court
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-02621-WHO Document 84 Filed 02/27/19 Page 2 of 18
`
`
`
`Local Rule 3-2” and to also:
`(i) avoid open-ended citations to “exemplary” products and use of the
`terms “such as” and “for example”; (ii) set forth any infringement
`theories based on the doctrine of equivalents with limitation-by-
`limitation analyses; and (iii) for any indirect theories of infringement,
`identify the alleged direct infringement, the alleged acts of
`inducement or contribution to that infringement, and the relationship
`between them.
`Id. at 2. On November 2, 2018, Finjan served its infringement contentions on Check Point. Mot.
`
`at 1.
`
`The infringement contentions consist of a cover pleading, a list of every instrumentality
`
`that allegedly infringes, and thirty-four claim charts. The cover pleading provides information on
`
`Finjan’s initial disclosure of asserted claims, infringement contentions, and document production
`
`pursuant to Patent Local Rules 3-1 and 3-2. Plaintiff Finjan, Inc.’s Initial Disclosure of Asserted
`
`Claims and Infringement Contentions and Document Production Pursuant to Patent Local Rules 3-
`
`1 and 3-2 (the “Initial Disclosures”), attached as Exhibit C to Declaration of Clement Roberts
`
`(“Roberts Decl.”) [Dkt. No. 55-21]. The instrumentality list sets forth every instrumentality made
`
`by Check Point that allegedly infringes Finjan’s patents, divided into five product categories: (1)
`
`Network Security Products, (2) Endpoint Enterprise Products, (3) Endpoint Consumer Products,
`
`(4) Mobile Products, and (5) Cloud Services Products. Id. at Ex. A. Within each product
`
`category, Finjan identified “Model/Product Identifiers” that include discrete software components
`
`and what Check Point alleges are marketing terms, product bundles, and packages. Id. It accuses
`
`42 discrete blades, software, components, and services. Declaration of Tamir Zegman (“Zegman
`
`Decl.”) at ¶ 18 [Dkt. No. 55-2].
`
`Finjan produced seven sets of claim charts (34 total), with one set for each patent asserted
`
`in this case. Roberts Decl. at ¶¶ 9-10. Each set contains a chart for each allegedly infringing
`
`product category mentioned above. Id. Each chart identifies elements of the patent, provides
`
`some information about the location of that element within Check Point’s products using materials
`
`found on Check Point’s website, and then references Check Point’s source code. Opposition at 3-
`
`4 [Dkt No. 60-4]. Check Point notes that the source code citations largely overlap across all the
`
`charts within a product category, regardless of which element or patent is being charted. Zegman
`
`2
`
`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
`
`Northern District of California
`United States District Court
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-02621-WHO Document 84 Filed 02/27/19 Page 3 of 18
`
`
`
`Decl. at ¶¶ 28-29.
`
`Check Point moves to strike a number of Finjan’s infringement contentions for violating
`
`the Narrowing Order and the Patent Local Rules because the contentions: (1) improperly combine
`
`multiple instrumentalities into a single claim chart; (2) fail to provide pinpoint source code
`
`citations to each accused instrumentality; (3) improperly use open-ended exemplary product
`
`definitions; (4) fail to provide its infringement theory with pinpoint citations sufficient to identify
`
`how each accused instrumentality infringes each claim element in each asserted patent; and (5)
`
`improperly accuse irrelevant instrumentalities and previously-unidentified instrumentalities
`
`without showing good cause. Mot. at 15-24. Taken together, Check Point contends that it is
`
`impossible to determine whether Finjan is accusing each product on a stand-alone basis or as part
`
`of a combination. Id. at 2-3. Check Point asks that I strike the 25 instrumentalities that lack
`
`source code citations and to require Finjan (i) to specify whether each remaining instrumentality is
`
`being accused alone or as part of a combination (and if so, to specify the combination) and (ii) to
`
`disclose its theories about how each source code citation satisfies each claim limitation for which
`
`it is cited. Id. at 16.
