Case 3:18-cv-02621-WHO Document 264 Filed 03/27/20 Page 1 of 30
`
`
`
`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
`ORRICK, HERRINGTON &
`SUTCLIFFE LLP
`ATTORNEYS AT LAW
`SILICON VALLEY
`
`CLEMENT ROBERTS (SBN 209203)
`croberts@orrick.com
`ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP
`405 Howard Street
`San Francisco, CA 94105
`Telephone:
`(415) 773-5700
`Facsimile:
`(415) 773-5759
`
`VICKIE FEEMAN (SBN: 177487)
`vfeeman@orrick.com
`EVAN BREWER (SBN: 304411)
`ebrewer@orrick.com
`ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP
`1000 Marsh Road
`Menlo Park, CA 94025-1015
`Telephone:
`+1 650 614 7400
`Facsimile:
`+1 650 614 7401
`
`ALYSSA CARIDIS (SBN: 260103)
`acaridis@orrick.com
`MARGARET ABERNATHY (SBN: 300273)
`mabernathy@orrick.com
`ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP
`777 South Figueroa Street, Suite 3200
`Los Angeles, CA 90017
`Telephone: (213) 629-2020
`Facsimile: (213) 612-2499
`
`Attorneys for Defendants
`CHECK POINT SOFTWARE TECHNOLOGIES, INC. and
`CHECK POINT SOFTWARE TECHNOLOGIES, LTD.
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
`FINJAN, INC. a Delaware Corporation,
`Case No. 3:18-cv-02621-WHO
`CHECK POINT SOFTWARE
`Plaintiff,
`TECHNOLOGIES, INC. AND CHECK
`POINT SOFTWARE TECHNOLOGIES,
`LTD.’S OPPOSITION TO FINJAN’S
`MOTION TO CERTIFY THE COURT’S
`JANUARY 17, 2020 ORDER FOR
`INTERLOCUTORY APPEAL, TO
`STAY, AND TO PERMIT LIMITED
`DISCOVERY
`Date:
`April 22, 2020
`Time:
`2:00 p.m.
`Location: Courtroom 2, 17th Floor
`Judge:
`Hon. William H. Orrick
`Complaint filed: May 3, 2018
`
`v.
`CHECK POINT SOFTWARE
`TECHNOLOGIES INC., a Delaware
`Corporation, CHECK POINT SOFTWARE
`TECHNOLOGIES LTD., an Israeli Limited
`Company,
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CHECK POINT OPP. TO
`MOTION TO CERTIFY
`3:18-CV-02621-WHO
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-02621-WHO Document 264 Filed 03/27/20 Page 2 of 30
`
`
`
`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
`ORRICK, HERRINGTON &
`SUTCLIFFE LLP
`ATTORNEYS AT LAW
`SILICON VALLEY
`
`I.
`II.
`
`III.
`
`IV.
`
`V.
`
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 1
`RELEVANT BACKGROUND .......................................................................................... 1
`A.
`Early Litigation. ...................................................................................................... 1
`B.
`Finjan’s Three Round of Infringement Contentions. .............................................. 2
`1.
`The Court Struck Finjan’s Original Infringement Contentions. ................. 2
`2.
`The Court Struck Finjan’s Amended Infringement Contentions. ............... 4
`3.
`The Court Struck Finjan’s Second Amended Infringement
`Contentions. ................................................................................................ 5
`Finjan’s Discovery Motions. ................................................................................... 6
`1.
`Motion to Compel Technical Documents. .................................................. 6
`2.
`Motion to Compel Response to Interrogatory No. 9. .................................. 7
`3.
`June 2019 seeking Technical Deposition. ................................................... 7
`4.
`October 2019 Seeking Technical Deposition. ............................................. 7
`LEGAL STANDARD ......................................................................................................... 8
`A.
`Standard for Certifying an Order for Interlocutory Appeal. ................................... 8
`B.
`Standard for Issuing a Stay Pending an Interlocutory Appeal. ............................... 9
`ARGUMENT .................................................................................................................... 10
`A.
`Certification of the Third Strike Order for Interlocutory Appeal is
`Inappropriate. ........................................................................................................ 10
`1.
