Case 4:18-cv-07229-YGR Document 132-4 Filed 11/05/20 Page 1 of 49
`Case 4:18-cv-07229—YGR Document 132-4 Filed 11/05/20 Page 1 of 49
`
`EXHIBIT C
`
`EXHIBIT C
`
`

`

`Case 4:18-cv-07229-YGR Document 132-4 Filed 11/05/20 Page 2 of 49
`
`
`
`
`
`PAUL 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
`KRISTOPHER B. KASTENS (State Bar No. 254797)
`kkastens@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.
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`OAKLAND DIVISION
`
`Case No.: 4:18-cv-07229-YGR
`
`PLAINTIFF FINJAN, INC.’S OBJECTIONS
`AND RESPONSES TO DEFENDANT
`QUALYS, INC.’S THIRD SET OF
`INTERROGATORIES (NOS. 10-12)
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`Defendant.
`
`FINJAN, INC., a Delaware Corporation,
`
`
`
`
`
`QUALYS, INC., a Delaware Corporation,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`FINJAN’S OBJECTIONS & RESPONSES TO QUALYS’
`THIRD SET OF INTERROGATORIES (NOS. 10-12)
`
`CASE NO.: 4:18-cv-07229-YGR
`
`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 132-4 Filed 11/05/20 Page 3 of 49
`
`
`Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26 and 33, Plaintiff Finjan, Inc. (“Finjan” or “Plaintiff”) responds to
`Defendant, Qualys, Inc.’s (“Qualys” or “Defendant”) Third Set of Interrogatories Nos. 10-12
`(“Interrogatories”). Finjan makes these objections and responses herein (collectively “Responses”)
`based on its current knowledge, understanding, and belief as to the facts and information reasonably
`available to it as of the date of the Responses.
`Additional discovery and investigation may lead to additions to, changes in, or modifications of
`these Responses. The Responses, therefore, are given without prejudice to Finjan’s right to
`supplement these Responses pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(e), or to provide subsequently discovered
`information and to introduce such subsequently discovered information at the time of any trial or
`proceeding in this action.
`
`GENERAL OBJECTIONS
`1.
`Finjan hereby incorporates by reference each and every general objection set forth
`below into each and every specific Response. From time to time, a specific Response may repeat a
`general objection for emphasis or for some other reason. The failure to include a general objection in a
`specific Response shall not be interpreted as a waiver of that general objection to that Response.
`2.
`Finjan objects to each and every Interrogatory, Definition, and Instruction to the extent
`that they are vague, ambiguous, unintelligible, or compound.
`3.
`Finjan objects to each and every Interrogatory, Definition, and Instruction to the extent
`that they are overly broad, unduly burdensome, seek information not relevant to the claim or defense of
`any party, and are not proportional to the needs of this case.
`4.
`Finjan objects to each and every Interrogatory, Definition, and Instruction to the extent
`that they are not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible information.
`5.
`Finjan objects to each and every Interrogatory, Definition and Instruction to the extent
`they are not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence because they are not
`properly limited in time.
`
`1
`FINJAN’S OBJECTIONS & RESPONSES TO QUALYS’
`THIRD SET OF INTERROGATORIES (NOS. 10-12)
`
`CASE NO.: 4:18-cv-07229-YGR
`
`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 132-4 Filed 11/05/20 Page 4 of 49
`
`
`6.
`
`Finjan objects to each and every Interrogatory, Definition, and Instruction to the extent that
`
`they are unduly burdensome and oppressive, to the extent they subject Finjan to unreasonable and undue
`effort or expense.
`7.
`Finjan objects to each and every Interrogatory, Definition, and Instruction to the extent that
`they seek information beyond Finjan’s actual knowledge, custody, or control.
`8.
`Finjan objects to each and every Interrogatory, Definition, and Instruction to the extent they
`are unreasonably cumulative or duplicative.
`9.
`
`Finjan objects to each and every Interrogatory, Definition, and Instruction to the extent they
`
`seek information that is obtainable from some other source that is more convenient, less burdensome, or
`less expensive.
`10.
`Finjan objects to each and every Interrogatory, Definition, and Instruction to the extent that
`they seek information within Defendant’s possession, custody or control.
