Case 4:18-cv-07229-YGR Document 132 Filed 11/05/20 Page 1 of 20
`
`
`
`Juanita R. Brooks (CA SBN 75934)
`brooks@fr.com
`Jason W. Wolff (CA SBN 215819)
`wolff@fr.com
`Megan A. Chacon (CA SBN 304912)
`chacon@fr.com
`FISH & RICHARDSON P.C.
`12860 El Camino Real, Suite 400
`San Diego, CA 92130
`Telephone: (858) 678-5070 / Fax: (858) 678-5099
`
`Robert P. Courtney (CA SBN 248392)
`courtney@fr.com
`FISH & RICHARDSON P.C.
`3200 RBC Plaza
`60 South 6th Street
`Minneapolis, MN 55402
`Telephone: (612) 335-5070 / Fax: (612) 288-9696
`
`Proshanto Mukherji (Admitted pro hac vice)
`mukherji@fr.com
`FISH & RICHARDSON P.C.
`One Marina Park Drive
`Boston, MA 02210
`Telephone: (617) 542-5070 / Fax (617) 542-8906
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff
`FINJAN LLC
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`(OAKLAND DIVISION)
`
`FINJAN LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability
`Company,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`QUALYS INC., a Delaware Corporation,
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`Case No. 4:18-cv-07229-YGR (TSH)
`
`PLAINTIFF FINJAN LLC’S
`OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT QUALYS
`INC.’S MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON
`THE PLEADINGS
`
`
`
`
`
` FINJAN’S OPPOSITION TO QUALYS MOTION 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 132 Filed 11/05/20 Page 2 of 20
`
`
`
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................... 1
`
`FACTUAL BACKGROUND ................................................................................................... 1
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`‘305 Patent ........................................................................................................................... 1
`
`Proceedings Involving the ‘305 Patent ................................................................................ 2
`
`Reexamination Proceedings ............................................................................................ 2
`
`Inter Partes Review (“IPR”) Proceedings ....................................................................... 3
`
`3. District Court Proceedings .............................................................................................. 3
`
`III.
`
`LEGAL STANDARDS ........................................................................................................ 4
`
`A. Motion for Judgement on the Pleadings under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(c) .................................. 4
`
`B.
`
`Invalidity Based on Obviousness ......................................................................................... 5
`
`C. Collateral Estoppel ............................................................................................................... 6
`
`IV.
`
`ARGUMENT ....................................................................................................................... 6
`
`A. Qualys’s Motion is an Improper Request for Summary Judgment ...................................... 6
`
`B. Qualys Fails to Satisfy the Requirements for Collateral Estoppel ....................................... 8
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`Claims 14, 17, and 25 .................................................................................................... 10
`
`Claims 6-12 and 18-24 .................................................................................................. 10
`
`V. CONCLUSION ....................................................................................................................... 14
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`i FINJAN’S OPPOSITION TO QUALYS MOTION
`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 132 Filed 11/05/20 Page 3 of 20
`
`
`
`
`Cases
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`
`Page(s)
`
`Arctic Cat Inc. v. Bombardier Rec. Prods.,
`876 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2017) .................................................................................................... 9
`
`Blonder-Tongue Labs., Inc. v. University of Illinois Found.,
`402 U.S. 313 (1971) ..................................................................................................................... 9
`
`Dunson v. Cordis Corp.,
`No. 16-cv-03076-SI, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 94873, 2016 WL 3913666 (N.D.
