Case 4:18-cv-07229-YGR Document 144-3 Filed 11/20/20 Page 1 of 38
`Case 4:18-cv-07229—YGR Document 144-3 Filed 11/20/20 Page 1 of 38
`
`EXHIBIT 3
`EXHIBIT 3
`
`

`

`Case 4:18-cv-07229-YGR Document 144-3 Filed 11/20/20 Page 2 of 38
`
`CONFIDENTIAL
`
`EDWARD G. POPLAWSKI (SBN 113590)
`epoplawski@wsgr.com
`OLIVIA M. KIM (SBN 228382)
`okim@wsgr.com
`TALIN GORDNIA (SBN 274213)
`tgordnia@wsgr.com
`WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI
`Professional Corporation
`633 West Fifth Street, Suite 1550
`Los Angeles, CA 90071
`Telephone: (323) 210-2900
`Facsimile: (866) 974-7329
`
`RYAN R. SMITH (SBN 229323)
`rsmith@wsgr.com
`CHRISTOPHER D. MAYS (SBN 266510)
`cmays@wsgr.com
`WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI
`Professional Corporation
`650 Page Mill Road
`Palo Alto, CA 94304-1050
`Telephone: (650) 493-9300
`Facsimile: (650) 493-6811
`
`Attorneys for Defendant
`QUALYS INC.
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`OAKLAND DIVISION
`
`CASE NO.: 4:18-cv-07229-YGR
`
`DEFENDANT QUALYS INC.’S
`FIRST SUPPLEMENTAL
`OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES
`TO FINJAN, INC.’S THIRD SET OF
`INTERROGATORIES (NOS. 12-19)
`
`CONFIDENTIAL
`
`)))))))))))))
`
`FINJAN, INC., a Delaware Corporation,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`QUALYS INC., a Delaware Corporation,
`
`Defendant.
`
`CASE NO. 4:18-cv-07229-YGR
`
`QUALYS’S FIRST SUPPLEMENTAL
`RESPONSES TO FINJAN’S THIRD SET OF
`INTERROGATORIES (NOS. 12-19)
`
`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
`
`

`

`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 144-3 Filed 11/20/20 Page 3 of 38
`
`CONFIDENTIAL
`
`Pursuant to Rules 26 and 33 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Local Rules of
`the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, Defendant Qualys Inc.
`(“Qualys”) hereby responds and objections to Plaintiff Finjan, Inc.’s Third Set of Interrogatories to
`Qualys (Nos. 12-19).
`
`PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
`
`The following responses are made solely for the purpose of, and in relation to, this action.
`Each response is provided subject to all appropriate objections (including, without limitation,
`objections concerning competency, relevancy, materiality, propriety, and admissibility) that would
`require the exclusion of any statement contained herein if the statement were made by a witness
`present and testifying in court. All such objections and grounds are therefore reserved and may be
`interposed at the time of trial.
`The following responses are based on the facts and information presently known and
`available to Qualys. Discovery, investigation, research, and analysis are ongoing in this case and
`may disclose the existence of additional facts, add meaning to known facts, establish entirely new
`factual conclusions or legal contentions, or possibly lead to additions, variations, and changes to
`these responses. Qualys reserves the right to change or supplement these responses as additional
`facts are discovered, revealed, recalled, or otherwise ascertained.
`
`GENERAL OBJECTIONS
`
`In addition to any specifically stated objections, each of Qualys’s responses herein is subject
`to and incorporates the following general objections:
`1.
`Qualys objects to each interrogatory and each definition to the extent it purports to
`impose obligations greater or more extensive than those required by the Federal Rules of Civil
`Procedure, the Local Rules of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California,
`or other applicable law.
`2.
`Qualys objects to each interrogatory and definition to the extent it purports to request
`information that cannot be found in the course of a reasonable search.
`
`CASE NO. 4:18-cv-07229-YGR
`
`-1-
`
`QUALYS’S FIRST SUPPLEMENTAL
`RESPONSES TO FINJAN’S THIRD SET OF
`INTERROGATORIES (NOS. 12-19)
`
`