`11.
`
`Finjan objects to each and every Interrogatory, Definition, and Instruction to the extent they
`
`seek information in the public domain, information equally available to Defendant from another source
`
`and/or information that can be obtained more efficiently by Defendant through other means of discovery.
`
`Defendant can ascertain such information from its own records or from other sources at least as readily as
`Finjan.
`12.
`
`Finjan objects to each and every Interrogatory, Definition, and Instruction to the extent that
`
`they seek confidential, business, financial, proprietary or sensitive information, or trade secrets of third
`
`parties, which may be subject to pre-existing protective order(s) and/or confidentiality agreements or in
`
`which any third party has an expectation of privacy. Such information shall not be provided absent an
`
`express order to the contrary from a court of competent jurisdiction, or an authorization from the third party
`having the interest in the information’s confidentiality.
`
`2
`FINJAN’S OBJECTIONS & RESPONSES TO QUALYS’
`THIRD SET OF INTERROGATORIES (NOS. 10-12)
`
`CASE NO.: 4:18-cv-07229-YGR
`
`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 132-4 Filed 11/05/20 Page 5 of 49
`
`
`13.
`
`Finjan objects to each and every Interrogatory, Definition, and Instruction to the extent they
`
`seek information protected by the attorney-client privilege, the work product doctrine, or any other
`
`applicable law, privilege, doctrine or immunity. Finjan will not disclose any information so protected, and
`
`the inadvertent disclosure or identification of any such information is not intended as, and will not
`
`constitute, a waiver of such privilege, doctrine, or immunity.
`
`14.
`
`Finjan objects to each and every Interrogatory, Definition, and Instruction to the extent they
`
`call for a legal conclusion. Finjan’s responses shall not be construed as providing legal conclusions
`
`concerning the meaning or application of any terms used in Defendant’s Interrogatories.
`
`15.
`
`Finjan objects to each and every Interrogatory, Definition, and Instruction to the extent that
`
`they are premature, as they seek information that is set to be disclosed on scheduled dates directed by the
`
`Court or the Northern District of California Patent Local Rules.
`
`16.
`
`Finjan objects to each and every Interrogatory, Definition, and Instruction as premature to
`
`the extent they seek information that will be the subject of expert testimony.
`
`17.
`
`Finjan objects to each and every Interrogatory, Definition, and Instruction to the extent that
`
`they impose obligations inconsistent with the stipulated protective order (Dkt. 34) or stipulated ESI order
`
`(Dkt. 37), or any other order to be entered in this case.
`
`18.
`
`Finjan objects to each and every Interrogatory, Definition, and Instruction to the extent they
`
`assume or mischaracterize any facts. Finjan’s responses shall not be construed as agreeing to any facts or
`
`characterizations contained in Defendant’s Interrogatories.
`
`19.
`
`Finjan objects to each and every Interrogatory, Definition, and Instruction to the extent that
`
`they purport to impose any requirement or discovery obligation greater than or different from those
`
`imposed by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Local Rules of this Court, or orders of the Court
`
`governing these proceedings.
`
`3
`FINJAN’S OBJECTIONS & RESPONSES TO QUALYS’
`THIRD SET OF INTERROGATORIES (NOS. 10-12)
`
`CASE NO.: 4:18-cv-07229-YGR
`
`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 132-4 Filed 11/05/20 Page 6 of 49
`
`
`20.
`
`Finjan objects to each and every Interrogatory, Definition, and Instruction to the extent that
`
`they are unduly burdensome and oppressive on the grounds that they purport to require Finjan to search its
`
`facilities and inquire of its employees other than those facilities and employees that would reasonably be
`
`expected to have responsive information. Finjan’s Responses and productions are based upon: (1) a search
`
`of facilities and files that could reasonably be expected to contain responsive information and (2) inquiries
`
`of Finjan’s employees and/or representatives who could reasonably be expected to possess responsive
`
`information.
`
`21.
`
`Finjan objects to each and every Definition, Instruction, and Interrogatory to the extent it is
`
`compound and/or contains multiple subparts. Finjan will count each subpart as a separate interrogatory
`
`pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 33(a). Finjan will not respond to interrogatories in excess of
`
`the allotted number of interrogatories stipulated by the parties in the joint case management statement (Dkt.