`The Third Strike Order Lacks a Controlling Question of Law. ................ 10
`a)
`The Third Strike Order Reflects the Court’s Broad
`Discretion to Manage its Docket. .................................................. 10
`The Third Strike Order is at Best a Mixed Question of Law
`and Fact. ........................................................................................ 11
`The Third Strike Order Contains Multiple, Overlapping
`Grounds. ........................................................................................ 13
`The Third Strike Order Does Not Reflect a Difference of Opinion. ......... 17
`Certifying the Third Strike Order for Appeal Will Not Materially
`Advance the Case. ..................................................................................... 19
`The Court Should Use Its Discretion to Deny Certification. .................... 20
`4.
`A Stay is Inappropriate.......................................................................................... 21
`B.
`Additional Discovery is Inappropriate. ................................................................. 21
`C.
`CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................. 25
`
`C.
`
`2.
`3.
`
`b)
`
`c)
`
`ii
`
`CHECK POINT OPP. TO
`MOTION TO CERTIFY
`3:18-CV-02621-WHO
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-02621-WHO Document 264 Filed 03/27/20 Page 3 of 30
`
`
`
`Cases
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`
`Page(s)
`
`Al Otro Lado v. Wolf,
`No. 19-56417, 2020 WL 1059682 (9th Cir. Mar. 5, 2020) .........................................................9
`
`Allen v. Conagra Foods, Inc.,
`No. 3:13-cv-01279-WHO, 2019 WL 1466889 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 5, 2019) .................................12
`
`Alliance for the Wild Rockies v. Cottrell,
`632 F.3d 1127 (9th Cir. 2011) .....................................................................................................9
`
`Asetek Danmark A/S v. CMI USA, Inc.,
`No. 13-cv-00457-JST, 2016 WL 31674 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 4, 2016) ..............................................9
`
`Big Baboon Corp. v. Dell, Inc.,
`723 F.Supp.2d 1224 (C.D. Cal. 2010).......................................................................................18
`
`In re Cement Antitrust Litig.,
`673 F.2d 1020 (9th Cir. 1982) ...............................................................................................8, 13
`
`Chiron Corp. v. Abbott Labs.,
`No. C-93-4380 MHP, 1996 WL 15758 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 3, 1996) .............................................20
`
`Couch v. Telescope Inc.,
`611 F.3d 629 (9th Cir. 2010) .......................................................................................................8
`
`DeLuca v. Farmers Ins. Exch.,
`No. 17-CV-00034-EDL, 2019 WL 4260437 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 9, 2019) .....................................8
`
`Dietz v. Bouldin,
`__ U.S. __, 136 S. Ct. 1885 (2016) ...........................................................................................10
`
`Ellis v. Bhd. of Ry., Airline & S.S. Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express & Station Emps.,
`685 F.2d 1065 (9th Cir.1982), 466 U.S. 435 (1984) .................................................................11
`
`Finjan, Inc. v. Cisco Systems, Inc.,
`No. 5:17-cv-00072-BLF (SVK) (N.D. Cal. Oct. 10, 2017) ........................................................1
`
`Finjan, Inc. v. Proofpoint, Inc.,
`No. 13-CV-05808-HSG, 2015 WL 1517920 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 2, 2015) ......................................1
`
`Finjan, Inc. v. Proofpoint, Inc.,
`No. 13-cv-05808-HSG, 2015 WL 9023166 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 16, 2015) ...................................18
`
`Finjan, Inc. v. Sophos, Inc.,
`No. 14-CV-01197-WHO, 2015 WL 5012679 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 24, 2015) ............................1, 17
`
`
`
`
`
`iii
`
`CHECK POINT OPP. TO
`MOTION TO CERTIFY
`3:18-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
`ORRICK, HERRINGTON &
`SUTCLIFFE LLP
`ATTORNEYS AT LAW
`SILICON VALLEY
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-02621-WHO Document 264 Filed 03/27/20 Page 4 of 30
`
`
`
`Finjan, Inc. v. Zscaler, Inc.,
`Case No. 17-cv-06946-JST, 2018 WL 4181906 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 31, 2018) ............................18
`
`Finjan, Inc. v. Zscaler, Inc.,
`Case No. 17-cv-06946-JST, 2019 WL 7589210 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 28, 2019) .............................18
`
`Finjan, Inc. v. Zscaler, Inc.,
`Case No. 17-cv-06946-JST (N.D. Cal. June 26, 2018) .............................................................18
`
`Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. v. Risjord,
`449 U.S. 368 (1981) ....................................................................................................................8
`
`Hilton v. Braunskill,
`481 U.S. 770 (1987) ....................................................................................................................9
`
`James v. Price Stern Sloan, Inc.,
`283 F.3d 1064 (9th Cir. 2002) .....................................................................................................8
`
`Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc.,
`975 F.2d 604 (9th Cir.1992) ......................................................................................................10
`
`Leiva-Perez v. Holder,
`640 F.3d 962 (9th Cir. 2011) (per curiam) ...........................................................................9, 21
`
`Nat’l Fair Hous. All. v. A.G. Spanos Const. Inc,
`No. C 07-3255, 2008 WL 5273335 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 16, 2008) ............................................9, 20
`
`Network Caching Tech. LLC v. Novell Inc.
`No. C-01-2079-VRW, 2002 WL 32126128 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 13, 2002) ...................................19
`
`Nken v. Holder,
`556 U.S. 418 (2009) ..............................................................................................................9, 21
`
`O’Connor v. Uber Techs., Inc.,
`No. 13-cv-03826-EMC, 2017 WL 6502799 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 14, 2017) ....................................9
`
`Somers v. Digital Realty Tr.,
`No. C-14-5180-EMC, 2015 WL 4481987 (N.D. Cal. July 22, 2015) .......................................21
`
`Stiner v. Brookdale Senior Living, Inc.,
`383 F. Supp. 3d 949 (N.D. Cal. 2019) ........................................................................................8
`
`U.S. Rubber Co. v. Wright,
`359 F.2d 784 (9th Cir. 1966) .......................................................................................................8
`
`Vasudevan Software, Inc. v. International Business Machines Corp.,
`No. C09-05897 RS HRL, 2011 WL 94026 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 18, 2011) ...............................18, 19
`
`Virginian Ry. Co. v. United States,
`272 U.S. 658 (1926) ....................................................................................................................9
`CHECK POINT OPP. TO
`MOTION TO CERTIFY
`3:18-CV-02621-WHO
`
`iv
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`ORRICK, HERRINGTON &
`SUTCLIFFE LLP
`ATTORNEYS AT LAW
`SILICON VALLEY
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-02621-WHO Document 264 Filed 03/27/20 Page 5 of 30
`
`
`
`Statutes
`
`28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) ..............................................................................................................8, 13, 20
`
`Other Authorities
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 1 ..........................................................................................................................2, 10
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(c)(2) .....................................................................................................................2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`v
`
`CHECK POINT OPP. TO
`MOTION TO CERTIFY
`3:18-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
`ORRICK, HERRINGTON &
`SUTCLIFFE LLP
`ATTORNEYS AT LAW
`SILICON VALLEY
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-02621-WHO Document 264 Filed 03/27/20 Page 6 of 30
`
`
`
`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
`ORRICK, HERRINGTON &
`SUTCLIFFE LLP
`ATTORNEYS AT LAW
`SILICON VALLEY
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`Finjan offers no compelling reason for the extraordinary relief it seeks. The elements
`required for interlocutory appeal are missing: the order that Finjan seeks to challenge does not
`depend on a controlling question of law, much less one on which there is ground for a substantial
`difference of opinion, and certification would not materially advance the case. Practically
`speaking, it makes far more sense to allow the Special Master to finish her assessment of Finjan’s
`remaining contentions than to certify an appeal as to some of Finjan’s contentions.
`The case for denying certification is especially strong here, because the order Finjan seeks
`to appeal is exceptionally unlikely to be overturned on appeal—not only because the Court’s
`order was very well justified but because the Court gave Finjan numerous chances to amend and
`because the order will be reviewed under a highly deferential standard. There is virtually no
`chance that an interlocutory appeal will save any time, and a very high probability that it would
`simply waste judicial resources. The Court should, therefore, deny Finjan’s motion.
`RELEVANT BACKGROUND
`II.
`Early Litigation.
`A.
`Finjan has sued many defendants in this and other districts on these and similar patents. In
`these litigations, Finjan has provided vague and shifting infringement contentions and forced
`defendants to file repeated motions to compel disclosure of Finjan’s infringement theories. See,
`e.g., Finjan, Inc. v. Proofpoint, Inc., No. 13-CV-05808-HSG, 2015 WL 1517920, at *6 (N.D. Cal.
`Apr. 2, 2015) (“the little explanation Finjan does provide is framed in high-level generalities that
`do not specifically relate to the claim elements identified in each Claim”); Finjan, Inc. v. Cisco
`Systems, Inc., No. 5:17-cv-00072-BLF (SVK) (N.D. Cal. Oct. 10, 2017), ECF No. 83 at 77:16-
`78:17 (ordering Finjan to amend its infringement contentions “across the board”); Finjan, Inc. v.
`Sophos, Inc., No. 14-CV-01197-WHO, 2015 WL 5012679 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 24, 2015) (ordering
`Finjan to amend infringement contentions).
`In an effort to avoid this pattern, nine days after Check Point answered Finjan’s
`Complaint, and well before the case management conference, Check Point offered to make its
`source code available for Finjan’s review. Caridis Decl., Ex. A (Roberts July 25, 2018 letter). In
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`CHECK POINT OPP. TO
`MOTION TO CERTIFY
`3:18-CV-02621-WHO
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-02621-WHO Document 264 Filed 03/27/20 Page 7 of 30
`
`
`
`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
`ORRICK, HERRINGTON &
`SUTCLIFFE LLP
`ATTORNEYS AT LAW
`SILICON VALLEY
`
`exchange, Check Point made clear that it expected Finjan’s “infringement contentions to include
`source code-specific citations for each element of each accused product.” Id. Check Point
`memorialized this request in the parties’ Joint Case Management Statement and Proposed Order.
`See ECF No. 23 at 5-6. Check Point also raised these concerns at the initial case management
`conference. See ECF No. 24. In response, the Court directed the parties to submit briefs regarding
`how it might manage the proceedings consistent with Fed. R. Civ. P. 1. Id.
`Check Point’s brief proposed a case management mechanism that “combines the [2013
`Federal Circuit Model Order Limiting Excess Patent Claims and Prior Art], the Patent Local
`Rules, and prior orders issued by courts that have wrestled with Finjan’s approach to infringement
`contentions.” ECF No. 28 at 1. Among other things, Check Point asked the Court to require
`Finjan’s contentions to “explain specifically where and how each limitation of each asserted
`claim is found within each accused product” by providing “pinpoint citations to the code
`identifying the location of each limitation.” Id. at 5. At the same time, Check Point sent Finjan an
`interrogatory seeking pinpoint source code citations on a limitation-by-limitation basis. Caridis
`Decl., Ex. B.
`After considering the parties’ briefs, the Court issued an order intended to streamline the
`litigation and promote the “just, speedy, and inexpensive” determination of this action. ECF No.
`29 (“Narrowing Order”) at 1 (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 1)). The Narrowing Order was made
`pursuant to the Court’s broad discretion and inherent authority to manage its docket and
`courtrooms with a view toward the efficient and expedient resolution of cases. See Fed. R. Civ. P.
`16(c)(2). Among other things, the Court required that Finjan’s infringement contentions “include
`pinpoint source code citations.” Narrowing Order at 2. The Narrowing Order also required
`compliance with Patent Local Rule 3-1, which requires, among other things, Finjan to explain
`where and how each limitation of each asserted claim is found. Id. at 2 (referencing Patent L.R. 3-
`1).
`
`B.
`
`Finjan’s Three Round of Infringement Contentions.
`The Court Struck Finjan’s Original Infringement Contentions.
`1.
`On November 2, 2018, Finjan served its infringement contentions, which came in at more
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`CHECK POINT OPP. TO
`MOTION TO CERTIFY
`3:18-CV-02621-WHO
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-02621-WHO Document 264 Filed 03/27/20 Page 8 of 30
`
`
`
`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
`ORRICK, HERRINGTON &
`SUTCLIFFE LLP
`ATTORNEYS AT LAW
`SILICON VALLEY
`
`
`
`than seven thousand pages. ECF No. 55 at 1. Check Point moved to strike them, arguing that the
`contentions failed to comply with the Court’s Local Rules and the Narrowing Order. See
`generally id. Check Point argued that where Finjan did cite source code, those “citations are not
`pinpoint as mandated by the Narrowing Order, and Finjan’s contentions do not disclose
`‘specifically where and how each limitation of each asserted claim is found within each Accused
`Instrumentality,’ as required by Patent L.R. 3-1(c).” Id. at 2. Check Point continued: “Finjan
`provides essentially no explanation of how it contends that any particular block [of code] (let
`alone any particular citation within any block) relates to the limitation to which it supposedly
`corresponds.” Id.
`The Court heard oral argument on Check Point’s Motion on February 13, 2019. ECF No.
`80. During that hearing, the Court made clear that Finjan’s “[p]inpoint citations need to be
`specific, particularly to where and how each limitation of each asserted claims is found within the
`accused instrumentality.” Caridis Decl., Ex. C (Feb. 13, 2019 Hr’g Tr.) at 3. The Court noted that
`in this case “[i]t’s not sufficient to cite multiple sets of source code under each claim limitation
`without explanation. The public information that’s cited isn’t sufficient to cure the problem.” Id.
`The Court confirmed this holding in its Order Granting Motion to Strike in Part. ECF No.
`84 (“First Strike Order”). The Court held that “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.’” Id. at 9. The Court also rejected Finjan’s attempt to avoid the source
`code and mapping requirements by relying on citations to publicly available generic marketing
`materials, explaining that “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.” Id. The Court ultimately
`found1 that “Finjan has not yet adequately disclosed its infringement theories” and that it “must
`
`1 The Court found Finjan’s Infringement Contentions deficient in other material respects in the
`First Strike Order. For brevity’s sake, Check Point here only focuses on the aspects that seem to
`be at the core of Finjan’s present request.
`
`
`3
`
`CHECK POINT OPP. TO
`MOTION TO CERTIFY
`3:18-CV-02621-WHO
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-02621-WHO Document 264 Filed 03/27/20 Page 9 of 30
`
`
`
`provide pinpoint source code citations that show the ‘where and how each limitation of each
`asserted claim is found.’” Id. at 12.
`During the hearing resulting in the First Strike Order, Finjan asked the Court to order
`technical depositions of Check Point before Finjan was required to provide infringement
`contentions that comported with the Court’s Narrowing Order and the local rules. See, e.g.,
`Caridis Decl., Ex. C (Feb. 13, 2019 Hr’g Tr.) at 4:17-20. The Court expressed skepticism over
`this approach, explaining that Finjan has “to lay out [its] contentions and, and it’s not up to Check
`Point to educate [Finjan] in a way that will help [Finjan] build its case at the outset.” Id. at 11:6-9.
`But while the Court rejected Finjan’s request for an unbounded technical deposition, the Court
`provided Finjan a mechanism for taking an early 30(b)(6) deposition of Check Point:
`
`THE COURT: Here’s what we’re going to do. I’m going to stick with my tentative and
`have you amend in the best way that you can given the information that you have.
`
`Then I want you to meet-and-confer with [Check Point] and see whether you can agree on
`anything that will provide – if [Check Point] still claims that the contentions are
`insufficient, what it is that can happen in order to get over the – this particular hurdle. If
`you’re unsuccessful, then I want you to send – send me a five page joint letter and
`append to it the questions that you would like to ask a 30(b)(6) witness. And then – or
`the places where you’re in disagreement, and I’ll decide that.
`
`Id. at 14:6-17 (emphasis added). In the year since the Court offered Finjan this procedure, and
`through multiple rounds of motions to strike, Finjan never invoked this procedure and instead
`affirmatively declined to make use of it.
`
`The Court Struck Finjan’s Amended Infringement Contentions.
`2.
`Finjan served Amended Infringement Contentions (“AICs”) on April 1, 2019. The AICs
`include 47 charts and comprised more than 1,500 pages. ECF No. 125-04 at 4. Again, the AICs
`violated the Patent Local Rules and the Narrowing Order, and fell short of the directions the
`Court gave Finjan in the First Strike Order. See generally id. After receiving the AICs, and
`consistent with the Court’s directive during the prior hearing, Check Point communicated to
`Finjan the deficiencies it had noted in the AICs, and requested that Finjan provide a list of
`30(b)(6) questions it would need to correct the deficiencies, if Finjan still contended that such a
`deposition was necessary. Caridis Decl., Ex. D (Caridis April 5 e-mail.). Finjan responded
`
`CHECK POINT OPP. TO
`MOTION TO CERTIFY
`3:18-CV-02621-WHO
`
`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
`ORRICK, HERRINGTON &
`SUTCLIFFE LLP
`ATTORNEYS AT LAW
`SILICON VALLEY
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-02621-WHO Document 264 Filed 03/27/20 Page 10 of 30
`
`
`claiming to be “confused by [Check Point’s] claimed deficiencies.” Id., Ex. E (Kastens April 8 e-
`mail). Finjan never took Check Point up on its offer to discuss a list of 30(b)(6) questions
`pursuant to the process set forth by the Court.
