Case 4:18-cv-07229-YGR Document 126-4 Filed 10/30/20 Page 1 of 15
`Case 4:18-cv-07229—YGR Document 126-4 Filed 10/30/20 Page 1 of 15
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT 3
`
`EXHIBIT 3
`
`

`

`Case 4:18-cv-07229-YGR Document 126-4 Filed 10/30/20 Page 2 of 15
`
`EDWARD G. POPLAWSKI (SBN 113590)
`epoplawski@wsgr.com
`OLIVIA M. KIM (SBN 228382)
`okim@wsgr.com
`WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI
`Professional Corporation
`633 West Fifth Street, Suite 1550
`Los Angeles, CA 90071
`Telephone: (323) 210-2901
`Facsimile: (866) 974-7329
`
`RYAN R. SMITH (SBN 229323)
`rsmith@wsgr.com
`CHRISTOPHER D. MAYS (SBN 266510)
`cmays@wsgr.com
`WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI
`Professional Corporation
`650 Page Mill Road
`Palo Alto, CA 94304-1050
`Telephone: (650) 493-9300
`Facsimile: (650) 493-6811
`
`Attorneys for Defendant
`QUALYS INC.
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`OAKLAND DIVISION
`
`CASE NO.: 4:18-cv-07229-YGR
`
`DEFENDANT QUALYS INC.’S
`PRELIMINARY DISCLOSURE OF
`INTRINSIC AND EXTRINSIC
`EVIDENCE
`
`DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`
`)))))))))))))
`
`FINJAN, INC., a Delaware Corporation,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`QUALYS INC., a Delaware Corporation,
`
`Defendant.
`
`CASE NO. 4:18-cv-07229-YGR
`
`QUALYS’S PATENT L.R. 4-2 DISCLOSURES
`
`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 126-4 Filed 10/30/20 Page 3 of 15
`
`Pursuant to Patent Local Rule 4-2, the Court’s Scheduling Order, and the parties’
`agreements, Defendant Qualys Inc. (“Qualys”) provides its preliminary disclosure of intrinsic
`and extrinsic evidence attached here as Exhibit 1. Qualys notes that discovery is ongoing,
`including discovery regarding claim construction, and Qualys therefore reserves the right to
`supplement or amend these disclosures. Qualys further reserves the right to revise these
`disclosures based on evidence identified by Finjan, including to use any evidence identified by
`Finjan (in this or any previous matter). For example, Qualys may rely upon the expert testimony
`of Dr. Aviel Rubin in connection with any or all the claim constructions proposed below.
`
`DATED: November 6, 2019
`
`By:
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/s/ Christopher D. Mays
`EDWARD G. POPLAWSKI (SBN 113590)
`epoplawski@wsgr.com
`OLIVIA M. KIM (SBN 228382)
`okim@wsgr.com
`WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI
`Professional Corporation
`633 West Fifth Street, Suite 1550
`Los Angeles, CA 90071
`Telephone: (323) 210-2901
`Facsimile: (866) 974-7329
`
`RYAN R. SMITH (SBN 229323)
`rsmith@wsgr.com
`CHRISTOPHER D. MAYS (SBN 266510)
`cmays@wsgr.com
`WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI
`Professional Corporation
`650 Page Mill Road
`Palo Alto, CA 94304-1050
`Telephone: (650) 493-9300
`Facsimile: (650) 493-6811
`
`Counsel for Defendant
`QUALYS INC.
`
`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
`
`QUALYS’S PATENT L.R. 4-2 DISCLOSURES
`
`

