throbber
Case 4:18-cv-07229-YGR Document 195-2 Filed 05/10/21 Page 1 of 9
`
`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 C. 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) 210-2901
`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’S SEPARATE STATEMENT
`OF UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS
`IN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION FOR
`SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`
`Judge: Hon. Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers
`Date: July 6, 2021
`
`Time: 2:00 P.M.
`Location: Courtroom 1, 4th Floor1
`
`)))))))))))))
`
`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,
`hearings are via Zoom videoconference.
`
`CASE NO. 4:18-cv-07229-YGR
`
`QUALYS’S SEPARATE STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED
`FACTS ISO MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`
`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 195-2 Filed 05/10/21 Page 2 of 9
`
`Pursuant to the Court’s Standing Order in Civil Cases, Defendant Qualys Inc. (“Qualys”)
`submits the following statement of material facts as to which there is no genuine issue:
`
`Opposing Party’s Response and
`Supporting Evidence
`
`Issue No.
`
`Issue 1
`(Finjan has
`failed to
`provide
`evidence of
`infringement
`of the ʼ408
`Patent)
`
`Issue 1
`
`Issue 1
`
`Issue 1
`
`Moving Party’s Undisputed Material
`Facts and Supporting Evidence
`Fact 1: Finjan asserts claims 1, 3-8,
`22, 23, and 35 of the ’408 Patent.
`
`Ex. 29 (Finjan’s Infringement
`Contentions) at 1-2 (asserting claims
`1, 3-8, 22, 23, 29, and 35 of ’408
`Patent); D.I. 187 at 2 (order re
`dismissal of claim 29 of ’408
`Patent).
`Fact 2: Claims 1 and 23 of the ’408
`Patent recite “a computer-processor
`based” method wherein one step is
`“receiving by a computer” and
`subsequent steps are performed “by
`the computer” recited in the
`receiving step while claims 22 and
`35 recite “program code for causing
`a computer to perform” each of the
`recited steps.
`
`Ex. 1 (’408 Patent) at 19:45-20:7
`(claim 1), 22:1-27 (claim 23), 21:42-
`67 (claim 22), and 24:7-31 (claim
`35).
`Fact 3: The 2002 edition of the
`Microsoft Computer dictionary
`defines a “computer” as “any device
`capable of processing information to
`produce a desired result.”
`
`Ex. 8 (Microsoft Computer
`Dictionary) at 118.
`Fact 4: In Finjan v. Sonicwall, Finjan
`accused a defendant of infringing the
`’408 Patent based on a theory
`involving multiple discrete
`computing devices, and the Court
`addressed the question of “with
`respect to the ’408 Patent, can the
`receiving, determining, instantiating,
`identifying, dynamically building,
`dynamically detecting, and
`
`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 NO. 3:18-cv-07229-YGR
`
`1
`
`QUALYS’S SEPARATE STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED
`FACTS ISO MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`
`

`

`Case 4:18-cv-07229-YGR Document 195-2 Filed 05/10/21 Page 3 of 9
`
`Issue 1
`
`Issue 1
`
`Issue 1
`
`Issue 1
`
`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
`
`indicating be performed by different
`computers?”
`
`Ex. 11 (Sonicwall Order) at p.20,
`ll.10-11.
`Fact 5: In Finjan v. Sonicwall, the
`court found “as a matter of law that
`the recited steps in claims 1 and 22
`of the ’408 Patent must be performed
`by the same computer” and on that
`basis entered summary judgment of
`no infringement as to the ’408
`Patent.
`
`Ex. 11 (Sonicwall Order) at 24.
`Fact 6: The “Qualys cloud platform”
`comprises multiple different
`computers, including scanners
`deployed in a customer’s network,
`cloud agent software installed on
`customer endpoint devices, and
`servers operated by Qualys at
`various locations throughout the
`world.
`
`Ex. 4 (Medvidovic Rpt.) at ¶¶ 87, 88,
`89, 91, 92, 93, 95, 96-102.
`Fact 7: The asserted claims of the
`’408 claims each require
`“dynamically detecting … [patterns
`or combinations] of nodes in the
`parse tree which are indicators of
`potential exploits” and “indicating,
`by the computer, the presence of
`potential exploits within the
`incoming stream.”
`
`Ex. 1 (’408 Patent) at 20:1-7 (claim
`1), 21:62-67 (claim 22), 22:20-27
`(claim 23), and 24:24-31 (claim 35).
`Fact 8: In an IPR proceeding,
`Finjan’s expert, Dr. Medvidovic,
`wrote that a “key feature that
`distinguishes the ‘408 Patent from
`the prior art is its focus on detecting
`exploits ‘being portions of program
`code that are malicious,’ rather than
`
`CASE NO. 3:18-cv-07229-YGR
`
`2
`
`QUALYS’S SEPARATE STATEMENT OF
`UNDISPUTED FACTS ISO MOTION FOR
`SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`
`

