Case 4:18-cv-07229-YGR Document 143 Filed 11/13/20 Page 1 of 17
`
`
`
`Juanita R. Brooks (CA SBN 75934)
`brooks@fr.com
`Roger A. Denning (CA SBN 228998)
`denning@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)
`
`FINJAN LLC’S OPPOSITION TO
`QUALYS INC.’S MOTION TO STRIKE
`PLAINTIFF FINJAN LLC’S
`INFRINGEMENT CONTENTIONS
`
`
`
`12/08/2020
`DATE:
`2:00 PM
`TIME:
`JUDGE: Hon. Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers
`Courtroom 1, 4th Floor
`PLACE:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`FINJAN LLC’S OPPOSITION TO QUALYS
`INC.’S MOTION TO STRIKE
`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 143 Filed 11/13/20 Page 2 of 17
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................. 1
`
`I.
`
`II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND ................................................................................................ 1
`
`III.
`
`LEGAL STANDARDS ...................................................................................................... 3
`
`IV. ARGUMENT .................................................................................................................... 4
`
`A. Finjan’s Infringement Contentions Are Sufficient Because the Infringement Contentions
`Reasonably Identify Hardware Receivers and Transmitters ...................................................... 4
`
`1. The ’408, ’494, and ’968 Patent Infringement Contentions Explicitly Identify Hardware
`Components for Receivers and Transmitters ........................................................................ 4
`
`2. The ’154 Patent Infringement Contentions Explicitly Identify Hardware As Do
`Documents Cited In Those Contentions ............................................................................... 7
`
`3. A Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art Would Understand Qualys’ Cloud-Based
`Applications Are Implemented with Hardware .................................................................... 8
`
`B. Finjan’s Infringement Contentions Are Sufficient and the Doctrine of Collateral Estoppel
`Does Not Attach to the Current Proceedings............................................................................. 9
`
`V. CONCLUSION ..................................................................................................................11
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`i
`
`
`
`FINJAN LLC’S OPPOSITION TO QUALYS
`INC.’S MOTION TO STRIKE
`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 143 Filed 11/13/20 Page 3 of 17
`
`
`
`Cases
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
` Page(s)
`
`Avago Techs., Inc. v. IPtronics Inc.,
`No. 5:10-CV-02863-EJD, 2015 WL 4647923 (N.D. Cal. 2015) ........................... 3
`
`Best Med. Int’l, Inc. v. Accuray, Inc.,
`No. 2:10-CV-1043, 2014 WL 1317594 (W.D. Pa. Mar. 31, 2014) ....................... 4
`
`Finjan, Inc. v. Juniper Networks, Inc.,
`387 F. Supp. 3d 1004 (N.D. Cal. 2019) ...................................................... 2, 9, 11
`
`Finjan, Inc. v. Juniper Networks, Inc.,
`825 F. App’x 922 (Fed. Cir. 2020) ............................................................. 2, 3, 11
`
`Finjan, Inc. v. Sophos, Inc.,
`No. 14-cv-01179-WHO, 2015 WL 5012679 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 24,
`2015) ................................................................................................................... 3
`
`France Telecom, S.A. v. Marvell Semiconductor, Inc.,
`2013 WL 1878912 (N.D. Cal. May 3, 2013) ........................................................ 4
`
`Microsoft Corp. v. AT & T Corp.,
`550 U.S. 437 (2007) ............................................................................................. 8
`
`Rates Tech., Inc. v. Mediatrix Telecom, Inc.,
`688 F.3d 742 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ............................................................................ 10
`
`Reyn’s Pasta Bella, LLC v. Visa USA, Inc.,
`442 F.3d 741 (9th Cir. 2006) .............................................................................. 10
`
`Shared Memory Graphics LLC v. Apple, Inc.,
`812 F. Supp. 2d 1022 (N.D. Cal. 2010) ................................................................ 3
`
`SpeedTrack, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc.,
`No. 4:09-cv-04479-JSW (KAW), 2018 WL 3328423 (N.D. Cal. Jul.
