Case 4:18-cv-07229-YGR Document 52-3 Filed 03/16/20 Page 1 of 34
`Case 4:18-cv-07229—YGR Document 52-3 Filed 03/16/20 Page 1 of 34
`
`
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT B
`
`EXHIBIT
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 4:13-cv-05808-HSG Document 321 Filed 03/07/16 Page 1 of 33Case 4:18-cv-07229-YGR Document 52-3 Filed 03/16/20 Page 2 of 34
`
`
`
`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
`HANNAH LEE (State Bar No. 253197)
`hlee@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.,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`REDACTED VERSION OF DOCUMENT SOUGHT TO BE SEALED
`
`__________________________________________________________________________________
`FINJAN’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION
`Case No.:13-cv-05808-HSG
`FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND CROSS-MOTION
`
`
`SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
`
`
`Case No.:13-cv-05808-HSG
`
`PLAINTIFF FINJAN, INC.’S OPPOSITION
`TO PROOFPOINT, INC. AND ARMORIZE
`TECHNOLOGIES, INC.’S MOTION FOR
`SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND FINJAN,
`INC.’S CROSS-MOTION FOR SUMMARY
`JUDGMENT
`
`Date: March 31, 2016
`Time: 2:00 p.m.
`Place: Courtroom 10, 19th Floor
`Before: Hon. Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr.
`
`
`
`PROOFPOINT, INC., and ARMORIZE
`TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`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 4:13-cv-05808-HSG Document 321 Filed 03/07/16 Page 2 of 33Case 4:18-cv-07229-YGR Document 52-3 Filed 03/16/20 Page 3 of 34
`
`
`
`I. 
`
`II. 
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................1 
`
`FACTUAL BACKGROUND .......................................................................................................2 
`
`III. 
`
`ARGUMENT ................................................................................................................................2 
`
`A. 
`
`Defendants Infringe the Asserted Patents ......................................................................... 2 
`
`1. 
`
`2. 
`
`3. 
`
`4. 
`
`5. 
`
`6. 
`
`7. 
`
`8. 
`
`EP Infringes the ‘822, ‘633, ‘305, ‘408 and ‘844 Patents. ....................................2 
`
`The Accused Products Infringe the ‘822 and ‘633 Patents by Their
`Use of Mobile Protection Code .............................................................................4 
`
`The Accused Products Infringe the ‘305 Patent Because They
`Include Rules That Identify “Types of Tokens” ...................................................5 
`
`The Accused Products Infringe the ‘408 Patent Because They
`Dynamically Detect Exploits While Dynamically Building a Parse
`Tree .......................................................................................................................8 
`
`EP, Essentials and TAP Infringe the ‘844 Patent Because They
`Meet the Web Server Requirement. ......................................................................9 
`
`(a)  URL Defense Infringes the ‘844 Patent ................................................... 11 
`
`(b)  Attachment Defense Infringes the ‘844 Patent ......................................... 13 
`
`it Transmits
`the ‘086 Patent Because
`HackAlert Infringes
`Downloadables to a Destination Computer ........................................................15 
`
`HackAlert Infringes the ‘918 Patent Because It Uses “Executable
`Wrapper Code” (CODE-B) .................................................................................16 
`
`HackAlert Infringes the ‘154 Patent Because It Satisfies the Claim
`Elements Concerning First and Second Functions Including Input....................18 
`
`B. 
`
`C. 
`
`D. 
`
`Defendants are Not Entitled a Partial Summary Judgment on the Invention
`Dates of the ‘844, ‘633 and ‘822 Patents ........................................................................ 19 
`
`Defendants are Not Entitled a Partial Summary Judgment of Invalidity of
`Claim 14 of the ‘633 Patent ............................................................................................ 21 
`
`Defendants are Not Entitled Partial Summary Judgment on the Priority
`Date of the ‘086 Patent ................................................................................................... 23 
`
`IV. 
