Case 4:18-cv-07229-YGR Document 174 Filed 03/22/21 Page 1 of 2
`
`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
`
`EDWARD G. POPLAWSKI (SBN 113590)
`epoplawski@wsgr.com
`OLIVIA M. KIM (SBN 228382)
`okim@wsgr.com
`TALIN GORDNIA (SBN 274213)
`tgordnia@wsgr.com
`STEPHANIE CHENG (SBN 319856)
`stephanie.cheng@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
`
`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 (TSH)
`
`QUALYS INC.’S RESPONSE TO FINJAN
`LLC’S LETTER BRIEF REQUESTING
`PRE-FILING CONFERENCE FOR
`PROPOSED MOTION FOR SUMMARY
`JUDGMENT
`
`Hon. Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers
`Date: March 26, 2021
`Time: 2:00 PM
`Location: Zoom Teleconference1
`
`)))))))))))))
`
`FINJAN LLC
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`QUALYS INC.,
`
`Defendant.
`
`1 Per the Court’s Notice regarding Civil Law and Motion Calendars and its Order at D.I. 48.
`
`CASE NO. 4:18-cv-07229-YGR
`
`QUALYS’S RESPONSE TO FINJAN’S LETTER
`REQUESTING A PRE-FILING CONFERENCE
`
`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 174 Filed 03/22/21 Page 2 of 2
`
`Dear Judge Gonzalez Rogers:
`
`Finjan’s request to file a motion for summary judgment regarding the prior art status for
`the listed four references in Finjan’s letter2 should be denied as there are genuine issues of material
`fact to be resolved.
`
`With respect to the first three references – DSAVT, Mounji, and Thomson – Finjan
`acknowledges that Qualys’s librarian expert, Dr. Sylvia Hall-Ellis, is an experienced librarian who
`timely rendered an opinion that the references were publicly accessible as of the applicable dates.
`Such expert testimony creates a genuine issue of material fact as to the public accessibility of these
`references. If anything, Finjan appears to take issue with Dr. Hall-Ellis’s methodology for
`rendering her opinion. Although Qualys believes her methodology to be sound, Finjan’s request
`to file a motion for summary judgment on the issue should be denied as its arguments are more
`appropriate for a Daubert motion.
`
`With respect to the SurfinGate Fax, Qualys does not contend that it is a printed publication
`for prior art purposes. Rather, Qualys contends that the SurfinGate Fax is one (of many) pieces of
`evidence showing an on-sale bar as to three asserted patents. Other evidence includes a
`contemporaneously filed third-party patent referencing the product, deposition testimony, and
`other Finjan documents. Finjan has not sought leave to file summary judgment that the SurfinGate
`product is not prior art. As such, Finjan’s proposed motion does resolve any actual defense at issue
`in this case and should be denied.
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI
`
`Dated: March 22, 2021
`
`By:
`
`/s/ Ryan Smith
`Ryan Smith
`
`Counsel for
`QUALYS INC.
`
`2 The four invalidity references are as follows: (1) “DSAVT,” a user manual titled Dr.
`Solomon’s Anti-Virus Toolkit for Windows and DOS; (2) “Mounji,” a published technical report;
`(3) “Thomson,” a published research paper; and (4) “SurfinGate Fax,” a fax that describes Finjan
`technology.
`
`CASE NO. 4:18-cv-07229-YGR
`
`1
`
`QUALYS’S RESPONSE TO FINJAN’S LETTER
`REQUESTING A PRE-FILING CONFERENCE
`
`