`6, 2018) ................................................................................................................ 4
`
`TecSec, Inc. v. Int’l Bus. Machines Corp.,
`731 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2013) .......................................................................... 10
`
`
`
`ii
`
`
`
`FINJAN LLC’S OPPOSITION TO QUALYS
`INC.’S MOTION TO STRIKE
`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 143 Filed 11/13/20 Page 4 of 17
`
`
`
`United Access Techs., LLC v. Centurytel Broadband Servs., LLC,
`No. CV 11-339-LPS, 2016 WL 5745085 (D. Del. Sept. 30, 2016) ..................... 10
`
`Other Authorities
`
`Cloud Computing, WIKIPEDIA,
`https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloud_computing#Architecture (last
`visited Nov. 12, 2020) .......................................................................................... 8
`
`F.C.R. 36 ......................................................................................................... passim
`
`Network Interface, WIKIPEDIA,
`https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_interface (last visited Nov.
`12, 2020) .............................................................................................................. 7
`
`Patent L.R. 3-1 .................................................................................................. 1, 3, 4
`
`Software, WIKIPEDIA, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software (last
`visited Nov. 12, 2020) .......................................................................................... 8
`
`
`
`
`
`
`iii
`
`
`
`FINJAN LLC’S OPPOSITION TO QUALYS
`INC.’S MOTION TO STRIKE
`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 143 Filed 11/13/20 Page 5 of 17
`
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Qualys, Inc.’s (“Qualys”) motion to strike Finjan, LLC’s (“Finjan”) infringement
`
`contentions (Dkt. No. 126, “Mot.”) should be denied. First, Qualys’ motion incorrectly argues that
`
`Finjan failed to identify hardware components that correspond to the “receiver” and “transmitter”
`
`limitations of the asserted claims. Finjan expressly identified physical components that satisfy these
`
`limitations in its infringement contentions, and Qualys’ argument takes an overly myopic view of
`
`Finjan’s infringement theories. Second, Qualys’ motion is not simply a motion to strike, but another
`
`attempted summary judgment motion seeking to resolve disputed factual issues premised on Qualys’
`
`interpretation of the claim construction order. Third, Qualys’ motion incorrectly argues that
`
`collateral estoppel resolves an open claim construction issue, but collateral estoppel does not apply
`
`here because the Federal Circuit’s Rule 36 affirmance did not resolve the underlying claim
`
`construction dispute. For these reasons and those explained below, Finjan respectfully requests the
`
`Court deny Qualys’ motion.
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`II.
`
`FACTUAL BACKGROUND
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`Finjan’s complaint alleges that Qualys infringes U.S. Patent Nos. 8,677,494 (the “’494
`
`Patent”), 6,154,844 (the “’844 Patent”), 8,141,154 (the “’154 Patent”), 6,965,968 (the “’968
`
`Patent”), 7,418,731 (the “’731 Patent”), 7,975,305 (the “’305 Patent”), and 8,225,408 (the “’408
`
`Patent”). On April 19, 2019, Finjan served its Patent L.R. 3-1 Disclosure of Asserted Claims and
`
`Infringement Contentions (“Infringement Contentions”). See generally Dkt. No. 126-12 (Ex. 11 to
`
`Mot.). Finjan’s Infringement Contentions identified various accused products within Qualys’ cloud
`
`platform. On October 30, 2020, Qualys moved to strike Finjan’s Infringement Contentions
`
`concerning the ’154, ’408, ’494, and ’968 patents (the “patents at issue”). See, generally, Mot.1
`
`The patents at issue are generally directed towards network security and, in particular, to
`
`detecting and safely processing vulnerable and malicious web-content. Each of the patents at issue
`
`claim either a “receiver” and/or a “transmitter” for receiving and transmitting information (e.g.,
`
`downloadable web-content, computer code, and security indicators) over a network. During
`
`
`1 Footnote 3 of Qualys’ motion suggests the parties agreed to narrow the scope of the case. Finjan
`did not unilaterally withdraw that offer, though neither party has yet offered to narrow the case.
