Case 4:18-cv-07229-YGR Document 40 Filed 12/04/19 Page 1 of 38
`
`PAUL 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
`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.
`
`
`EDWARD G. POPLAWSKI (SBN 113590)
`epoplawski@wsgr.com
`OLIVIA M. KIM (SBN 228382)
`okim@wsgr.com
`WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI
`Professional Corporation
`633 West Fifth Street, Suite 1550
`Los Angeles, CA 90071
`Telephone: (323) 210-2901
`Facsimile: (866) 974-7329
`
`RYAN R. SMITH (SBN 229323)
`rsmith@wsgr.com
`CHRISTOPHER D. MAYS (SBN 266510)
`cmays@wsgr.com
`WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI
`Professional Corporation
`650 Page Mill Road
`Palo Alto, CA 94304-1050
`Telephone: (650) 493-9300
`Facsimile: (650) 493-6811
`
`Attorneys for Defendant
`QUALYS INC.
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`OAKLAND DIVISION
`
`
`
`
`
`
`FINJAN, INC.,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`Case No.: 4:18-cv-07229-YGR
`
`JOINT CLAIM CONSTRUCTION AND
`PRE-HEARING STATEMENT
`
`
`v.
`
`
`QUALYS INC.,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`JOINT CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`AND PRE-HEARING STATEMENT
`
` CASE NO.: 4:18-cv-07229-YGR
`
`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 4:18-cv-07229-YGR Document 40 Filed 12/04/19 Page 2 of 38
`
`
`
`Pursuant to the Court’s Scheduling Order (Dkt. 39) and Patent L.R. 4-3, Plaintiff Finjan, Inc.
`(“Finjan”) and Defendant Qualys, Inc. (“Qualys”) hereby submit this Joint Claim Construction and
`Pre-Hearing Statement.
`PATENT L.R. 4-3(a): PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION OF EACH AGREED TERM.
`I.
`The parties’ agreed constructions are provided below.
`
`Patent
`6,154,844
`8,677,494
`
`Term
`“downloadable”
`
`Agreed Construction
`an executable application program, which is downloaded
`from a source computer and run on the destination computer
`Function: receiving a Downloadable
`Structure: Downloadable file interceptor
`Function: generating a first Downloadable security profile
`that identifies suspicious code in the received Downloadable
`
`Structure: content inspection engine programmed to perform
`the algorithm disclosed at Col. 8, lines 51-60 of the ‘844
`Patent
`
`Function: linking the first Downloadable security profile to
`the Downloadable before a web server makes the
`Downloadable available to web clients
`
`Structure: content inspection engine programmed to perform
`the algorithm of step 630 disclosed at FIG. 6, Col. 8, lines
`65-67 and Col. 6, lines 13-24 of the ‘844 Patent
`
`Function: comparing the first downloadable security profile
`against the security policy if the first downloadable security
`profile is trustworthy
`
`Structure: network protection engine or computer protection
`engine
`
`Function: determining whether to trust the first
`downloadable security profile
`
` CASE NO.: 4:18-cv-07229-YGR
`
`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
`
`
`6,154,844
`
`6,154,844
`
`6,154,844
`
`6,154,844
`
`6,154,844
`
`“means for receiving
`a Downloadable”
`“means for generating
`a first Downloadable
`security profile that
`identifies suspicious
`code in the received
`Downloadable”
`“means for linking
`the first
`Downloadable
`security profile to the
`Downloadable before
`a web server makes
`the Downloadable
`available to web
`clients”
`“means for
`comparing the first
`downloadable
`security profile
`against the security
`policy if the first
`downloadable
`security profile is
`trustworthy”1
`“means for
`determining whether
`
`1 In light of the Court’s ten-term limit, Qualys does not dispute Finjan’s proposed construction, but
`reserves the right to seek clarification of the construction should the need arise. Finjan disagrees that
`Qualys may dispute these terms later, after it has already agreed to their construction here.
`
`1
`JOINT CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`AND PRE-HEARING STATEMENT
`
`

`

`Case 4:18-cv-07229-YGR Document 40 Filed 12/04/19 Page 3 of 38
`
`
`
`Patent
`
`Term
`to trust the first
`Downloadable
`security profile”1
`
`7,975,305
`8,677,494
`
`“database”
`
`8,225,408
`
`“parse tree”
`
`Agreed Construction
`
`Structure: network protection engine or computer protection
`engine
`a collection of interrelated data organized according to a
`database schema to serve one or more applications
`a hierarchical structure of interconnected nodes built from
`scanned content
`
`II.