`
`LEGAL STANDARD
`
`Patent Local Rule 3-1 requires:
`
`
`[A] party claiming patent infringement shall serve on all parties a ‘Disclosure of
`Asserted Claims and Infringement Contentions[]’ . . . [which] shall contain the
`following information:
`
`(a) Each claim of each patent in suit that is allegedly infringed by each opposing
`party, including for each claim the applicable statutory subsections of 35 U.S.C. §
`271 asserted;
`
`(b) Separately for each asserted claim, each accused apparatus, product, device,
`process, method, act, or other instrumentality (“Accused Instrumentality”) of each
`opposing party of which the party is aware. This identification shall be as specific
`as possible. Each product, device, and apparatus shall be identified by name or
`model number, if known. Each method or process shall be identified by name, if
`known, or by any product, device, or apparatus which, when used, allegedly results
`in the practice of the claimed method or process;
`
`(c) A chart identifying specifically where each limitation of each asserted claim is
`found within each Accused Instrumentality, including for each limitation that such
`3
`
`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
`
`Northern District of California
`United States District Court
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-02621-WHO Document 84 Filed 02/27/19 Page 4 of 18
`
`
`
`party contends is governed by 35 U.S.C. § 112(6), the identity of the structure(s),
`act(s), or material(s) in the Accused Instrumentality that performs the claimed
`function.
`
`(d) For each claim which is alleged to have been indirectly infringed, an
`identification of any direct infringement and a description of the acts of the alleged
`indirect infringer that contribute to or are inducing that direct infringement. Insofar
`as alleged direct infringement is based on joint acts of multiple parties, the role of
`each such party in the direct infringement must be described.
`
`(e) Whether each limitation of each asserted claim is alleged to be literally present
`or present under the doctrine of equivalents in the Accused Instrumentality.
`
`“The overriding principle of the Patent Local Rules is that they are designed [to] make the parties
`
`more efficient, to streamline the litigation process, and to articulate with specificity the claims and
`
`theory of a plaintiff’s infringement claims.” Bender v. Maxim Integrated Prods., No. 09-cv-
`
`01152-SI, 2010 WL 1135762, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 22, 2010) (alteration in original) (internal
`
`citation omitted). Patent Local Rule 3-1 is intended to require the plaintiff “to crystallize its
`
`theories of the case early in the litigation and to adhere to those theories once disclosed.” Bender
`
`v. Advanced Micro Devices, Inc., No. 09-cv-1149-EMC, 2010 WL 363341, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Feb.
`
`1, 2010). It “takes the place of a series of interrogatories that defendants would likely have
`
`propounded had the patent local rules not provided for streamlined discovery.” Network Caching
`
`Tech., LLC v. Novell, Inc., No. 01-cv-2079-VRW, 2002 WL 32126128, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 13,
`
`2002).
`
`
`
`“[A]ll courts agree that the degree of specificity under Local Rule 3-1 must be sufficient to
`
`provide reasonable notice to the defendant why the plaintiff believes it has a ‘reasonable chance of
`
`proving infringement.’” Shared Memory Graphics LLC v. Apple, Inc., 812 F. Supp. 2d 1022,
`
`1025 (N.D. Cal. 2010) (quoting View Eng’g, Inc. v. Robotic Vision Sys., Inc., 208 F.3d 981, 986
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2000)). The local rules do not “require the disclosure of specific evidence nor do they
`
`require a plaintiff to prove its infringement case . . . a patentee must nevertheless disclose what in
`
`each accused instrumentality it contends practices each and every limitation of each asserted claim
`
`to the extent appropriate information is reasonably available to it.” DCG Sys. v. Checkpoint
`
`Techs., LLC, No. 11-cv-03792-PSG, 2012 WL 1309161, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 16, 2012).
`
`4
`
`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
`
`Northern District of California
`United States District Court
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-02621-WHO Document 84 Filed 02/27/19 Page 5 of 18
`
`
`
`DISCUSSION
`
`I.
`
`MOTION TO STRIKE
`
`A.
`
`Use of Group Charts
`
`Check Point argues that Finjan’s grouping of the instrumentalities into five groups of
`
`products was improper. Mot. at 6-10. Instead, Finjan should have charted the 36 instrumentalities
`
`identified by it in a communication to Check Point pursuant to the Narrowing Order because many
`
`of the products now contained in the Infringement Contentions are actually marketing terms,
`
`packages of products, or broad product categories. Id.; Finjan-Check Point – Identification Email
`
`(“Identification Email”) attached as Ex. A to Roberts Decl. [Dkt. No. 55-19]. According to Check
`
`Point, rather than organize its charts to accuse the specific software or instrumentalities listed in
`
`the Identification Email, Finjan has instead added previously unidentified software, physical
`
`appliances, unspecified servers and devices that might interact with them, and a variety of
`
`overarching marketing terms and general “technologies” that it has then grouped to assert that
`
`some or all of these things infringe in one or more unspecified combinations. Id. at 8; Initial
`
`Disclosure.
`
`Patent Local Rule 3-1(c) requires an accusing party to provide “[a] chart identifying
`
`specifically where each limitation of each asserted claim is found within each Accused
`
`Instrumentality.” Patent L. R. 3-1(c). The accusing party “must compare an accused product to its
`
`patents on a claim by claim, element by element basis for at least one of each defendant’s
`
`products.” Finjan, Inc. v. Proofpoint, Inc., No. 13-cv-05808-HSG, 2015 WL 1517920, at *2
`
`(N.D. Cal. Apr. 2, 2015). 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). A plaintiff does not satisfy this requirement by “mixing and
`
`matching between different accused products” in its claim charts, as “[i]nfringement cannot be
`
`shown by a muddled hash of elements from different products.” Id. 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
`5
`
`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
`
`Northern District of California
`United States District Court
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-02621-WHO Document 84 Filed 02/27/19 Page 6 of 18
`
`
`
`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
`
`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) (finding a
`
`single claim chart for multiple accused products sufficient where the plaintiff specified that each
`
`product contained the same chemical compound, which plaintiff asserted was the infringing
`
`element of each of the identified products).
`
`Using Check Point’s Network Security group as an example, in its Identification Email
`
`Finjan accused eleven Network Security Blades. Mot. at 7; Identification Email. But in its Initial
`
`Disclosure and Infringement Contentions, Finjan identified what Check Point argues are eight
`
`products, two technologies used by the eight products, twelve blades, nearly 100 devices, types of
`
`devices, and “virtual devices” that allegedly use some unspecified combination of the above
`
`“technologies” and blades, and two open ended catch-all categories consisting of “all supporting
`
`servers, cloud infrastructure, feeds, or other component utilized for the above features” and “those
`
`releases supported by R76 and later.” Id. at 7-8. Check Point’s Senior Architect Tamir Zegman
`
`has submitted a declaration that the various network security blades are modular software
`
`programs that are sold in various bundles and marketed with names such as “Next Generation
`
`Threat Prevention” and “Threat Prevention & Sandblast.” Zegman Decl. at ¶ 4. As the products
`
`named by Finjan are bundles and packages of specific blades (in the Network Security Products
`
`context) or other software, Check Point argues that it would crystalize Finjan’s infringement
`
`contentions to organize its charts by the instrumentalities listed in its Initial Disclosure that
`
`allegedly infringe on its patents rather than the current mashup of instrumentalities, bundles, and
`
`packages represented by Check Point’s marketing terms. Reply [Dkt. No. 69-4] at 1-2.
`
`In opposition, Finjan contends that its groupings are proper because the accused products
`
`contain common infringing components, such as common accused engines or features, and
`
`consequently infringe in the same way. Oppo. at 15. Finjan cites Finjan, Inc. v. Symantec Corp.,
`
`No. 14-cv-02998-HSG (N.D. Cal. Feb. 15, 2017) but as there was no written order in that case, it
`
`is of little persuasive value here. It argues that its groupings are warranted because Check Point
`
`groups its products differently on its website and at the source code level. Id. It also characterizes
`
`Check Point’s arguments about the network blades as a red herring because they are bundled
`6
`
`Northern District of California
`United States District Court
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-02621-WHO Document 84 Filed 02/27/19 Page 7 of 18
`
`
`
`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
`
`together, share source code modules, and run on the same engine and that Check Point’s citation
`
`to Geovector Corp. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., No. 16-cv-02463-WHO, 2017 WL 76950, at *4 (N.D.
`
`Cal. Jan. 9, 2017) and Advanced Micro Devices, Inc., 2010 WL 363341, at *1-2 are inapposite;
`
`while these two cases may not be factually analogous in a way that is helpful to Check Point’s
`
`argument, neither do they support Finjan’s current groupings.
`
`I find that Check Point’s request that Finjan organize its infringement contentions by the
`
`underlying instrumentalities will assist both the parties and me in determining precisely how
`
`Check Point’s products do or do not infringe on Finjan’s patents and will aid Finjan’s efforts to
`
`provide specific source code citations. I expect that requiring the infringement contentions to be
`
`organized in this way will cure the source code citation deficiencies as identified by Check
`
`Point—as I discuss below, that the underlying instrumentalities might share source code modules
`
`or run on the same engine does not relieve Finjan of its duty to cite to the source code with
`
`specificity. Appendix A to Mot. [Dkt. No. 55-1]. If Finjan believes that Check Point’s
`
`underlying instrumentalities infringe in combination, Finjan must specify the combination. It may
`
`be true that Check Point sells its products to consumers in bundles, but it will streamline this
`
`litigation to determine which components of each bundle infringe.
`
`This direction does not prejudice Finjan. If one of Check Point’s instrumentalities is found
`
`to be infringing, it should be relatively simple to determine what products and bundles the
`
`instrumentality was included in and to calculate damages from there. This approach is consistent
`
`with the purpose of Patent Local Rules to make the litigation process more efficient and discovery
`
`more streamlined. Maxim Integrated Prods., 2010 WL 1135762, at *2; Advanced Micro Devices,
`
`Inc., 2010 WL 363341, at *1.
`
`B.
`
`Pinpoint Source Code Citations
`
`Pursuant to my Narrowing Order, Finjan is required to serve its Infringement Contentions
`
`with pinpoint source code citations. Narrowing Order at 2. Check Point complains that Finjan’s
`
`source code citations are inadequate and violate my Narrowing Order and the Patent Local
`
`Rules. Mot. at 16-18, 19-23. In particular, Check Point contends that Finjan fails to provide
`
`source code citations for 25 out of 42 accused instrumentalities, cites to sets of source code
`7
`
`Northern District of California
`United States District Court
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-02621-WHO Document 84 Filed 02/27/19 Page 8 of 18
`
`
`
`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
`
`organized under vague functional headers that could point to multiple instrumentalities, provides
`
`no information or explanation as to how the code relates to specific limitation language, and cites
`
`the same sets of source code repeatedly across different asserted claims and patents. Id. Because
`
`of these deficiencies, Check Point argues, it is impossible to tell what Finjan’s infringement theory
`
`is or which citations Finjan intends to rely on for each limitation. Id. at 19-20.
`
`
`
`In opposition, Finjan contends that its infringement contentions are sufficient to disclose its
`
`infringement theories because it provides an overall infringement analysis that includes both
`
`source code citations and public information, such as marketing literature and website screenshots
`
`that explain how Check Point’s products work. Oppo. at 16-23. Finjan states that the structure
`
`and organization of Check Point’s source code appears to limit Finjan’s ability to map source code
`
`packages to specific instrumentalities. Id. It argues that it has provided the required source code,
`
`that Check Point’s argument has no basis, and that it is not required to provide source code
`
`citations for every single feature of every claim element. Id. Finally, Finjan explains that the
`
`same source code is cited across multiple charts because of similarities in the claim language,
`
`accused technologies and underlying source code. Id.
`
`
`
`Patent Local Rule 3-1(c) requires plaintiff to provide a chart “identifying specifically
`
`where and how each limitation of each asserted claim is found within each Accused
`
`Instrumentality[.]” The purpose of Rule 3-1 is “to require a plaintiff to crystalize its theory of the
`
`case and patent claims.” InterTrust Tech. Corp. v. Microsoft Corp., 2003 WL 23120174, at *8
`
`(C.D. Cal. Dec. 1, 2003). “At the Patent Local Rule 3-1 Disclosure stage, a plaintiff must put
`
`forth information so specific that either reverse engineering or its equivalent is required.” Id. at
`
`*3. This burden cannot be met simply by parroting claim language or through reference
`
`screenshots or website content. See Digital Reg of Texas, LLC v. Adobe Systems Inc., No. CV 12-
`
`01971-CW (KAW), 2013 WL 3361241, *4 (N.D. Cal. Jul. 3, 2013) (infringement contentions that
`
`“parrot” claim language and “incorporate [] screen slots in lieu of explanatory text” are improper
`
`because they leave defendants “to guess what particular system (or aspect of a particular system)
`
`[the patentee] is accusing of meeting each limitation.”). Where the accused instrumentality
`
`includes computer software based upon source code made available to the patentee, the patentee
`8
`
`Northern District of California
`United States District Court
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-02621-WHO Document 84 Filed 02/27/19 Page 9 of 18
`
`
`
`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
`
`must provide "pinpoint citations" to the code identifying the location of each limitation. See Big
`
`Baboon Corp. v. Dell, Inc., 723 F.Supp.2d 1224, 1228 (C.D. Cal. 2010).