`
`FINJAN LLC’S OPPOSITION TO QUALYS
`1
`INC.’S MOTION TO STRIKE
`Case No. 4:18-cv-07229-YGR (TSH)
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 4:18-cv-07229-YGR Document 143 Filed 11/13/20 Page 6 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
`
`
`
`Markman proceedings, the parties disputed whether Section 112, paragraph 6 (means-plus-function)
`
`applied to the terms “receiver” and “transmitter” for some of the patents. See Dkt. No. 74 (Claim
`
`Construction Order) at 26:1 – 29:15. The parties raised this dispute for only the ’154, ’494, and
`
`’968 patents. Id. On June 11, 2020, the Court issued a claim construction order, which addressed
`
`the disputed terms for the ’154, ’494, and ’968 patents. Id. The claim construction order neither
`
`construed nor analyzed the terms “receiver” or “transmitter” in the ’408 patent.
`
`The Court found Section 112, paragraph 6, did not apply to (1) the term “receiver” in the
`
`’494, ’968, and ’154 Patents, or (2) the term “transmitter” in the ’968 and ’154 Patents. Id. The
`
`Court further noted the claims “appear to be directed to a hardware implementation” where the
`
`receivers and transmitters are distinct components. See, e.g., id. at 27:24-25. Finjan’s Infringement
`
`contentions cite to Qualys’ physical scanning appliances and network interfaces as infringing the
`
`claimed receivers and transmitters on almost twenty different instances. See, e.g., Exh. A2 (Excerpts
`
`of Finjan’s Infringement Contentions); see also Dkt. No. 126-12 (Ex. 11 to Mot.).
`
`The Court also addressed the disputed term “content processor,” as claimed within the ’154
`
`Patent. The ’154 Patent claims “a content processor (i) for processing content received over a
`
`network, the content including a call to a first function, and the call including an input, and (ii) for
`
`invoking a second function with the input, only if a security computer indicates that such invocation
`
`is safe.” During Markman proceedings, the parties disputed whether the content processor must
`
`process “modified content.” The Court declined to address this issue in view of the then-pending
`
`appeal of the claim construction in Finjan, Inc. v. Juniper Networks, Inc. (“Juniper”), 387 F. Supp.
`
`3d 1004, 1013 (N.D. Cal. 2019), where the court reasoned that the “content processor” processes
`
`modified content. See also Dkt. No. 74 (Claim Construction Order) at 22:6-7 (noting the Court
`
`declined to address the “modified content” issue until “the Federal Circuit resolves this dispute.”).
`
`The Federal Circuit’s Rule 36 affirmance, however, did not expressly address the claim
`
`construction issue. Finjan, Inc. v. Juniper Networks, Inc., 825 F. App’x 922 (Fed. Cir. 2020)
`
`(issuing a summary affirmance without a written opinion). In Juniper, the parties submitted briefing
`
`
`2 The Exhibits (“Exh.”) are attached to the Declaration of Jason W. Wolff ISO of Finjan LLC’s
`Opposition to Qualys Inc.’s Motion to Strike Plaintiff Finjan LLC’s Infringement Contentions.
`
`FINJAN LLC’S OPPOSITION TO QUALYS
`2
`INC.’S MOTION TO STRIKE
`Case No. 4:18-cv-07229-YGR (TSH)
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 4:18-cv-07229-YGR Document 143 Filed 11/13/20 Page 7 of 17
`
`
`
`and presented oral argument that collectively addressed both the ’154 Patent claim construction and
`
`damages issues related to all patents in suits. During oral argument, for example, counsel for Finjan
`
`addressed the potential effects of a decision to vacate or reverse the damages and patent infringement
`
`issues—which affected all the patents at issue, including the ’154 Patent. Oral Argument at 28:32-
`
`32:54,
`
`Finjan,
`
`Inc.
`
`v.
`
`Juniper
`
`Networks,
`
`Inc.,
`
`825
`
`F.
`
`App’x
`
`922,
`
`http://oralarguments.cafc.uscourts.gov/default.aspx?fl=19-2405_10072020.mp3. At oral argument,
`
`Finjan confirmed it would have no remedy if the Federal Circuit sent back the claim construction or
`
`infringement issues but did not also reverse the District Court’s exclusion of Finjan’s damages
`
`expert. Id. When asked if the damages issue applied to all patents, counsel for Finjan confirmed
`
`that it did and therefore a reversal of liability without a reversal of the District Court’s order
`
`excluding Finjan’s damages expert, would result in a wrong without a remedy. Id. In other words,
`
`at least two independent bases existed for affirmance—the overall damages issues, which would
`
`leave Finjan with no remedy for any patent regardless of the liability issues, or the disputed legal
`
`issues around claim construction and infringement on the ’154 Patent.