`
`CROSS-MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT .................................................................24 
`
`i
`FINJAN’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION
`FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND CROSS-MOTION
`
`Case No.: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 4:13-cv-05808-HSG Document 321 Filed 03/07/16 Page 3 of 33Case 4:18-cv-07229-YGR Document 52-3 Filed 03/16/20 Page 4 of 34
`
`
`
`V. 
`
`
`
`A. 
`
`B. 
`
`C. 
`
`Claim 14 of the ‘633 Patent is Not Anticipated by the Ji Reference .............................. 24 
`
`The ‘086 Patent is Entitled to a Priority Date of November 6, 1997 .............................. 25 
`
`Claims 17 and 24 of the ‘086 Patent are Valid ............................................................... 25 
`
`CONCLUSION ...........................................................................................................................25 
`
`
`
`ii
`FINJAN’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION
`FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND CROSS-MOTION
`
`Case No.: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 4:13-cv-05808-HSG Document 321 Filed 03/07/16 Page 4 of 33Case 4:18-cv-07229-YGR Document 52-3 Filed 03/16/20 Page 5 of 34
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`
`Page(s)
`
`
`
`Cases
`
`Aspex Eyewear, Inc. v. Concepts In Optics, Inc.,
`111 F. App'x 582 (Fed. Cir. 2004) .................................................................................................... 24
`
`GPNE Corp. v. Apple, Inc.,
`No. 12-CV-02885-LHK, 2014 WL 1390039 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 9, 2014) ............................................. 1
`
`Henkel Corp. v. Procter & Gamble Co.,
`485 F.3d 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2007)......................................................................................................... 19
`
`Int’l Rectifier Corp. v. IXYS Corp.,
`361 F.3d 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2004)........................................................................................................... 1
`
`Jones v. Evans,
`46 F.2d 197 (C.C.P.A. 1931) ............................................................................................................ 19
`
`PowerOasis, Inc. v. T-Mobile USA, Inc.,
`522 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2008)......................................................................................................... 25
`
`Ralston Purina Co. v. Far-Mar-Co, Inc.,
`772 F.2d 1570 (Fed. Cir. 1985)......................................................................................................... 19
`
`Ralston Purina Co. v. Far-Mar-Co.,
`586 F.Supp. 1176, 1189 (D. Kan. 1984) ........................................................................................... 25
`
`Taylor v. Sturgell,
`553 U.S. 880 (2008) .......................................................................................................................... 20
`
`
`
`iii
`FINJAN’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION
`FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND CROSS-MOTION
`
`Case No.: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 4:13-cv-05808-HSG Document 321 Filed 03/07/16 Page 5 of 33Case 4:18-cv-07229-YGR Document 52-3 Filed 03/16/20 Page 6 of 34
`
`
`
`Plaintiff Finjan, Inc. (“Finjan”) respectfully requests that the Court deny Defendants
`
`Proofpoint, Inc. (“Proofpoint”) and Armorize Technologies, Inc.’s (“Armorize”) (collectively,
`
`“Defendants”) shotgun Motion for Summary Judgment (“Motion”) in its entirety which seeks
`
`summary judgment that Defendants’ accused products, i.e., Proofpoint Enterprise Protection (“EP”),
`
`Targeted Attack Protection (“TAP”), Proofpoint Essentials and HackAlert Anti-Malware
`
`(“HackAlert”) (collectively, “Accused Products”), do not infringe the patents asserted, i.e., U.S. Patent
`
`Nos. 7,058,822 (“the ‘822 Patent”), 7,647,633 (“the ‘633 Patent”), 7,975,305 (“the ‘305 Patent”),
`
`8,225,408 (“the ‘408 Patent”), 6,154,844 (“the ‘844 Patent”), 8,079,086 (“the ‘086 Patent”), 7,613,918
`(“the ‘918 Patent”) and 8,141,154 (“the ‘154 Patent”) (collectively, “Asserted Patents”) (Exs. 1-81), as
`well as partial summary judgment regarding the invention dates of the ‘844, ‘633 and ‘822 Patents,
`
`summary judgment of invalidity of Claim 14 of the ‘633 Patent, and partial summary judgment
`
`regarding the priority date of the ‘086 Patent.