`
`PATENT L.R. 4-3(b): PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION OF EACH DISPUTED TERM.
`The parties’ proposed additional claim constructions are provided below. All supporting
`evidence for the parties’ claim constructions is provided in Exhibit A. The parties reserve their rights
`to cite additional supporting evidence based on arguments raised in the claim construction briefs.
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,154,844
`Claim Term
`
`“web client”
`
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,965,968
`Claim Term
`
`“receiver”
`
`“transmitter”
`
`“dynamically generating a
`policy index”
`
`“known to be allowable
`relative to a given policy”
`/ “allowable relative to a
`given policy”
`“memory storing a cache
`of digital content”
`
`Finjan’s Proposed Construction Qualys’s Proposed
`Construction
`an application on the end-user’s
`computer that requests a
`downloadable from the web
`server
`
`No construction necessary – plain
`and ordinary meaning.
`
`
`No construction necessary – plain
`and ordinary meaning.
`No construction necessary – plain
`and ordinary meaning.
`No construction necessary – plain
`and ordinary meaning.
`
`Finjan’s Proposed Construction Defendants’ Proposed
`Construction
`Governed by 35 U.S.C. § 112(6)
`without corresponding structure
`Governed by 35 U.S.C. § 112(6)
`without corresponding structure
`creating or updating a policy
`index in response to user requests
`for cached or non-cached content
`Whether the given digital content
`may be sent to the web client
`
`No construction necessary – plain
`and ordinary meaning.
`
`No construction necessary – plain
`and ordinary meaning.
`
`a memory storing [memory for
`storing] a collection of digital
`content previously requested and
`retrieved for a web client
`
`2
`
`JOINT CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`AND PRE-HEARING STATEMENT
`
` CASE NO.: 4:18-cv-07229-YGR
`
`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 4:18-cv-07229-YGR Document 40 Filed 12/04/19 Page 4 of 38
`
`
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,418,731
`Claim Term
`
`“incoming files from the
`Internet”
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,141,154
`Claim Term
`
`“a content processor”2
`
`“receiver”
`
`“transmitter”
`
`“security computer”
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,225,408
`Claim Term
`
`“instantiating, by the
`computer, a scanner for the
`specific programming
`language”
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,677,494
`Claim Term
`
`“receiver”
`
`Finjan’s Proposed Construction Defendants’ Proposed
`Construction
`Internet files requested by an
`intranet computer
`
`
`No construction necessary – Plain
`and ordinary meaning
`
`No construction necessary – plain
`and ordinary meaning.
`
`Finjan’s Proposed Construction Defendants’ Proposed
`Construction
`a processor that processes
`modified content; the content
`processor is part of the computer
`being protected from dynamically
`generated malicious content
`
`Governed by 35 U.S.C. § 112(6)
`without corresponding structure
`Governed by 35 U.S.C. § 112(6)
` without corresponding structure
`a computer that determines
`whether the content received by
`the content processor is malicious
`
`No construction necessary – plain
`and ordinary meaning.
`No construction necessary – plain
`and ordinary meaning.
`No construction necessary – plain
`and ordinary meaning.
`
`No construction necessary – plain
`and ordinary meaning.
`
`Finjan’s Proposed Construction Defendants’ Proposed
`Construction
`substituting specific data,
`instructions, or both into a
`scanner to make it usable for
`scanning the specific
`programming language
`
`Finjan’s Proposed Construction Defendants’ Proposed
`Construction
`Governed by 35 U.S.C. § 112(6)
` without corresponding structure
`
`No construction necessary – plain
`and ordinary meaning.
`
`
`2 Given the Court’s ten-term limit, Qualys is not seeking a construction of “process content” as it
`appears in the ’154 patent, but reserves the right to argue that it is, in effect, synonymous with “a
`content processor.” Finjan disagrees that Qualys may reserve the right to dispute this term later.
`
`3
`JOINT CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`AND PRE-HEARING STATEMENT
`
` CASE NO.: 4:18-cv-07229-YGR
`
`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 4:18-cv-07229-YGR Document 40 Filed 12/04/19 Page 5 of 38
`
`
`
`III.
`
`PATENT L.R. 4-3(c): IDENTIFICATION OF 10 TERMS, THE CONSTRUCTION OF
`WHICH WILL BE MOST SIGNIFICANT TO RESOLUTION OF THE CASE.