`

`Case 4:18-cv-07229-YGR Document 126-4 Filed 10/30/20 Page 4 of 15
`
`EXHIBIT 1: QUALYS’S PATENT LR 4-2 DISCLOSURES
`
`Pat.
`
`Term
`
`Def. Proposal
`
`844
`
`“means for
`comparing the
`first
`downloadable
`security
`profile against
`the security
`policy if the
`first
`downloadable
`security
`profile is
`trustworthy”
`
`844
`
`“means for
`determining
`whether to
`trust the first
`Downloadable
`security
`profile”
`
`This term is subject to
`35 USC Section 112
`Paragraph 6.
`
`Function: comparing
`the first downloadable
`security profile against
`the security policy if the
`first downloadable
`security profile is
`trustworthy;
`
`Structure: local security
`policy analysis engine
`530
`
`This term is subject to
`35 USC Section 112
`Paragraph 6.
`Function: determining
`whether to trust the first
`downloadable security
`profile
`Structure: certificate
`authenticator 515 and
`downloadable ID
`verification engine 520
`
`Evidence
`‘844 Patent at Abstract; Claim 44; Figs. 1-8; 2:20-60; 3:33-4:58; 5:14-47; 7:41-
`48; 8:6-8; 8:17-36; 9:23-29; 10:2-5; 10:66-11:11.
`
`Finjan, Inc. v. Blue Coat Sys., Inc., Civ. No. 5:13-cv-03999-BLF, Dkt. No. 118
`(N.D. Cal. Oct. 20, 2014) (claim construction order).
`
`Finjan, Inc. v. Blue Coat Sys., Inc., Civ. No. 5:13-cv-03999-BLF, Dkt. No. 65
`(N.D. Cal. June 16, 2014) (Finjan’s opening claim construction brief).
`
`Finjan, Inc. v. Blue Coat Sys., Inc., Civ. No. 5:13-cv-03999-BLF, Dkt. No. 66
`(N.D. Cal. June 30, 2014) (Blue Coat’s responsive claim construction brief).
`
`Finjan, Inc. v. Blue Coat Sys., Inc., Civ. No. 5:13-cv-03999-BLF, Dkt. No. 66-1
`(N.D. Cal. June 30, 2014) (Declaration of Dr. Peter Reiher).
`
`Finjan, Inc. v. Blue Coat Sys., Inc., Civ. No. 5:13-cv-03999-BLF, Dkt. No. 66-8
`(N.D. Cal. June 30, 2014) (May 23, 2014 Deposition of Dr. Nenad Medvidovic).
`
`Finjan, Inc. v. Blue Coat Sys., Inc., Civ. No. 5:13-cv-03999-BLF, Dkt. No. 67
`(N.D. Cal. July 4, 2014) (Finjan’s reply claim construction brief).
`
`‘844 Patent at Abstract; Claim 44; Figs. 1-8; 2:20-60; 3:33-4:58; 5:14-49; 7:41-
`67; 8:17-36; 9:23-29; 10:66-11:11.
`
`Finjan, Inc. v. Blue Coat Sys., Inc., Civ. No. 5:13-cv-03999-BLF, Dkt. No. 118
`(N.D. Cal. Oct. 20, 2014) (claim construction order).
`
`Finjan, Inc. v. Blue Coat Sys., Inc., Civ. No. 5:13-cv-03999-BLF, Dkt. No. 65
`(N.D. Cal. June 16, 2014) (Finjan’s opening claim construction brief).
`
`Finjan, Inc. v. Blue Coat Sys., Inc., Civ. No. 5:13-cv-03999-BLF, Dkt. No. 66
`(N.D. Cal. June 30, 2014) (Blue Coat’s responsive claim construction brief).
`
`CASE NO. 4:18-CV-07229-YGR
`
`QUALYS’S PATENT L.R. 4-2 DISCLOSURES
`
`

