Case 4:18-cv-07229-YGR Document 44-11 Filed 02/28/20 Page 1 of 10
`Case 4:18-cv-07229—YGR Document 44-11 Filed 02/28/20 Page 1 of 10
`
`EXHIBIT J
`
`EXHIBIT J
`
`

`

`Case 4:18-cv-07229-YGR Document 44-11 Filed 02/28/20 Page 2 of 10
`
`Mays, Christopher
`From:
`Sent:
`To:
`Cc:
`
`Subject:
`
`Chris,
`
`Frankel, Aaron <AFrankel@KRAMERLEVIN.com>
`Friday, January 31, 2020 6:54 AM
`Mays, Christopher
`Manes, Austin; Poplawski, Edward; Desai, Neil; Kim, Olivia; Tong, Christina; Cheng,
`Stephanie; Andre, Paul; Kobialka, Lisa; Hannah, James; Williams, Daniel; Lien, Hien;
`Gordnia, Talin; Smith, Ryan
`RE: [EXTERNAL] RE: Finjan v. Qualys: Claim Construction
`
`That link discloses a single sentence: “Trend Micro partners with Qualys to help customers identify common
`vulnerabilities they have exposure to and automatically map the security controls required to help alleviate the
`gaps.”
`
`If you can provide information about this relationship (which already should have been produced in discovery),
`Finjan will consider it.
`
`Regards,
`Aaron
`
`Aaron M. Frankel
`Partner
`
`Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel LLP
`1177 Avenue of the Americas, New York, New York 10036
`T 212.715.7793 F 212.715.8363
`
`This communication (including any attachments) is intended solely for the recipient(s) named above and may contain information that is
`confidential, privileged or legally protected. Any unauthorized use or dissemination of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received
`this communication in error, please immediately notify the sender by return e-mail message and delete all copies of the original communication.
`Thank you for your cooperation.
`
`From: Mays, Christopher <cmays@wsgr.com>
`Sent: Friday, January 31, 2020 9:47 AM
`To: Frankel, Aaron <AFrankel@KRAMERLEVIN.com>
`Cc: Manes, Austin <AManes@KRAMERLEVIN.com>; Poplawski, Edward <epoplawski@wsgr.com>; Desai, Neil
`<ndesai@wsgr.com>; Kim, Olivia <okim@wsgr.com>; Tong, Christina <ctong@wsgr.com>; Cheng, Stephanie
`<stephanie.cheng@wsgr.com>; Andre, Paul <PAndre@KRAMERLEVIN.com>; Kobialka, Lisa
`<LKobialka@KRAMERLEVIN.com>; Hannah, James <JHannah@KRAMERLEVIN.com>; Williams, Daniel
`<DDWilliams@KRAMERLEVIN.com>; Lien, Hien <HLien@KRAMERLEVIN.com>; Gordnia, Talin <tgordnia@wsgr.com>;
`Smith, Ryan <rsmith@wsgr.com>
`Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] RE: Finjan v. Qualys: Claim Construction
`
`Aaron,
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 4:18-cv-07229-YGR Document 44-11 Filed 02/28/20 Page 3 of 10
`
`Thanks for the message. We understand Finjan will oppose our motion.
`
`As an aside, it is incorrect for you to suggest that Finjan is unaware of the partnership between Qualys and
`Trend Micro. As we informed you months ago, the companies’ partnership is public and acknowledged by
`Trend Micro itself. See https://www.trendmicro.com/en_us/partners/explore-alliance-partners/qualys.html (sent
`to you several months ago).
`
`Best,
`
`Chris
`
`On Jan 31, 2020, at 6:19 AM, Frankel, Aaron <AFrankel@kramerlevin.com> wrote:
`
`Chris,
`
`In the absence of a license agreement between Qualys and Trend Micro and in the absence of
`evidence that Qualys fits within the limited Company Partner definition, Finjan does not consent
`to the proposed amendment as to a license or implied license defense. If Qualys provides
`documents (which already should have been produced in discovery) proving the relationship,
`Finjan will of course consider them. Otherwise Finjan does not know how Qualys obtained any
`source code that it claims is Trend Micro’s code.
`
`Finjan also does not agree to the proposed res judicata/collateral estoppel defense which is
`completely open-ended. Please let us know if Qualys will limit the scope of that defense to the
`impact of the Federal Circuit’s 2019 decision on the reexamination of the ‘305 Patent.