`Finjan’s Statement:
`Qualys is playing games with the Patent Local Rules. At 1:00 p.m. on the day this Joint Claim
`Construction Statement was due, Qualys informed Finjan for the first time that it would agree to
`Finjan’s construction of four of the five terms that Finjan identified as most significant under Patent
`Local Rule 4-3(c). Qualys did so even though the disputes over these terms had existed for months
`and moreover Finjan emailed Qualys on October 30th asking whether Qualys would agree to Finjan’s
`constructions of these terms. Qualys waited to respond until 1:00 p.m. on the due date, December 4th,
`so that it could significantly narrow the disputed terms at the last second and thereby attempt to select
`nearly all of the ten terms itself that the parties were supposed to jointly identify for construction.
`Further, Qualys actually identifies fifteen total terms for construction below, instead of the ten
`total terms allowed under the Patent Local Rules and this Court’s Standing Order for Patent Cases.
`Namely, Qualys combines the terms “receiver” and “transmitter” from three different patents into just
`two terms. The reality is that these six terms are used in three different patents and will require
`separate arguments and analyses. This is especially true considering Qualys’ contention that all six of
`these terms are indefinite, which will require Finjan to rebut those six contentions by going through
`each patent individually and identifying the support in each patent that provides the structure for each
`of these six terms. These are three different patents, with different specifications, from different
`families, with different inventors, and will, therefore, require different analyses for each of the
`different patents. Thus, Qualys’s proposal does not “group” any issues, because they are not related.
`Lumping these six terms across three patents into two total terms below will also prejudice
`Finjan during claim construction due to page-limit constraints, and will increase the burden on Finjan
`and the Court beyond that provided for in the Patent Local Rules and this Court’s Standing Order for
`Patent Cases. Finjan asked Qualys to cut its list of terms for construction down to five pursuant to the
`local rules. Qualys refused. Thus, Finjan requests that the Court order Qulays to choose five terms for
`construction instead of the fifteen it has chosen below.
`
`4
`
`JOINT CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`AND PRE-HEARING STATEMENT
`
` CASE NO.: 4:18-cv-07229-YGR
`
`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 4:18-cv-07229-YGR Document 40 Filed 12/04/19 Page 6 of 38
`
`
`
`For Finjan’s part, the five most significant disputed terms per Patent L.R. 4-3(c) are identified
`
`below:
`No. Patent(s) Term(s)
`
`1
`
`2
`3
`4
`5
`
`Identifying
`Party
`Finjan
`
`Finjan
`Finjan
`Finjan
`Finjan
`
`8,225,408 “instantiating, by the computer, a scanner for the specific
`programming language”
`8,677,494 “receiver”
`6,965,968 “receiver”
`8,141,154 “receiver”
`6,965,968 “transmitter”
`Finjan does not consider any of the disputed terms case dispositive.
`Qualys’s Statement:
`Finjan is, in essence, complaining about Qualys’ efforts to reduce the number of disputed claim
`terms to ten, as is required by the Court’s Standing Order for Patent Cases. Given that Finjan is
`asserting nearly eighty claims across seven patents, that has proven a tall order. Nonetheless, on
`October 29, 2019, Qualys initiated meet and confer efforts to reduce the number of asserted claim
`terms by providing Finjan a narrowed list of claim terms for construction. Through that process,
`Qualys had agreed to Finjan’s construction for two of the four means-plus-function terms from the
`’844 patent and it was unclear if there was a material dispute as to the others. Qualys realized there
`was still a potential dispute for the two remaining terms upon receipt of Finjan’s draft claim
`construction chart at 9:19pm on December 2. As part of a continuing effort to reduce the number of
`disputed terms to ten, and to avoid an impasse, Qualys agreed to the other two means-plus-function
`terms on December 4 and immediately communicated its agreement to Finjan.
`Finjan also contends that the two terms “receiver” and transmitter” are actually six different
`terms because those terms appear in three of the seven asserted patents. However, when asked to
`provide authority for its interpretation of the Court’s Standing Order for Patent Cases, Finjan could
`provide no such authority. As reflected by the parties’ respective claim construction proposals, the
`issue is identical across the three patents. Specifically, Finjan contends that the terms “receiver” and
`“transmitter” need not be construed at all, while Qualys contends that the two terms are indefinite for
`lack of structure. To treat this common claim construction dispute concerning the very same claim
`
`5
`
`JOINT CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`AND PRE-HEARING STATEMENT
`
` CASE NO.: 4:18-cv-07229-YGR
`
`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 4:18-cv-07229-YGR Document 40 Filed 12/04/19 Page 7 of 38
`
`
`
`terms as distinct makes no sense. Further, the Court’s Standing Order for Patent Cases contemplates
`“grouping of claims by issues presented” as an alternative to seeking leave to increase the number of
`terms above ten. Qualys has, if anything, grouped the claims to present the same claim construction
`issue through the terms “receiver” and transmitter.”