`

`Case 4:18-cv-07229-YGR Document 144-3 Filed 11/20/20 Page 4 of 38
`
`CONFIDENTIAL
`
`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
`
`Qualys’s partial response to any interrogatory is not a waiver of its objection or right
`3.
`to object to the interrogatory, or any part thereof, or to any additional, supplemental, or further
`interrogatory or part thereof, but is instead offered in an effort to resolve a potential discovery
`dispute.
`Qualys objects to each interrogatory to the extent it seeks information that is neither
`4.
`relevant to any party’s claim or defense nor proportional to the needs of the case.
`5.
`Qualys objects to each interrogatory to the extent it is unreasonably cumulative or
`duplicative of other discovery requests, or seeks information that is obtainable from some other
`source that is more convenient, less burdensome, or less expensive.
`6.
`Qualys objects to each interrogatory to the extent it is overly broad, fails to
`reasonably identify the information sought, is unduly burdensome, and is posed for improper
`purposes, including, without limitation, embarrassment, undue annoyance, harassment, oppression,
`delay, or to increase the expense of litigation or to the extent it calls for a legal conclusion or opinion.
`7.
`Qualys objects to each interrogatory to the extent it seeks information for which the
`burden or expense of obtaining and disclosing outweighs its likely benefit in resolving the issues of
`this action.
`Qualys objects to each interrogatory to the extent it fails to describe with reasonable
`8.
`particularity the information requested.
`9.
`To the extent that any interrogatory may be construed as calling for information
`which is subject to a claim of privilege, including, without limitation, the attorney-client privilege
`and attorney work-product doctrine, Qualys hereby claims such privilege and objects to the
`disclosure of the information. Such information as may hereafter be provided in response to the
`interrogatory should not include any information subject to such privileges and doctrines, but the
`inadvertent disclosure of privileged information shall not constitute a waiver of any applicable
`privilege.
`Qualys objects to each interrogatory to the extent it is vague or ambiguous.
`10.
`Qualys objects to each interrogatory to the extent it seeks confidential, commercially
`11.
`sensitive, trade secret, and/or proprietary information of a non-party or information covered by a
`
`CASE NO. 4:18-cv-07229-YGR
`
`-2-
`
`QUALYS’S FIRST SUPPLEMENTAL
`RESPONSES TO FINJAN’S THIRD SET OF
`INTERROGATORIES (NOS. 12-19)
`
`

`

`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 144-3 Filed 11/20/20 Page 5 of 38
`
`CONFIDENTIAL
`
`confidentiality agreement, or information that is otherwise protected from disclosure pursuant to
`Rule 26(c)(1)(G) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or Rule 501 of the Federal Rules of
`Evidence. Qualys will not produce such information unless the non-party agrees to the terms of the
`protective order entered in this case or consents in writing to the disclosure of that information to
`Finjan.
`Qualys objects each interrogatory to the extent it seeks information that is not in
`12.
`Qualys’s possession, custody, or control.
`13.
`Qualys objects to any interrogatory that seeks information, documents, or things
`subject to confidentiality agreements, protective orders, and/or any other obligation pursuant to
`which Qualys is required to protect and/or maintain the confidentiality of any third party’s
`documents. Should an interrogatory call for such information, documents, or things, Qualys will
`act reasonably to obtain the consent of the third party to produce the information.
`14.
`Qualys objects generally to the interrogatories to the extent that they prematurely call
`for discovery concerning, among other things, Qualys products, downstream products, and facts and
`contentions relating to claim construction, non-infringement, invalidity, and other claims and
`defenses pursuant to Patent Local Rule 2-5.
`15.
`Qualys objects generally to the interrogatories because Finjan has served
`interrogatories in excess of the maximum 25 interrogatory limit under Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(a)(1).
`
`OBJECTIONS TO DEFINITIONS
`
`Qualys objects to Finjan’s definition of “You,” “Your,” and “Defendant” as overly
`1.
`broad and unduly burdensome. For purposes of these interrogatories, reference to “You,” “Your,”
`and “Defendant” shall refer to Defendant Qualys Inc. only.
`2.
`Qualys objects to Finjan’s definition of “Finjan” as overly broad and unduly
`burdensome. For purposes of these interrogatories, reference to “Finjan” shall refer to Plaintiff
`Finjan, Inc. only.
`3.
`Qualys objects to Finjan’s definition of “Accused Instrumentalities” as overly broad
`and unduly burdensome. For purposes of these interrogatories, reference to the “Accused
`
`CASE NO. 4:18-cv-07229-YGR
`
`-3-
`
`QUALYS’S FIRST SUPPLEMENTAL
`RESPONSES TO FINJAN’S THIRD SET OF
`INTERROGATORIES (NOS. 12-19)
`
`