`
`III. LEGAL STANDARDS
`
`Under Patent Local Rule 3-1, the party claiming patent infringement must serve
`
`infringement contentions on all other parties, as specified in Patent Local Rules 3-1(a)-(f). Patent
`
`L.R. 3-1. All courts agree that, to satisfy the specificity requirement of Patent Local Rule 3-1(c),
`
`infringement contentions need only (1) “raise a reasonable inference that all accused products
`
`infringe” and (2) “provide reasonable notice to the defendant why the plaintiff believes it has a
`
`‘reasonable chance of proving infringement.’” Shared Memory Graphics LLC v. Apple, Inc., 812
`
`F. Supp. 2d 1022, 1025 (N.D. Cal. 2010) (citations omitted); see also, e.g., Finjan, Inc. v. Sophos,
`
`Inc., No. 14-cv-01179-WHO, 2015 WL 5012679, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 24, 2015). “Striking a
`
`patentee’s infringement contentions is a severe sanction that should be used sparingly and only for
`
`good cause.” Avago Techs., Inc. v. IPtronics Inc., No. 5:10-CV-02863-EJD, 2015 WL 4647923, at
`
`*2 (N.D. Cal. 2015) (citation omitted). “In this district, motions to strike initial contentions are
`
`[therefore] frequently treated as motions to compel the amendment of infringement contentions.”
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`FINJAN LLC’S OPPOSITION TO QUALYS
`INC.’S MOTION TO STRIKE
`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 143 Filed 11/13/20 Page 8 of 17
`
`
`
`See, e.g., SpeedTrack, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., No. 4:09-cv-04479-JSW (KAW), 2018 WL
`
`3328423, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Jul. 6, 2018).
`
`IV. ARGUMENT
`
`A.
`
`Finjan’s Infringement Contentions Are Sufficient Because the Infringement
`Contentions Reasonably Identify Hardware Receivers and Transmitters
`
`Finjan’s claim charts reasonably identify hardware components that infringe the “receiver”
`
`and “transmitter” limitations of the ’154, ’408, ’494, and ’968 patents, in a manner sufficient to
`
`satisfy the requirements of Patent L.R. 3-1(c). Under Patent Local Rule 3-1(c), infringement
`
`contentions must specifically identify how each limitation of each asserted claim is found within the
`
`accused products, and they should be sufficient to support the inference that a person skilled in the
`
`art would understand the accused products infringe the asserted claims, and as such plaintiff’s may
`
`consider the knowledge of a person in the relevant industry. See e.g., France Telecom, S.A. v.
`
`Marvell Semiconductor, Inc., 2013 WL 1878912, at *4 (N.D. Cal. May 3, 2013) (finding plaintiff’s
`
`infringement contentions were sufficient where the plaintiff relied on industry standards to show a
`
`reasonable inference of infringement); see also Best Med. Int’l, Inc. v. Accuray, Inc., No. 2:10-CV-
`
`1043, 2014 WL 1317594, at *5 (W.D. Pa. Mar. 31, 2014). As discussed below, Finjan’s
`
`Infringement Contentions, alone and in combination with the cited documentation and the
`
`knowledge of a person of ordinary skill in the art, provide reasonable notice of its infringement
`
`theories regarding the identified hardware components that satisfy the “receiver” and “transmitter”
`
`limitations of the asserted claims.
`
`1.
`
`The ’408, ’494, and ’968 Patent Infringement Contentions Explicitly
`Identify Hardware Components for Receivers and Transmitters
`
`Qualys’ allegation that Finjan “fails to identify any hardware whatsoever for” the “receiver”
`
`and “transmitter” limitations” of asserted patents is without merit. See Mot. at 2:13-14, 6:14-16.
`
`As shown below, for example, Finjan’s infringement contentions for at least the ’408, ’494, and
`
`’968 patents explicitly identify physical scanning appliances as the receivers and/or transmitters of
`
`the accused products:
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`FINJAN LLC’S OPPOSITION TO QUALYS
`INC.’S MOTION TO STRIKE
`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 143 Filed 11/13/20 Page 9 of 17
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`See, e.g., Dkt. No. 126-12 (Ex. 11 to Mot.) at p. 410.