`
`NOTICE OF CROSS-MOTION
`
`Finjan further requests that the Court grant Finjan’s Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment
`
`(“Cross-Motion”), which seeks the following relief:
`(1) Summary judgment that U.S. Patent No. 5,983,348 to Ji (“Ji”) does not anticipate Claim 14
`
`of the ‘633 Patent because Defendants expert fails to provide proof that all elements are
`
`disclosed;
`(2) Partial summary judgment that the ‘086 Patent is entitled to a priority date of November 6,
`
`1997 based on the United States and Patent Office’s (“USPTO”) recent ruling confirming
`
`the priority date; and
`(3) Summary judgment that the Abadi reference does not predate the priority date of the ‘086
`
`
`
`Patent and therefore does not anticipate Claims 17 and 24 of the ‘086 Patent.
`
`
`
`1 Unless otherwise noted, all exhibits (“Ex.”) cited herein are to the Declaration of James Hannah in
`Support of Finjan’s Opposition filed herewith.
`
`1
`FINJAN’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION
`FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND CROSS-MOTION
`
`Case No.: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 4:13-cv-05808-HSG Document 321 Filed 03/07/16 Page 6 of 33Case 4:18-cv-07229-YGR Document 52-3 Filed 03/16/20 Page 7 of 34
`
`
`
`STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES
`Finjan’s Opposition to Defendants’ Motion:
`
` Whether there are genuine issues of material fact regarding whether EP satisfies certain
`claims of the Asserted Patents for certain infringement scenarios in light of the
`comprehensive expert reports of Dr. Cole and Dr. Mitzenmacher;
`
` Whether there are genuine issues of material fact regarding whether the Accused
`Products satisfy claim 9 of the ‘822 Patent for certain infringement scenarios in light of
`the comprehensive expert report of Dr. Cole;
`
` Whether there are genuine issues of material fact regarding whether the Accused
`Products satisfy claims 8, 12, and 14 of the ‘633 Patent for certain infringement scenarios
`in light of the comprehensive expert report of Dr. Cole;
`
` Whether there are genuine issues of material fact regarding whether the Accused
`Products satisfy claims 1, 2, 5 and 13 of the ‘305 Patent for certain infringement
`scenarios in light of the comprehensive expert report of Dr. Mitzenmacher;
`
` Whether there are genuine issues of material fact regarding whether the Accused
`Products satisfy claims 1, 4, 9 and 21 of the ‘408 Patent for certain infringement
`scenarios in light of the comprehensive expert report of Dr. Mitzenmacher;
`
` Whether there are genuine issues of material fact regarding whether EP, Essentials and
`TAP satisfy claims 1, 7, 15, 16, 32, and 42 of the ‘844 Patent for certain infringement
`scenarios in light of the comprehensive expert report of Dr. Cole;
`
` Whether there are genuine issues of material fact regarding whether HackAlert satisfies
`claims 17 and 24 of the ‘086 Patent for certain infringement scenarios in light of the
`comprehensive expert report of Dr. Mitzenmacher;
`
` Whether there are genuine issues of material fact regarding whether HackAlert satisfies
`claims 12 and 21 of the ‘918 Patent for certain infringement scenarios in light of the
`comprehensive expert report of Dr. Cole;
`
` Whether there are genuine issues of material fact regarding whether HackAlert satisfies
`claims 1 and 4 of the ‘154 Patent for certain infringement scenarios in light of the
`comprehensive expert report of Dr. Mitzenmacher;
`
` Whether there are genuine issues of material fact regarding whether the ‘844 Patent, ‘633
`Patent, or ‘822 Patent are entitled to their claimed invention and reduction to practice
`dates in light of the comprehensive expert report of Dr. Jaeger and the fact testimony of
`the inventors;
`
` Whether there are genuine issues of material fact regarding whether Claim 14 of the ‘633
`Patent is invalid as anticipated in light of the comprehensive expert report of Dr. Jaeger;
`
`2
`FINJAN’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION
`FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND CROSS-MOTION
`
`Case No.: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 4:13-cv-05808-HSG Document 321 Filed 03/07/16 Page 7 of 33Case 4:18-cv-07229-YGR Document 52-3 Filed 03/16/20 Page 8 of 34
`
`
`
` Whether there are genuine issues of material fact regarding whether the ‘086 Patent is
`entitled to its claimed priority date in light of the comprehensive expert report of Dr.