`

`Case 4:18-cv-07229-YGR Document 126-4 Filed 10/30/20 Page 5 of 15
`
`844
`
`“security
`context”
`
`an environment in
`which a software
`application is run,
`which may limit
`resources that the
`application is permitted
`to access or operations
`that the application is
`permitted to perform
`
`844
`
`“web client”
`
`an application on the
`computer of an end-
`user that requests a
`downloadable from the
`web server
`
`Finjan, Inc. v. Blue Coat Sys., Inc., Civ. No. 5:13-cv-03999-BLF, Dkt. No. 66-1
`(N.D. Cal. June 30, 2014) (Declaration of Dr. Peter Reiher).
`
`Finjan, Inc. v. Blue Coat Sys., Inc., Civ. No. 5:13-cv-03999-BLF, Dkt. No. 66-8
`(N.D. Cal. June 30, 2014) (May 23, 2014 Deposition of Dr. Nenad Medvidovic).
`
`Finjan, Inc. v. Blue Coat Sys., Inc., Civ. No. 5:13-cv-03999-BLF, Dkt. No. 67
`(N.D. Cal. July 4, 2014) (Finjan’s reply claim construction brief).
`Finjan, Inc. v. Proofpoint, Inc., Civ. No. 4:13-cv-5808-HSG, Dkt. No. 267 (N.D.
`Cal. Dec. 3, 2015) (claim construction order).
`
`Finjan, Inc. v. Proofpoint, Inc., Civ. No. 4:13-cv-5808-HSG, Dkt. No. 117 (N.D.
`Cal. Jan. 26, 2015) (joint claim construction and pre-hearing statement).
`
`‘844 Patent: Claims 1, 15, 22, 23, 32, 41, 42, 43, 44; 2:3-19; 3:32-52; 4:65-5:13;
`5:14-19; 5:28-33; 6:2-17; 7:6-8:4; 8:17-36; 8:49-51; 8:65-67; 9:13-18; 9:19-21;
`9:63-10:13; Figs. 1 and 7.
`
`Finjan, Inc. v. Symantec Corp., Civ. No. 4:14-cv-02998-HSG, Dkt. No. 170
`(N.D. Cal. Feb. 10, 2017) (claim construction order).
`
`Finjan, Inc. v. Symantec Corp., Civ. No. 4:14-cv-02998-HSG, Dkt. No. 159
`(N.D. Cal. Dec. 20, 2017) (Finjan’s reply to Symantec’s supplemental claim
`construction brief).
`
`Finjan, Inc. v. Symantec Corp., Civ. No. 4:14-cv-02998-HSG, Dkt. No. 154
`(N.D. Cal. Dec. 13, 2017) (Symantec’s responsive supplemental claim
`construction brief).
`
`Finjan, Inc. v. Symantec Corp., Civ. No. 4:14-cv-02998-HSG, Dkt. No. 151
`(N.D. Cal. Nov. 29, 2017) (Finjan’s supplemental claim construction brief).
`
`CASE NO. 4:18-CV-07229-YGR
`
`QUALYS’S PATENT L.R. 4-2 DISCLOSURES
`
`

`

`Case 4:18-cv-07229-YGR Document 126-4 Filed 10/30/20 Page 6 of 15
`
`Finjan, Inc. v. Symantec Corp., Civ. No. 4:14-cv-02998-HSG, Dkt. No. 151-1
`(N.D. Cal. Nov. 29, 2017) (Declaration of Dr. Nenad Medvidovic).
`
`Finjan, Inc. v. Symantec Corp., Civ. No. 4:14-cv-02998-HSG, Dkt. No. 72-1
`(N.D. Cal. April 20, 2015) (Declaration of Dr. Nenad Medvidovic).
`
`Finjan, Inc. v. Sophos, Inc., Civ. No. 3:14-cv-1197-WHO, Dkt. No. 205 (N.D.
`Cal. May 24, 2016) (order denying Sophos’s motion for summary judgment).
`
`Finjan, Inc. v. Proofpoint, Inc., Civ. No. 4:13-cv-5808-HSG, Dkt. No. 462 (N.D.
`Cal. May 20, 2016) (Finjan’s supplemental claim construction brief).
`
`Finjan, Inc. v. Proofpoint, Inc., Civ. No. 4:13-cv-5808-HSG, Dkt. No. 321 (N.D.
`Cal. March 7, 2016) (Finjan’s response to Proofpoint’s motion for summary
`judgment).
`
`Finjan, Inc. v. Blue Coat Sys., Inc., Civ. No. 5:13-cv-03999-BLF, Dkt. No. 118
`(N.D. Cal. Oct. 20, 2014) (claim construction order).
`
`Finjan, Inc. v. ESET, LLC., Civ. No. 3:17-cv-0183-CAB-BGS, Dkt. No. 195
`(S.D. Cal. Nov. 14, 2017) (claim construction order).
`
`Microsoft Press Computer Dictionary 64 (1991).
`Microsoft Press Computer Dictionary 75 (2d ed. 1994).
`‘154 Patent: Abstract; Claims 1, 6; Figs. 1-5; 2:64-67; 3:1-67; 4:15-26; 4:35-54;
`4:55-67; 5:1-67; 6:1-67; 7:1-67; 8:38-67; 9:1-11:4; 11:5-67; 12:1-67; 13:1-67;
`14:1-67; 15:1-67; 16:1-67; 17:1-29.
`
`June 28, 2011 Non-Final Rejection
`October 5, 2011 Amendment and Response to Office Action
`December 22, 2011 Notice of Allowance
`
`IPR2015-01979, Record of Oral Hearing (Paper No. 60), at 61:12- 18; 67:17-23;
`68:23-69:2; 71:16- 23; Paper 62; Paper 22.
`
`154
`
`“a content
`processor” /
`“process
`content”
`
`a processor that
`processes modified
`content; the content
`processor is part of the
`computer being
`protected from
`dynamically generated
`malicious content
`“process content”
`should be construed
`
`CASE NO. 4:18-CV-07229-YGR
`
`QUALYS’S PATENT L.R. 4-2 DISCLOSURES
`
`