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`See, e.g., Dkt. No. 126-12 (Ex. 11 to Mot.) at p. 473.
`
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`FINJAN LLC’S OPPOSITION TO QUALYS
`INC.’S MOTION TO STRIKE
`Case No. 4:18-cv-07229-YGR (TSH)
`
`

`

`Case 4:18-cv-07229-YGR Document 143 Filed 11/13/20 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
`
`
`
`
`
`See, e.g., Dkt. No. 126-12 (Ex. 11 to Mot.) at p. 133.
`
`Qualys’ motion overlooks the numerous instances where Finjan points to both physical
`
`receivers and transmitters on the face of the infringement contentions themselves. See, e.g., Dkt.
`
`No. 126-12 (Ex. 11 to Mot.) at 133-34, 409-10, 472-73.
`
`Furthermore, any alleged deficiencies with respect to the ’408 patent are additionally
`
`improper because the Court’s claim construction order does not construe or address either the term
`
`receiver or transmitter in relation to the ’408 patent. See Dkt. No. 74 (Claim Construction Order) at
`
`26:1 – 29 (identifying “receiver” and “transmitter” as disputed terms in only the ’494, ’968, and
`
`’154 Patents). Additionally, Claims 1, 22, and 23 of the ’408 patent are method and computer
`
`readable storage medium claims, which do not require hardware. Qualys’ allegation is, therefore,
`
`factually incorrect to the extent it argues the receiver and transmitter of the ’408 patent must
`
`correspond to hardware components. Although Finjan does point to hardware components to
`
`support its infringement contentions for the ’408 patent, this is by no means required by the Court’s
`
`claim construction order. The present motion both improperly overextends the application of the
`
`Court’s claim construction order and overlooks Finjan’s explicit disclosure of hardware transmitters
`
`and receivers. Qualys’ motion should therefore be denied.
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`FINJAN LLC’S OPPOSITION TO QUALYS
`INC.’S MOTION TO STRIKE
`Case No. 4:18-cv-07229-YGR (TSH)
`
`

`

`Case 4:18-cv-07229-YGR Document 143 Filed 11/13/20 Page 11 of 17
`
`
`
`2.
`
`The ’154 Patent Infringement Contentions Explicitly Identify Hardware
`As Do Documents Cited In Those Contentions
`
`Finjan’s infringement contentions identify accused hardware for the transmitter and receiver
`
`limitations because they identify “network interfaces,” which can be implemented as hardware:
`
`See, e.g., Exh. A (Excerpts of Finjan’s Infringement Contentions) at pp. 6-21; see also Dkt. No.
`
`126-12 (Ex. 11 to Mot.) at 386-92, 394-400 (alleging that each accused product includes network
`
`interfaces).
`
`
`
`
`
`The contentions allege that each accused system includes network interfaces for transmitting and
`
`receiving. A person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that network interfaces are
`
`implemented with hardware
`
`and
`
`software.
`
` See Network
`
`Interface, WIKIPEDIA,
`
`https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_interface (last visited Nov. 12, 2020). A person of ordinary
`
`skill in the art would further understand from the contentions that the accused receivers and
`
`transmitters may reside on hardware in the cloud or on hardware on the protected computers or
`
`scanners, all of which include network interfaces. See id. Accordingly, the contention claim charts
`
`explicitly identify hardware transmitters and receivers.
`
`Qualys also overlooks the supporting documentation cited within Finjan’s infringement
`
`contentions. As an initial matter, Qualys provides online services hosted on hardware controlled
`
`and operated by Qualys—namely, the “Qualys Cloud Platform.” Finjan’s Infringement Contentions
`
`for the ’154 patent cite to documents that explicitly reference hardware components that satisfy the
`
`“receiver” and “transmitter” limitations of the asserted claims. The accused products include cloud-
`
`based applications and services that are “powered by the Qualys Cloud Platform.” See, e.g., Exh. B
`
`(Vulnerability Management Datasheet3) at 038137-139; see also Dkt. No. 126-12 (Ex. 11 to Mot.)
`
`at pp. 386, 394. As illustrated above and further noted in the cited documents, the Qualys Cloud
`
`
`3 Referenced in Exh. A (Excerpts of Finjan’s Infringement Contentions) as “vulnerability-
`management-datasheet.pdf,” which was produced at FINJAN-QUALYS 038136.