`Jaeger and the USPTO’s recent confirmation of the priority date.
`
`
`Finjan’s Cross-Motion:
`
` Whether summary judgment should be granted that Claim 14 of the ‘633 Patent is not
`anticipated by the Ji reference given that Defendants’ expert did not provide an analysis
`for all limitation of the claim;
`
` Whether partial summary judgment should be granted that the ‘086 Patent is entitled to a
`priority date of November 6, 1997 in light of the USPTO’s recent confirmation of the
`priority date; and
`
` Whether summary judgment should be granted that Claims 17 and 24 of the ‘086 Patent
`are not anticipated by the Abadi reference and that these claims are not invalid because
`the Abadi reference does not predate the priority date of the ‘086 Patent.
`
`3
`FINJAN’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION
`FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND CROSS-MOTION
`
`Case No.: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 4:13-cv-05808-HSG Document 321 Filed 03/07/16 Page 8 of 33Case 4:18-cv-07229-YGR Document 52-3 Filed 03/16/20 Page 9 of 34
`
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Defendants’ Motion is unsupported and fails to address the wealth of evidence that Finjan has
`
`identified that proves infringement. At a minimum, there are numerous genuine issues of material fact
`
`regarding how the Accused Products operate that Defendants ignore, which include (1) the analysis by
`
`Finjan’s experts Drs. Cole and Mitzenmacher, two of the most respected experts in networking and
`
`computer security, (2) Defendants’ own admissions in their documents, source code and witness
`
`testimony about their products, identified throughout Finjan’s expert reports, and (3) Defendants’ own
`
`expert testimony that is contrary to their arguments. These disputes preclude summary judgment of
`
`noninfringement. See Int’l Rectifier Corp. v. IXYS Corp., 361 F.3d 1363, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2004)
`
`(summary judgment is not appropriate when there is a factual dispute as to whether the allegedly
`
`infringing device includes a claim limitation); GPNE Corp. v. Apple, Inc., No. 12-CV-02885-LHK,
`
`2014 WL 1390039, at *6 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 9, 2014) (same). Rather, the evidence demonstrates that
`
`Defendants sought to use Finjan’s patented technology and succeeded. Thus, consideration of all the
`
`evidence, if anything, demonstrates Defendants’ infringement of the Asserted Patents.
`
`Defendants grossly misrepresent the state of Finjan’s infringement case in their Motion. Finjan
`
`has compelling, amply-supported infringement grounds for each asserted claim in this case.
`
`Defendants’ motions to strike have had little effect on the strength of Finjan’s infringement case—the
`
`vast majority of Finjan’s infringement scenarios remain in the case, and none of the stricken scenarios
`
`was necessary to infringement of any asserted claim. At the same time, Defendants failed to succeed
`
`in obtaining overly restrictive constructions of various claim terms during the claim construction
`
`process, which in turn has eliminated many of their noninfringement positions. Thus, it is Defendants
`
`who are now forced to take untenable positions to attempt to avoid infringement, including ignoring
`
`the overwhelming factual record demonstrating infringement of the asserted claims, as well as
`
`interpreting Finjan’s inventions in ways that simply defy logic.