`

`Case 4:18-cv-07229-YGR Document 126-4 Filed 10/30/20 Page 7 of 15
`
`consisted with a
`“content processor” to
`process modified
`content
`
`IPR2016-00151, Final Written Decision (Paper No. 51), at pp. 17-18; Ex. 1002
`(Rubin declaration).
`
`Finjan, Inc. v. Rapid7, Inc., Civ. No. 1:18-cv-1519-MN, Dkt. No. 76 (D. Del.
`Oct. 25, 2019) (joint claim construction brief).
`
`Finjan, Inc. v. Symantec Corp., Civ. No. 4:14-cv-02998-HSG, Dkt. No. 170
`(N.D. Cal. Feb. 10, 2017) (claim construction order).
`
`Finjan, Inc. v. Symantec Corp., Civ. No. 4:14-cv-02998-HSG, Dkt. No. 72 (N.D.
`Cal. April 20, 2015) (Finjan’s claim construction brief).
`
`Finjan, Inc. v. Symantec Corp., Civ. No. 4:14-cv-02998-HSG, Dkt. No. 74 (N.D.
`Cal. May 4, 2015) (Symantec’s responsive claim construction brief).
`
`Finjan, Inc. v. Symantec Corp., Civ. No. 4:14-cv-02998-HSG, Dkt. No. 77 (N.D.
`Cal. May 11, 2015) (Finjan’s reply claim construction brief).
`
`Finjan, Inc. v. Symantec Corp., Civ. No. 4:14-cv-02998-HSG, Dkt. No. 72-1
`(N.D. Cal. April 20, 2015) (Declaration of Dr. Nenad Medvidovic).
`
`Finjan, Inc. v. Symantec Corp., Civ. No. 4:14-cv-02998-HSG, Dkt. No. 74-1
`(N.D. Cal. May 4, 2015) (Declaration of Dr. Richard Ford).
`
`Finjan, Inc. v. Juniper Networks, Inc., Civ. No. 3:17-cv-05659-WHA, Dkt. No.
`491 (N.D. Cal. May 29, 2019) (order on second round of early motions for
`summary judgment).
`
`Finjan, Inc. v. Juniper Networks, Inc., Civ. No. 3:17-cv-05659-WHA, Dkt. No.
`415 (N.D. Cal. April 5, 2019) (Finjan’s reply brief for its motion for early
`summary judgment).
`
`Finjan, Inc. v. Juniper Networks, Inc., Civ. No. 3:17-cv-05659-WHA, Dkt. No.
`390 (N.D. Cal. March 14, 2019) (Juniper’s responsive brief to Finjan’s motion
`for early summary judgment).
`
`CASE NO. 4:18-CV-07229-YGR
`
`QUALYS’S PATENT L.R. 4-2 DISCLOSURES
`
`

`

`Case 4:18-cv-07229-YGR Document 126-4 Filed 10/30/20 Page 8 of 15
`
`Finjan, Inc. v. Juniper Networks, Inc., Civ. No. 3:17-cv-05659-WHA, Dkt. No.
`369 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 14, 2019) (Finjan’s second motion for early summary
`judgment).
`
`Finjan, Inc. v. Juniper Networks, Inc., Civ. No. 3:17-cv-05659-WHA, Dkt. No.
`187 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 27, 2018) (Finjan’s reply claim construction brief).
`
`Finjan, Inc. v. Juniper Networks, Inc., Civ. No. 3:17-cv-05659-WHA, Dkt. No.
`182 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 20, 2018) (Juniper’s responsive claim construction brief).
`
`Finjan, Inc. v. Juniper Networks, Inc., Civ. No. 3:17-cv-05659-WHA, Dkt. No.
`176 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 6, 2018) (Finjan’s opening claim construction brief).
`
`Finjan, Inc. v. Proofpoint, Inc., Civ. No. 4:13-cv-5808-HSG, Dkt. No. 267 (N.D.
`Cal. Dec. 3, 2015) (claim construction order).
`
`Barron’s Business Guides Dictionary of Computer and Internet Terms, Eighth
`Edition at 212.
`’408 Patent: Abstract; Claims 1, 8, 9, 22; Figs. 1, 2, 5, 6, 7; 1:59-2:65; 3:22-45;
`3:59-66; 4:53-62; 5:10-42; 5:55-67; 6:1-3; 6:14-59; 7:28-44; 8:7-12; 8:59-67;
`9:7-18; 15:1-4; 15: 14-67.
`
`Office Action – Application No. 10/930,884
`
`Non-Final Rejection mailed July 22, 2008; Amendment and Response to Office
`Action made on November 4, 2008
`
`Office Action – Non-Final Rejection mailed January 21, 2009
`
`Amendment and Response to Office Action made on April 3,2009
`
`Office Action – Final Rejection mailed on July 29, 2009
`
`Response to Final Office Action made on September 23, 2009
`
`408
`
`“instantiating,
`by the
`computer, a
`scanner for
`the specific
`programming
`language”
`
`substituting specific
`data, instructions, or
`both into a scanner to
`make it usable for
`scanning the specific
`programming language
`
`CASE NO. 4:18-CV-07229-YGR
`
`QUALYS’S PATENT L.R. 4-2 DISCLOSURES
`
`

`

`Case 4:18-cv-07229-YGR Document 126-4 Filed 10/30/20 Page 9 of 15
`
`Advisory Action mailed on October 13, 2009;
`
`Request for Continued Examination made on October 29, 2009
`
`Office Action – Non-Final Rejection mailed on November 10, 2009; Response to
`Office Action made on February 12, 2010
`
`Office Action – Final Rejection mailed on May 27, 2010
`
`Response to Final Office Action made on August 26, 2010
`
`Advisory Action mailed on September 7, 2010
`
`Submission with Request for Continued Examination Including Response to
`Office Action made on September 15, 2010
`
`Office Action – Non-Final Rejection mailed on October 7, 2010
`
`Response to Office Action made on November 7, 2010
`
`Office Action – Non-Final Rejection mailed on January 21, 2011
`
`Response to Office Action made on April 13, 2011
`
`Office Action – Final Rejection mailed June 16, 2011
`
`Response to Final Office Action made on July 19, 2011
`
`Advisory Action mailed on July 29, 2011
`
`Submission with Request for Continued Examination & Response to Office
`Action made on September 13, 2011
`
`Office Action – Non-Final Rejection mailed on October 11, 2011
`
`CASE NO. 4:18-CV-07229-YGR
`
`QUALYS’S PATENT L.R. 4-2 DISCLOSURES
`
`