`
`Regards,
`Aaron
`
`Aaron M. Frankel
`Partner
`
`Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel LLP
`1177 Avenue of the Americas, New York, New York 10036
`T 212.715.7793 F 212.715.8363
`
`This communication (including any attachments) is intended solely for the recipient(s) named above and may contain
`information that is confidential, privileged or legally protected. Any unauthorized use or dissemination of this communication is
`strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify the sender by return e-mail
`message and delete all copies of the original communication. Thank you for your cooperation.
`
`From: Mays, Christopher <cmays@wsgr.com>
`Sent: Wednesday, January 29, 2020 11:46 AM
`To: Frankel, Aaron <AFrankel@KRAMERLEVIN.com>; Manes, Austin <AManes@KRAMERLEVIN.com>
`Cc: Poplawski, Edward <epoplawski@wsgr.com>; Desai, Neil <ndesai@wsgr.com>; Kim, Olivia
`<okim@wsgr.com>; Tong, Christina <ctong@wsgr.com>; Cheng, Stephanie
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 4:18-cv-07229-YGR Document 44-11 Filed 02/28/20 Page 4 of 10
`
`<stephanie.cheng@wsgr.com>; Andre, Paul <PAndre@KRAMERLEVIN.com>; Kobialka, Lisa
`<LKobialka@KRAMERLEVIN.com>; Hannah, James <JHannah@KRAMERLEVIN.com>; Williams, Daniel
`<DDWilliams@KRAMERLEVIN.com>; Lien, Hien <HLien@KRAMERLEVIN.com>; Gordnia, Talin
`<tgordnia@wsgr.com>; Smith, Ryan <rsmith@wsgr.com>
`Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL] RE: Finjan v. Qualys: Claim Construction
`
`Dear Aaron:
`
`Our res judicata / collateral estoppel defense includes, but is not necessarily limited to, the Federal
`Circuit’s 2019 decision on the ’305 Patent. For example, the Federal Circuit’s forthcoming decision on
`the construction of “content processor” may provide another basis for collateral estoppel. Other factual
`bases for this defense may also arise from other co-pending cases further along than this case.
`
`Regarding the Trend Micro issue, we currently understand our production to contain all relevant source
`code files for Qualys’s use of the licensed Trend Micro Antivirus software. We, of course, reserve the
`right to revise our position and supplement our production if we discover at a later time that additional
`code is relevant. As to any license agreement between Qualys and Trend Micro, we are continuing our
`search and, to the extent we can locate such an agreement, will produce it. However, we feel that the
`source code we already produced is sufficient to show our use of licensed Trend Micro software for the
`purposes of amending our Answer.
`
`Accordingly, please respond by close of business on Thursday, January 30 if Finjan will revise its position
`and consent to our motion seeking leave to amend our Answer.
`
`Best,
`
`Chris
`
`From: Frankel, Aaron [mailto:AFrankel@KRAMERLEVIN.com]
`Sent: Friday, January 24, 2020 8:27 PM
`To: Mays, Christopher; Manes, Austin
`Cc: Poplawski, Edward; Desai, Neil; Kim, Olivia; Tong, Christina; Cheng, Stephanie; Andre, Paul;
`Kobialka, Lisa; Hannah, James; Williams, Daniel; Lien, Hien; Gordnia, Talin; Smith, Ryan
`Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL] RE: Finjan v. Qualys: Claim Construction
`
`Chris,
`
`Finjan does not agree to postpone claim construction in this case.
`
`Please clarify if Qualys is seeking Finjan’s agreement to file an amendment to the answer limited
`to res judicata/collateral estoppel based exclusively on the September 2019 Federal Circuit
`decision or if the scope of Qualys’ proposed amendment goes beyond the alleged impact of that
`Federal Circuit decision.
`
`Finjan will not, at this time, revise its position on the dates it provided notice of infringement to
`Qualys.
`
`As to the Trend Micro issue, we will review the source code that Qualys provided. Is that the
`full extent of the source code of the accused products that Qualys contends originated with Trend
`Micro? Has Qualys been able to locate a license agreement between it and Trend Micro?