`
`23).
`
`22.
`
`Finjan’s written responses and production of documents are not intended to waive, and do
`
`not constitute waiver of, any objection that Finjan may have to the admissibility, authenticity, competency,
`
`relevance, or materiality of any documents produced or referred to in response to an Interrogatory. For any
`
`and all written responses and production of documents, Finjan reserves all objections or other questions
`
`regarding the admissibility, authenticity, competency, relevance, or materiality of any documents produced
`
`or referred to in response to an Interrogatory, as evidence in this Litigation or any other proceeding, action,
`
`or trial.
`
`23.
`
`Finjan’s written responses and production of documents are based upon information and
`
`writings available to and located by its attorneys as of service of these Responses. Finjan has not
`
`completed its investigation of the facts relating to this case, has not completed discovery in this action, and
`
`has not completed preparation for trial. All the information supplied and documents and things produced
`
`are based only on such information and documents that are reasonably available and specifically known to
`
`Finjan and its attorneys as of the date of service of these Responses. Therefore, Finjan’s written responses
`
`and production of documents are without prejudice to its right to supplement and/or amend its written
`
`4
`FINJAN’S OBJECTIONS & RESPONSES TO QUALYS’
`THIRD SET OF INTERROGATORIES (NOS. 10-12)
`
`CASE NO.: 4:18-cv-07229-YGR
`
`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 132-4 Filed 11/05/20 Page 7 of 49
`
`
`responses and production of documents and to present at trial or other proceeding evidence discovered
`
`hereafter.
`
`OBJECTIONS TO DEFINITIONS AND INSTRUCTIONS
`1.
`In addition to the objections set forth below, Finjan hereby specifically incorporates
`each and every general objection set forth above in its objections to Defendant’s definitions and
`instructions.
`2.
`Finjan objects to Defendant’s Definitions of the terms “Finjan,” “You,” and “Your,”
`and to each Interrogatory that incorporates any of these terms, to the extent they are overly broad and
`burdensome and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Finjan
`further objects to these definitions, and to each Interrogatory that incorporates any of these terms, to
`the extent that they call for a legal conclusion or seek documents or information protected from
`discovery by the attorney-client privilege, the work product doctrine, or any other applicable law,
`privilege, doctrine or immunity. Finjan further objects to these definitions, and to each Interrogatory
`that incorporates any of these terms, to the extent they include entities and persons over whom Finjan
`has no control.
`3.
`Finjan objects to Defendant’s Definition of the terms “any” and “all,” and to each
`Interrogatory that incorporates either of these terms, to the extent they are overly broad, unduly
`burdensome, not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence and not
`proportional to the needs of the case.
`4.
`Finjan objects to each of Defendant’s Instructions to the extent that they seek to impose
`any requirement or obligation greater or different than those imposed by the Federal Rules of Civil
`Procedure, the Local Rules of this Court, and/or orders of the Court governing these proceedings.
`5.
`Finjan objects to each of Defendant’s Instructions to the extent that they are they are
`overbroad, unduly burdensome and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible
`evidence.
`6.
`Finjan objects to each of Defendant’s Instructions to the extent that they are vague,
`ambiguous and/or unintelligible.
`
`5
`FINJAN’S OBJECTIONS & RESPONSES TO QUALYS’
`THIRD SET OF INTERROGATORIES (NOS. 10-12)
`
`CASE NO.: 4:18-cv-07229-YGR
`
`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 132-4 Filed 11/05/20 Page 8 of 49
`
`
`7.
`Finjan objects to each of Defendant’s Instructions to the extent that they impose
`obligations inconsistent with the agreed upon portions of the Joint Case Management Statement (No.
`23), Judge Rogers’s standing orders, the stipulated protective order (Dkt. 34) and/or the stipulated ESI
`order (Dkt. 37).
`8.
`Finjan further objects to Defendant’s Instructions to the extent they seek information
`protected by the attorney-client privilege, the work product doctrine, or any other applicable law,
`privilege, doctrine or immunity.