`

`Case 4:18-cv-07229-YGR Document 195-2 Filed 05/10/21 Page 4 of 9
`
`Issue 1
`
`Issue 1
`
`Issue 1
`
`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
`
`simply recognizing previously
`known malware.”
`
`Ex. 16 (Medvidovic IPR Decl.) ¶ 49.
`Fact 9: In a Patent Owner Response
`in an IPR Proceeding, Finjan wrote
`“Detecting individual exploits,
`particularly using the behavior-based
`scanning techniques disclosed in the
`‘408 Patent, facilitates the ‘zero-day’
`recognition of malicious code, even
`if it is surrounded by otherwise
`benign and/or not previously
`encountered code, based only on the
`behavior associated with the exploit.
`This is the reason the independent
`claims of the ‘408 Patent recite
`dynamically detecting patterns or
`combinations ‘of nodes in the parse
`tree which are indicators of potential
`exploits.’”
`
`Ex. 23 (Patent Owner Response) at
`39-40.
`Fact 10: The asserted claims of the
`’408 patent requires, among other
`limitations, three temporally
`overlapping steps: (1) “receiving
`incoming content,” (2) “dynamically
`building,” and (3) “dynamically
`detecting.”
`
`Ex. 1 (’408 Patent) at 19:45-20:7
`(claim 1), 21:42-67 (claim 22), 22:1-
`27 (claim 23), and 24:7-31 (claim
`35).
`Fact 11: In an IPR proceeding,
`Finjan noted three temporally
`overlapping steps: (1) “receiving
`incoming content,” (2) “dynamically
`building,” and (3) “dynamically
`detecting” of the asserted claims of
`the ’408 Patent and that these
`temporal limitations distinguish the
`’408 Patent over the prior art.
`
`Ex. 23 (Patent Owner Statement) at
`2.
`
`CASE NO. 3:18-cv-07229-YGR
`
`3
`
`QUALYS’S SEPARATE STATEMENT OF
`UNDISPUTED FACTS ISO MOTION FOR
`SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`
`