`
`FINJAN LLC’S OPPOSITION TO QUALYS
`7
`INC.’S MOTION TO STRIKE
`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 143 Filed 11/13/20 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
`
`
`
`Platform is composed of physical appliances such as sensors. See, e.g., id. (“[T]he Qualys Cloud
`
`Platform sensors . . . come as physical or virtual appliances, or lightweight agents.”); see also Exh.
`
`C (Qualys Cloud Platform4) at 041181 (illustrating that Qualys Cloud Platform comprises physical
`
`components); Exh. A (Excerpts of Finjan’s Infringement Contentions). It is therefore indisputable
`
`that the Qualys Cloud Platform includes hardware controlled and operated by Qualys to run its
`
`accused products as identified in the infringement contentions. As discussed below, a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art would reasonably understand that the disclosed receivers and transmitters
`
`refer to physical components that correspond to the claimed “receiver” and “transmitter.” See Cloud
`
`Computing, WIKIPEDIA, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloud_computing#Architecture (last visited
`
`Nov. 12, 2020). Qualys’ motion should therefore be denied.
`
`3.
`
`A Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art Would Understand Qualys’ Cloud-
`Based Applications Are Implemented with Hardware
`
`Qualys’ argument fails to consider the knowledge of a person of ordinary skill in the art as
`
`it relates to cloud-based applications and services such as the accused products. A person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art would understand that a cloud platform is a hosted service and that a citation
`
`to a computer doing something requires computer hardware. Computer software does nothing until
`
`it is run on a piece of hardware. See Microsoft Corp. v. AT & T Corp., 550 U.S. 437, 446 (2007)
`
`(noting that infringement occurs only when software is installed and executed on a computer).
`
`Finjan’s infringement contentions assert that each of the accused products include a receiver and a
`
`transmitter, and the parties do not dispute this fact. See Mot. at 7:9 – 8:2. Instead, Qualys
`
`erroneously contends that the disclosed contentions do not sufficiently identify hardware receivers
`
`and transmitters. A person of ordinary skill in the art, however, would understand that cloud-based
`
`services are performed on physical computing devices (e.g., a server) accessed over a network (e.g.,
`
`the cloud), and that hardware is required for the service to perform any acts as dictated by the
`
`software.
`
` Microsoft Corp., 550 U.S. at 446;
`
`see also Software, WIKIPEDIA,
`
`https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software (last visited Nov. 12, 2020); Cloud Computing, WIKIPEDIA,
`
`
`4 Referenced in Exh. A (Excerpts of Finjan’s Infringement Contentions) as “qsc18-day1-03-cloud-
`platform.pdf,” which was produced at FINJAN-QUALYS 041177.
`
`FINJAN LLC’S OPPOSITION TO QUALYS
`8
`INC.’S MOTION TO STRIKE
`Case No. 4:18-cv-07229-YGR (TSH)
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 4:18-cv-07229-YGR Document 143 Filed 11/13/20 Page 13 of 17
`
`
`
`https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloud_computing#Architecture (last visited Nov. 12, 2020). A
`
`person of skill in the art would also understand a computer would include the very same commodity
`
`hardware components recited in the claim limitations—namely, a processor, receiver, and
`
`transmitter—for implementing the infringing functionality. Finjan’s Infringement Contentions, and
`
`the supporting documentation therein, reasonably identifies hardware receivers and transmitters for
`
`each accused product. Qualys’ Motion to Strike any related infringement contentions should
`
`therefore be denied.
`
`B.
`
`Finjan’s Infringement Contentions Are Sufficient and the Doctrine of Collateral
`Estoppel Does Not Attach to the Current Proceedings
`
`Qualys argues the ’154 Patent infringement contentions are deficient because they “do not
`
`identify where or how the accused products process modified content.” Mot. at 5. Finjan’s
`
`contentions show that content is processed by Qualys’ accused products, and specifically at various
`
`components in the Qualys Cloud. See, e.g., Dkt. No. 126-12 at 362, 363 (Internet Gateway), 375
`
`(Vulnerability Management), 376 (Threat Protection), 377 (IOC in combination with Cloud Agent),
`
`378 (Security Container), 379 (Web App Firewall), 381 (Compliance Monitoring through
`
`Vulnerability Management), and 384 (doctrine of equivalents). In each instance, the disclosures
`
`identify how the modified content is processed—by performing the core function of the identified
`
`content processor. Id. Qualys disputes that disclosure is sufficient—an allegation it could have
`
`sought relief on over a year ago—but summarily urges the Court to find facts in its favor that it has
`
`not articulated nor given Finjan a fair opportunity to respond.