`Cal. Jul. 20, 2016) ........................................................................................................................ 5
`
`Durkin v. Shea & Gould,
`92 F.3d 1510 (9th Cir. 1996) ........................................................................................................ 9
`
`Enron Oil Trading & Transp. Co. v. Walbrook Ins. Co.,
`132 F.3d 526 (9th Cir. 1997) ........................................................................................................ 4
`
`ESET, LLC v. Finjan, Inc.,
`809 Fed. Appx. 1005 (Fed. Cir. 2020) ......................................................................................... 3
`
`In re Finjan, Inc.,
`777 Fed. Appx. 508 (Fed. Cir. 2019) ........................................................................................... 2
`
`Finjan, Inc. v. ESET, LLC and ESET SPOL. S.R.O.,
`17-cv-183 ..................................................................................................................................... 3
`
`Graham v. John Deere Co.,
`383 U.S. 1 (1966) ................................................................................................................ passim
`
`Hydranautics v. FilmTec Corp.,
`204 F.3d 880 (9th Cir. 2000) ........................................................................................................ 6
`
`Khoja v. Orexigen Therapeutics, Inc.,
`899 F.3d 988 (9th Cir. 2018) .................................................................................................... 5, 7
`
`KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc.,
`550 U.S. 398 (2007) ......................................................................................................... 5, 6, 8, 9
`
`Manzarek v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co.,
`519 F.3d 1025 (9th Cir. 2008) ...................................................................................................... 4
`
`Microsoft Corp. v. i4i Ltd. P’ship,
`564 U.S. 91 (2011) ....................................................................................................................... 5
`
`
`
`ii FINJAN’S OPPOSITION TO QUALYS MOTION
`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 132 Filed 11/05/20 Page 4 of 20
`
`
`
`Millennium Pharm., Inc. v. Sandoz Inc.,
`862 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2017) .................................................................................................... 6
`
`Novartis Pharm. Corp. v. W.-Ward Pharm. Int’l Ltd.,
`923 F.3d 1051 (Fed. Cir. 2019) .................................................................................................... 5
`
`Polaris Indus. v. Arctic Cat, Inc.,
`882 F.3d 1056 (Fed. Cir. 2018) .................................................................................................... 9
`
`Purdue Pharma L.P. v. Iancu,
`767 Fed. Appx. 918 (Fed. Cir. 2019) ................................................................................... 11, 12
`
`Purdue Pharma L.P. v. Mylan Pharm., Inc.,
`Civil Action No. 15-1155-RGA-SRF, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 28460 (Mar. 1,
`2017 D. Del.) .............................................................................................................................. 13
`
`Reyn’s Pasta Bella, LLC v. Visa USA, Inc.,
`442 F.3d 741 (9th Cir. 2006) ........................................................................................................ 6
`
`Sciele Pharma, Inc. v. Lupin Ltd.,
`684 F.3d 1253 (Fed. Cir. 2012) .................................................................................................... 6
`
`Sovereign Software LLC v. Victoria’s Secret Direct Brand Mgmt. LLC,
`778 F.3d 1311 (Fed. Cir. 2015) .............................................................................................. 6, 13
`
`Sprewell v. Golden State Warriors,
`266 F.3d 979 (9th Cir. 2001), opinion amended on denial of reh’g, 275 F.3d
`1187 (9th Cir. 2001) ..................................................................................................................... 5
`
`Thompson v. Illinois Dept. of Professional Regulation,
`300 F.3d 750 (7th Cir. 2002) ........................................................................................................ 5
`
`United States v. Ritchie,
`342 F.3d 903 (9th Cir. 2003) ........................................................................................................ 4
`
`Walling v. Beverly Enters.,
`476 F.2d 393 (9th Cir. 1973) ........................................................................................................ 4
`
`In re Warsaw Orthopedic, Inc.,
`832 F.3d 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2016) .................................................................................................... 6
`
`Statutes
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a) ................................................................................................................... 5, 6, 10
`
`35 U.S.C. § 282 .............................................................................................................................. 5, 9
`
`35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(1) ......................................................................................................................... 3
`
`
`
`iii FINJAN’S OPPOSITION TO QUALYS MOTION
`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 132 Filed 11/05/20 Page 5 of 20
`
`
`
`Other Authorities
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) ...................................................................................................................... 4
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(c) ........................................................................................................................... 4
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(d) .......................................................................................................................... 4
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 56 ............................................................................................................................... 4
`
`
`
`
`
`iv FINJAN’S OPPOSITION TO QUALYS MOTION
`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 132 Filed 11/05/20 Page 6 of 20
`
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Qualys Inc.’s (“Qualys”) motion for judgment on the pleadings (Dkt. No. 124, “Mot.”) is a
`
`premature summary judgment motion—relying on voluminous file history and other documents that
`
`are not part of the pleadings—while expert discovery is underway. The motion replaces a fulsome
`
`obviousness analysis that considers the Graham factors relating to obviousness with a legally
`
`erroneous hindsight analysis born of a mistaken application of collateral estoppel. There can be no
`
`dispute, however, that there is no final judgment finding claims 6-12, 14, and 17-25 of U.S. Patent
`
`No. 7,975,305 (“the Asserted Claims”) invalid or even addressing their attendant factual issues.