`

`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 144-3 Filed 11/20/20 Page 6 of 38
`
`CONFIDENTIAL
`
`Instrumentalities” shall refer to the Qualys products and services that Finjan has specifically
`identified in its Complaint and Infringement Contentions.
`4.
`Qualys objects to the definition of “relate to,” “reflecting,” “relating to,”
`“concerning,” and “any variations thereof” and all requests incorporating these terms, as overly
`broad, vague, ambiguous, unintelligible, requiring subjective judgment on the part of Qualys and/or
`its attorneys, and calling for conclusions or opinions of counsel in violation of the attorney work
`product doctrine.
`the definitions of “person,” “entity,” “document(s),”
`to
`5.
`Qualys objects
`“communication,” and “thing” to the extent they call for information that exceeds the scope
`contemplated by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Local Rules of the United States
`District Court for the Northern District of California, or other applicable law.
`
`OBJECTIONS TO INSTRUCTIONS
`
`Qualys objects to the instructions accompanying Finjan’s interrogatories to the extent
`1.
`that such instructions are not consistent with the provisions of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,
`Local Rules of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, or other
`applicable law, or to the extent that the instructions purport to require Qualys to take actions or
`provide information not required or which exceed the scope of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,
`Local Rules of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, or other
`applicable law.
`
`SPECIFIC OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO INTERROGATORIES
`
`INTERROGATORY NO. 12:
`Identify all names, internal codenames, nomenclatures, SKUs, and/or designations for each
`actual or planned release or version of the Accused Instrumentalities and any technologies,
`components, or features of the Accused Instrumentalities.
`RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 12:
`In addition to the foregoing general objections, which are expressly incorporated herein,
`Qualys objects to this interrogatory on the ground and to the extent that it: (1) is compound in that
`
`CASE NO. 4:18-cv-07229-YGR
`
`-4-
`
`QUALYS’S FIRST SUPPLEMENTAL
`RESPONSES TO FINJAN’S THIRD SET OF
`INTERROGATORIES (NOS. 12-19)
`
`

`

`Case 4:18-cv-07229-YGR Document 144-3 Filed 11/20/20 Page 7 of 38
`
`CONFIDENTIAL
`
`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
`
`it contains at least three discrete subparts (identify information for each actual release or version;
`identify information for each planned release or version; identify information for any technologies,
`components, or features); (2) is vague and ambiguous as to at least the phrase “any technologies,
`components, or features of the Accused Instrumentalities”; (3) is overbroad and unduly burdensome
`in that it asks Qualys to identify information regarding each planned release or version of the
`Accused Instrumentalities; and (4) seeks information that is irrelevant to the claims and defenses at
`issue in this case and is not proportional to the needs of the case. Qualys further objects that Finjan
`has exceeded the maximum permitted number of discrete interrogatories and subparts.
`FIRST SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 12:
`In addition to the foregoing responses and objections, none of which are waived, Qualys
`further responds Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(d) that responsive information can be determined
`at least from the following documents: QUALYS02047060, QUALYS02020890. Qualys further
`incorporates by reference the testimony of Qualys’s witnesses pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.
`30(b)(6). Qualys further states that a previous name for Vulnerability Management was
`QualysGuard.
`INTERROGATORY NO. 13:
`Separately for each Asserted Claim of the Asserted Patents, identify all legal and factual
`bases for your contention that such claim is not infringed by the Accused Instrumentalities, including
`a chart that sets forth each claim element that you contend is not satisfied by the Accused
`Instrumentalities along with a substantive, particularized description of why you contend that
`element is not satisfied, including citation to specific components and functionality of the Accused
`Instrumentalities, and all documents and things in support of your position, including source code
`modules.
`RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 13:
`In addition to the foregoing general objections, which are expressly incorporated herein,
`Qualys objects to this interrogatory on the ground and to the extent that it: (1) is compound; (2) is
`vague and ambiguous as to at least the phrases “components and functionality of the Accused
`Instrumentalities” and “source code module”; (3) is overbroad and unduly burdensome in that it
`
`CASE NO. 4:18-cv-07229-YGR
`
`-5-
`
`QUALYS’S FIRST SUPPLEMENTAL
`RESPONSES TO FINJAN’S THIRD SET OF
`INTERROGATORIES (NOS. 12-19)
`
`

`

`Case 4:18-cv-07229-YGR Document 144-3 Filed 11/20/20 Page 8 of 38
`
`CONFIDENTIAL
`
`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
`
`asks Qualys to prepare a “chart that sets forth each claim element that you contend is not satisfied
`by the Accused Instrumentalities along with a substantive, particularized description of why you
`contend that element is not satisfied, including citation to specific components and functionality of
`the Accused Instrumentalities”; (4) seeks information that is irrelevant to the claims and defenses at
`issue in this case and is not proportional to the needs of the case; and (5) prematurely seeks
`information that is the subject of expert opinions. Qualys further objects that Finjan has exceeded
`the maximum permitted number of discrete interrogatories and subparts.
`FIRST SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 13:
`In addition to the foregoing responses and objections, none of which are waived, Qualys
`further states that Finjan’s Infringement Contentions served April 19, 2019 (“Finjan’s Infringement
`Contentions”) do not show that the limitations of the asserted claims are met by the Accused
`Instrumentalities. For example, the source code and documents cited by Finjan’s Infringement
`Contentions and in Finjan’s response to Qualys’s Interrogatory No. 7, including the material from
`the Jira and Qwiki repositories, do not show that the Accused Instrumentalities infringe the asserted
`claims. Qualys further states that Finjan’s infringement contentions and source code citations fail to
`show infringement of every limitation of every asserted claim by every accused product, as detailed
`in Qualys’s July 23, 2020 letters (from C. Mays to L. Kobialka), which are incorporated here by
`reference.
`The patents-in-suit relate to protecting end-user computers from potentially malicious
`content (malware) received over the Internet by detecting the malicious content and preventing its
`execution. Qualys, in contrast, is based on vulnerability management (VM), which checks metadata
`associated with files for potential vulnerabilities such as out-of-date software or misconfigurations.
`Qualys does not inspect incoming Internet content on end-user computers and is therefore
`fundamentally different from Finjan.
`The following provides a more granular discussion of Qualys’ non-infringement arguments
`based on Finjan’s Infringement Contentions. For the sake of brevity, Qualys has not repeated non-
`infringement arguments based on the same (or similar) claim language found in different claims.
`Qualys further states that the below is based on Qualys’ understanding of Finjan’s Infringement
`
`CASE NO. 4:18-cv-07229-YGR
`
`-6-
`
`QUALYS’S FIRST SUPPLEMENTAL
`RESPONSES TO FINJAN’S THIRD SET OF
`INTERROGATORIES (NOS. 12-19)
`
`