`The following table illustrates that based on Qualys’s agreement to adopt certain of Finjan’s
`proposed constructions, there are now ten claim terms for construction in accordance with the Court’s
`Standing Order for Patent Cases.
`
`
`No. Patent(s)
`1
`8,225,408
`
`2
`
`3
`
`8,677,494
`6,965,968
`8,141,154
`8,677,494
`6,965,968
`8,141,154
`6,965,968
`6,965,968
`
`Term(s)
`“instantiating, by the computer, a scanner for the specific
`programming language”
`“receiver”
`
`“transmitter”
`
`4
`5
`
`“dynamically generating a policy index”
`“known to be allowable to a given policy” / “allowable
`relative to a given policy”
`“memory storing a cache of digital content”
`6,965,968
`6
`“incoming files from the internet”
`7,418,731
`7
`“a content processor”
`8,141,154
`8
`“web client”
`6,154,844
`9
`“security computer”
`8,141,154
`10
`Qualys is of the view that each proposed term will impact either the infringement or the validity
`of the asserted claims in which the term appears.
`
`IV.
`
`PATENT L.R. 4-3(d): TIME FOR CLAIM CONSTRUCTION HEARING.
`The parties anticipate that they will not require more than three (3) hours for the entire claim
`construction hearing.
`PATENT L.R. 4-3(e): WITNESSES AT CLAIM CONSTRUCTION HEARING.
`V.
`Finjan’s Statement:
`Finjan does not believe expert testimony is required at the Markman hearing. However, to the
`extent Qualys submits expert claim construction testimony, Finjan intends to offer a declaration and
`
`6
`JOINT CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`AND PRE-HEARING STATEMENT
`
` CASE NO.: 4:18-cv-07229-YGR
`
`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 4:18-cv-07229-YGR Document 40 Filed 12/04/19 Page 8 of 38
`
`
`
`may present live witness testimony from Dr. Michael Goodrich, Distinguished Professor at the
`Department of Computer Science at U.C. Irvine, regarding the scope of the asserted patents and the
`relevant technology, and the proper construction and/or plain and ordinary meaning of the disputed
`terms or any term for which Qualys offers expert testimony. Furthermore, Dr. Goodrich will rebut any
`testimony or opinions offered by Qualys’s expert witness.3
`Qualys’s Statement:
`Qualys agrees that live expert testimony at the Markman hearing is not required. However,
`Qualys intends to offer a declaration and, to the extent requested by the Court, may present live
`witness testimony from Dr. Aviel Rubin, Professor at the Department of Computer Science at Johns
`Hopkins University and Technical Director of the Johns Hopkins University Information Security
`Institute, regarding the scope of the asserted patents and the relevant technology, and the proper
`construction and/or plain and ordinary meaning of the disputed terms. Further, Dr. Rubin will rebut
`any testimony or opinions offered by Finjan’s expert witness.4
`PATENT L.R. 4-3(F): REQUESTED FACTUAL FINDINGS.
`VI.
`No party requests any factual findings from the Court related to claim construction other than
`those submitted with any expert declaration that may accompany the claim construction briefing.
`
`
`3 Qualys’ footnote below is inaccurate and baseless. Finjan properly identified its expert testimony
`under Patent Local Rule 4-2. Qualys’ footnote also misleadingly omits the bulk of Finjan’s
`descriptions of its expert testimony.
`4 Qualys objects to Finjan’s witness statement because it violates Patent L.R. 4-2(b). Patent L.R. 4-2(b)
`provides that “[w]ith respect to any supporting witness, percipient or expert, the identifying party shall
`also provide a description of the substance of that witness’ proposed testimony that includes a listing of
`any opinions to be rendered in connection with claim construction.” Finjan’s Amended Preliminary
`Claim Constructions and Evidentiary Support Pursuant to Patent Local Rule 4-2, served November 12,
`2019, identifies expert testimony as extrinsic evidence, but does not disclose the scope or substance of
`that witness’s proposed testimony. A representative and exemplary disclosure states: “Finjan will rely
`on expert testimony to rebut any expert opinion that Qualys offers to support its constructions.”