`
`Notably, where final adjudications regarding the Asserted Claims were made, the claims were found
`
`patentable. Qualys’s request that the Court take judicial notice (Dkt. No. 125) on cherry picked and
`
`disputed facts from the file history is improper; it seeks to have the Court weigh the record and find
`
`disputed facts in its favor. Qualys does this while wholly ignoring the evidence identified in the
`
`record that support the non-obviousness of the ‘305 Patent, including important objective indicia of
`
`non-obviousness.
`
`Finjan respectfully requests the Court deny Qualys’s motion and that Finjan’s evidence
`
`supporting the non-obviousness of the Asserted Claims be heard and tested against the expert
`
`discovery that is underway at this time. To ignore these issues and this evidence at this time is
`
`reversible error and short circuits the discovery process.
`
`II.
`
`FACTUAL BACKGROUND
`
`A.
`
`‘305 Patent
`
`The ‘305 Patent is generally directed towards network security and, in particular, rule based
`
`scanning of web-based content for exploits. Dkt. No. 1 at ¶ 17. One of the ways this is accomplished
`
`is by using parser and analyzer rules to describe computer exploits as patterns of types of tokens.
`
`Id. Additionally, the system provides a way to keep these rules updated. Id. The ‘305 Patent
`
`discloses and specifically claims inventive concepts that represent significant improvements over
`
`conventional network security technology that was available at the time of filing of the ‘305 Patent
`
`and are more than just generic software components performing conventional activities. Id.
`
`System claims 6-12 depend from Independent claim 1, but present further limitations with
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`FINJAN’S OPPOSITION TO QUALYS MOTION
`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 132 Filed 11/05/20 Page 7 of 20
`
`
`
`respect to “the incoming content received from the Internet by said network interface” referenced
`
`in the independent claim or with respect to the identification of “the designation Internet
`
`application.” Method claims 18-24 depend from Independent claim 13, and have limitations similar
`
`to claims 6-12. Method claim 14 depends from claim 13 and further limits the invention by “said
`
`database parser and analyzer rules stores parser and analyzer rules in the form of pattern-matching
`
`engines.” Method claim 17 also depends from claim 13 and further limits the invention by
`
`“comprising preventing incoming content having a computer exploit that was recognized by said
`
`scanning from reaching its intended destination.” Unlike the other Asserted Claims, claim 25 is an
`
`Independent claim. It is directed to a computer-readable storage medium, the medium including
`
`signals, that stores program code for a computer to conduct a series of steps to receive internet
`
`content, selectively divert that content, scan that content for malicious behavior using parser and
`
`analyzer rules, and updating a database of those rules for future identification.
`
`B.
`
`Proceedings Involving the ‘305 Patent
`
`1.
`
`Reexamination Proceedings
`
`On December 11, 2015, Proofpoint, Inc. filed a reexamination request of the ‘305 Patent
`
`(“Proofpoint Reexamination”), challenging the validity of Claims 1, 2, 5, and 13 (the
`
`“Reexamination Claims”). Dkt. No. 44-3. In evaluating the Reexamination Claims, the U.S. Patent
`
`and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) considered the Wells (US 8,140,660) and Sandu (US
`
`2005/0172338 Al) prior art references. The Sandu reference was previously considered by the
`
`Examiner during prosecution of the ‘305 Patent. The USPTO issued a final rejection of the
`
`Reexamination Claims (and only the Reexamination Claims) on August 24, 2016, which the Patent
`
`Trials and Appeals Board (“PTAB”) affirmed on July 2, 2018, six months before Qualys filed its
`
`first Answer in this action. Dkt. No. 125-2. The Federal Circuit subsequently affirmed the PTAB’s
`
`decision on September 6, 2019. See In re Finjan, Inc., 777 Fed. Appx. 508 (Fed. Cir. 2019). With
`
`the appeal concluded, on September 6, 2019, the USPTO published the reexamination certificate
`
`for the ‘305 Patent, reflecting the August 24, 2016 invalidation of the Reexamination Claims. Id.