`
`The underlying issue seems to be Qualys’ misapplication of the doctrine of collateral
`
`estoppel on the unresolved claim construction issues from this Court’s claim construction order
`
`(Dkt. No. 74) because it contends Finjan’s infringement theories are similar to what was permitted
`
`in Juniper case where summary judgment was granted. Mot. at 5. However, the doctrine of
`
`collateral estoppel does not render Finjan’s Infringement Contentions insufficient in view of the
`
`ambiguity raised by recent Federal Circuit decision—the Rule 36 affirmance in Juniper. The
`
`doctrine of collateral estoppel bars a party from relitigating issues adjudicated in an earlier
`
`proceeding if three requirements are met: (1) the issue necessarily decided at the previous
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`FINJAN LLC’S OPPOSITION TO QUALYS
`INC.’S MOTION TO STRIKE
`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 143 Filed 11/13/20 Page 14 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
`
`
`
`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). Qualys’ reliance on only a general restatement of the
`
`rules of attachments does not adequately support its argument that collateral estoppel applies here.
`
`Mot. at 5:18-25. Qualys fails to cite any cases that specifically address the circumstances at hand—
`
`namely, the applicability of a Rule 36 affirmance where it is unclear if one of multiple issues were
`
`necessary to the decision. Id. While a Rule 36 affirmance may give rise to collateral estoppel, the
`
`application of collateral estoppel based on a summary affirmance is not a blanket rule that
`
`circumvents the fundamental requirements for attachment, which includes a clear finding that the
`
`“the issue [was] necessarily decided at the previous proceeding.” Reyn’s Pasta Bella, 442 F.3d at
`
`746; see also TecSec, Inc. v. Int’l Bus. Machines Corp., 731 F.3d 1336, 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2013).
`
`A Rule 36 judgment does not endorse the underlying trial court’s reasoning. See Rates
`
`Tech., Inc. v. Mediatrix Telecom, Inc., 688 F.3d 742, 750 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (“Since there is no
`
`opinion, a Rule 36 judgment simply confirms that the trial court entered the correct judgment. It
`
`does not endorse or reject any specific part of the trial court’s reasoning.”). Thus, in instances where
`
`multiple, independent determinations could lead to the correct judgment, neither determination is
`
`necessary to the judgment. See TecSec, Inc., 731 F.3d at 1343 (“[W]here the court in the prior suit
`
`has determined two issues, either of which could independently support the result, then neither
`
`determination is considered essential to the judgment.”) (citations omitted). This rationale may
`
`extend to appellate arguments presented by counsel. See United Access Techs., LLC v. Centurytel
`
`Broadband Servs., LLC, No. CV 11-339-LPS, 2016 WL 5745085, at *5 (D. Del. Sept. 30, 2016)
`
`(finding collateral estoppel does not apply “under the specific circumstances . . . where there is
`
`‘some ambiguity’ as to whether an issue was ‘necessarily decided’ in a prior case, and that ambiguity
`
`arises from a party’s express appellate argument for affirmance on alternative, independent grounds
`
`. . .”) (citations omitted).
`
`Collateral estoppel is, therefore, improper where, as here, it is impossible to determine
`
`whether the claim construction or application of those claim constructions was necessary to the
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`FINJAN LLC’S OPPOSITION TO QUALYS
`INC.’S MOTION TO STRIKE
`Case No. 4:18-cv-07229-YGR (TSH)
`
`

`

`Case 4:18-cv-07229-YGR Document 143 Filed 11/13/20 Page 15 of 17
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`Federal Circuit’s decision because the basis for the Rule 36 affirmance is unclear in light of the
`
`appellate record. Finjan acknowledges the Juniper court’s application of the claims constructions
`
`in the Juniper summary judgment order rejected Finjan’s infr