`
`
`
`Finjan’s pinpoint source code citations, even viewed along with the public information
`
`cited, do not meet the required level of specificity, particularly to “where and how each limitation
`
`of each asserted claim is found within each Accused Instrumentality” as required by the Patent
`
`Local Rules. Check Point correctly notes that under each claim limitation, Finjan cites multiple
`
`sets of source code, often with little or no explanation for which set of citations relate to the
`
`relevant claim limitation. For example, in Finjan’s claim chart for the U.S. 7,418,731 Patent
`
`(“’731 patent”) against the “Network Security Products”, Finjan cites to anywhere between 12-38
`
`sets of source code for each claim limitation. Zegman Decl. at ¶ 28; Roberts Decl. Ex. G. Each
`
`set has only a vague functional header, such as “[t]hese files implement a Database schema
`
`manager.” Roberts Decl. Ex. G, at 198-211. Most (if not all) of the set headers are not tethered to
`
`the actual language used in the claim limitation and do not explain how any particular set of
`
`source code practices the asserted claim limitation. Kinglite Holdings Inc. v. Micro-Star Int'l Co.,
`
`No. 14-cv-03009, 2016 WL 6762573, at *3 (C.D. Cal. June 15, 2016) (requiring citation to source
`
`code that practices claim element).
`
`Contrary to Finjan’s assertions, the public information does not help map Finjan’s source
`
`code citations to a claim limitation nor assist the reader in understanding Finjan’s infringement
`
`theories. The public information is largely comprised of generic marketing materials and
`
`screenshots of the type routinely rejected by courts in this district. Proofpoint, 2015 WL 1517920,
`
`at *6 (finding generic marketing literature and screenshots with no explanation do not meet the
`
`level of specificity required by the Patent Local Rules). Further, Finjan simply parrots claim
`
`language without identifying any particular supporting language in its sources or linking the cited
`
`sources to particular source code. For example, Finjan cites twenty pages of screenshots and
`
`asserts that virtually every product in each screenshot meets the claim limitation. Roberts Decl.
`
`Ex. G. at 179-198. This does not rise to the specificity required by the Patent Local Rules. See
`
`Pat. L.R. 3-1(c) (requiring the patentee to identify “the structure(s), act(s), or material(s) in the
`
`Accused Instrumentality that performs the claimed function); see also Digital Reg of Texas, 2013
`9
`
`Northern District of California
`United States District Court
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-02621-WHO Document 84 Filed 02/27/19 Page 10 of 18
`
`
`
`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
`
`WL 3361241 at *4. If the cited materials contain information necessary to understand Finjan’s
`
`infringement theories, Finjan must identify the particular supporting language in those sources and
`
`explain how that language fits into Finjan’s theory of infringement. Proofpoint, 2015 WL
`
`1517920 at *6.
`
`The Claim Chart for limitation 1b of the ‘731 Patent on Check Point’s “Network Security
`
`Products” is illustrative. It discloses:
`
`[A] scanner for scanning incoming files from the Internet and deriving
`security profiles for the incoming files, wherein each of the security
`profiles comprises a list of computer commands that a corresponding
`one of the incoming files is programmed to perform.
`Roberts Decl. Ex. G at 28.
`
`To satisfy my Narrowing Order and Patent Local Rule 3-1(c), Finjan was required to
`
`identify what structure, act, or material in the “Network Security Products” infringes each claim
`
`limitation and to provide pinpoint source code citations that practice the claim limitation. Finjan
`
`states that Claim 1b requires multiple components to practice its scanning function, such as
`
`“obtaining files,” “analyzing files,” and “generating reports or security profiles.” Oppo. at 21-22.
`
`Assuming this is true, Finjan would be required to identify what source code is “obtaining files,”
`
`“analyzing files,” and “generating reports or security profiles” in the allegedly infringing Network
`
`Security Products, yet Finjan’s chart identifies none of these things. The words “obtaining files,”
`
`“analyzing files,” and “generating reports or security profiles” do not appear at all. Roberts Decl.
`
`Ex. G at 59-72. The marketing materials and screenshots Finjan cites only describe how the
`
`Network Security Products work in a general sense and virtually “parrot” the claim language,
`
`without tying it to any source code citations or specific information in those screenshots that
`match the specific claim components identified in Claim 1b1. Id. at 28-59.
`
`Finjan’s theory of infringement as to each specific component of Claim 1b may be hidden
`
`
`1 For example, Finjan’s public information recites: “The images below show that the Anti-Spam &
`Email Security software blade also checks for malwares which involves scanning incoming files
`from the Internet and deriving security profiles for the incoming files, wherein each of the security
`profiles comprises a list of computer commands.” Roberts Decl. Ex. G at 45. (internal quotation
`marks omitted).