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 4:18-cv-07229-YGR Document 44-11 Filed 02/28/20 Page 5 of 10
`
`Regards,
`Aaron
`
`Aaron M. Frankel
`Partner
`
`Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel LLP
`1177 Avenue of the Americas, New York, New York 10036
`T 212.715.7793 F 212.715.8363
`
`This communication (including any attachments) is intended solely for the recipient(s) named above and may contain
`information that is confidential, privileged or legally protected. Any unauthorized use or dissemination of this communication is
`strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify the sender by return e-mail
`message and delete all copies of the original communication. Thank you for your cooperation.
`
`From: Mays, Christopher <cmays@wsgr.com>
`Sent: Thursday, January 23, 2020 8:45 AM
`To: Frankel, Aaron <AFrankel@KRAMERLEVIN.com>; Manes, Austin <AManes@KRAMERLEVIN.com>
`Cc: Poplawski, Edward <epoplawski@wsgr.com>; Desai, Neil <ndesai@wsgr.com>; Kim, Olivia
`<okim@wsgr.com>; Tong, Christina <ctong@wsgr.com>; Cheng, Stephanie
`<stephanie.cheng@wsgr.com>; Andre, Paul <PAndre@KRAMERLEVIN.com>; Kobialka, Lisa
`<LKobialka@KRAMERLEVIN.com>; Hannah, James <JHannah@KRAMERLEVIN.com>; Williams, Daniel
`<DDWilliams@KRAMERLEVIN.com>; Lien, Hien <HLien@KRAMERLEVIN.com>; Gordnia, Talin
`<tgordnia@wsgr.com>; Smith, Ryan <rsmith@wsgr.com>
`Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL] RE: Finjan v. Qualys: Claim Construction
`
`Dear Aaron:
`
`Thanks for getting back to me. I believe we were also waiting on a response from your side on a couple
`other items raised on our meet and confer:
`
`
`
`The timing of the claim construction schedule given the pending Federal Circuit dispute
`regarding the construction of the term “content processor.” In light of that pending appeal as
`well as Judge Gilliam’s order yesterday in the Bitdefender case regarding further claim
`construction briefing for this term, we feel it would best serve the parties’ and judicial resources
`(as well as the interests of comity) to stay claim construction in this case until these other courts
`have weighed in on and/or resolved the issue. Please let us know Finjan’s position on this.
`
` Whether Finjan will stipulate to the proposed amendment regarding res judicata and/or
`collateral estoppel as to the remaining asserted claims of the ‘305 patent in view of the Federal
`Circuit’s affirmance of the ex parte reexamination.
`
` Whether Finjan will revise its position on the dates it contends it provided notice of
`infringement to Qualys for the respective patents and accused products.
`
`Also, as to your email below regarding our proposed amended Answer, we disagree with Finjan’s
`position:
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 4:18-cv-07229-YGR Document 44-11 Filed 02/28/20 Page 6 of 10
`
`Qualys’ Proposed Amendments Are Timely. The subject matter of our proposed new affirmative
`defenses was not known (or knowable) to Qualys before the agreed-upon June 7, 2019, deadline to
`amend pleadings. Once Qualys became aware of this issue, it acted diligently in raising the issue with
`Finjan and in seeking an amendment. Any delay in our ability to raise this issue earlier falls on Finjan’s
`shoulders, not Qualys. For example:
`
`
`
`Finjan was required under the Patent Local Rules to produce the Trend Micro license with its
`infringement contentions on April 19, 2019, but delayed producing it until September 3, 2019 –
`over four months late.
`
` We initiated meet and confer efforts with Finjan to informally resolve this issue almost
`immediately after the significance of this license to an exhaustion defense became known to
`us. As I noted in previous correspondence, on November 4 Finjan requested production of
`specific source code files that appeared to relate to Trend Micro’s software and apprised us that
`Finjan appears to be accusing Trend Micro’s software of infringement. We raised this issue with
`you on November 8, four days later.
`
`We do not see how a time period of less than three months under these circumstances constitutes
`untimeliness, particularly since we have used that time to respond to and comply with Finjan’s request
`to identify and produce further documents on this issue.
`
`Finjan’s Demands for Documents. As you know, the alleged failure to provide all discovery relating to
`the affirmative defense is not a valid basis for refusing to stipulate to the proposed amended
`Answer. As I indicated on our January 9 meet and confer, once Finjan requested that we search for and
`identify relevant technical documents, we immediately began such a search and reported back that
`Qualys’s use of Trend Micro’s licensed software can be located in our source code repository (to which
`Finjan has had access for several months). At the time I noted that at a minimum a keyword search for
`“Trend Micro” in Qualys’ source code repository could locate the relevant files. In any event, we
`continued searching and yesterday produced several source code and other technical files showing
`Qualys’s use of Trend Micro’s software.