`

`Case 4:18-cv-07229-YGR Document 126-4 Filed 10/30/20 Page 10 of 15
`
`Response to Office Action made on February 13, 2012
`
`Notice of Allowance, Examiner’s Amendment mailed on March 14, 2012.
`
`Palo Alto Networks, Inc. v. Finjan, Inc., IPR2015-02001, IPR2016-00157,
`including Institution Decision (Papers 7 and 10) and Final Written Decision,
`Paper No. 41.
`
`Blue Coat Systems, Inc. v. Finjan, Inc., IPR2016-01441, including: Petitioner for
`IPR, Paper No. 1; Bestavros Decl. (Ex. 1002); PTAB Decision Denying
`Institution of Inter Partes Review, Paper No. 14.
`
`FireEye, Inc. v. Finjan, Inc., IPR2017- 00157, including: Petition for IPR, Paper
`No. 1; Bestavros Declaration (Ex. 1002); PTAB Decision Denying Institution of
`Inter Partes Review, Paper No. 9.
`
`Finjan, Inc. v. Blue Coat Systems LLC, Civ. No. 15-cv-03295-BLF-SVK, Dkt.
`No. 79 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 12, 2016) (joint claim construction and pre-hearing
`statement).
`
`Finjan, Inc. v. Blue Coat Systems LLC, Civ. No. 15-cv-03295-BLF-SVK, Dkt.
`No. 179 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 31, 2017) (claim construction order).
`
`Finjan, Inc. v. Rapid7, Inc., Civ. No. 1:18-cv-1519-MN, Dkt. No. 76 (D. Del.
`Oct. 25, 2019) (joint claim construction brief).
`
`Finjan, Inc. v. SonicWall, Inc., Civ. No. 5:17-cv-4497-BLF, Dkt. No. 132 (N.D.
`Cal. March 26, 2019) (claim construction order).
`
`Finjan, Inc. v. SonicWall, Inc., Civ. No. 5:17-cv-4497-BLF, Dkt. No. 109 (N.D.
`Cal. Dec. 21, 2018) (SonicWall’s responsive claim construction brief).
`
`IEEE Standard Dictionary of Electrical and Electronic Terms, Sixth Edition
`(IEEE 1996) “instantiation (software)”
`
`CASE NO. 4:18-CV-07229-YGR
`
`QUALYS’S PATENT L.R. 4-2 DISCLOSURES
`
`

`

`Case 4:18-cv-07229-YGR Document 126-4 Filed 10/30/20 Page 11 of 15
`
`968
`494
`154
`
`“receiver”
`
`This term is subject to
`35 USC Section 112
`Paragraph 6 without
`corresponding structure
`
`968
`154
`
`“transmitter”
`
`This term is subject to
`35 USC Section 112
`Paragraph 6 without
`corresponding structure
`
`’154 Patent: Figs. 2-5; 6:60-65, 8:54-60, 15:26-29; claims 1-3
`’968 Patent: Figs 1-2; 1:10-23; 2:29-37; 3:31-46; 3:62-4:8; 7:35-56; 8:17-47;
`claims 1, 6, 7, 14, 15.
`’494 Patent: Abstract; Figs 1a-12b; 3:3-4:4; 4:15-41; 6:7-20; 7:30-8:4; 9:21-
`10:19; 11:65-12:47; 13:49-14:28; 14:55-15:64; 17:30-47; 18:56-20:31; 20:13-29;
`20:64-21:3; claims 1, 10
`
`Expert testimony that a person of ordinary skill in the art as of the priority dates
`of the respective patents, reading the respective patents’ specifications, would not
`be able to identify corresponding structure for the term “receiver.”
`’154 Patent: Figs. 2-5; 6:60-65, 8:54-60, 15:26-29; claims 1-3
`’968 Patent: Figs 1-2; 1:1-23; 3:41-61; 5:39-51; claims 1, 6, 7, 14, 15
`
`Expert testimony that a person of ordinary skill in the art as of the priority dates
`of the respective patents, reading the respective patents’ specifications, would not
`be able to identify corresponding structure for the term “transmitter.”
`’968 Patent, Abstract; Figure 1; Figure 2; 1:10-30; 1:37-54; 1:63-2:25; 2:28-67;
`3:3-11; 3:21-4:8; 4:14-19; 4:20-32; 4:33-41; 4:42-53; 4:54-5:6; 5:15-30; 5:31-51;
`5:52-6:6; 6:7-7:2; 7:11-22; 7:35-8:7; 8:8-16; 8:17-32; 8:33-47; 8:48-9:2; 9:9-11;
`Claims 1-38.
`
`968
`
`“known to be
`allowable
`relative to a
`given policy”
`/ “allowable
`relative to a
`given policy”
`
`Whether the given
`digital content may be
`sent to the web client
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,772,214
`
`February 9, 2005 Office Action in Application No. 10/376,215
`
`May 11, 2005 Response to Office Action in Application No. 10/376,215
`
`May 16, 2016 Decision Denying Institution of IPR
`
`Finjan, Inc. v. Blue Coat Sys., Inc., 879 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2018)
`
`Finjan, Inc. v. Blue Coat Sys., Inc., No. 13-CV-03999-BLF, 2015 WL 3630000,
`at *9 (N.D. Cal. June 2, 2015).
`
`Finjan, Inc. v. Sonicwall, Inc., No. 17-cv-04467-BLF (March 26, 2019)
`
`CASE NO. 4:18-CV-07229-YGR
`
`QUALYS’S PATENT L.R. 4-2 DISCLOSURES
`
`