`Finjan’s disclosures do not satisfy the requirements of Patent L.R. 4-2(b).
`
`7
`JOINT CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`AND PRE-HEARING STATEMENT
`
` CASE NO.: 4:18-cv-07229-YGR
`
`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 4:18-cv-07229-YGR Document 40 Filed 12/04/19 Page 9 of 38
`
`
`
`
`Dated: December 4, 2019
`
`
`
`
`Dated: December 4, 2019
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`By: /s/ James Hannah
`
`Paul J. Andre (State Bar No. 196585)
`Lisa Kobialka (State Bar No. 191404)
`James Hannah (State Bar No. 237978)
`Austin Manes (State Bar No. 284065)
`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
`amanes@kramerlevin.com
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff
`FINJAN, INC.
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`By: /s/ Ryan R. Smith
`Ryan R. Smith
`
`Attorneys for Defendant
`QUALYS INC.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`8
`
`JOINT CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`AND PRE-HEARING STATEMENT
`
` CASE NO.: 4:18-cv-07229-YGR
`
`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 4:18-cv-07229-YGR Document 40 Filed 12/04/19 Page 10 of 38
`
`
`
`ATTESTATION
`In accordance with Civil Local Rule 5-1(i)(3), I attest that concurrence in the filing of this
`document has been obtained from any other signatory to this document.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ James Hannah
` James Hannah
`
`
`
`
`
`9
`
`JOINT CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`AND PRE-HEARING STATEMENT
`
` CASE NO.: 4:18-cv-07229-YGR
`
`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 4:18-cv-07229-YGR Document 40 Filed 12/04/19 Page 11 of 38
`
`
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,154,844
`
`EXHIBIT A
`
`Claim Term
`“web client”
`
`Claims 1-44 of the ‘844
`Patent.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,154,844
`Finjan’s Proposed Construction and Support
`No construction necessary – plain and ordinary meaning.
`
`Intrinsic Evidence
`
`Title;
`Abstract;
`Figs. 1-8 (Fig. 1 showing content inspection
`engine);
`Claims 1-21, 41, 43;
`Col. 1, ll. 37-59, 62-67;
`Col. 2, ll. 1-67;
`Col. 3, ll. 32-65;
`Col. 4, ll. 1-67;
`Col. 5, ll. 1-13, 48-67;
`Col. 6, ll. 1-24, 66-67;
`Col. 7, ll. 1-67;
`Col. 8, ll. 1-5, 36-67; and
`Col. 9, ll. 1-53;
`
`U.S. Pat. No. 6,092,194, including:
`Figs. 1-5;
`Col. 1, ll. 60-67;
`Col. 2, ll. 1-36; 65-67;
`Col. 3, ll. 1-67;
`Col. 4, ll. 1-67;
`Col. 5, ll. 1-3; 15-67;
`Col. 6, ll. 1-67;
`Col. 7, ll. 1-6;
`Col. 9, ll. 24 – 28, 34 – 42, 57-67;
`
`- 1 -
`
`Qualys’s Proposed Construction and Support
`“an application on the computer of an end-user that
`requests a downloadable from the web server”
`
`Intrinsic Evidence
`‘844 Patent: Claims 1, 15, 22, 23, 32, 41, 42, 43, 44;
`2:3-19; 3:32-52; 4:65-5:13; 5:14-19; 5:28-33; 6:2-17;
`7:6-8:4; 8:17-36; 8:49-51; 8:65-67; 9:13-18; 9:19-21;
`9:63-10:13; Figs. 1 and 7.
`
`Extrinsic Evidence
`Finjan, Inc. v. Symantec Corp., Civ. No. 4:14-cv-
`02998-HSG, Dkt. No. 170 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 10, 2017)
`(claim construction order).
`
`Finjan, Inc. v. Symantec Corp., Civ. No. 4:14-cv-
`02998-HSG, Dkt. No. 159 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 20, 2017)
`(Finjan’s reply to Symantec’s supplemental claim
`construction brief).
`
`Finjan, Inc. v. Symantec Corp., Civ. No. 4:14-cv-
`02998-HSG, Dkt. No. 154 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 13, 2017)
`(Symantec’s
`responsive
`supplemental
`claim
`construction brief).