`
`Asserted Claims 6-12, 14, and 17-25 were not at issue in these activities.
`
`Two additional reexamination requests were filed earlier this year. The first, filed on
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`FINJAN’S OPPOSITION TO QUALYS MOTION
`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 132 Filed 11/05/20 Page 8 of 20
`
`
`
`March 19, 2020 by third parties SonicWall and Rapid7, requests reexamination of a subset of the
`
`Asserted Claims here, specifically claims 6, 9, 11, 12, 17 and 25, based on the Wells (US Patent
`
`8,140,660), Sandu (US Pub. No. 2005/0172338 Al), and/or Freund (US Patent 5,987,611) prior art
`
`references. (Exh. A (SonicWall Reexamination).) Like the Sandu reference, the Freund reference
`
`was previously considered by the Examiner during original prosecution of the ‘305 Patent. That
`
`reexamination, however, is in its infancy and there are no final decisions by the PTAB or Federal
`
`Circuit to date. Id. The second reexamination request, filed on June 19, 2020 by third party ESET
`
`LLC, also requested reexamination of a partially overlapping group of the Asserted Claims here,
`
`specifically claims 3, 4, 7, 8, 10, 14, 15, 16, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, and 24, again based on the Wells,
`
`Sandu, and/or Freund prior art references. (Exh. B (ESET Reexamination).) That proceeding was
`
`terminated pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(1) because ESET was estopped from challenging the
`
`claims again. Id.
`
`Thus, there is no reexamination proceeding of record demonstrating the USPTO and Federal
`
`Circuit have issued a final judgment on the invalidity of the Asserted Claims.
`
`2.
`
`Inter Partes Review (“IPR”) Proceedings
`
`On July 31, 2018, the PTAB instituted review of claims 1-25 of the ‘305 Patent, challenging
`
`the claims as invalid based on anticipation and/or obviousness, while the Proofpoint Reexamination
`
`was on appeal. The PTAB held a full trial in its review of these claims and on January 24, 2019
`
`issued its Final Written Decision determining that the prior art at issue (Chandani and—again—
`
`Freund) did not anticipate or render obvious any of the ‘305 Patent claims. The PTAB’s decision
`
`was subsequently affirmed by the Federal Circuit. See ESET, LLC v. Finjan, Inc., 809 Fed. Appx.
`
`1005 (Fed. Cir. 2020).
`
`3.
`
`District Court Proceedings
`
`The ‘305 Patent is also the subject of ongoing litigation in the United States District Court
`
`for the Southern District of California. Finjan, Inc. v. ESET, LLC and ESET SPOL. S.R.O., 17-cv-
`
`183 CAB(BGS) (S.D. Cal.). There, Finjan asserts ESET infringes claims 3, 4, 6, 7, 11, 21, 23, and
`
`25 of the ‘305 Patent. Id. at Dkt. No. 1. On May 7, 2018, the Court imposed a stay of proceedings
`
`on the ‘305 Patent until the PTAB rendered a Final Written Decision regarding ESET’s IPR for
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`FINJAN’S OPPOSITION TO QUALYS MOTION
`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 132 Filed 11/05/20 Page 9 of 20
`
`
`
`claims 1-25, which were challenged as anticipated in view of Chandani and/or obvious in view of
`
`Freund and Chandani. As noted above, on January 24, 2019, the PTAB issued its Final Written
`
`Decision that was later affirmed by the Federal Circuit. In March 2020, the Court proceeded with
`
`trial on other patents in dispute aside from the ‘305 Patent. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic,
`
`however, that trial was terminated and the parties await a new trial. Id. at Dkt. No. 783.