`
`Scope of Finjan’s Trend Micro License. We disagree that Qualys was excluded from any license. As
`indicated below, Qualys is protected by the express terms of the license as well as patent
`exhaustion. For example:
`
`
`
`
`
`Section 3.5(a) of the Trend Micro agreement states that the “Excluded Entities” that qualify as
`“Company Partners” (i.e. Qualys) have the right to use Trend Micro’s licensed software. See
`FINJAN-QUALYS 044296 at § 3.5(a) (“an Excluded Entity that is a Company Partner [Qualys] will
`have the rights specifically stated in clause (c) below.”). And under §3.5(c), “[t]he license
`granted under Section 3.2 will include the right of Company Partners to use . . . all Licensed
`Products made available or offered by Company or its Licensed Affiliates worldwide, under any
`brand, including the Company’s brand or another Person’s brand.” (emphasis added); see also
`FINJAN-QUALYS 044291 (defining “Company Partners” to include persons that “use” the
`Licensed Products).
`
`In addition to granting a patent license, Finjan also granted a covenant not to sue as to all
`“Company Partners” (i.e. Qualys) by the express terms of this agreement. See FINJAN-QUALYS
`044296 at § 3.5(b) (“Finjan may not assert a Claim against . . . Company Partners [Qualys] that
`the combined product infringes the Finjan Patent Rights…”). This provision does not carve-out
`“Excluded Entities.”
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 4:18-cv-07229-YGR Document 44-11 Filed 02/28/20 Page 7 of 10
`
`
`
`In any event, Finjan’s patent rights exhausted when it granted a license to Trend Micro’s
`software. See Impression Products, Inc. v. Lexmark International, Inc., 137 S.Ct. 1523, 198
`L.Ed.2d 1 (2017).
`
`In light of the above, please advise if Finjan will agree to our amended Answer, and please respond on
`the other points noted above.
`
`Best,
`
`Chris
`
`Christopher D. Mays | WSGR | 650.849.3088 | cmays@wsgr.com
`
`From: Frankel, Aaron <AFrankel@KRAMERLEVIN.com>
`Sent: Monday, January 20, 2020 7:21 PM
`To: Mays, Christopher <cmays@wsgr.com>; Manes, Austin <AManes@KRAMERLEVIN.com>
`Cc: Poplawski, Edward <epoplawski@wsgr.com>; Desai, Neil <ndesai@wsgr.com>; Kim, Olivia
`<okim@wsgr.com>; Tong, Christina <ctong@wsgr.com>; Cheng, Stephanie
`<stephanie.cheng@wsgr.com>; Andre, Paul <PAndre@KRAMERLEVIN.com>; Kobialka, Lisa
`<LKobialka@KRAMERLEVIN.com>; Hannah, James <JHannah@KRAMERLEVIN.com>; Williams, Daniel
`<DDWilliams@KRAMERLEVIN.com>; Lien, Hien <HLien@KRAMERLEVIN.com>; Gordnia, Talin
`<tgordnia@wsgr.com>; Smith, Ryan <rsmith@wsgr.com>
`Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL] RE: Finjan v. Qualys: Claim Construction
`
`Chris,
`
`Further to our meet and confer, Finjan does not consent to Qualys’ proposed Second Amended
`Answer.
`
`As we discussed during our meet and confer, Qualys did not timely pursue these
`amendments. Moreover, Finjan has previously requested that Qualys provide a copy of any
`license agreement it has with TrendMicro and also requested that Qualys specifically identify the
`portions of the source code it contends are licensed by TrendMicro. Qualys has not done
`so. Finally, we note that TrendMicro’s agreement with Finjan specifically excludes Qualys from
`any license.
`
`Regards,
`Aaron
`
`Aaron M. Frankel
`Partner
`
`Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel LLP
`1177 Avenue of the Americas, New York, New York 10036
`T 212.715.7793 F 212.715.8363
`
`This communication (including any attachments) is intended solely for the recipient(s) named above and may contain
`information that is confidential, privileged or legally protected. Any unauthorized use or dissemination of this communication is
`strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify the sender by return e-mail
`message and delete all copies of the original communication. Thank you for your cooperation.
