Case 4:18-cv-07229-YGR Document 124 Filed 10/22/20 Page 1 of 17
`
`EDWARD G. POPLAWSKI (SBN 113590)
`epoplawski@wsgr.com
`OLIVIA M. KIM (SBN 228382)
`okim@wsgr.com
`TALIN GORDNIA (SBN 274213)
`tgordnia@wsgr.com
`WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI
`Professional Corporation
`633 West Fifth Street, Suite 1550
`Los Angeles, CA 90071
`Telephone: (323) 210-2900
`Facsimile: (866) 974-7329
`
`Attorneys for Defendant
`QUALYS INC.
`
`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
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`OAKLAND DIVISION
`
`CASE NO.: 4:18-cv-07229-YGR (TSH)
`
`DEFENDANT QUALYS INC.’S
`MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON
`THE PLEADINGS (FED. R. CIV.
`PROC. 12(c))
`
`Judge: Hon. Yvonne Gonzalez
`Rogers
`Date: December 8, 2020
`Time: 2:00pm
`Location: Zoom Teleconference1
`
`)))))))))))))
`
`FINJAN LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability
`Company,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`QUALYS INC., a Delaware Corporation,
`
`Defendant.
`
`1 Per the Court’s Notice regarding Civil Law and Motion Calendars and its Order at D.I. 48
`
`CASE NO. 4:18-cv-07229-YGR (TSH)
`
`MTN FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS
`
`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 124 Filed 10/22/20 Page 2 of 17
`
`IV.
`
`V.
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION ........................................................................................ 1
`MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES ................................................................ 1
`I.
`INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 1
`II.
`STATEMENT OF ISSUES ................................................................................................. 2
`III.
`LEGAL STANDARDS ....................................................................................................... 2
`A.
`Standards for Rule 12(c) Motions ........................................................................... 2
`B.
`General Standards Regarding Patent Invalidity ...................................................... 3
`FACTUAL BACKGROUND ............................................................................................. 4
`A.
`Relevant Procedural History ................................................................................... 4
`B.
`The ’305 Patent and Its File History ....................................................................... 4
`C.
`Finjan’s Infringement Contentions .......................................................................... 5
`ARGUMENT ...................................................................................................................... 6
`A.
`Elements 1 and 2: Finjan Was Party to a Final Judgment on the Merits
`Regarding the Invalidated Claims of the ’305 Patent. ............................................ 6
`Element 3: The Issue of Invalidity is Identical Between the Asserted Claims
`and the Previously Invalidated Ones. ...................................................................... 7
`1.
`Claims 14, 17, and 25 are Identical to the Invalidated Claims. ................... 8
`2.
`Claims 6-12 and 18-24 Add Trivial Limitations. ........................................ 9
`Qualys is Entitled to Judgment on the Pleadings as to the ’305 Patent................. 12
`C.
`CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................. 12
`
`B.
`
`VI.
`
`CASE NO. 4:18-cv-07229-YGR
`
`i
`
`MTN FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS
`
`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 124 Filed 10/22/20 Page 3 of 17
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`CASES
`
` PAGE(S)
`
`Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly,
`550 U.S. 544 (2007) ...............................................................................................................2
`
`Chavez v. United States,
`683 F.3d 1102 (9th Cir. 2012) ................................................................................................2
`
`Cafasso, U.S. ex rel. v. General Dynamics C4 Systems, Inc.,
`637 F.3d 1047 (9th Cir. 2011) ................................................................................................2
`
`Chrimar Sys. Inc. v. Ruckus Wireless, Inc.,