`
`Finjan, Inc. v. Symantec Corp., Civ. No. 4:14-cv-
`02998-HSG, Dkt. No. 151 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 29, 2017)
`(Finjan’s supplemental claim construction brief).
`
`Finjan, Inc. v. Symantec Corp., Civ. No. 4:14-cv-
`02998-HSG, Dkt. No. 151-1 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 29, 2017)
`(Declaration of Dr. Nenad Medvidovic).
`
`
`

`

`
`
`Claim Term
`
`Case 4:18-cv-07229-YGR Document 40 Filed 12/04/19 Page 12 of 38
`
`Qualys’s Proposed Construction and Support
` Finjan, Inc. v. Symantec Corp., Civ. No. 4:14-cv-
`02998-HSG, Dkt. No. 72-1 (N.D. Cal. April 20, 2015)
`(Declaration of Dr. Nenad Medvidovic).
`
`Finjan, Inc. v. Sophos, Inc., Civ. No. 3:14-cv-1197-
`WHO, Dkt. No. 205 (N.D. Cal. May 24, 2016) (order
`denying Sophos’s motion for summary judgment).
`
`Finjan, Inc. v. Proofpoint, Inc., Civ. No. 4:13-cv-5808-
`HSG, Dkt. No. 462 (N.D. Cal. May 20, 2016) (Finjan’s
`supplemental claim construction brief).
`
`Finjan, Inc. v. Proofpoint, Inc., Civ. No. 4:13-cv-5808-
`HSG, Dkt. No. 321 (N.D. Cal. March 7, 2016) (Finjan’s
`response
`to Proofpoint’s motion
`for summary
`judgment).
`
`Finjan, Inc. v. Blue Coat Sys., Inc., Civ. No. 5:13-cv-
`03999-BLF, Dkt. No. 118 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 20, 2014)
`(claim construction order).
`
`Finjan, Inc. v. ESET, LLC., Civ. No. 3:17-cv-0183-
`CAB-BGS, Dkt. No. 195 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 14, 2017)
`(claim construction order).
`
`Microsoft Press Computer Dictionary 64 (1991).
`Microsoft Press Computer Dictionary 75 (2d ed. 1994).
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,154,844
`Finjan’s Proposed Construction and Support
`Col. 10, ll. 1-6.
`
`‘844 Patent File History including:
`February 8, 2000 Non-Final Rejection;
`May 16, 2000 Response to Non-Final Action; and July 13,
`2000 Notice of Allowance.
`
`April 21, 2016 Decision Denying
`Institution of Inter Partes Review – Palo Alto Networks,
`Inc. v. Finjan, Inc., IPR2016-00165, Paper No. 7.
`
`Symantec Corp. v. Finjan, Inc., IPR2015-
`01894, PTAB Decision Denying Institution
`
`Extrinsic Evidence
`
`October 14, 2014, Joint Claim Construction
`and Pre-Hearing Statement Pursuant to Patent Local Rule
`4-3, Finjan, Inc. v. Sophos Inc., Civ. No. 14-cv-01197-
`WHO.
`
`April 12, 2016 Summary Judgment Order -
`Finjan, Inc. v. Proofpoint, Inc. et al., Case
`No. 3:13-cv-05808-HSG (N.D. Cal.).
`
`May 24, 2016 Summary Judgment Order
`Finjan, Inc. v. Sophos, Inc., Case No. 14-cv-
`01197-WHO (N.D. Cal.).
`
`July 18, 2016 Post-Trial Order, Finjan, Inc. v. Blue Coat,
`Inc., Case No. 13-
`CV-03999-BLF (N.D. Cal.).
`
`
`- 2 -
`
`

`

`Case 4:18-cv-07229-YGR Document 40 Filed 12/04/19 Page 13 of 38
`
`
`
`Claim Term
`
`Qualys’s Proposed Construction and Support
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,154,844
`Finjan’s Proposed Construction and Support
`February 10, 2017 Claim Construction Order
`– Finjan, Inc. v. Symantec Inc., Civ. No.
`3:14-cv-02998-HSG (adopting Finjan’s construction).
`
`March 02, 2015 Claim Construction Order –
`Finjan, Inc. v. Sophos Inc., Civ. No. 14-cv-
`01197-WHO.
`
`October 20, 2014 Claim Construction Order – Finjan, Inc.
`v. Blue Coat, Inc., Case No. 5:13- cv-03999-BLF (N.D.
`Cal.).
`
`December 3, 2015 Claim Construction Order
`– Finjan, Inc. v. Proofpoint, Inc., et al., 3:13-
`cv-05808-HSG (N.D. Cal.).
`
`February 2, 2019 Order Construing Additional Claims –
`Finjan, Inc. v. Cisco Systems Inc., Civ. No. 17-cv-00072-
`BLF.
`
`July 23, 2018, Claim Construction Order – Finjan, Inc. v.
`Cisco Systems Inc., Civ. No. 17-cv-00072-BLF.
`
`Dictionary/Treatise Definitions
`Webster’s New World Dictionary of
`Computer Terms (1997) at 95.
`
`Any intrinsic and extrinsic evidence relied upon by Qualys.
`
`Qualys’ Invalidity Contentions.
`Finjan’s Impact Statement Under either party’s construction the claim is infringed in this case. Finjan disputes Qualys’s claim that this term is
`indefinite.
`Qualys’s Impact Statement Qualys believes that there is no infringement under its construction.
`
`- 3 -
`
`

`

`Case 4:18-cv-07229-YGR Document 40 Filed 12/04/19 Page 14 of 38
`
`
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,965,968
`
`Claim Term
`“receiver”
`
`Claim 7 of the ‘968 Patent.
`
`Qualys’s Proposed Construction
`This term is governed by 35 U.S.C. § 112(6)
`without corresponding structure.
`
`
`Intrinsic Evidence
`’154 Patent: Figs. 2-5; 6:60-65, 8:54-60, 15:26-29;
`claims 1-3
`’968 Patent: Figs 1-2; 1:10-23; 2:29-37; 3:31-46; 3:62-
`4:8; 7:35-56; 8:17-47; claims 1, 6, 7, 14, 15.
`’494 Patent: Abstract; Figs 1a-12b; 3:3-4:4; 4:15-41;
`6:7-20; 7:30-8:4; 9:21-10:19; 11:65-12:47; 13:49-
`14:28; 14:55-15:64; 17:30-47; 18:56-20:31; 20:13-29;
`20:64-21:3; claims 1, 10
`
`Extrinsic Evidence
`Expert testimony of Dr. Aviel Rubin, who may opine
`that a person of ordinary skill in the art as of the priority
`dates of the respective patents, reading the respective
`patents’ specifications, would not be able to identify
`corresponding structure for the term “receiver.”
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,965,968
`Finjan’s Proposed Construction
`No construction necessary – plain and ordinary meaning.
`
`Intrinsic Evidence
`
`Abstract;
`Fig. 2;
`Col. 1, ll. 10-23;
`Col. 2, ll. 28-67;
`Col. 3, ll. 30-45;
`Col. 4, ll. 1-8;
`Col. 7, ll. 35-55;
`Col. 8, ll. 17-45;
`Claims 1 – 38.
`
`Extrinsic Evidence
`
`Any intrinsic and extrinsic evidence relied upon by
`Qualys.
`
`Qualys’ Invalidity Contentions.
`
`Finjan will rely on expert testimony to rebut any expert
`opinion that Qualys offers to support its constructions.
`Here, Finjan will rely on expert testimony to rebut
`Qualys’ proposed expert opinion that “a person of
`ordinary skill in the art as of the priority dates of the
`respective patents, reading the respective patents’
`specifications, would not
`be able to identify corresponding structure for the term
`‘receiver.’”
`
`- 4 -
`
`

`

`Case 4:18-cv-07229-YGR Document 40 Filed 12/04/19 Page 15 of 38
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,965,968
`Qualys’s Proposed Construction
`Finjan’s Proposed Construction
`Claim Term
`Finjan’s Impact Statement Under either party’s construction the claim is infringed in this case. Finjan disputes Qualys’s claim that this term is
`indefinite.
`Qualys’s Impact Statement Under Qualys’s construction, the claim term is indefinite and thus the claim is invalid.
`“transmitter”
`No construction necessary – plain and ordinary meaning.
`This term is governed by 35 U.S.C. § 112(6)
`
`without corresponding structure.
`
`Claim 6 of the ‘968 Patent.
`Intrinsic Evidence
`
`
`Intrinsic Evidence
`Abstract;
`’154 Patent: Figs. 2-5; 6:60-65, 8:54-60, 15:26-29;
`Fig. 2;
`claims 1-3
`Col. 3, ll. 30-61;
`’968 Patent: Figs 1-2; 1:1-23; 3:41-61; 5:39-51; claims
`Col. 5, ll. 38-51;
`1, 6, 7, 14, 15
`Claims 1 – 38.