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 4:18-cv-07229-YGR Document 44-11 Filed 02/28/20 Page 8 of 10
`
`From: Frankel, Aaron
`Sent: Friday, January 10, 2020 2:01 PM
`To: Mays, Christopher <cmays@wsgr.com>; Manes, Austin <AManes@KRAMERLEVIN.com>
`Cc: Poplawski, Edward <epoplawski@wsgr.com>; Desai, Neil <ndesai@wsgr.com>; Kim, Olivia
`<okim@wsgr.com>; Tong, Christina <ctong@wsgr.com>; Cheng, Stephanie
`<stephanie.cheng@wsgr.com>; Andre, Paul <PAndre@KRAMERLEVIN.com>; Kobialka, Lisa
`<LKobialka@KRAMERLEVIN.com>; Hannah, James <JHannah@KRAMERLEVIN.com>; Williams, Daniel
`<DDWilliams@KRAMERLEVIN.com>; Lien, Hien <HLien@KRAMERLEVIN.com>; Gordnia, Talin
`<tgordnia@wsgr.com>; Smith, Ryan <rsmith@wsgr.com>
`Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL] RE: Finjan v. Qualys: Claim Construction
`
`Counsel:
`
`Please use this dial-in for the meet and confer
`
`Primary Access Number:
`tel://1-719-325-2765
`Guest Passcode:
` 867 987 0893
`
`Regards,
`Aaron
`
`From: Mays, Christopher <cmays@wsgr.com>
`Sent: Wednesday, January 8, 2020 7:15 PM
`To: Manes, Austin <AManes@KRAMERLEVIN.com>
`Cc: Frankel, Aaron <AFrankel@KRAMERLEVIN.com>; Poplawski, Edward <epoplawski@wsgr.com>;
`Desai, Neil <ndesai@wsgr.com>; Kim, Olivia <okim@wsgr.com>; Tong, Christina <ctong@wsgr.com>;
`Cheng, Stephanie <stephanie.cheng@wsgr.com>; Andre, Paul <PAndre@KRAMERLEVIN.com>; Kobialka,
`Lisa <LKobialka@KRAMERLEVIN.com>; Hannah, James <JHannah@KRAMERLEVIN.com>; Williams, Daniel
`<DDWilliams@KRAMERLEVIN.com>; Lien, Hien <HLien@KRAMERLEVIN.com>; Gordnia, Talin
`<tgordnia@wsgr.com>; Smith, Ryan <rsmith@wsgr.com>
`Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL] RE: Finjan v. Qualys: Claim Construction
`
`Dear Austin:
`
`Always happy to meet and confer. In addition to the issue you raise below, however, Qualys would like
`to meet and confer on the following:
`
`
`
`Finalization and filing of the parties’ stipulation regarding marking (see attached proposed
`redline to Finjan’s draft);
` Whether Finjan will consent to Qualys’s proposed Second Amended Answer adding affirmative
`defenses for exhaustion, implied license, and res judicata/collateral estoppel (see attached
`redline);
`Timing of the claim construction proceedings in light of Finjan’s pending Federal Circuit appeal in
`the Juniper case involving the construction of “content processor”; and
`Confirmation of the parties’ agreement regarding fact depositions occurring the production of
`email/ESI.
`
`
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 4:18-cv-07229-YGR Document 44-11 Filed 02/28/20 Page 9 of 10
`
`We are available to discuss at the times you proposed below, but please confirm that Finjan will be in a
`position to meaningfully meet and confer regarding the above issues as well. If a time next week works
`better for you, please propose a day/time.
`
`Best,
`
`Chris
`
`Christopher D. Mays | WSGR | 650.849.3088 | cmays@wsgr.com
`
`From: Manes, Austin <AManes@KRAMERLEVIN.com>
`Sent: Wednesday, January 8, 2020 12:11 PM
`To: Smith, Ryan <rsmith@wsgr.com>
`Cc: Frankel, Aaron <AFrankel@KRAMERLEVIN.com>; Poplawski, Edward <epoplawski@wsgr.com>;
`Desai, Neil <ndesai@wsgr.com>; Kim, Olivia <okim@wsgr.com>; Tong, Christina <ctong@wsgr.com>;
`Cheng, Stephanie <stephanie.cheng@wsgr.com>; Andre, Paul <PAndre@KRAMERLEVIN.com>; Kobialka,
`Lisa <LKobialka@KRAMERLEVIN.com>; Hannah, James <JHannah@KRAMERLEVIN.com>; Williams, Daniel
`<DDWilliams@KRAMERLEVIN.com>; Lien, Hien <HLien@KRAMERLEVIN.com>; Mays, Christopher
`<cmays@wsgr.com>
`Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL] RE: Finjan v. Qualys: Claim Construction
`
`Ryan and Chris,
`
`We request a meet and confer on the parties’ disagreement over which ten terms to brief for claim
`construction, including whether the terms “receiver” and “transmitter” should be counted twice or six
`times. Please let us know when you are available for a call. We are available tomorrow after noon PT,
`Friday until 1:00 PM PT, and after 11:00 am PT on Monday.
`
`Thanks,
`Austin
`
`Austin Manes
`Associate
`
`Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel LLP
`990 Marsh Road, Menlo Park, California 94025
`T 650.752.1718
`
`This communication (including any attachments) is intended solely for the recipient(s) named above and may contain
`information that is confidential, privileged or legally protected. Any unauthorized use or dissemination of this communication is
`strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify the sender by return e-mail
`message and delete all copies of the original communication. Thank you for your cooperation.
`
`From: Manes, Austin <AManes@KRAMERLEVIN.com>
`Sent: Wednesday, December 4, 2019 7:37 PM
`To: Smith, Ryan <rsmith@wsgr.com>
`Cc: Frankel, Aaron <AFrankel@KRAMERLEVIN.com>; Poplawski, Edward <epoplawski@wsgr.com>;
`Desai, Neil <ndesai@wsgr.com>; Kim, Olivia <okim@wsgr.com>; Tong, Christina <ctong@wsgr.com>;
`Cheng, Stephanie <stephanie.cheng@wsgr.com>; Andre, Paul <PAndre@KRAMERLEVIN.com>; Kobialka,
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 4:18-cv-07229-YGR Document 44-11 Filed 02/28/20 Page 10 of 10
`
`Lisa <LKobialka@KRAMERLEVIN.com>; Hannah, James <JHannah@KRAMERLEVIN.com>; Williams, Daniel
`<DDWilliams@KRAMERLEVIN.com>; Lien, Hien <HLien@KRAMERLEVIN.com>; Mays, Christopher
`<cmays@wsgr.com>
`Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL] RE: Finjan v. Qualys: Claim Construction
`
`Thanks Ryan. We will file.
`
`Austin Manes
`Associate
`
`Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel LLP
`990 Marsh Road, Menlo Park, California 94025
`T 650.752.1718
`amanes@kramerlevin.com
`
`Bio
`
`This communication (including any attachments) is intended solely for the recipient(s) named above and may contain
`information that is confidential, privileged or legally protected. Any unauthorized use or dissemination of this communication is
`strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify the sender by return e-mail
`message and delete all copies of the original communication. Thank you for your cooperation.
`
`From: Smith, Ryan <rsmith@wsgr.com>
`Sent: Wednesday, December 4, 2019 7:35 PM
`To: Manes, Austin <AManes@KRAMERLEVIN.com>
`Cc: Frankel, Aaron <AFrankel@KRAMERLEVIN.com>; Poplawski, Edward <epoplawski@wsgr.com>;
`Desai, Neil <ndesai@wsgr.com>; Kim, Olivia <okim@wsgr.com>; Tong, Christina <ctong@wsgr.com>;
`Cheng, Stephanie <stephanie.cheng@wsgr.com>; Andre, Paul <PAndre@KRAMERLEVIN.com>; Kobialka,
`Lisa <LKobialka@KRAMERLEVIN.com>; Hannah, James <JHannah@KRAMERLEVIN.com>; Williams, Daniel
`<DDWilliams@KRAMERLEVIN.com>; Lien, Hien <HLien@KRAMERLEVIN.com>; Mays, Christopher
`<cmays@wsgr.com>
`Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] RE: Finjan v. Qualys: Claim Construction
`
`Austin,
`
`Please find what is hopefully the final version. I just noticed a typo in the Defendant’s section
`which I corrected.
`
`This email and any attachments thereto may contain private, confidential, and privileged material
`for the sole use of the intended recipient. Any review, copying, or distribution of this email (or
`any attachments thereto) by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient,
`please contact the sender immediately and permanently delete the original and any copies of this
`email and any attachments thereto.
`
`9
`
`