`
`Defendants’ invalidity case is also particularly weak now that the Court has stricken all but a
`
`handful of their theories due to Defendants’ failure to properly disclose them. Defendants’ arguments
`
`in their Motion regarding the dates of conception and reduction to practice for the ‘844, ‘822 and ‘633
`
`1
`FINJAN’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION
`FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND CROSS-MOTION
`
`Case No.: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 4:13-cv-05808-HSG Document 321 Filed 03/07/16 Page 9 of 33Case 4:18-cv-07229-YGR Document 52-3 Filed 03/16/20 Page 10 of 34
`
`
`
`Patents are nothing more than hand waving. Finjan has provided extensive expert opinion and factual
`
`evidence that proves these dates. Defendants also cannot prove by clear and convincing that Claim 14
`
`of the ‘633 Patent is anticipated, because they entirely fail to show that requisite claim elements are
`
`present in the Ji reference. Finally, Defendants’ arguments regarding the priority date of the ‘086
`
`Patent should be denied out of hand, since just one week ago, the USPTO roundly rejected these very
`
`same arguments. For these reasons, as explained further below, Defendants’ Motion (“Motion”)
`should be denied in its entirety2, and Finjan’s Cross-Motion should be granted.
`II.
`FACTUAL BACKGROUND
`
`The Asserted Patents cover novel technology for detecting malware, including identification of
`
`the behavior of viruses so that a security system can block previously unknown viruses. Finjan’s
`
`techniques have won various accolades and praise in the industry; Finjan’s products using these
`
`techniques have generated millions of dollars of sales (Ex. 9, Hartstein Tr. at 84:12-17); and various
`
`leading companies have licensed Finjan’s patents (id. at 285:12-286:2).
`
`
`
`
`
`. Ex. 10, Knight Tr. at 243:5-
`
`244:19; 18:20-19:17, 51:12-55:11. A more detailed description of Finjan’s patents and the Accused
`
`Products is provided in Finjan’s Summary Judgment Motion (Dkt. 221-4) (“Finjan’s Motion”),
`
`incorporated herein by reference.
`III. ARGUMENT
`A.
`Defendants Infringe the Asserted Patents
`1.
`Defendants do not dispute that Finjan accuses EP (which Defendants refer to as PEP in their
`
`EP Infringes the ‘822, ‘633, ‘305, ‘408 and ‘844 Patents.
`
`Motion) of infringing the ‘822, ‘633, ‘305, ‘408 and ‘844 Patents. Motion at 2. Moreover, Defendants
`
`never refute the substantial evidence in Finjan’s expert reports showing that EP practices various claim
`
`elements. Both of Finjan’s infringement experts—Dr. Cole and Dr. Mitzenmacher—specifically
`
`identify EP as an accused product and provide detailed theories of how EP infringes specific patents.
`
`2 Also, many of Finjan’s infringement scenarios for each asserted claim are not addressed in the
`Motion. Thus, even if the arguments in the Motion are accepted, they are not dispositive of the claim.
`2
`FINJAN’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION
`FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND CROSS-MOTION
`
`Case No.: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 4:13-cv-05808-HSG Document 321 Filed 03/07/16 Page 10 of 33Case 4:18-cv-07229-YGR Document 52-3 Filed 03/16/20 Page 11 of 34
`
`
`
`See e.g., Ex. 11, Cole Rpt., ¶81; Ex. 12, Mitzenmacher Rpt., ¶73. For example, for the ‘844 Patent,
`
`which includes claim elements for “receiving a Downloadable,”
`
`
`
`
`
`Ex. 11, Cole Rpt., ¶808; see also e.g., id., ¶¶299,
`
`312, 1144 (‘844 Patent); ¶1397 (‘822 Patent); ¶¶1623, 1834, 1882 (‘633 Patent); Ex. 12, Mitzenmacher
`
`Rpt., ¶¶127, 404 (‘305 Patent); ¶¶1407, 1472, 1560 (‘408 Patent).