`
`INTERROGATORY RESPONSES
`Subject to and without waiving its general objections and objections to Definitions and
`Instructions set forth above, each of which is specifically incorporated into the specific Responses
`contained below, Finjan hereby responds to Defendant’s Interrogatories as follows:
`INTERROGATORY NO. 10:
`Identify every difference between the Canceled ’305 Claims and the Asserted ’305
`Claims that you contend materially alters the question of invalidity and provide a complete explanation
`for how that difference does so.
`RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 10:
`Finjan incorporates by reference its General Objections as if fully set forth herein. Plaintiff
`objects to this Interrogatory to the extent it is not proportional to the needs of the case, especially
`considering the parties’ relative access to relevant information, the parties’ resources, the importance
`of the discovery in resolving the issues, and whether the burden or expense of the proposed discovery
`outweighs its likely benefit. Plaintiff further objects to this Interrogatory to the extent it seeks
`information within Defendants’ possession, custody, or control, or to the extent it seeks information in
`the public domain. Plaintiff objects to this Interrogatory to the extent it assumes or mischaracterizes
`facts. Plaintiff objects to this Interrogatory to the extent it seeks information protected by the attorney-
`client privilege, the work product doctrine, the common interest doctrine, or any other applicable law,
`privilege, doctrine, or immunity. Plaintiff objects to this Interrogatory to the extent it is compound and
`contains multiple discrete subparts. Plaintiff objects to this Interrogatory to the extent Qualys has
`
`6
`FINJAN’S OBJECTIONS & RESPONSES TO QUALYS’
`THIRD SET OF INTERROGATORIES (NOS. 10-12)
`
`CASE NO.: 4:18-cv-07229-YGR
`
`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 132-4 Filed 11/05/20 Page 9 of 49
`
`
`exceeded the maximum permitted number of discrete interrogatories and subparts. Plaintiff objects to
`this Interrogatory to the extent it shifts Defendant’s burden in contesting validity of the asserted patents
`to Plaintiff. Plaintiff objects to this Interrogatory to the extent it calls for a legal conclusion. Plaintiff
`objects to this Interrogatory as premature to the extent it calls for subsequent discovery in this action
`and/or expert testimony that will be provided according to deadlines set by the Court. Plaintiff objects
`to this Interrogatory to the extent it seeks to impose any requirement or discovery obligation greater
`than or different from those imposed by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Local Rules of this
`Court, or orders of the Court governing these proceedings. Plaintiff objects to this Interrogatory to the
`extent it is vague and ambiguous, particularly as to the phrase “materially alters the question of
`invalidity.”
`Subject to and without waiving the forgoing general and specific objections, Plaintiff responds
`as follows:
`Claims 6-12, 14, and 17-25 of U.S. Patent No. 7,975,305 (“the ‘305 Patent”) have a scope that
`is different from Claims 1, 5, and 13 of the ‘305 Patent by virtue of the inclusion of additional
`limitations that narrow these claims and materially impact validity.
`Claim 6 of the U.S. Patent No. 7,975,305 (“the ‘305 Patent”) includes an additional limitation
`not recited by Claim 1. Specifically, Claim 6 recites “The system of claim 1 wherein the incoming
`content received from the Internet by said network interface is HTTP content.” Claims 1, 5, and 13 do
`not recite each element required by Claim 6.
`Claim 7 of the 305 Patent has an additional limitation not recited by Claim 1. Specifically,
`Claim 7 recites “The system of claim 1 wherein the incoming content received from the Internet by
`said network interface is HTTPS content.” Claims 1, 5, and 13 do not recite each element required by
`Claim 7.
`Claim 8 of the 305 Patent has an additional limitation not recited by Claim 1. Specifically,
`Claim 8 recites “The system of claim 1 wherein the incoming content received from the Internet by
`said network interface is FTP content.” Claims 1, 5, and 13 do not recite each element required by
`Claim 8.