`No. 16-CV-00186-SI, 2020 WL 4431787 (N.D. Cal. July 31, 2020) ................................6, 7
`
`Fleming v. Pickard,
`581 F.3d 922 (9th Cir. 2009) ..................................................................................................2
`
`Function Media, L.L.C. v. Google, Inc.,
`708 F.3d 1310, 105 U.S.P.Q.2d 1754 (Fed. Cir. 2013) ..........................................................3
`
`Hoganas AB v. Dresser Industries, Inc.,
`9 F.3d 948 (Fed. Cir. 1993) ....................................................................................................3
`
`KSR Intern. Co. v. Teleflex Inc.,
`127 S. Ct. 1727 (2007) ...........................................................................................................4
`
`Los Angeles Biomedical Research Institute at Harbor-UCLA Medical Center v. Eli
`Lilly and Company, 849 F.3d 1049 (Fed. Cir. 2017) .............................................................3
`
`MaxLinear, Inc. v. CF CRESPE LLC,
`880 F.3d 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2018) ..............................................................................................3
`
`Ohio Willow Wood Co. v. Alps South., LLC,
`735 F.3d 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2013) ..............................................................................................7
`
`Roche Palo Alto LLC v. Apotex, Inc.,
`526 F. Supp. 2d 985 (N.D. Cal. 2007), aff’d, 531 F.3d 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ..................6, 7
`
`Ross v. U.S. Bank Nat’l Ass’n,
`542 F.Supp.2d 1014 (N.D. Cal. 2008) ...................................................................................2
`
`Soverain Software LLC v. Newegg Inc.,
`705 F.3d 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2013) ..........................................................................................7, 9
`
`Soverain Software LLC v. Victoria’s Secret Direct Brand Mgmt., LLC,
`778 F.3d 1311 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ....................................................................................7, 9, 10
`
`Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner,
`778 F.2d 775 (Fed. Cir. 1985) ................................................................................................3
`ii
`
`MTN FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS
`
`CASE NO. 4:18-cv-07229-YGR (TSH)
`
`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 124 Filed 10/22/20 Page 4 of 17
`
`Trevino v. Gates,
`99 F.3d 911 (9th Cir. 1996) ....................................................................................................6
`
`Uniloc USA, Inc. v. ADP, LLC,
`772 F. App’x 890 (Fed. Cir. 2019) .........................................................................................3
`
`United States v. 14.02 Acres,
`547 F.3d 943 (9th Cir. 2008) ..................................................................................................3
`
`XY, LLC v. Trans Ova Genetics,
`890 F.3d 1282 (Fed. Cir. 2018) ..............................................................................................6
`
`STATUTES
`
`35 U.S.C.A. § 102 ..............................................................................................................................3
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103 ..................................................................................................................................4
`
`35 U.S.C. § 282(b)(2) .........................................................................................................................6
`
`RULES
`
`Fed. R. Evid. 201 ................................................................................................................................3
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 12 ...........................................................................................................................2, 3
`
`Patent L.R. 3-1 ...................................................................................................................................5
`
`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 NO. 4:18-cv-07229-YGR (TSH)
`
`iii
`
`MTN FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS
`
`