`
`
`10
`
`Northern District of California
`United States District Court
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-02621-WHO Document 84 Filed 02/27/19 Page 11 of 18
`
`
`
`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
`
`somewhere in those screenshots and sets of source code, but it is not readily apparent it its current
`
`state. It is Finjan’s obligation to identify the particular claim components in each claim, map
`
`those components onto the features of the allegedly infringing products, and pinpoint cite source
`
`code that practices that component. See Shared Memory Graphics, 821 F. Supp. 2d at 1025;
`Proofpoint, 2015 WL 1517920 at *7; Kinglite Holdings, 2016 WL 6762573, at *3.2
`
`
`
`Even more troublingly, many of the same sets of source code within the same product
`
`category are cited across different claims of different patents. Finjan explains that the same source
`
`code is cited across multiple charts because the accused technologies and the underlying source
`
`code are the same and the claim languages are similar. Oppo. at 16-23. This does not help.
`
`Finjan cites to the same sets of source code for different claims. It is not clear how source code to
`
`“implement a TE add file tool” meets both claim limitations as a “computer gateway for an
`
`intranet of computers” and “retrieving a requested file from the Internet.” Roberts Decl. Ex. G at
`
`1-27, 178-211. Moreover, if Finjan believes that the shared source code meets the claim
`
`limitation, it is obligated to say so explicitly in its infringement contentions. Neither Check Point
`
`nor I should be required to guess which part of the source code citations (either shared or not
`
`shared) allegedly infringe each claim element. See Digital Reg of Texas, 2013 WL 3361241 at *4.
`
`Finjan argues that Check Point failed to produce internal technical documents which
`
`limited its ability to map source code packages to specific instrumentality. Oppo. at 17-18. The
`
`argument is not well-taken. On October 29, 2018, two days before the deadline to serve its
`
`infringement contentions, Finjan requested production of documents it identified on Check Point’s
`
`source code computer. Roberts Decl. Ex. B. While it is not clear whether Finjan had access to
`
`those technical documents on the source code computer, Finjan did not move to compel or ask for
`
`additional time to prepare its infringement contentions. If the technical documents are critical for
`
`Finjan to provide adequate pinpoint source code citations, it should not have waited so long to
`
`request them. Finjan had raised the same argument in other cases in this district to excuse its
`
`failure to serve compliant infringement contentions. See Finjan Inc. v. Sophos, Inc., No. 14-cv-
`
`
`2 Finjan also attempts to bolster its contentions by citing to the claim chart for Claim 1b of Patent
`No. 6,154,844. That claim chart is deficient for the same reason.
`11
`
`Northern District of California
`United States District Court
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-02621-WHO Document 84 Filed 02/27/19 Page 12 of 18
`
`
`
`01197-WHO, 2015 WL 5012679, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 24, 2015); Proofpoint, 2015 WL 1517920
`
`at *5. This raises doubts as to whether the requested technical documents would allow Finjan to
`
`provide adequate source code citations. To the extent that this is in actuality a discovery dispute,
`
`Finjan should have followed the procedures outlined in my Standing Order for Civil Cases.
`
`Next, Finjan contends that it has complied with Patent Local Rules because it made a good
`
`faith effort to provide the most relevant citations possible given the information that was available
`
`to it and it is not required to provide source code citations of every single feature for every claim
`
`element. Oppo. at 19-20. To support its position, Finjan cites to Adobe Systems Incorporated v.
`
`Wowza Media Systems, No. 11-cv-02243-JST, 2014 WL 709865, at *16 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 23,
`
`2014). Adobe is clearly distinguishable as in that case the court held that the plaintiff was not
`
`required to “list every bit of WMS source code that supports it” because the plaintiff had already
`
`adequately disclosed its infringement theory. Id. Here, Finjan has not yet adequately disclosed its
`
`infringement theories. I agree with Check Point that the way Finjan frames its source code
`
`citations creates incalculable alternatives of infringement theories and it is next to impossible to
`
`know what its infringement theories are. See Order Granting Motion to Enforce Order on Motion
`
`to Compel; Vacating Order to Show Cause; and Granting Motion to Enlarge Deadlines at 4,
`
`Finjan Inc. v. Zscaler, Inc., No.17-cv-06946-JST (N.D. Cal. Jan. 28, 2019) (ECF. No. 110)
`
`(finding Finjan failed to crystallize its theories when its infringement contentions set forth an
`
`incalculable combination of infringement theories).
`
`Finjan must provide pinpoint source code citations that show the “where and how each
`
`limitation of each asserted claim is found within each Accused Instrume