`
`Subsequently, Finjan requested the Court officially lift the stay so that the parties may complete
`
`discovery and consolidate the ‘305 Patent dispute with the other patents at issue in the new trial. Id.
`
`at Dkt. No. 801. The Court did so on July 23, 2020. Id. at Dkt No. 802. The parties, however, await
`
`a new trial date and an opportunity to litigate the merits of the ‘305 Patent claims.
`
`III. LEGAL STANDARDS
`
`A. Motion for Judgement on the Pleadings under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(c)
`
`Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c) provides that “[a]fter the pleadings are closed—but
`
`early enough not to delay trial—a party may move for judgment on the pleadings.” Fed. R. Civ. P.
`
`12(c). “A judgment on the pleadings is properly granted when, taking all allegations in the pleadings
`
`as true, the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Enron Oil Trading & Transp.
`
`Co. v. Walbrook Ins. Co., 132 F.3d 526, 528 (9th Cir. 1997) (citing McGann v. Ernst & Young, 102
`
`F.3d 390, 392 (9th Cir. 1996)). When ruling on a Rule 12(c) motion, the Court must “accept factual
`
`allegations in the complaint as true and construe the pleadings in the light most favorable to the
`
`nonmoving party.” Manzarek v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 519 F.3d 1025, 1031 (9th Cir.
`
`2008). Any existing ambiguities must be resolved in favor of the pleading. Walling v. Beverly
`
`Enters., 476 F.2d 393, 396 (9th Cir. 1973).
`
`“If, on a motion under Rule 12(b)(6) or 12(c), matters outside the pleadings are presented to
`
`and not excluded by the court, the motion must be treated as one for summary judgment under Rule
`
`56.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(d). A court, however, may “consider certain materials—documents attached
`
`to the complaint, documents incorporated by reference in the complaint, or matters of judicial
`
`notice—without converting the motion to dismiss into a motion for summary judgment.” United
`
`States v. Ritchie, 342 F.3d 903, 908 (9th Cir. 2003).
`
`“The court need not, however, accept as true allegations that contradict matters properly
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`FINJAN’S OPPOSITION TO QUALYS MOTION
`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 132 Filed 11/05/20 Page 10 of 20
`
`
`
`subject to judicial notice or by exhibit.” Sprewell v. Golden State Warriors, 266 F.3d 979, 988 (9th
`
`Cir. 2001), opinion amended on denial of reh'g, 275 F.3d 1187 (9th Cir. 2001). “[W]hen a written
`
`instrument contradicts allegations in a complaint to which it is attached, the exhibit trumps the
`
`allegations.” Thompson v. Illinois Dept. of Professional Regulation, 300 F.3d 750, 754 (7th Cir.
`
`2002) (citation and quotation omitted, emphasis in original); see also Dunson v. Cordis Corp., No.
`
`16-cv-03076-SI, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 94873, 2016 WL 3913666, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Jul. 20, 2016).
`
`The court should not dismiss a complaint “unless it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove
`
`no set of facts in support of the claim that would entitle the plaintiff to relief.” Id. Moreover, the 9th
`
`Circuit has cautioned against the “overuse and improper application of judicial notice and the
`
`incorporation-by-reference doctrine” as it “can lead to unintended and harmful results.” Khoja v.
`
`Orexigen Therapeutics, Inc., 899 F.3d 988, 998 (9th Cir. 2018). It has further warned “the
`
`unscrupulous use of extrinsic documents to resolving competing theories against the complaint risks
`
`premature dismissals of plausible claims that may turn out to be valid after discovery.” Id.
`
`B.
`
`Invalidity Based on Obviousness
`
`“A patent shall be presumed valid.” 35 U.S.C. § 282. Qualys bears the burden of proving by
`
`clear and convincing evidence that the Asserted Claims of the ‘305 Patent are invalid. Microsoft
`
`Corp. v. i4i Ltd. P’ship, 564 U.S. 91, 95 (2011).