`

`Case 4:18-cv-07229-YGR Document 195-2 Filed 05/10/21 Page 5 of 9
`
`Issue 1
`
`Issue 1
`
`Issue 1
`
`Issue 1
`
`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
`
`Fact 12: Finjan’s infringement theory
`for the ’408 Patent is based on
`multiple scanner appliance’s
`operating in parallel.
`
`Ex. 4 (Medvidovic Rpt.) ¶ 284,
`¶ 309; Ex. 12 (Medvidovic Tr.)
`163:1-3, 178:16-20, 213:21-22,
`222:7-8, 285:4-6.
`Fact 13: The asserted claims of the
`’408 Patent require the temporally
`overlapping steps must be performed
`with respect to the incoming stream
`(i.e., the same incoming stream).
`
`Ex. 1 (’408 Patent) at 19:47-48,
`(claim 1: “receiving, by a computer,
`an incoming stream of program
`code); 19:64-65 (claim 1:
`“dynamically building, by the
`computer while said receiving
`receives the incoming stream, a
`parse tree.”); 21:45 (claim 22:
`“receiving an incoming stream of
`program code”); 21:59-60 (claim 22:
`“dynamically building, while said
`receiving receives the incoming
`stream”); 22:10-11 (claim 23:
`“receiving, by a computer, an
`incoming stream of program code),
`22:15-16 (claim 23: “dynamically
`building, while said receiving
`receives the incoming stream”);
`24:17 (claim 35: “receiving an
`incoming stream of program code”);
`24:20-21 (claim 35: “dynamically
`building, while said receiving
`receives the incoming stream”).
`Fact 14: In an IPR proceeding
`involving the ’408 Patent, Finjan’s
`expert, Dr. Medvidovic, stated that
`“the incoming stream” recited by the
`claims “refers to the stream from
`which the parse tree is being built”.
`
`Ex. 16 (Medvidovic IPR Decl.) ¶ 99.
`Fact 15: In an IPR proceeding
`involving the ’408 Patent, Finjan’s
`
`CASE NO. 3:18-cv-07229-YGR
`
`4
`
`QUALYS’S SEPARATE STATEMENT OF
`UNDISPUTED FACTS ISO MOTION FOR
`SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`
`

`

`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 195-2 Filed 05/10/21 Page 6 of 9
`
`expert, Dr. Medvidovic wrote: “That
`is, a system with stages that can
`operate in parallel will not meet the
`claim language if the stages are not
`interleaved and working to build the
`same parse tree during time periods
`that overlap. In Petitioner’s scenario,
`the hypothetical ‘upstream portions
`of code’ would be used to build a
`different AST, so the receiving and
`building steps are not interleaved
`even if new code could be received
`while an AST was being built.”
`
`Ex. 16 (Medvidovic IPR Decl.) ¶ 99.
`Fact 16: Finjan asserts claims 1, 4-8,
`11, 15-17, 41, and 43 of the ’844
`Patent.
`
`Ex. 29 (Finjan’s Infringement
`Contentions) at 1 (asserting claims 1-
`9, 11, 15-17, 21-23, 32, and
`41-44 of ’844 Patent); D.I. 154 at 2
`(order re dismissal of claims 2, 3,
`9, 21, 22, 23, 32, 42 and 44 of
`the ’844 Patent).
`Fact 17: The asserted claims 1, 4-8,
`and 11 of the ’844 Patent recite
`“receiving by an inspector a
`Downloadable.”
`
`Ex. 2 (’844 Patent) at 11:14.
`Fact 18: The parties agreed to
`construe “Downloadable” as “an
`executable application program,
`which is downloaded from a source
`computer and run on the destination
`computer”.
`
`D.I. 40 at 1.
`Fact 19: Finjan asserts claims 10-16,
`and 18 of the ’494 Patent.
`
`Issue 2
`(Finjan has
`failed to
`provide
`evidence of
`infringement
`of the ʼ844
`and ʼ494
`Patents)
`
`Issue 2
`
`Issue 2
`
`Issue 2
`
`Ex. 29 (Finjan’s Infringement
`Contentions) at 2 (asserting claims
`10-16, and 18 of the ’494 Patent).
`Fact 20: The asserted claims 10-16
`and 18 of the ’494 Patent recite “a
`5
`CASE NO. 3:18-cv-07229-YGR
`
`Issue 2
`
`QUALYS’S SEPARATE STATEMENT OF
`UNDISPUTED FACTS ISO MOTION FOR
`SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`
`