`

`Case 4:18-cv-07229-YGR Document 144-3 Filed 11/20/20 Page 9 of 38
`
`CONFIDENTIAL
`
`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
`
`Contentions, but that it is Finjan who bears the burden of proof of infringement, not vice versa.
`Qualys reserves the right to rely on any failure of proof by Finjan as a non-infringement position
`regardless of whether disclosed below or not. Qualys also incorporates by reference its comments
`regarding notice from its Responsive Damages Contentions.
`Qualys does not indirectly infringe any of the asserted patents. Qualys does not believe it
`infringes any of the patents and therefore lacks the requisite state of mind to induce others to infringe
`or to contribute to others’ infringement.
`’844 Patent
`As explained below, Qualys did not directly infringe the asserted claims of the ’844 patent
`(i.e., claims 1, 4-9, 11, 15-17, 21-23, 32, and 41-44) during the period of alleged infringement from
`November 12, 2015 through January 29, 2017.
`Qualys did not perform the step of “receiving by an inspector a Downloadable.” For
`example, Qualys products, such as VM, do not inspect a “Downloadable” which under the agreed
`construction includes executable code. Such products typically look at metadata, not the code itself.
`Qualys did not perform the step of “generating by the inspector a first Downloadable security
`profile that identifies suspicious code in the received Downloadable.” For example, Qualys products
`such as VM, PC, and WAS cannot analyze code at all and thus cannot identify suspicious code.
`Qualys did not perform the step of “linking by the inspector the first Downloadable security
`profile to the Downloadable before a web server makes the Downloadable available to web clients.”
`Qualys products operate independently of what a web server makes available to clients. Qualys
`products typically do not interact with web servers and do not interact with downloadables before
`they are made available to web clients. Under the Court’ construction, the term “web client” refers
`to “an application on the end-user’s computer that requests a downloadable from the web server”.
`Qualys does not sit between any web server and web client so as to control what content is made
`available to the web client, per the Court’s construction. Qualys also does not provide a web client
`as defined by the Court, nor does Qualys exercise the necessary level of control to render any third
`party web clients to be “Qualys’s.” Qualys also did not receive an incoming downloadable at a
`gateway.
`
`CASE NO. 4:18-cv-07229-YGR
`
`-7-
`
`QUALYS’S FIRST SUPPLEMENTAL
`RESPONSES TO FINJAN’S THIRD SET OF
`INTERROGATORIES (NOS. 12-19)
`
`

`

`Case 4:18-cv-07229-YGR Document 144-3 Filed 11/20/20 Page 10 of 38
`
`CONFIDENTIAL
`
`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
`
`Qualys did not perform the step of “linking to the first Downloadable security profile a
`Downloadable ID that identifies the Downloadable.” As explained above, Qualys did not receive a
`“Downloadable.” Finjan has not identified any alleged “Downloadable” which includes Java,
`ActiveX, Javascript, or Visual Basic. Qualys did not perform “the step of linking to the
`Downloadable a certificate that identifies the developer which created the Downloadable.” Qualys
`lacked the alleged “first Downloadable security profile includes a list of operations deemed
`suspicious by the inspector.” Qualys does not tokenize program code and so does not derive lists
`of operations. It also does not identify code that is “suspicious.” Qualys looks for vulnerabilities,
`not suspicious code. Moreover, Qualys receives metadata and state data for a target asset; this
`information does not contain suspicious code in a downloadable.
`Qualys lacked an inspector system with a “memory storing a first rule set.” Qualys lacked
`an inspector system with a “a first content inspection engine for using the first rule set to generate a
`first Downloadable security profile that identifies suspicious code in a Downloadable, and for
`linking the first Downloadable security profile to the Downloadable before a web server makes the
`Downloadable available to web clients.” As explained above, Qualys products, such as VM, PC,
`and WAS cannot analyze code at all.
`Qualys lacked an inspector system wherein “the first rule set includes a list of suspicious
`operations” or “first rule set include a list of suspicious code patterns.” Qualys lacked an inspector
`system wherein “the first content inspection engine creates a first Downloadable ID that identifies
`the Downloadable to which the first Downloadable security profile corresponds, and links the
`Downloadable ID to the Downloadable security profile.”
`Qualys did not use “a network gateway” or “network gateway system.” Qualys did not
`perform the step of “receiving a Downloadable with a linked Downloadable security profile that
`identifies suspicious code in the Downloadable, the Downloadable security profile being linked to
`the Downloadable before the web server make the Downloadable available to the web client.”
`Qualys did not perform the step of “comparing the Downloadable security profile against a security
`policy.” Qualys did not perform the step of “receiving a Downloadable with a linked first
`Downloadable security profile that identifies suspicious code in the Downloadable, the
`
`CASE NO. 4:18-cv-07229-YGR
`
`-8-
`
`QUALYS’S FIRST SUPPLEMENTAL
`RESPONSES TO FINJAN’S THIRD SET OF
`INTERROGATORIES (NOS. 12-19)
`
`