`

`Case 4:18-cv-07229-YGR Document 126-4 Filed 10/30/20 Page 12 of 15
`
`Expert testimony that a person of ordinary skill in the art as of the priority date of
`this patent, would understand the plain and ordinary meaning of this term in the
`context of this patent to be “whether the given digital content may be sent to the
`web client.”
`’968 Patent, Abstract; Figure 1; Figure 2; 1:10-30; 1:37-54; 1:63-2:25; 2:28-67;
`3:3-11; 3:21-4:8; 4:14-19; 4:20-32; 4:33-41; 4:42-53; 4:54-5:6; 5:15-30; 5:31-51;
`5:52-6:6; 6:7-7:2; 7:11-22; 7:35-8:7; 8:8-16; 8:17-32; 8:33-47; 8:48-9:2; 9:9-11;
`Claims 1-38.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,772,214
`
`February 9, 2005 Office Action in Application No. 10/376,215
`
`May 11, 2005 Response to Office Action in Application No. 10/376,215
`
`May 16, 2016 Decision Denying Institution of IPR
`
`Finjan, Inc. v. Blue Coat Sys., Inc., 879 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2018)
`
`Finjan, Inc. v. Blue Coat Sys., Inc., No. 13-CV-03999-BLF, 2015 WL 3630000,
`at *9 (N.D. Cal. June 2, 2015).
`
`Finjan, Inc. v. Sonicwall, Inc., No. 17-cv-04467-BLF (March 26, 2019)
`
`Expert testimony that a person of ordinary skill in the art as of the priority date of
`this patent, would understand the plain and ordinary meaning of this term in the
`context of this patent to be “a memory storing [memory for storing] a collection
`of digital content previously requested and retrieved for a web client.”
`’968 Patent, Abstract; Figure 1; Figure 2; 1:10-30; 1:37-54; 1:63-2:25; 2:28-67;
`3:3-11; 3:21-4:8; 4:14-19; 4:20-32; 4:33-41; 4:42-53; 4:54-5:6; 5:15-30; 5:31-51;
`5:52-6:6; 6:7-7:2; 7:11-22; 7:35-8:7; 8:8-16; 8:17-32; 8:33-47; 8:48-9:2; 9:9-11;
`Claims 1-38.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,772,214
`
`968
`
`"a memory
`storing
`[memory for
`storing] a
`cache of
`digital
`content”
`
`a memory storing
`[memory for storing] a
`collection of digital
`content previously
`requested and retrieved
`for a web client
`
`968
`
`“dynamically
`generating a
`policy index”
`
`creating or updating a
`policy index in
`response to user
`requests for cached or
`non-cached content
`
`CASE NO. 4:18-CV-07229-YGR
`
`QUALYS’S PATENT L.R. 4-2 DISCLOSURES
`
`