`
`7
`FINJAN’S OBJECTIONS & RESPONSES TO QUALYS’
`THIRD SET OF INTERROGATORIES (NOS. 10-12)
`
`CASE NO.: 4:18-cv-07229-YGR
`
`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 132-4 Filed 11/05/20 Page 10 of 49
`
`
`Claim 9 of the 305 Patent has an additional limitation not recited by Claim 1. Specifically,
`Claim 9 recites “The system of claim 1 wherein the incoming content received from the Internet by
`said network interface is SMTP content.” Claims 1, 5, and 13 do not recite each element required by
`Claim 9.
`Claim 10 of the 305 Patent has an additional limitation not recited by Claim 1. Specifically,
`Claim 10 recites “The system of claim 1 wherein the incoming content received from the Internet by
`said network interface is POP3 content.” Claims 1, 5, and 13 do not recite each element required by
`Claim 10.
`Claim 11 of the 305 Patent has an additional limitation not recited by Claim 1. Specifically,
`Claim 11 recites “The system of claim 1 wherein the destination Internet application is a web
`browser.” Claims 1, 5, and 13 do not recite each element required by Claim 11.
`Claim 12 of the 305 Patent has an additional limitation not recited by Claim 1. Specifically,
`Claim 12 recites “The system of claim 1 wherein the destination Internet application is an e-mail
`client.” Claims 1, 5, and 13 do not recite each element required by Claim 12.
`Claim 14 of the 305 Patent has an additional limitation not recited by Claim 13. Specifically,
`Claim 14 recites “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.” Claims 1, 5, and 13 do not recite
`each element required by Claim 14.
`Claim 17 of the 305 Patent has an additional limitation not recited by Claim 13. Specifically,
`Claim 17 recites “The method of claim 13 further comprising preventing incoming content having a
`computer exploit that was recognized by said scanning from reaching its intended destination.” Claims
`1, 5, and 13 do not recite each element required by Claim 17.
`Claim 18 of the 305 Patent has an additional limitation not recited by Claim 13. Specifically,
`Claim 18 recites “The method of claim 13 wherein the incoming content received from the Internet by
`said network interface is HTTP content.” Claims 1, 5, and 13 do not recite each element required by
`Claim 18.
`
`8
`FINJAN’S OBJECTIONS & RESPONSES TO QUALYS’
`THIRD SET OF INTERROGATORIES (NOS. 10-12)
`
`CASE NO.: 4:18-cv-07229-YGR
`
`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 132-4 Filed 11/05/20 Page 11 of 49
`
`
`Claim 19 of the 305 Patent has an additional limitation not recited by Claim 13. Specifically,
`Claim 19 recites “The method of claim 13 wherein the incoming content received from the Internet by
`said network interface is HTTPS content.” Claims 1, 5, and 13 do not recite each element required by
`Claim 19.
`Claim 20 of the 305 Patent has an additional limitation not recited by Claim 13. Specifically,
`Claim 20 recites “The method of claim 13 wherein the incoming content received from the Internet by
`said network interface is FTP content.” Claims 1, 5, and 13 do not recite each element required by
`Claim 20.
`Claim 21 of the 305 Patent has an additional limitation not recited by Claim 13. Specifically,
`Claim 21 recites “The method of claim 13 wherein the incoming content received from the Internet by
`said network interface is SMTP content.” Claims 1, 5, and 13 do not recite each element required by
`Claim 21.
`Claim 22 of the 305 Patent has an additional limitation not recited by Claim 13. Specifically,
`Claim 22 recites “The method of claim 13 wherein the incoming content received from the Internet by
`said network interface is POP3 content.” Claims 1, 5, and 13 do not recite each element required by
`Claim 22.
`Claim 23 of the 305 Patent has an additional limitation not recited by Claim 13. Specifically,
`Claim 23 recites “The method of claim 13 wherein the destination Internet application is a web
`browser.” Claims 1, 5, and 13 do not recite each element required by Claim 23.
`Claim 24 of the 305 Patent has an additional limitation not recited by Claim 13. Specifically,
`Claim 24 recites “The method of claim 13 wherein the destination Internet application is an e-mail
`client.” Claims 1, 5, and 13 do not recite each element required by Claim 24.