`

`Case 4:18-cv-07229-YGR Document 124 Filed 10/22/20 Page 5 of 17
`
`GLOSSARY OF TERMS
`’305 Patent ................................................................................. United States Patent No. 7,975,305
`Dependent Claim ............................................... A claim that refers to an earlier independent claim
` and further limits that independent claim.
`Freund ...................................................................................................... U.S. Patent No. 5,987,611
`FTP ................................................................................................................. File Transfer Protocol
`HTTP ................................................................................ Hypertext Transport Protocol (web sites)
`HTTPS ............................................................... Hypertext Transport Protocol, Secured (web sites)
`Independent Claim ............................................................. A standalone claim that contains all the
`limitations necessary to define an invention.
`Office Action ........................................................... A document written by a USPTO Examiner to
`summarize a determination of the allowability
`or non-allowability of patent claims.
`POP3 ................................................................................................. Post Office Protocol 3 (e-mail)
`Prosecution ............................................................................... The application process for a patent
`PTAB ............................................................................. USPTO’s Patent Trials and Appeals Board
`Rule 12(b) .................................................................................................... Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 12(b)
`Rule 12(c) .................................................................................................... Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 12(c)
`SMTP ............................................................................... Simple Mail Transport Protocol (e-mail)
`USPTO ......................................................................... United States Patent and Trademark Office
`Wells ........................................................................................................ U.S. Patent No. 8,140,660
`
`CASE NO. 4:18-cv-07229-YGR (TSH)
`
`iv
`
`MTN FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS
`
`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 124 Filed 10/22/20 Page 6 of 17
`
`NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION
`PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on Tuesday, December 8, 2020 at 2:00pm or as soon
`thereafter as this matter may be heard before Judge Gonzalez Rogers of the United States District
`Court for the Northern District of California via Zoom video conference and/or in Courtroom 1,
`4th Floor, of 1301 Clay Street in Oakland, California (per the Court’s March 12, 2020 Order (D.I.
`48) and its Notice regarding Civil Law and Motion Calendars), defendant Qualys, Inc. (“Qualys”)
`will and hereby does move for judgment on the pleadings.
`Qualys asks that the Court enter judgment for Qualys on its Sixth Counterclaim
`(Declaratory Judgment of Invalidity of U.S. Patent No. 7,975,305 (“the ’305 Patent”)) and on
`Counts V and VI of the Complaint (Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 7,975,305) based on the
`doctrine of collateral estoppel. As discussed in detail below, collateral estoppel precludes plaintiff
`Finjan, LLC. (“Finjan”) from opposing the invalidity of the asserted claims of the ’305 Patent in
`this case. This warrants judgment for Qualys on its Sixth Counterclaim, but also constitutes a
`complete defense to Counts V and VI of the Complaint.
`
`I.
`
`MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
`INTRODUCTION2 3
`Defendant Qualys Inc. (“Qualys”) requests judgment on the pleadings regarding Finjan’s
`infringement claims and Qualys’s invalidity defenses for the ’305 Patent (Counts V and VI of the
`Complaint and Qualys’s Sixth Counterclaim, respectively). Finjan alleges that Qualys directly and
`indirectly infringes the ’305 Patent. However, prior to the inception of this action, the USPTO
`determined that several claims of the’305 Patent were invalid over the prior art. That determination
`has now reached final judgment and, accordingly, collateral estoppel precludes assertion of the
`’305 Patent against Qualys.
`
`2 Citations to “Exhibit XX” refer to Exhibits to the Request for Judicial Notice, filed
`concurrently herewith.
`3 For the Court’s convenience, Qualys has provided a glossary for the technical terms and
`abbreviations used throughout this memorandum.
`1
`
`CASE NO. 4:18-cv-07229-YGR (TSH)
`
`MTN FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS
`
`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 124 Filed 10/22/20 Page 7 of 17
`
`Finjan presently asserts nearly 90 patent claims in this case, including seventeen claims
`from the ’305 Patent. Although Finjan has withdrawn the specific claims struck down by the
`USPTO, collateral estoppel has a broader reach. Under that doctrine, Finjan can only avoid
`preclusion on all asserted claims of the ’305 Patent if some material difference exists between the
`previously-invalidated ’305 claims and the currently asserted ones. But no such material
`differences exist – several of the asserted claims are identical to the invalidated claims, and the
`others add limitations that the USPTO itself determined were immaterial. In short, collateral
`estoppel precludes Finjan from relitigating the issue of validity on which it lost. It cannot oppose
`Qualys’s invalidity defense, and this necessitates judgement for Qualys both on its invalidity
`defense as well as Finjan’s infringement claims for the ’305 patent.
`
`II.
`
`STATEMENT OF ISSUES
`Whether Qualys is entitled to judgment on the pleadings on Counts V and VI of the
`Complaint and on Qualys’s Sixth Counterclaim because collateral estoppel precludes Finjan from
`opposing Qualys’s invalidity defense of the ’305 Patent.
`
`III.
`
`LEGAL STANDARDS
`A.
`Standards for Rule 12(c) Motions
`Rule 12(c) allows a party to move for judgment on the pleadings “[a]fter the pleadings are
`closed—but early enough not to delay trial.” Judgment on the pleadings is proper when “‘there is
`no issue of material fact in dispute, and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of
`law.’” Chavez v. United States, 683 F.3d 1102, 1108 (9th Cir. 2012) (quoting Fleming v. Pickard,
`581 F.3d 922, 925 (9th Cir. 2009)). Under a Rule 12(c) motion, the Court must determine whether
`the complaint demonstrates a plausible entitlement to a legal remedy. See Bell Atl. Corp. v.
`Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555-57 (2007) (discussing the standard for dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6)).
`The Court applies the same standards to a Rule 12(c) motion that it would apply to a Rule 12(b)(6)
`motion. See Cafasso, U.S. ex rel. v. General Dynamics C4 Systems, Inc., 637 F.3d 1047, 1054 n.
`4 (“Rule 12(c) is ‘functionally identical’ to Rule 12(b)(6)”); Ross v. U.S. Bank Nat'l Ass'n, 542
`F.Supp.2d 1014, 1023 (N.D. Cal. 2008).
`
`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 NO. 4:18-cv-07229-YGR (TSH)
`
`2
`
`MTN FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS
`
`