`
`To establish obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), Qualys must prove that “‘the differences
`
`between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as
`
`a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made’ to a person of ordinary skill
`
`in the art.” Novartis Pharm. Corp. v. W.-Ward Pharm. Int’l Ltd., 923 F.3d 1051, 1058 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2019); see also KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406 (2007). The question of obviousness
`
`is resolved on the basis of underlying factual determinations, including: (1) the scope and content
`
`of the prior art; (2) the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue; (3) the level of
`
`ordinary skill in the pertinent art; and (4) objective indicia such as commercial success, long felt but
`
`unresolved needs, the failure of others, and unexpected results. Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S.
`
`1, 17–18 (1966).
`
`In an obviousness analysis, it is a statutory requirement that the claim be viewed as a whole.
`
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`FINJAN’S OPPOSITION TO QUALYS MOTION
`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 132 Filed 11/05/20 Page 11 of 20
`
`
`
`See 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) (Pre-AIA). It is impermissible to use hindsight after viewing the claimed
`
`invention to determine whether one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would
`
`find the invention obvious. See Millennium Pharm., Inc. v. Sandoz Inc., 862 F.3d 1356, 1367 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2017). Additionally, the obviousness inquiry typically requires an analysis of “whether there
`
`was an apparent reason to combine the known elements in the fashion claimed by the patent at
`
`issue.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 418 (citing In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (requiring
`
`“articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of
`
`obviousness”)); see In re Warsaw Orthopedic, Inc., 832 F.3d 1327, 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (citing
`
`DyStar Textilfarben GmbH & Co. Deutschland KG v. C.H. Patrick Co., 464 F.3d 1356, 1360 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2006)). Moreover, “it may be harder to meet the clear and convincing burden when the
`
`invalidity contention is based upon the same argument on the same reference that the PTO already
`
`considered.” Sciele Pharma, Inc. v. Lupin Ltd., 684 F.3d 1253, 1260 (Fed. Cir. 2012).
`
`C.
`
`Collateral Estoppel
`
`Issue preclusion (sometimes called collateral estoppel) bars relitigation of issues adjudicated
`
`in an earlier proceeding if three requirements are met: (1) the issue necessarily decided at the
`
`previous proceeding is identical to the one which is sought to be relitigated; (2) the first proceeding
`
`ended with a final judgment on the merits; and (3) the party against whom collateral estoppel is
`
`asserted was a party or in privity with a party at the first proceeding. See Reyn's Pasta Bella, LLC v.
`
`Visa USA, Inc., 442 F.3d 741, 746 (9th Cir. 2006). With respect to the identicality element, in a
`
`patent case, “[i]f the differences between the unadjudicated patent claims and adjudicated patent
`
`claims do not materially alter the question of invalidity, collateral estoppel applies.” Sovereign
`
`Software LLC v. Victoria’s Secret Direct Brand Mgmt. LLC, 778 F.3d 1311, 1319 (Fed. Cir. 2015)
`
`(“Sovereign II”). Regarding the final judgment element, the moving party “bears the burden of
`
`showing with clarity and certainty what was determined by the prior judgment.” Hydranautics v.
`
`FilmTec Corp., 204 F.3d 880, 885 (9th Cir. 2000) (quoting Offshore Sportswear, Inc. v. Vuarnet
`
`Int’l, B.V., 114 F.3d 848, 850 (9th Cir. 1997)).
`
`IV. ARGUMENT
`
`A.
`
`Qualys’s Motion is an Improper Request for Summary Judgment
`
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`FINJAN’S OPPOSITION TO QUALYS MOTION
`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 132 Filed 11/05/20 Page 12 of 20
`
`
`
`The Court should deny Qualys’s motion for judgment on the pleadings as it substantially
`
`diverts from its bare bones pleadings regarding its defense and counterclaim for collateral estoppel
`
`(Dkt. No. 62 at ¶¶ 314-318), presenting hundreds of pages of new evidence for the Court’s
`
`consideration. Qualys’s motion should be seen for what it is, a premature and improper request for
`
`summary judgment.