`After completing the meet and confer process, Check Point filed a motion to strike the
`AICs, explaining that, among other things, Finjan had failed to cite code for a plethora of accused
`products and that even where code was cited, “Finjan frequently fails to explain how the code
`shows infringement.” ECF No. 125-04 at 11.2 In granting in part Check Point’s motion to strike
`the AICs, the Court reiterated that “Finjan has already been directed to provide pinpoint source
`code citations for each limitation.” ECF No. 192 (“Second Strike Order”) at 11. The Court went
`on to note that “[t]o the extent any or all of the . . . accused instrumentalities lack pinpoint
`citations, they are struck with prejudice. Where Finjan has used the same source code for different
`things, it may amend its infringement contentions to better explain why the same source code is
`[sic] applies to wholly different limitations.” Id. The Court ordered that “Finjan may amend its
`infringement contentions one last time . . . Moving forward, Finjan is cautioned that if any of its
`infringement contentions remain deficient, they may not form the basis for relief in this action.”
`Id. at 18 (emphasis added).
`The Court Struck Finjan’s Second Amended Infringement
`3.
`Contentions.
`On August 26, 2019, Finjan served its Seconded Amended Infringement Contentions
`(“SAICs”), which totaled 5,135 charts and over 185,000 pages. ECF No. 212-04 at 3. Yet again,
`Finjan’s contentions failed to comply with the Narrowing Order and the First Strike Order. The
`contentions also ignored much of the guidance of the Second Strike Order. In response, Check
`Point moved to strike the SAICs with prejudice. See generally, id. That motion asked the Court to
`strike the SAICs on six independent grounds. Id. Because every claim chart in the SAICs was
`inadequate based on one or more of those grounds, Check Point asked for the entirety of the
`SAICs to be struck with prejudice. Id. at 24-25.
`
`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
`ORRICK, HERRINGTON &
`SUTCLIFFE LLP
`ATTORNEYS AT LAW
`SILICON VALLEY
`
`
`
`
`2 Again, the Motion to Strike the AICs was based (and granted in part) on several grounds. Check
`Point only focuses on the issues relevant to the present dispute here.
`
`
`5
`
`CHECK POINT OPP. TO
`MOTION TO CERTIFY
`3:18-CV-02621-WHO
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-02621-WHO Document 264 Filed 03/27/20 Page 11 of 30
`
`
`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
`ORRICK, HERRINGTON &
`SUTCLIFFE LLP
`ATTORNEYS AT LAW
`SILICON VALLEY
`
`The day before the hearing on Check Point’s motion, the Court issued a tentative ruling.
`ECF No. 242. The Court tentatively ruled in Check Point’s favor on most of the issues presented
`in Check Point’s motion. Id. Significantly, the Court tentatively ruled in favor on Check Point’s
`Issue 6—whether Finjan had adequately explained its infringement theories—based on the
`specific examples cited in Check Point’s brief. Id. at 5-6. The Court further noted “it is not clear
`to me if any of Finjan’s contentions satisfy Issue 6” and asked Finjan to “identif[y] two of its
`strongest contentions.” Id. at 6 (emphasis added). Finjan presented those two contentions at the
`oral argument. See Caridis Decl., Ex. F (Dec. 4, 2019 Hr’g Tr.). During the hearing, Finjan
`stipulated to many aspects of the Court’s tentative ruling. See, e.g., id. at 6:19-21.
`On January 17, 2020, the Court issued an order granting in part Check Point’s motion to
`strike the SAICs.” ECF No. 247 (“Third Strike Order”). The Court adopted much of its tentative
`order and referred all remaining contentions to a Special Master. Id. at 2; ECF No. 261.
`
`Finjan’s Discovery Motions.
`C.
`As the parties litigated the sufficiency of Finjan’s infringement contentions over the past
`eighteen months, various discovery disputes have also arisen. Check Point describes Finjan’s
`relevant discovery motions below.
`
`Motion to Compel Technical Documents.
`1.