`

`Case 4:18-cv-07229-YGR Document 126-4 Filed 10/30/20 Page 13 of 15
`
`February 9, 2005 Office Action in Application No. 10/376,215
`
`May 11, 2005 Response to Office Action in Application No. 10/376,215
`
`May 16, 2016 Decision Denying Institution of IPR
`
`Finjan, Inc. v. Blue Coat Sys., Inc., 879 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2018)
`
`Finjan, Inc. v. Blue Coat Sys., Inc., No. 13-CV-03999-BLF, 2015 WL 3630000,
`at *9 (N.D. Cal. June 2, 2015).
`
`Finjan, Inc. v. Sonicwall, Inc., No. 17-cv-04467-BLF (March 26, 2019)
`
`Expert testimony that a person of ordinary skill in the art as of the priority date of
`this patent, would understand the plain and ordinary meaning of this term in the
`context of this patent to be “creating or updating a policy index in response to
`user requests for cached or non-cached content.”
`Figs. 1-3; 2:1-3, 2:58-3:20, 5:63-6:16, 9:61-10:47, claim 1, 6, 7;
`
`Response to office actions 7/23/07, 1/4/08
`
`Expert testimony that a person of ordinary skill in the art as of the priority date of
`this patent, would understand the plain and ordinary meaning of this term in the
`context of this patent to be “Internet files requested by an intranet computer.”
`Figs. 2, 3, 1:7-9, 4:35-43, 4:46-5:3, 5:4-25, 5:38-52, 6:13-24-26, 7:12-19, 7:25-
`31, 8:45-47, 8:51-60, 8:63-66, 9:36-37, 9:55-10:4, Table I, Table III, 10:62-66,
`11:5-15, 12:11-24, 12:48-13:3, 13:8-20, 13:29-46, 14:4-15:13, Asserted ’154
`Claims;
`
`Palo Alto Networks v. Finjan (Fed. Cir. 2017)
`Juniper II, 387 F.Supp.3d at 1011-1013
`
`Expert testimony that a person of ordinary skill in the art as of the priority date of
`this patent, would understand the plain and ordinary meaning of this term in the
`
`731
`
`“incoming
`files from the
`Internet”
`
`Internet files requested
`by an intranet computer
`
`154
`
`“security
`computer”
`
`a computer that
`determines whether the
`content received by the
`content processor is
`malicious
`
`CASE NO. 4:18-CV-07229-YGR
`
`QUALYS’S PATENT L.R. 4-2 DISCLOSURES
`
`

`

`Case 4:18-cv-07229-YGR Document 126-4 Filed 10/30/20 Page 14 of 15
`
`context of this patent to be “a computer that determines whether the content
`received by the content processor is malicious.”
`
`CASE NO. 4:18-CV-07229-YGR
`
`QUALYS’S PATENT L.R. 4-2 DISCLOSURES
`
`

`

`Case 4:18-cv-07229-YGR Document 126-4 Filed 10/30/20 Page 15 of 15
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`I, Robin Pezzimenti, am employed in the Palo Alto, California office of Wilson Sonsini
`Goodrich & Rosati, P.C. I am over the age of 18 and not a party to the within action. My business
`address is 650 Page Mill Road, Palo Alto, California 94304-1050.
`On November 6, 2019, I caused the following document to be served:
` DEFENDANT QUALYS INC.’S PRELIMINARY DISCLOSURE OF INTRINSIC
`AND EXTRINSIC EVIDENCE
`
`via e-mail on the following individuals:
` Paul Andre (pandre@kramerlevin.com );
` Lisa Kobialka (lkobialka@kramerlevin.com ); and
`James Hannah (jhannah@kramerlevin.com).
`
`
`
`I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California and the United
`States that each of the above statements is true and correct.
`Executed on November 6, 2019, at Palo Alto, California.
`
`By:
`
`/s/ Robin Pezzimenti
`Robin Pezzimenti
`
`
`1 1
`
`2 2
`
`3 3
`
`4 4
`
`5 5
`
`6 6
`
`7 7
`
`8 8
`
`9 9
`
`10 10
`
`11 11
`
`12 12
`
`13 13
`
`14 14
`
`15 15
`
`16 16
`
`17 17
`
`18 18
`
`19 19
`
`20 20
`
`21 21
`
`22 22
`
`23 23
`
`24 24
`
`25 25
`
`26 26
`
`27 27
`
`28 28
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`CASE NO.:4:18-CV-07229-YGR
`
`