`
`Tellingly, Defendants never deny in their Motion that EP performs the functions that Finjan
`
`accuses of infringing—rather, Defendants simply state that EP is supposedly “separate” from TAP.
`
`Motion at 2.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Also, contrary to Defendants’ claims, Finjan’s experts unequivocally testified that
`
`EP infringes. For example, Dr. Cole specifically explained how EP infringes because it “performs a
`
`frontend analysis of E-mail that is received by a mail server” and “initial analysis of E-mail, URLs,
`
`and/or attachments that are received.” Ex. 14, Cole Tr. at 11:15-12:6. Thus, at a minimum, there
`
`remains an issue of material fact regarding EP’s accused functionality and the relationship between
`
`TAP and EP.
`
`Furthermore, Finjan does not improperly “conflate[ ]” EP with Proofpoint Protection Server
`
`(“PPS”) or “misunderstand[ ]” EP. Motion at 3. Instead, Defendants set forth a factual dispute
`
`regarding the functionality of EP and whether it contains PPS.
`
`
`
`3
`FINJAN’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION
`FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND CROSS-MOTION
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No.: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 4:13-cv-05808-HSG Document 321 Filed 03/07/16 Page 11 of 33Case 4:18-cv-07229-YGR Document 52-3 Filed 03/16/20 Page 12 of 34
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`. Ex. 10, Knight Tr. at 27:23-28:3; 56:1-11; 61:13-21.
`
`As evident from Defendants’ Motion, the true reason that Defendants raise this issue regarding
`
`EP is because Defendants claim that EP has noninfringing features that were included in Finjan's
`
`damages calculation. Motion at 4. However, any noninfringing features of EP have indeed been taken
`
`into account by Finjan’s damages expert Dr. Layne-Farrar in her apportionment and damages
`
`calculation. See, e.g., Ex. 15, Layne-Farrar Rpt., ¶¶196-97. To the extent Defendants disagree with
`her analysis, this is an issue concerning the factual determination of damages apportionment, not an
`
`issue for summary judgment regarding infringement. Finjan has properly accused EP of infringement
`
`and provided ample evidence showing that EP has infringing features that practice claim elements.
`
`Any dispute by Defendants regarding the functionality of EP at best raises an issue of material fact,
`
`precluding summary judgment of noninfringement by EP.
`
`2.
`
`The Accused Products Infringe the ‘822 and ‘633 Patents by Their Use of
`Mobile Protection Code
`Contrary to Defendants claims, Finjan has strong infringement theories that remain in the case
`
`for each asserted claim of the ‘822 and ‘633 Patents (i.e., Claim 9 of the ‘822 Patent and Claims 8, 12
`
`and 14 of the ‘633 Patent). As a preliminary matter, Defendants misrepresent the Court’s February 16,
`
`2016 Order regarding their Motion to Strike. The Court struck only two specific theories in that Order
`
`for the ‘822 and ‘633 Patents: (1) the theory that mobile protection code (“MPC”) “
`
`
`
`” Dkt. 304 at 11. The second of these theories
`
`
`
`specifically relates to the asserted claims requiring that MPC be transferred or communicated, a
`
`limitation that is not present in Claim 14 of the ‘633 Patent. See also, Dkt. 267 at 7-8.
`
`For this reason, this second theory was not part of Defendants’ motion to strike for Claim 14 of
`
`the ‘633 Patent. Dkt. 208-4 at 22. Rather, with respect to this theory, Defendants explicitly stated in
`
`their motion that they sought only to strike Dr. Cole’s opinion regarding the “limitation ‘causing
`4
`FINJAN’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION
`FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND CROSS-MOTION
`
`Case No.: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 4:13-cv-05808-HSG Document 321 Filed 03/07/16 Page 12 of 33Case 4:18-cv-07229-YGR Document 52-3 Filed 03/16/20 Page 13 of 34
`
`
`
`mobile protection code to be communicated . . . to at least one information-destination of the
`
`downloadable information’” for “‘822 patent claim 9” and “‘633 patent claim 8.” Id. at 22 (arguing
`
`that “
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Defendants’ Motion
`fails to address these theories, so there can be no basis for summary judgment for Claim 14.