`On March 11, 2019, the parties filed competing discovery motions. Check Point moved to
`compel Finjan to produce information relating to its license agreements (ECF No. 88) and Finjan
`moved to compel Check Point to produce additional technical documents (ECF No. 89). At the
`March 22, 2019 hearing on these motions, Magistrate Judge Spero directed the parties to confer
`and reach a resolution on the pending disputes. ECF No. 97. The parties reached an agreement to
`dispose of the motions, memorialized by Court order. See ECF No. 101. As part of that
`agreement, Check Point agreed to produce various technical documents within prescribed time
`frames. Id. at 1-2. Check Point complied with these technical document obligations. Since that
`time, whenever Finjan has raised the possibility that document(s) were missing, Check Point
`promptly either explained why Finjan was mistaken or searched for and produced the specific
`documents in question. See, e.g., Caridis Decl., Ex. G. Finjan never brought a motion to compel
`
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`CHECK POINT OPP. TO
`MOTION TO CERTIFY
`3:18-CV-02621-WHO
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-02621-WHO Document 264 Filed 03/27/20 Page 12 of 30
`
`
`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
`ORRICK, HERRINGTON &
`SUTCLIFFE LLP
`ATTORNEYS AT LAW
`SILICON VALLEY
`
`additional technical documents nor has it ever filed a motion claiming that Check Point failed to
`produce the technical documents it was ordered to produce.
`
`Motion to Compel Response to Interrogatory No. 9.
`2.
`After serving its AICs, Finjan filed a discovery motion seeking to compel Check Point “to
`identify which source code modules correspond to which of its products.” ECF No. 119 at 2
`(seeking to compel a response to Interrogatory No. 9). In other words, Finjan wanted Check Point
`to provide a source-code mapping showing the relationship between the code Check Point had
`produced for inspection and the accused products. Id. During the meet and confer leading up to
`the motion, Finjan stated that its expert could not figure out which code went with which
`products, either by looking at the folders themselves or by examining the code. Id. at 4. While
`Check Point believed the manual task required to map the source code to the accused products
`was equally burdensome for both parties, the Magistrate Judge disagreed, and ordered Check
`Point to respond. ECF No. 128. Check Point did so.
`
`June 2019 seeking Technical Deposition.
`3.
`On June 14, 2019—while Check Point’s motion to strike the AICs was pending—Finjan
`filed a discovery motion seeking to compel the deposition of Tamir Zegman. ECF No. 157.
`Finjan filed this motion despite the Court having denied Finjan this deposition and (instead)
`providing a procedure by which Finjan could procure technical testimony on the accused
`products. See supra § II.B.1. Magistrate Judge Spero denied Plaintiff’s motion, noting that he
`“[was] not writing on a blank slate,” that the Court had previously specified a procedure for
`Finjan to obtain early technical witness testimony, and that Finjan had failed to follow that
`procedure. ECF No. 161.
`
`October 2019 Seeking Technical Deposition.
`4.
`On October 24, 2019—after Check Point filed its motion to strike the SAICs—Finjan
`renewed its request to depose Check Point technical witnesses. ECF No. 215. Although Finjan
`still had not provided adequate contentions and although claim construction had not yet begun,
`Finjan claimed the issue was urgent because fact discovery was slated to close within two
`months. Id. at 1-2. The Court did not reach the merits of this motion, and instead ordering the
`
`
`
`
`
`7
`
`CHECK POINT OPP. TO
`MOTION TO CERTIFY
`3:18-CV-02621-WHO
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-02621-WHO Document 264 Filed 03/27/20 Page 13 of 30
`
`
`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
`ORRICK, HERRINGTON &
`SUTCLIFFE LLP
`ATTORNEYS AT LAW
`SILICON VALLEY
`
`parties to submit a new case schedule. ECF No. 221.
`
`III. LEGAL STANDARD
`Standard for Certifying an Order for Interlocutory Appeal.
`A.
`Generally, a party may not appeal a decision of the district court unless the decision is
`final, which requires a decision on the merits that ends the litigation and leaves nothing for the
`court to do but execute the judgement. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. v. Risjord, 449 U.S. 368, 373
`(1981). This “final judgment” rule recognizes the deference owed to the trial judge and the
`importance of promoting efficient judicial administration. Id. at 374.
`Interlocutory appeals provide a narrow exception to this rule. 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b).
`Section 1292 permits an interlocutory appeal where the: (1) order involves a controlling question
`of law; (2) there is substantial grounds for difference of opinion pertaining to that question of law;
`and (3) an immediate appeal of the order may materially advance the ultimate termination of the
`litigation. Id. Because of the policy of postponing appellate review until after the entry of final
`judgement, only “exceptional circumstances” warrant certifying an order fo