`

`Case 4:18-cv-07229-YGR Document 195-2 Filed 05/10/21 Page 7 of 9
`
`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
`
`Issue 2
`
`Issue 2
`
`Issue 2
`
`Issue 2
`
`Issue 2
`
`receiver for receiving an incoming
`Downloadable”.
`
`Ex. 3 (’494 Patent), 22:8.
`Fact 21: The 1997 Merriam-Webster
`Dictionary defines “receive” to mean
`“to come into possession of” or
`“get”.
`
`Ex. 24 (1997 Merriam-Webster
`Dictionary), at 613.
`Fact 22: In the Finjan v. Sonicwall
`Case, the same construction of
`Downloadable (i.e., “an executable
`application program, which is
`downloaded from a source computer
`and run on the destination
`computer”) was applied and Judge
`Freeman held that Sonicwall’s
`products do not infringe because
`there was “no evidence that the
`accused Gateways ever possess a
`reassembled file or executable
`application program.”
`
`Ex. 11 (Sonicwall Order) at 17-18.
`Fact 23: Finjan accuses the
`Vulnerability Management (VM)
`Scanning Engine and the Web
`Application Scanning (WAS)
`Scanning Engine as the “inspector”
`that receives “Downloadables” for
`the asserted claims of the ’844
`Patent.
`
`Ex. 6 (Cole Rpt.) ¶¶ 338, 371.
`Fact 24: Finjan accuses the switches
`in the accused Qualys product as the
`“receiver” that receives
`“Downloadables” as recited by
`asserted claims of the ’494 Patent.
`
`Ex. 6 (Cole Rpt.) ¶¶ 1256, 388
`(quoting Ex. 19, Kruse Tr. at 11:10-
`11).
`Fact 25: The Qualys scanner
`“collects configuration data from
`customer systems.”
`
`CASE NO. 3:18-cv-07229-YGR
`
`6
`
`QUALYS’S SEPARATE STATEMENT OF
`UNDISPUTED FACTS ISO MOTION FOR
`SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`
`

`

`Case 4:18-cv-07229-YGR Document 195-2 Filed 05/10/21 Page 8 of 9
`
`Issue 2
`
`Issue 2
`
`Issue 3
`(Finjan has
`failed to
`provide
`evidence of
`damages for
`the ʼ844 and
`ʼ494 Patents)
`Issue 3
`
`Issue 3
`
`Ex. 6 (Cole Rpt.) ¶ 340 (quoting Ex.
`25, QUALYS00263186).
`Fact 26: With respect to the accused
`Qualys Cloud Agent, Finjan’s expert,
`Dr. Cole, alleges that the claimed
`“inspector” is the “lightweight
`Cloud Agent installed on host
`systems.”
`
`Ex. 6 (Cole Rpt.) ¶ 358.
`Fact 27: In an IPR proceeding,
`Finjan argued that “[t]he invention
`described in the ‘494 Patent protects
`against potentially malicious content
`by receiving incoming content (i.e. a
`Downloadable) from the Internet and
`establishing that the code will not
`cause any harm before it is allowed
`to run on the computer.”
`
`Ex. 31 (’494 IPR) at 2.
`Fact 28: Finjan’s licensees have sold
`products that practice one or more
`claims of the ’494 Patent.
`
`D.I. 1 at ¶ 241; Ex. 31 (’494 IPR) at
`54, 56-60.
`
`Fact 29: Finjan’s licensees have sold
`products that practice one or more
`claims of the ’844 Patent.
`
`Ex. 32 (’844 IPR) at 60-62.
`Fact 30: On November 12, 2015,
`Finjan’s then in-house counsel sent a
`letter to Qualys; this letter is Exhibit
`33 to the Declaration of Christopher
`Mays, filed concurrently herewith.
`
`Ex. 33 (November 12, 2015 letter).
`
`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 NO. 3:18-cv-07229-YGR
`
`7
`
`QUALYS’S SEPARATE STATEMENT OF
`UNDISPUTED FACTS ISO MOTION FOR
`SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`
`

`

`Case 4:18-cv-07229-YGR Document 195-2 Filed 05/10/21 Page 9 of 9
`
`ATTESTATION
`I attest that the evidence cited herein fairly and accurately supports the facts as asserted.
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI
`
`Dated: May 10, 2021
`
`By:
`
`/s/ Edward G. Poplawski
`EDWARD G. POPLAWSKI
`
`Counsel for
`QUALYS INC.
`
`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 NO. 3:18-cv-07229-YGR
`
`8
`
`QUALYS’S SEPARATE STATEMENT OF
`UNDISPUTED FACTS ISO MOTION FOR
`SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`
`

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket