Case 4:18-cv-07229-YGR Document 52-2 Filed 03/16/20 Page 1 of 7
`Case 4:18-cv-07229—YGR Document 52-2 Filed 03/16/20 Page 1 of 7
`
`
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT A
`
`EXHIBIT A
`
`

`

`Case 4:18-cv-07229-YGR Document 52-2 Filed 03/16/20 Page 2 of 7
`Case 4:13-cv-05808-HSG Document 462 Filed 05/20/16 Page 1 of 6
`
`
`PAUL J. ANDRE (State Bar No. 196585)
`pandre@kramerlevin.com
`LISA KOBIALKA (State Bar No. 191404)
`lkobialka@kramerlevin.com
`JAMES HANNAH (State Bar No. 237978)
`jhannah@kramerlevin.com
`KRAMER LEVIN NAFTALIS & FRANKEL LLP
`990 Marsh Road
`Menlo Park, CA 94025
`Telephone: (650) 752-1700
`Facsimile: (650) 752-1800
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff
`FINJAN, INC.
`
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`FINJAN, INC., a Delaware Corporation,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
`
`
`Case No.: 3:13-cv-05808-HSG
`
`PLAINTIFF FINJAN, INC.’S
`SUPPLEMENTAL CLAIM
`CONSTRUCTION BRIEFING FOR THE
`TERM WEB CLIENTS FROM U.S.
`PATENT NO. 6,154,844
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`PROOFPOINT, INC., and ARMORIZE
`TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`
`
`REDACTED VERSION OF DOCUMENT SOUGHT TO BE SEALED
`
`
`____________________________________________________________________________________
`FINJAN, INC’S SUPPLEMENTAL CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`CASE NO. 3:13-cv-05808-HSG
`
`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 52-2 Filed 03/16/20 Page 3 of 7
`Case 4:13-cv-05808-HSG Document 462 Filed 05/20/16 Page 2 of 6
`
`
`Supplemental Briefing Pursuant to the Court’s Order of May 17, 2016
`
`The term “web clients” should be given its “plain and ordinary meaning” because it is a simple
`
`and well known term, and as such, the plain and ordinary meaning governs unless the patentee has
`
`redefined the term or has disavowed claim scope. Thorner v. Sony Computer Entm’t Am. LLC, 669
`
`F.3d 1362, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (“There are only two exceptions to this general rule [of plain and
`
`ordinary meaning]: 1) when a patentee sets out a definition and acts as his own lexicographer, or 2)
`
`when the patentee disavows the full scope of a claim term either in the specification or during
`
`prosecution.”) (citation omitted). Here, the patentee did not act as his own lexicographer and did not
`
`disavow any claim scope related to these terms during claim construction. Accordingly, “web clients”
`
`should be given its ordinary meaning which includes the end user’s computer.
`A.
`During the claim construction process, Finjan and Defendants submitted the following
`
`The Disputed Terms Should be Given their Plain and Ordinary Meaning
`
`proposed constructions for “web client[s]” in their Joint Claim Construction Statement:
`
`Claim Terms
`
`Finjan’s Proposed Construction
`
`web client[s]
`
`No construction necessary—Plain and
`ordinary meaning.
`
`Defendants’ Proposed
`Construction
`an application on a user
`computer that requests and
`downloads web page data
`from a web server
`
`While the parties did not agree upon the construction due to additional limitations that
`
`Defendants were attempting to read into the claim term, Defendants admitted that “web client” is “on a
`
`user computer.” Defendants specifically stated that the proper construction was a “user computer,”
`
`which is the same as an “end user’s computer.” Finjan agrees with that ordinary meaning, as it is
`
`supported and consistent with both the intrinsic and extrinsic record. For example, the specification of
`
`the ‘844 Patent states that the “computer client 130 includes a web client 175 for accessing the web
`page data 190 provided by the web server 185.” Ex. 11, ‘844 Patent at Col. 5, ll. 6-8; see also id. at
`
`
`1 All “Ex.” citations are to exhibits attached to the Declaration of Kristopher Kastens in Support of
`Finjan’s Supplemental Claim Construction Briefing, filed herewith.
`
`1
`__________________________________________________________________________________
`FINJAN, INC.’S SUPPLEMENTAL CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`CASE NO. 3:13-cv-05808-HSG
`
`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 52-2 Filed 03/16/20 Page 4 of 7
`Case 4:13-cv-05808-HSG Document 462 Filed 05/20/16 Page 3 of 6
`
`
`Col. 1, ll. 47-49. This relationship is shown in Figure 1 in the ‘844 Patent, where the web client 135 is
`
`a component of the computer client 130:
`
`
`This figure shows that the web client is on the end user’s computer, shown above as “computer
`
`client.” Ex. 1, ‘844 Patent at Figure 1 (highlighting added). This understanding is also consistent with
`
`the understanding set forth in contemporaneous dictionaries, where a client, in particular a web client,
`is the end user selecting a webpage.2
`
`
`2 Barron’s Dictionary of Computer and Internet Terms, Eight Edition describes a “client” as “a
`computer that receives services from another computer. For example, when you browse the World
`Wide Web, your computer is a client of the computer that hosts the web page.” Ex. 2 at page 90.
`
`2
`__________________________________________________________________________________
`FINJAN, INC.’S SUPPLEMENTAL CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`CASE NO. 3:13-cv-05808-HSG
`
`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 52-2 Filed 03/16/20 Page 5 of 7
`Case 4:13-cv-05808-HSG Document 462 Filed 05/20/16 Page 4 of 6
`
`
`B.