`Claim 25 of the 305 Patent is independent of Claims 1-24. The limitations recited in Claim 25
`differ from the limitations recited in Claims 1-24. For example, Claim 25 recites “A computer-readable
`storage medium, the medium excluding signals, storing program code for causing a computer to
`perform the steps of […]” Claims 1, 5, and 13 do not recite each element required by Claim 25.
`
`9
`FINJAN’S OBJECTIONS & RESPONSES TO QUALYS’
`THIRD SET OF INTERROGATORIES (NOS. 10-12)
`
`CASE NO.: 4:18-cv-07229-YGR
`
`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 132-4 Filed 11/05/20 Page 12 of 49
`
`
`Finjan’s investigation into this matter, including discovery, is ongoing and Finjan will comply
`with Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(e) should additional information become known to it.
`INTERROGATORY NO. 11:
`For each Asserted Claim of each Asserted Patent, provide your complete factual basis for why
`the prior art reference(s) identified in Qualys’s Invalidity Contentions for that Asserted Claim, alone or
`in combination, do not anticipate or render obvious that Asserted Claim. A complete response
`includes, but is not limited to, an identification of each prior art reference along with the limitation(s)
`you contend is/are not disclosed by that reference.
`RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 11:
`Plaintiff incorporates by reference its General Objections as if fully set forth herein. Plaintiff
`objects to this Interrogatory to the extent it is overbroad and unduly burdensome as Defendants have
`yet to reasonably narrow their asserted prior art and invalidity theories in this case. Plaintiff objects to
`this Interrogatory to the extent it assumes or mischaracterizes facts. Plaintiff objects to this
`Interrogatory to the extent that it seeks information beyond Plaintiff’s actual knowledge, custody, or
`control. Plaintiff objects to this Interrogatory to the extent it seeks information protected by the
`attorney-client privilege, the work product doctrine, the common interest doctrine, or any other
`applicable law, privilege, doctrine, or immunity. Plaintiff objects to this Interrogatory to the extent it
`shifts Defendant’s burden in contesting validity of the asserted patents to Plaintiff. Plaintiff objects to
`this Interrogatory to the extent it calls for a legal conclusion. Plaintiff objects to this Interrogatory as
`premature to the extent it calls for subsequent discovery in this action and/or expert testimony that will
`be provided according to deadlines set by the Court. Plaintiff objects to this Interrogatory to the extent
`it seeks to impose any requirement or discovery obligation greater than or different from those
`imposed by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Local Rules of this Court, or orders of the Court
`governing these proceedings.
`Plaintiff objects to this Interrogatory to the extent it is compound and contains multiple discrete
`subparts and is, therefore, overbroad, unduly burdensome, and oppressive for asking Plaintiff in a
`single interrogatory response to address thousands of pages of invalidity contentions, more than 400
`
`10
`FINJAN’S OBJECTIONS & RESPONSES TO QUALYS’
`THIRD SET OF INTERROGATORIES (NOS. 10-12)
`
`CASE NO.: 4:18-cv-07229-YGR
`
`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 132-4 Filed 11/05/20 Page 13 of 49
`
`
`different specifically alleged prior art references and/or technologies, myriad anticipation and
`obviousness combinations, and seeking discovery into multiple discrete topics. Plaintiff further objects
`to this Interrogatory as unduly burdensome, overly broad, and as vague and ambiguous, particularly as
`to the phrases “the prior art reference(s) identified in Qualys’s Invalidity Contentions for that Asserted
`Claim, alone or in combination” because that term could be construed to encompass an unlimited
`number of different combinations. For example, there are over 160,000 combinations of two reference
`and over 64,000,000 possible combinations of three references. If Finjan were to provide just one page
`of response as to each possible combination, the length of its interrogatory response would approach
`2,000 copies of the final print edition of Encyclopedia Britannica (32,640 pages spanning 32 volumes).
`Plaintiff objects to this Interrogatory to the extent Qualys has exceeded the maximum permitted
`number of discrete interrogatories and subparts.
`Subject to and without waiving the forgoing general and specific objections, including that
`Qualys has far exceeded the allotment of interrogatories and that Finjan is, therefore, under no
`obligation to respond to this Interrogatory, Finjan responds as follows:
`The Asserted Patents are presumed valid under 35 U.S.C. § 282. Qualys has failed to provide
`clear and convincing evidence that any of its identified prior art references are prior art to the Asserted
`Patents or teach explicitly or implicitly the claim elements of the claims asserted in this matter.
`Moreover, Qualys, for its obviousness theories, has failed to provide any motivation to combine.
`By way of example, and not limitation, the prior art references cited by Qualys variously fail to
`disclose at least the following claim limitations:
` The “inspector,” “generating by the inspector a first Downloadable security profile that
`identifies suspicious code in the received Downloadable,” “linking by the inspector the first
`Downloadable security profile to the Downloadable before a web server makes the
`Downloadable available to web clients,” “memory for storing a first rule set,” “first content
`inspection engine,” “for using the first rule set to generate a Downloadable security profile,”
`“for linking the first Downloadable security profile to the Downloadable before a web server
`makes the Downloadable available to web clients,” or “a computer-readable storage medium
`
`11
`FINJAN’S OBJECTIONS & RESPONSES TO QUALYS’
`THIRD SET OF INTERROGATORIES (NOS. 10-12)
`
`CASE NO.: 4:18-cv-07229-YGR
`
`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 132-4 Filed 11/05/20 Page 14 of 49
`
`
`storing program code for causing a data processing system on [an inspector or a network
`gateway] to perform the steps of” elements as recited in one or more of the asserted claims of
`the U.S. Patent No. 6,154,844 Patent (“the ‘844 Patent”);
` The “a memory storing a cache of digital content,” “a memory storing … a policy index to the
`cache contents,” “the policy index including entries that relate cache content and policies by
`indicating cache content that is known to be allowable relative to a given policy, for each of a
`plurality of policies,” “a content scanner, communicatively coupled with said memory, for
`scanning a digital content received, to derive a corresponding content profile,” “a content
`evaluator, communicatively coupled with said memory, for determining whether a given digital
`content is allowable relative to a given policy, based on the content profile,” “saving the results
`of the determination as entries in the policy index,” or “receiving a user request for a digital
`content” elements as recited in one or more of the asserted claims of U.S. Patent No. 6,965,968
`(“the ‘968 Patent”);
` The “scanner,” “file cache for storing files that have been scanned by the scanner for future
`access,” “security profile cache,” “indexed,” “file identifier,” “security policy cache,” “wherein
`each of the file identifiers comprises a hash value derived from a corresponding one of the
`stored files,” “storing the retrieved file within a file cache of the network gateway for future
`access, and indexing the retrieved file in the file cache with a file identifier (ID),” “indexing the
`security profile in the security profile cache with the file ID of the retrieved file, so that when
`the same file is subsequently requested from the Internet, its security profile is readily
`accessible from the security profile cache without the need to perform said scanning” or
`“wherein the file IDs are hash values of files” elements as recited in one or more of the asserted
`claims of US 7,418,731 (“the ‘731 Patent”);
` The “a rule-based content scanner,” “network traffic probe,” “selectively diverting incoming
`content from its intended destination to said rule-based content scanner,” “database of parser
`and analyzer rules,” “patterns of types of tokens,” “rule update manager,” “wherein the
`incoming content is received from the Internet by said network interface is [HTTP, HTTPS,
`
`12
`FINJAN’S OBJECTIONS & RESPONSES TO QUALYS’
`THIRD SET OF INTERROGATORIES (NOS. 10-12)
`
`CASE NO.: 4:18-cv-07229-YGR
`
`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 132-4 Filed 11/05/20 Page 15 of 49
`
`
`FTP, SMTP or POP3] content,” “wherein the destination Internet application is a [web browser
`or e-mail client],” “preventing incoming content having a computer exploit that was recognized
`by said scanning from reaching its intended destination,” and “A computer-readable storage
`medium, the medium excluding signals, storing program code for causing a computer to
`perform the steps of,” elements as recited in one or more claims of U.S. Patent No. 7,975,305
`(“the ‘305 Patent”);
` The “dynamically building, by the computer while said receiving receives the incoming stream,
`a parse tree,” “dynamically detecting, by the computer while said dynamically building builds
`the parse tree, combinations of nodes in the parse tree which are indicators of potential exploits,
`based on the analyzer r