`
`Qualys’s Motion is highly dependent on the Court judicially noticing multiple documents,
`
`and Finjan objects to judicial notice here. The 9th Circuit has cautioned against the overuse of
`
`judicial noticing recognizing that introducing documents outside of the pleadings where certain
`
`causes of action are contested risks premature dismissal of otherwise valid disputes that have not
`
`had the benefit of full discovery. See Khoja, 899 F.3d at 998 (“Yet the unscrupulous use of extrinsic
`
`documents to resolve competing theories against the complaint risks premature dismissals of
`
`plausible claims that may turn out to be valid after discovery.”) Qualys argues that the Court may
`
`judicially notice “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,” noting that such documents are a matter of public record. See Mot. at 3,
`
`12. While a Court may take judicial notice of matters of public record without converting a motion
`
`to dismiss into a summary judgment motion, it cannot take judicial notice of disputed facts contained
`
`in such public records. See Khoja, 899 F.3d at 999. Here, the factually rigorous comparison of the
`
`substance of the Asserted Claims to the prior art will soon be taken up by the parties’ experts in this
`
`case as expert reports will be served on December 1, 2020. Qualys should not be excused of its
`
`burden of demonstrating by clear and convincing evidence the alleged invalidity of the Asserted
`
`Claims by merely substituting public records for judicial notice, and particularly with no supporting
`
`obviousness analysis at all. This tactic presents the exact risk of premature dismissal cautioned
`
`against by the 9th Circuit. See Khoja, 899 F.3d at 998. The Court should thus decline Qualys’s
`
`request for judicial noticing and deny its disguised summary judgment motion at least until the
`
`parties have had the benefit of expert reports and discovery on the obviousness challenges and
`
`substantial record reflecting the objective indicia of non-obviousness that will be analyzed as part
`
`of the expert discovery phase. See Exh. C (Finjan Resp. to ROG 11, identifying such evidence); see
`
`
`
`
`
`7
`
`FINJAN’S OPPOSITION TO QUALYS MOTION
`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 132 Filed 11/05/20 Page 13 of 20
`
`
`
`also Graham, 383 U.S. at 17–18.
`
`B.
`
`Qualys Fails to Satisfy the Requirements for Collateral Estoppel
`
`Collateral estoppel does not apply here because the Asserted Claims have never been held
`
`invalid, nor has any judicial or administrative body evaluated their validity and determined they are
`
`invalid. In fact, the opposite occurred: the original examination resulted in the issuance of the
`
`Asserted Claims and each subsequent examination did not find the Asserted Claims unpatentable.
`
`To the extent the Court looks beyond the parties’ pleadings in conjunction with Qualys’s Motion, a
`
`fulsome examination of the record shows that Qualys conveniently glosses over relevant other
`
`proceedings involving the ‘305 Patent claims. First, there can be no dispute that the Proofpoint
`
`reexamination that serves as the basis for Qualys’s Motion did not include Asserted Claims 6-12,
`
`14, and 17-25. Qualys admits as much in its Motion. See Mot. at fn. 6 (11:27-28). No aspect of this
`
`reexamination evaluated the validity of these claims. Moreover, nowhere in Qualys’s Motion is
`
`there any mention of the IPR proceeding filed by ESET relating to the ‘305 Patent.1 The reason
`
`why is the PTAB found in its Final Written Decision that ESET failed to establish that any of the
`
`‘305 Patent claims are unpatentable as anticipated or obvious including in view of Freund, a finding
`
`subsequently affirmed by the Federal Circuit. See supra Section II.B.2.
`
`The exercise of determining whether a claim is invalid for obviousness is a rigorous one
`
`requiring evaluation and consideration of the Federal Circuit’s Graham factors and applicable
`
`objective indicia of non-obviousness. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 415 (rejecting a rigid approach to
`
`applying the Graham factors); see also Graham, 383 U.S. at 17–18. No such effort is made in
`
`Qualys’s motion. There is no declaration, no analysis, and not even lip service to the Graham
`
`factors. This is because Qualys asks the Court to assume what is not in the record, namely that Finjan
`
`made no challenge to the findings in the underlying r