`

`Case 4:18-cv-07229-YGR Document 144-3 Filed 11/20/20 Page 11 of 38
`
`CONFIDENTIAL
`
`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
`
`Downloadable security profile being linked to the Downloadable before the web server make the
`Downloadable available to the web client.” Qualys did not perform the step of “determining whether
`to trust the first Downloadable security profile.” Qualys did not perform the step of “comparing the
`first Downloadable security profile against the security policy if the first Downloadable security
`profile is trustworthy.”
`Qualys lacked “a Downloadable interceptor for receiving a Downloadable.” Qualys cannot
`intercept downloadables being sent to a web client from a web server. Qualys lacked “a file reader
`coupled to the interceptor for determining whether the Downloadable includes a linked
`Downloadable security profile that identifies suspicious code in the Downloadable, wherein if the
`Downloadable includes a linked Downloadable security profile, the Downloadable was linked
`before the web server makes the Downloadable available to the web client.” Qualys lacked “an
`engine coupled to the file reader for determining whether to trust the Downloadable security
`profile.” Qualys lacked “a security policy analysis engine coupled to a verification engine for
`comparing the Downloadable security profile against a security policy if the engine determines that
`the Downloadable security profile is trustworthy.” Qualys is unable to determine if such profiles are
`trustworthy or not. Qualys lacked a computer-readable storage medium storing program code for
`causing a data processing system on an inspector to perform the step of “receiving a Downloadable.”
`Qualys lacked a computer-readable storage medium storing program code for causing a data
`processing system on an inspector to perform the step of “generating a first Downloadable security
`profile that identifies suspicious code in the received Downloadable.” Qualys lacked a computer-
`readable storage medium storing program code for causing a data processing system on an inspector
`to perform the step of “linking the first Downloadable security profile to the Downloadable before
`a web server makes the Downloadable available to web clients.” Qualys lacked a computer-readable
`storage medium storing program code for causing a data processing system on an inspector to
`perform the step of “receiving a Downloadable with a linked first Downloadable security profile
`that identifies suspicious code in the Downloadable, the Downloadable security profile being linked
`to the Downloadable before the web server make the Downloadable available to the web client.”
`Qualys lacks a computer-readable storage medium storing program code for causing a data
`
`CASE NO. 4:18-cv-07229-YGR
`
`-9-
`
`QUALYS’S FIRST SUPPLEMENTAL
`RESPONSES TO FINJAN’S THIRD SET OF
`INTERROGATORIES (NOS. 12-19)
`
`

`

`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 144-3 Filed 11/20/20 Page 12 of 38
`
`CONFIDENTIAL
`
`processing system on an inspector to perform the step of “determining whether to trust the first
`Downloadable security profile.” Qualys lacked a computer-readable storage medium storing
`program code for “causing a data processing system on an inspector to perform the step of
`“comparing the first Downloadable security profile against the security policy if the first
`Downloadable security profile is trustworthy.”
`Qualys lacked a “means for receiving a Downloadable.” Qualys lacked a “means for
`generating a first Downloadable security profile that identifies suspicious code in the received
`Downloadable.” Qualys lacked a “means for linking the first Downloadable security profile to the
`Downloadable before a web server makes the Downloadable available to web clients.” Qualys
`lacked a network gateway system with “means for receiving a Downloadable with a linked first
`Downloadable security profile that identifies suspicious code in the Downloadable, the
`Downloadable security profile being linked to the Downloadable before the web server make the
`Downloadable available to the web client.” Qualys lacked a network gateway system with “means
`for determining whether to trust the first Downloadable security profile.” Qualys lacked a network
`gateway system with “means for comparing the first Downloadable security profile against the
`security policy if the first Downloadable security profile is trustworthy.”
`Qualys did not induce infringement of the ’844 patent during the alleged damages period.
`Qualys’s outside counsel expressed his opinion to Finjan that Qualys did not infringe. Qualys has
`maintained its belief that it uses its own internally developed technology, for which it has received
`numerous patents. Further, Qualys did not receive any information from Finjan regarding its alleged
`infringement until after the ’844 patent’s expiration. As explained above Qualys products are
`incapable of direct infringement and thus cannot indirectly infringe. Additionally, Finjan failed to
`identify any non-party that would have directly infringed. Finjan also failed to identify any specific
`acts of inducement by Qualys during the period between Qualys attaining knowledge of the patent
`and its expiration.
`
`CASE NO. 4:18-cv-07229-YGR
`
`-10-
`
`QUALYS’S FIRST SUPPLEMENTAL
`RESPONSES TO FINJAN’S THIRD SET OF
`INTERROGATORIES (NOS. 12-19)
`
`