`

`Case 4:18-cv-07229-YGR Document 124 Filed 10/22/20 Page 8 of 17
`
`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
`
`In analyzing a Rule 12 motion, the Court may consider materials subject to judicial notice
`under Fed. R. Evid. 201 without converting the motion into one for summary judgment. United
`States v. 14.02 Acres, 547 F.3d 943, 955 (9th Cir. 2008). Relevant to this motion, judicially
`noticeable facts include: a patent’s file history at the USPTO; a patent’s reexamination proceedings
`before the USPTO; prior art patents discussed in such file histories and reexaminations; and a
`party’s infringement contentions. See Uniloc USA, Inc. v. ADP, LLC, 772 F. App'x 890, 898 n.3
`(Fed. Cir. 2019) (noting that patent file histories may be judicially noticed); Function Media,
`L.L.C. v. Google, Inc., 708 F.3d 1310, 1316 n.4, 105 U.S.P.Q.2d 1754 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (taking
`judicial notice of a patent’s reexamination); Hoganas AB v. Dresser Industries, Inc., 9 F.3d 948,
`954 n.27 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (taking judicial notice of another patent); Los Angeles Biomedical
`Research Institute at Harbor-UCLA Medical Center v. Eli Lilly and Company, 849 F.3d 1049,
`1061 n.6, (Fed. Cir. 2017) (taking judicial notice of the patentee's infringement contentions).
`
`General Standards Regarding Patent Invalidity
`B.
`A person cannot obtain a patent unless the invention is new (also called the “novelty
`requirement”). Thus, the Federal Circuit has explained that “[t]he patent law imposes certain
`fundamental conditions for patentability, paramount among them being the condition that what is
`sought to be patented, as determined by the claims, be new.” Titanium Metals Corp. of America v.
`Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 780 (Fed. Cir. 1985). The statutory requirements for determining whether
`an invention is “new” lie chiefly in 35 U.S.C.A. § 102. Section 102 provides, in relevant part, that
`a person shall be entitled to a patent unless: “the invention was described in . . . a patent granted
`on an application for patent by another filed in the United States before the invention by the
`applicant for patent…” 35 U.S.C. § 102(e)(2). For patent invalidity, the date of “invention” for a
`patent is referred to as its “priority date.” A third-party patent whose application was filed before
`the subject patent’s priority date is referred to as “prior art.” Patent claims whose limitations are
`completely disclosed in a prior art reference are invalid. See 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) (pre-AIA).
`In addition to the novelty requirement, an invention must be non-obvious over the prior
`art. This requires that, as of priority date, the invention be sufficiently different to skilled artisans
`in the field to not be an obvious variation from the state of the art:
`
`CASE NO. 4:18-cv-07229-YGR (TSH)
`
`3
`
`MTN FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS
`
`

`

`Case 4:18-cv-07229-YGR Document 124 Filed 10/22/20 Page 9 of 17
`
`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
`
`We build and create by bringing to the tangible and palpable reality around
`us new works based on instinct, simple logic, ordinary inferences,
`extraordinary ideas, and sometimes even genius. These advances, once part
`of our shared knowledge, define a new threshold from which innovation starts
`once more. And as progress beginning from higher levels of achievement is
`expected in the normal course, the results of ordinary innovation are not the
`subject of exclusive rights under the patent laws. Were it otherwise patents
`might stifle, rather than promote, the progress of useful arts.
`
`KSR Intern. Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 1746 (2007) (emphasis added). Patent claims
`found to be obvious over prior art are invalid. See 35 U.S.C. § 103 (pre-AIA).
`
`IV.
`
`FACTUAL BACKGROUND
`A.
`Relevant Procedural History
`Finjan filed the current lawsuit on November 29, 2018. See D.I. 1. In the Complaint, Finjan
`alleges in Counts V and VI that Qualys infringes the ’305 Patent. In response, Qualys has pled
`both an affirmative defense and a counterclaim that the ’305 Patent is invalid over the prior art.
`See D.I. 62 at 16 (Third Affirmative Defense) and 38 (Sixth Counterclaim). Qualys has also
`specifically pled that collateral estoppel bars Finjan from asserting the ’305 Patent. See id. at 34
`(Sixteenth Affirmative Defense).
`
`The ’305 Patent and Its File History
`B.
`The patent application that resulted in the ’305 Patent was filed on December 9, 2004. D.I.
`1-3. Finjan contends the ’305 Patent is entitled to a priority date of August 30, 2004. See D.I. 100-
`11 at 10. A summary of the ’305 Patent’s application history can be found in Exhibit B at FINJAN-
`QUALYS 406948-950. The ’305 Patent issued on July 5, 2011. D.I. 1-3. It originally issued with
`25 claims (although, as discussed below, Claims 1, 2, 5, and 13 were subsequently invalidated by
`the USPTO).
`On December 11, 2015, a third party petitioned the USPTO to reexamine the ’305 Patent.
`Exhibit B at FINJAN-QUALYS 406947. This petition requested that the USPTO reconsider the
`validity of Claims 1, 2, 5, and 13 of the ’305 patent in light of two prior art references: U.S. Patent
`No. 8,140,660 to Wells (“Wells”) and U.S. Patent Publication No. 2005/0172338 to Sandu
`(“Sandu”). Id. After considering the petitioner’s arguments, the USPTO granted the petition on
`January 19, 2016, and instituted reexamination proceedings for those claims. Id. On August 24,
`
`CASE NO. 4:18-cv-07229-YGR (TSH)
`
`4
`
`MTN FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS
`
`

`

`Case 4:18-cv-07229-YGR Document 124 Filed 10/22/20 Page 10 of 17
`
`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
`
`2016, the USPTO issued an Office Action rejecting Claims 1, 2, 5, and 13. See id. at FINJAN-
`QUALYS 405017-079. Specifically, the USPTO determined that those claims were obvious either
`over Wells alone (Id. at FINJAN-QUALYS 405020-39) or over Wells in combination with Sandu
`(id. at FINJAN-QUALYS 405039-64). Finjan appealed this decision to the USPTO’s Patent Trials
`and Appeals Board, which affirmed the rejection on July 2, 2018. See id. at FINJAN-QUALYS
`404252-53. Finjan then appealed to the Federal Circuit, which again affirmed the rejection on
`September 6, 2019. See Exhibit C.4
`In this litigation, Finjan initially alleged that Qualys infringes Claims 1, 2, 5-14, and 17-
`25. After the Federal Circuit affirmed the invalidity of Claims 1, 2, 5, and 13, Finjan withdrew its
`allegations for those claims but continues to assert Claims 6-12, 14, and 17-25. These remaining
`asserted claims of the ’305 Patent fall into two categories. The claim in the first category (Claims
`14, 17, and 25) are identical to previously invalidated Claims 1, 2, 5, and 13. The claims in the
`second category (Claims 6-12 and 18-24), which recite the scanning of common types of internet
`content such as HTTP, FTP, SMTP, POP3, and content being directed to web browsers and e-mail
`clients. Qualys seeks judgment on the pleadings regarding the remaining asserted claims of the
`’305 Patent because, for the reasons discussed, collateral estoppel precludes Finjan from opposing
`the invalidity of these claims.
`
`Finjan’s Infringement Contentions
`C.
`On April 19, 2019, Finjan served its Patent L.R. 3-1 infringement contentions. See
`generally D.I. 100-11. Those infringement contentions included claim charts for the ’305 Patent.
`In relevant part, Finjan’s contentions for Claims 14, 17, and 25 simply referred to its analysis of
`Claims 1, 2, 5, and 13, and did not include any separate or independent analysis of those claims:
` Claim 14: “See analysis for Claim 2 above.” Id. at 000346.5
` Claim 17: “See analysis for Claim 5 above.” Id. at 000347.
`
`4 Qualys understands that a second reexamination regarding the ’305 Patent is ongoing at the
`USPTO.
`5 Pin citations to D.I. 100-11 are to the unique bates numbering attached to that exhibit.
`
`CASE NO. 4:18-cv-07229-YGR (TSH)
`
`5
`
`MTN FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS
`
`

`

`Case 4:18-cv-07229-YGR Document 124 Filed 10/22/20 Page 11 of 17
`
`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
`
` Claim 25: “See analysis for 1(a) [and 1(b), 1(c), 1(d), 1(e), and 1(f)] above.” Id. at
`000355-000359.
`Aside from the above, Finjan offered no other statements and did not otherwise distinguish Claims
`14, 17, or 25 from the previously invalidated Claims 1, 2, 5, and 13. See id. at 000346, 000347,
`and 000355-000359.
`
`V.
`
`ARGUMENT
`
`Ninth Circuit law applies to the procedural question of whether collateral estoppel applies,
`while Federal Circuit law applies to any substantive patent law issues. Chrimar Sys. Inc. v. Ruckus
`Wireless, Inc., No. 16-CV-00186-SI, 2020 WL 4431787, at *3 (N.D. Cal. July 31, 2020). The
`Ninth Circuit’s procedural test for collateral estoppel has three requirements: (1) “the first
`proceeding ended with a final judgment on the merits,” (2) “the party against whom collateral
`estoppel is asserted was a party or in privity with a party at the first proceeding,” and (3) “the issue
`necessarily decided at the previous proceeding is identical to the one which is sought to be
`relitigated.” Id. (citing Roche Palo Alto LLC, 526 F. Supp. 2d at 994–95 (N.D. Cal. 2007)); see
`also Trevino v. Gates, 99 F.3d 911, 923 (9th Cir. 1996). When the issue involves a previous
`determination of patent invalidity, application of collateral estoppel provides a complete defense
`to an infringement claim. See Chrimar Sys. Inc. v. Ruckus Wireless, Inc., No. 16-CV-00186-SI,
`2020 WL 4431787, at *6 (N.D. Cal. July 31, 2020) (Granting summary judgment on invalidity
`because collateral estoppel “precluded [patentee] from re-litigating the validity of the [asserted
`patent].”); 35 U.S.C. § 282(b)(2) (“The following shall be defenses in any action involving the
`validity or infringement of a patent and shall be pleaded: . . . (2) Invalidity of the patent or any
`claim in suit”). As discussed below, the judicially noticeable facts demonstrate that all three
`elements of the Ninth Circuit’s test are met.
`
`A.
`
`Elements 1 and 2: Finjan Was Party to a Final Judgment on the Merits
`Regarding the Invalidated Claims of the ’305 Patent.
`The first two elements of the Ninth Circuit’s test are easily satisfied. A USPTO judgement
`invalidating a patent’s claims can form the basis of a collateral estoppel claim in co-pending district
`court litigation. See XY, LLC v. Trans Ova Genetics, 890 F.3d 1282, 1294 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (“A
`
`CASE NO. 4:18-cv-07229-YGR (TSH)
`
`6
`
`MTN FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS
`
`

`

`Case 4:18-cv-07229-YGR Document 124 Filed 10/22/20 Page 12 of 17
`
`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
`
`patentee, having been afforded the opportunity to exhaust his remedy of appeal from a holding of
`invalidity, has had his day in court, and a defendant should not have to continue defending a suit
`for infringement of an adjudged invalid patent.”); see also MaxLinear, Inc. v. CF CRESPE LLC,
`880 F.3d 1373, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (“[W]here a single issue is before a court and an
`administrative agency, preclusion also often applies.”). Here, Finjan was a party to the USPTO
`reexamination proceedings for the ’305 Patent, which resulted in a final judgment on the merits no
`later than when the Federal Circuit affirmed the USPTO’s determination that Claims 1, 2, 5, and
`13 of the ’305 Patent are invalid. See Exhibit B at FINJAN-QUALYS 405017-79 and FINJAN-
`QUALYS 404251-404269; Exhibit C. The USPTO issued a reexamination certificate formally
`canceling those claims on January 29, 2020. D.I. 44-3. The first two elements are satisfied.
`
`B.
`
`Element 3: The Issue of Invalidity is Identical Between the Asserted Claims
`and the Previously Invalidated Ones.
`The third element of the Ninth Circuit’s test—identicality—is also met. The identicality
`requirement (as applied under patent law in this district and by the Federal Circuit) is satisfied so
`long as the core question—the invalidity of the asserted patent—remains the same. Importantly, a
`patentee does not necessarily avoid collateral estoppel by asserting different patent claims in
`litigation than those previously invalidated. See Roche Palo Alto LLC v. Apotex, Inc., 526 F. Supp.
`2d 985, 994–95 (N.D. Cal. 2007), aff'd, 531 F.3d 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (“The authorities . . .
`indicate that the relevant ‘issue’ which Defendants are precluded from relitigating is the ultimate
`determination on patent validity itself.”); Chrimar, 2020 WL 4431787, at *5 (“[The Federal
`Circuit] does not limit [issue preclusion/] collateral estoppel to patent claims that are identical.”).
`In such a situation, the identicality requirement is satisfied where the differences between the
`previously invalidated claims and the claims asserted in litigation do not “materially alter the
`question of invalidity.” See Soverain Software LLC v. Victoria’s Secret Direct Brand Mgmt., LLC,
`(“Soverain II”) 778 F.3d 1311, 1319 (Fed. Cir. 2015); Soverain Software LLC v. Newegg Inc.
`(“Soverain I”), 705 F.3d 1333, 1344 (Fed. Cir. 2013); Ohio Willow Wood Co. v. Alps South., LLC,
`735 F.3d 1333, 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (preclusion applies where the claims invalidated in the Patent
`Office use “slightly different language to describe substantially the same invention”). As discussed
`below, the public record establishes that there are no material differences between invalidated
`
`CASE NO. 4:18-cv-07229-YGR (TSH)
`
`7
`
`MTN FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS
`
`

`

`Case 4:18-cv-07229-YGR Document 124 Filed 10/22/20 Page 13 of 17
`
`Claims 1, 2, 5 and 13 of the’305 Patent and asserted Claims 6-12, 14, and 17-25. Thus, the
`identicality requirement is satisfied and collateral estoppel applies.
`
`Claims 14, 17, and 25 are Identical to the Invalidated Claims.
`1.
`As noted above, the identicality requirement is satisfied where there are no material
`differences between the invalidated claims and the asserted claims. This test is easily satisfied for
`asserted Claims 14, 17, and 25 because those claims are essentially identical to previously-
`invalidated Claims 1, 2, 5, and 13. As the following chart shows, every element appearing in
`asserted Claims 14, 17, and 25 are found in Claims 2, 5, and 13 (left column):
`
`Invalidated Claims 2, 5, and 13
`Claim 2: The security system of claim 1
`wherein
`
`said database of parser and analyzer rules stores
`parser and analyzer rules in the form of pattern-
`matching engines.
`
`Claim 5: The security system of claim 1 further
`comprising a content blocker, operatively
`coupled to said rule-based content scanner, for
`preventing
`incoming
`content having
`a
`computer exploit that was recognized by said
`rule-based content scanner from reaching its
`intended destination.
`Claim 13: A method for scanning content
`within a computer, comprising:
`
`receiving, at the computer, incoming content
`from the Internet on its destination to an
`Internet application;
`
`selectively diverting, by the computer, the
`received incoming content from its intended
`destination;
`
`scanning, by the computer, the selectively
`diverted
`incoming content
`to
`recognize
`potential computer exploits therewithin, based
`on a database of parser and analyzer rules
`corresponding to computer exploits, computer
`exploits being portions of program code that
`are malicious, wherein the parser and analyzer
`rules describe computer exploits as patterns of
`types of tokens, tokens being program code
`constructs, and types of tokens comprising a
`
`Asserted Claims 14, 17, and 25
`Claim 14: The method of claim 13 wherein
`
`said database of parser and analyzer rules
`stores parser and analyzer rules in the form of
`pattern-matching engines.
`
`Claim 17: The method of claim 13 further
`comprising
`
`incoming content having a
`preventing
`computer exploit that was recognized by said
`scanning
`from
`reaching
`its
`intended
`destination.
`Claim 25: A computer-readable storage
`medium,
`the medium excluding signals,
`storing program code for causing a computer
`to perform the steps of:
`
`receiving incoming content from the Internet
`on its destination to an Internet application;
`
`selectively diverting the received incoming
`content from its intended destination;
`
`scanning the selectively diverted incoming
`content
`to
`recognize potential exploits
`therewithin, based on a database of parser and
`analyzer rules corresponding to computer
`exploits, computer exploits being portions of
`program code that are malicious, wherein the
`pa