`
`Defendants Admitted that “Web Clients” is an “End User” and Should be
`Estopped from Arguing to the Contrary
`Defendants admitted that “web clients” should be interpreted to mean “user computer.” A
`
`party that relies on a position in litigation should be estopped from taking the contrary position at a
`
`later time. Baughman v. Walt Disney World Co., 685 F.3d 1131, 1133-34 (9th Cir. 2012); California
`
`United Terminals v. Towne, 414 F. App’x 941, 941-42 (9th Cir. 2011). Defendants have never raised
`
`any other construction, and, in fact, advocated for a particular construction during the claim
`
`construction process. As such, they should be estopped from arguing for a different construction now.
`
`Reproduced below is Defendants’ support in the Joint Claim Construction Statement for “web clients”
`
`being a “user computer:”
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Dkt. No. 117-1 (Ex. A to Joint Claim Construction Statement) at 7.
`
`As shown in Defendants’ support for their proposed construction of the “web client” term, the
`
`intrinsic record, extrinsic record and expert testimony support the construction that the “web clients” is
`
`the end user’s computer. Defendants cite to the same figure, Figure 1, reproduced above to support its
`
`
`
`3
`__________________________________________________________________________________
`FINJAN, INC.’S SUPPLEMENTAL CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`CASE NO. 3:13-cv-05808-HSG
`
`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 52-2 Filed 03/16/20 Page 6 of 7
`Case 4:13-cv-05808-HSG Document 462 Filed 05/20/16 Page 5 of 6
`
`
`proposed construction, and also the same portions of the specification that Finjan relies upon in its
`
`above arguments. The extrinsic evidence – i.e. the cited dictionary definitions – also supports the
`proposed construction that a web client is the end user’s computer.3 Additionally, Defendants’
`technical expert, Dr. Eugene Spafford, was willing to give sworn testimony that “web clients” is the
`
`user computer. Dkt. No. 117-1 at 7. Dr. Spafford was willing to provide such testimony based on the
`
`intrinsic record in the ‘844 Patent, and how one skilled in the art would understand the ordinary
`
`meaning of term. Id. As such, Defendants cannot now propose a new claim construction.
`
`Further, Defendants’ non-infringement expert, Dr. Maggs, and invalidity expert, Dr. Franz, did
`
`not use any other proposed construction for “web clients” in their expert reports other than those
`
`proposed in their claim construction statement. The only portion of Dr. Maggs’ expert report cited in
`
`Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgement or Reply in Support of their Motion for Summary
`
`Judgement related to “web clients,” paragraphs 269-271, does not discuss anything about “web
`
`clients.” Dkt. 311-4 at 10.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Similarly, Dr. Franz’s application was consistent with Defendants’ original proposed construction. See
`
`Ex. 6, Franz Report Exhibit A-2 at 7. As such, Defendants have not used any other interpretation in
`
`this litigation.
`
`Finjan would be materially prejudiced if Defendants are allowed to change their claim
`
`construction position for “web clients” in this case. In particular, Finjan’s experts relied on this
`
`understanding in forming their opinions and throughout their reports. Finjan had no reason to believe
`
`there was any dispute, let alone a material dispute, over the term covering end users of the products. If
`
`this alleged dispute was known, Finjan's experts could have addressed it in their expert report.
`
`
`3 Dictionary of Computer Science Engineering and Technology states that “client” is “synonymous
`with customer or computer system or process that requests a service of another computer system or
`process...” Ex. 3 at PP-ARM00135674. Webster’s New World Computer Dictionary, 10th Edition
`states that a “client” is “an Internet service, a program that can communicate with a server located on
`the Internet to exchange data of a certain type.” Ex. 4 at PP-ARM00135626.
`
`4
`__________________________________________________________________________________
`FINJAN, INC.’S SUPPLEMENTAL CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`CASE NO. 3:13-cv-05808-HSG
`
`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 52-2 Filed 03/16/20 Page 7 of 7
`Case 4:13-cv-05808-HSG Document 462 Filed 05/20/16 Page 6 of 6
`
`
`Therefore, this prejudice is an additional reason that the Court should estop Defendants from deviating
`
`from their proposed construction of “web clients.”
`
`
`
`Because Defendants have not used any other claim construction for “web clients,” Finjan is at a
`
`disadvantage since it does not know what construction Defendants are now proposing. To the extent
`
`Defendants attempt to improperly import a requirement into the claim language of “web clients” it
`
`should be ignored because there is no clear disavowal of claim scope within the intrinsic record.
`
`Thorner, 669 F.3d at 1365-66. Thus, to the extent Defendants attempt to change their construction of
`
`“web clients,” it should be rejected.
`
`For the reasons set forth above, Finjan respectfully requests that the Court adopt the plain and
`
`ordinary meaning for the term “web clients,” as used within the claims of the ‘844 Patent.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`By: /s/ Paul Andre
`DATED: May 20, 2016
`Paul Andre (State Bar. No. 196585)
`Lisa Kobialka (State Bar No. 191404)
`James Hannah (State Bar No. 237978)
`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
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff
`FINJAN, INC.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`5
`__________________________________________________________________________________
`FINJAN, INC.’S SUPPLEMENTAL CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`CASE NO. 3:13-cv-05808-HSG
`
`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
`
`