`With respect to Claim 9 of the ‘822 Patent and Claims 8 and 12 of the ‘633 Patent, Finjan did
`
`indeed “assert infringement theories other than the ones the Court struck,” contrary to Defendants’
`
`claims. Motion at 5.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Ex. 11, Cole Rpt., ¶¶1479, 1705. Thus, because infringement
`
`theories remain for each asserted claim of the ‘633 and ‘822 Patents that Defendants fail to address in
`
`their Motion, summary judgment of non-infringement should be denied for both patents.
`
`3.
`
`The Accused Products Infringe the ‘305 Patent Because They Include Rules
`That Identify “Types of Tokens”
`The Accused Products infringe the asserted claims of the ‘305 Patent because they perform
`
`static analysis on Downloadables using parsing and analyzer rules to detect exploits, which these rules
`
`describe as “patterns of types of tokens.” Ex. 5, ‘305 Patent, Claims 1, 13.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`5
`FINJAN’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION
`FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND CROSS-MOTION
`
`Case No.: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 4:13-cv-05808-HSG Document 321 Filed 03/07/16 Page 13 of 33Case 4:18-cv-07229-YGR Document 52-3 Filed 03/16/20 Page 14 of 34
`
`
`
`Defendants’ sole basis for non-infringement of the ‘305 Patent is that that the Accused Products
`
`allegedly do not “use parser and analyzer rules described in terms of ‘patterns of types of tokens.’”
`
`Motion at 5. First, this is an argument based on a fundamental factual dispute regarding how the
`
`
`
`
`
`Accused Products operate and is therefore inappropriate for summary judgment.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`. Ex. 13, Mitzenmacher Tr. at 35:2-37:8 (noting the
`
`consistency of this interpretation with the specification of the ‘305 Patent). Each of these examples is
`
`expressed as a “pattern of types of tokens” because each is explicitly bound to a particular “type” that
`
`is defined within the specification. Ex. 5, ‘305 Patent, 9:15-18 (“Tokens includes inter alia language
`
`6
`FINJAN’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION
`FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND CROSS-MOTION
`
`Case No.: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 4:13-cv-05808-HSG Document 321 Filed 03/07/16 Page 14 of 33Case 4:18-cv-07229-YGR Document 52-3 Filed 03/16/20 Page 15 of 34
`
`
`
`keywords, values, names for variables or functions, operators, and punctuation characters, many of
`
`which are of interest to parser 220 and analyzer 230.”).
`
`Moreover, Defendants mischaracterize the arguments made during prosecution of the ‘305
`
`Patent (Motion at 6), where the Applicant argued that the prior art only looked for “tags, other syntax
`
`elements and HTML components” without any rules that indicated that type of token. Ex. 16 at
`
`FINJAN-PP001238; see also Dkt. 313, Declaration of Sam Stake (“Stake Decl.”), Ex. M at 9 (Freund
`
`“do[es] not relate to patterns of types of tokens. Indeed, Freund . . . concerns types of Internet
`protocols, and not types of tokens. (An Internet protocol is not a token).” In addition, Defendants
`entirely misrepresent the Applicant’s remarks during prosecution with respect to the meaning of
`
`patterns of types of tokens and the hypothetical “pattern of types of tokens” “IDENT INTEGER_HEX
`
`IDENT”. Motion at 6. In fact, the Applicant explained that IDENT and INTEGER_HEX are types or
`
`categories whereas a “pattern of types of tokens” is:
`
`e.g., a pattern TYPE1 TYPE2 TYPE1 TYPE3 TYPE1; meaning, a token of type
`TYPE1 followed by a token of type TYPE2 followed by a token of type TYPE1
`followed by a token of type TYPE3 followed by a token of type TYPE1; e.g., an
`identifier token followed by an assignment token followed by an identifier token
`followed by a punctuation token followed by an identifier token
`Stake Decl., Ex. M at 9 (emphasis added). Therefore, the prosecution history sets forth that the pattern
`
`consists of tokens of certain types, not the identifications of “types” in the manner Defendants claim.