`

`Case 4:18-cv-07229-YGR Document 144-3 Filed 11/20/20 Page 13 of 38
`
`CONFIDENTIAL
`
`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
`
`’968 Patent
`As explained below, Qualys has not directly infringe the asserted claims of the ’968 patent
`(i.e., claims 1, 6-7, 9-11, 13-15, 23, 26, and 32-33) during the period of alleged infringement, starting
`on November 12, 2015.
`Qualys lacks “a policy-based cache manager, comprising: a memory storing a cache of
`digital content.” Under the Court’s claim construction, the term “memory storing a cache of digital
`content” means “memory storing previously requested and retrieved digital content.” Qualys
`products, such as VM, PC, and WAS do not retrieve digital content but rather check metadata. No
`Qualys product stores previously requested and retrieved digital content. To the extent that any
`product analyzes a web page, that is done for a single usage, rather than to facilitate later retrieval.
`Finjan has failed to point to anything it contends is content (1) for which it is indicated whether that
`content is allowable relative to a given policy, and (2) that is used to derive a content profile.
`Qualys lacks “a plurality of policies.” Nor does it have any alleged “plurality of policies”
`“used for URL filtering,” “used for anti-virus protection,” or “used for security detection for
`malicious mobile code.” Qualys lacks “a policy index to the cache contents.” Looking for known
`vulnerabilities in a system is not a policy. Further, what Finjan alleges to be the “policy index”
`lacks “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.” Indeed, Qualys does not
`indicate a list of digital content which is allowable. Qualys lacks “a content scanner,
`communicatively coupled with said memory, for scanning a digital content received, to derive a
`corresponding content profile.”
`Qualys lacks “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, the results of which are saved as entries in the policy index.” Checking whether a
`device passes or fails a policy-check is not a determination of allowability. Also, as noted above
`Qualys does not determine allowability based on anything Finjan has identified as the content.
`Qualys lacks a “policy-based cache manager” with “a transmitter for transmitting allowable content
`from the cache to a client computer” or “a receiver for receiving digital content from a web server.”
`
`CASE NO. 4:18-cv-07229-YGR
`
`-11-
`
`QUALYS’S FIRST SUPPLEMENTAL
`RESPONSES TO FINJAN’S THIRD SET OF
`INTERROGATORIES (NOS. 12-19)
`
`

`

`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 144-3 Filed 11/20/20 Page 14 of 38
`
`CONFIDENTIAL
`
`Finjan failed to identify any hardware for a “transmitter” or “receiver.” Qualys products do not
`retrieve digital content. Qualys does not perform “policy-based caching.” Qualys does not perform
`the step of “providing a memory storing a cache of digital content, a plurality of policies, and a
`policy index of 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.”
`Qualys does not perform “for each of a plurality of policies; receiving a user request for a
`digital content, the user having associated therewith a policy from among the plurality of policies.”
`Qualys never responds to a user request for digital content. Such requests occur independently of
`Qualys software.
`Qualys does not perform “determining based on the cache, whether the requested digital
`content is already available; and if said determining based on a cache indicates that the data content
`is already available in the cache then further determining based on the policy index of the cache
`contents, whether the requested digital content is allowable for the user; else further determining
`based on a profile of the requested data content, whether the requested data content is allowable for
`the user's policy; and storing an indication of the results of said further determining whether the
`requested data is allowable, within the policy index.”
`Qualys does not perform the step of “transmitting the requeste