`
`
`Extrinsic Evidence
`Expert testimony of Dr. Aviel Rubin, who may opine
`Extrinsic Evidence
`
`that a person of ordinary skill in the art as of the priority
`Any intrinsic and extrinsic evidence relied upon by
`dates of the respective patents, reading the respective
`Qualys.
`patents’ specifications, would not be able to identify
`
`corresponding structure for the term “transmitter.”
`Qualys’ Invalidity Contentions.
`
`Finjan will rely on expert testimony to rebut any expert
`opinion that Qualys offers to support its constructions.
`Here, Finjan will rely on expert testimony to rebut
`Qualys’ proposed expert opinion that “a person of
`ordinary skill in the art as of the priority dates of the
`respective patents, reading the respective patents’
`specifications, would not
`be able to identify corresponding structure for the term
`‘transmitter.’”
`Finjan’s Impact Statement Under either party’s construction the claim is infringed in this case. Finjan disputes Qualys’s claim that this term is
`indefinite.
`Qualys’s Impact Statement Under Qualys’s construction, the claim term is indefinite and thus the claim is invalid.
`
`- 5 -
`
`

`

`
`
`Claim Term
`“dynamically generating a
`policy index”
`
`Claims 26-38 of the ‘968
`Patent.
`
`Case 4:18-cv-07229-YGR Document 40 Filed 12/04/19 Page 16 of 38
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,965,968
`Finjan’s Proposed Construction
`No construction necessary – plain and ordinary meaning.
`
`Intrinsic Evidence
`
`Title;
`Abstract;
`Claims 1 – 38;
`Figs. 1, 2, 3;
`Col. 1, ll. 10-58, 63 - 67;
`Col. 2, ll. 1 – 67;
`Col. 3, ll. 16 – 67;
`Col. 4, ll. 1 – 67;
`Col. 5, ll. 1 – 67;
`Col. 6, ll. 1 – 67;
`Col. 7, ll. 1 – 67;
`Col. 8, ll. 1 – 67; and
`Col. 9, ll. 1 – 44.
`
`‘968 Patent File History, including:
`Notice of Allowance dated June 23, 2005;
`Office Action Response dated June 6, 2005;
`Office Action Response dated May 11, 2005;
`Office Action dated February 9, 2005.
`
`Extrinsic Evidence
`
`Any intrinsic and extrinsic evidence relied upon by
`Qualys.
`
`Qualys’ Invalidity Contentions.
`
`Finjan will rely on expert testimony to rebut any expert
`opinion that Qualys offers to support its constructions.
`
`Qualys’s Proposed Construction
`“creating or updating a policy index in response to user
`requests for cached or non-cached content”
`
`Intrinsic Evidence
`’968 Patent, Abstract; Figure 1; Figure 2; 1:10-30; 1:37-
`54; 1:63-2:25; 2:28-67; 3:3-11; 3:21-4:8; 4:14-19; 4:20-
`32; 4:33-41; 4:42-53; 4:54-5:6; 5:15-30; 5:31-51; 5:52-
`6:6; 6:7-7:2; 7:11-22; 7:35-8:7; 8:8-16; 8:17-32; 8:33-
`47; 8:48-9:2; 9:9-11; Claims 1-38.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,772,214
`
`February 9, 2005 Office Action in Application No.
`10/376,215
`
`May 11, 2005 Response to Office Action in Application
`No. 10/376,215
`
`May 16, 2016 Decision Denying Institution of IPR
`
`Extrinsic Evidence
`Finjan, Inc. v. Blue Coat Sys., Inc., 879 F.3d 1299 (Fed.
`Cir. 2018)
`
`Finjan, Inc. v. Blue Coat Sys., Inc., No. 13-CV-03999-
`BLF, 2015 WL 3630000, at *9 (N.D. Cal. June 2,
`2015).
`
`Finjan, Inc. v. Sonicwall, Inc., No. 17-cv-04467-BLF
`(March 26, 2019)
`
`Expert testimony of Dr. Aviel Rubin, who may opine
`that a person of ordinary skill in the art as of the priority
`
`- 6 -
`
`

`

`Case 4:18-cv-07229-YGR Document 40 Filed 12/04/19 Page 17 of 38
`
`
`
`Claim Term
`
`Qualys’s Proposed Construction
`date of this patent, would understand the plain and
`ordinary meaning of this term in the context of this
`patent to be “creating or updating a