`
`Id. This understanding is also entirely consistent with Dr. Mitzenmacher’s testimony cited by
`
`Defendants that tokens “have or be related to an associated type.” Motion at 7. Thus, the prosecution
`history of the ‘305 Patent supports Finjan’s infringement claim.4
`Thus, the evidence shows that the rules of the Accused Products identify types of tokens as
`
`required by the asserted claims of the ‘305 Patent. To the extent that Defendants disagree, this at best
`
`represents a genuine issue of material fact that precludes summary judgment.
`
`
`4 Defendants’ claim at footnote 5 of the Motion that this element was the “’critical feature[ ]’ by which
`Finjan distinguished the prior art” is misleading. The ex parte reexamination decision that Defendants
`rely upon clearly identifies this element as one of different limitations that the Examiner noted as
`missing in the prior art during prosecution of the ‘305 Patent. Stake Decl., Ex. N at 8, 10.
`7
`FINJAN’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION
`FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND CROSS-MOTION
`
`Case No.: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 4:13-cv-05808-HSG Document 321 Filed 03/07/16 Page 15 of 33Case 4:18-cv-07229-YGR Document 52-3 Filed 03/16/20 Page 16 of 34
`
`
`
`4.
`
`The Accused Products Infringe the ‘408 Patent Because They Dynamically
`Detect Exploits While Dynamically Building a Parse Tree
`The Accused Products infringe the asserted claims of the ‘408 Patent because they
`
`“dynamically detect[ ]” exploits while “dynamically building the parse tree.” Ex. 8, ‘408 Patent,
`
`Claims 1, 9.
`
`.” Motion at 9.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`8
`FINJAN’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION
`FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND CROSS-MOTION
`
`Case No.: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 4:13-cv-05808-HSG Document 321 Filed 03/07/16 Page 16 of 33Case 4:18-cv-07229-YGR Document 52-3 Filed 03/16/20 Page 17 of 34
`
`
`
`In addition, Defendants entirely ignore Dr. Mitzenmacher’s extensive opinions on how the
`dynamic detection occurs “while …dynamically building…the parse tree.”
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`.
`
`Id., ¶1783 (emphasis added).
`
`Thus, given that there are, at a minimum, issues of material fact regarding how the products
`
`operate, there is no basis for summary judgment of noninfringement of the ‘408 Patent.
`
`5.
`
`EP, Essentials and TAP Infringe the ‘844 Patent Because They Meet the
`Web Server Requirement.
`The Accused Products infringe the asserted claims of the ‘844 Patent because they link a
`
`Downloadable security profile to a Downloadable “before [a/the] web server makes the Downloadable
`
`available to web clients.” Ex. 1, ‘844 Patent, Claims 1, 15, 32 and 42; see also Finjan’s Motion,
`
`Section III(B)(3). By way of background, EP, Essentials and TAP receive Downloadables in the form
`
`of emails, attachments and webpages. Ex. 11, Cole Rpt., ¶¶144, 146, 148, 151. These products (using
`
`URL Defense and Attachment Defense) are inspectors that analyze emails, attachments and webpages
`
`to determine whether the downloaded content is suspicious. Id., ¶¶147-54.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`.
`
`9
`FINJAN’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION
`FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND CROSS-MOTION
`
`Case No.: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 4:13-cv-05808-HSG Document 321 Filed 03/07/16 Page 17 of 33Case 4:18-cv-07229