Case 4:18-cv-07229-YGR Document 202 Filed 06/01/21 Page 1 of 29
`
`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
`
`Philip W. Goter (pro hac vice)
`goter@fr.com
`Robert P. Courtney (CA SBN 248392)
`courtney@fr.com
`FISH & RICHARDSON P.C.
`3200 RBC Plaza
`60 South 6th Street
`Minneapolis, MN 55402
`Phone: (612) 335-5070 /Fax: (612) 288-9696
`
`Proshanto Mukherji (pro hac vice)
`mukherji@fr.com
`FISH & RICHARDSON P.C.
`One Marina Park Drive
`Boston, MA 02210
`Phone: (617) 542-5070/ Fax (617) 542-8906
`
`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
`K. Nicole Williams (CA SBN 291900)
`nwilliams@fr.com
`FISH & RICHARDSON P.C.
`12860 El Camino Real, Suite 400
`San Diego, CA 92130
`Phone: (858) 678-5070 /Fax: (858) 678-5099
`
`Aamir A. Kazi (pro hac vice)
`kazi@fr.com
`Lawrence R. Jarvis (pro hac vice)
`jarvis@fr.com
`Fish and Richardson P.C.
`1180 Peachtree Street Ne 21st Floor
`Atlanta, GA 30309
`Phone: (404) 879-7238/ Fax: 404-892-5002
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff
`FINJAN LLC
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`(OAKLAND DIVISION)
`
`FINJAN LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability
`Company,
`
`Case No. 4:18-cv-07229-YGR (TSH)
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`QUALYS INC., a Delaware Corporation,
`
`Defendant.
`
`FINJAN LLC’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF
`MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`AND OPPOSITION TO QUALYS INC.’S
`CROSS-MOTION FOR SUMMARY
`JUDGMENT
`[REDACTED VERSION OF
`DOCUMENT SOUGHT TO BE FILED
`UNDER SEAL]
`
`July 6, 2021
`DATE:
`2:00 P.M.
`TIME:
`JUDGE: Hon. Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers
`PLACE:
`Zoom
`
`REPLY ISO MSJ AND OPPOSITION TO
`CROSS-MSJ
`Case No. 4:18-cv-07229-YGR (TSH)
`
`

`

`Case 4:18-cv-07229-YGR Document 202 Filed 06/01/21 Page 2 of 29
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`
`REPLY IN SUPPORT OF FINJAN’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION .................... 1
`
`A.
`
`Qualys Has Not Shown that DSAVT Is Authentic or Was Publicly Accessible ...... 1
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`Qualys has not shown DSAVT is authentic ................................................ 1
`
`Qualys has not shown DSAVT was publicly accessible.............................. 2
`
`Qualys Has Not Shown Mounji and Thomson Are Authentic and Were Publicly
`B.
`Accessible ......................................................................................................................... 4
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`Qualys has not shown Mounji and Thomson are authentic ......................... 4
`
`Qualys has not shown Mounji and Thomson were publicly accessible........ 5
`
`The untimely Stubblebine Declaration does not cure these deficiencies ...... 5
`
`II.
`
`OPPOSITION TO QUALYS’S MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ................... 6
`
`A.
`
`Summary Judgment of Noninfringement for the ’408 Patent Is Not Appropriate.... 6
`
`1.
`
`Qualys’s “same computer” argument fails legally ...................................... 7
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`a) The ’408 Patent does not expressly require that all claimed steps be
`performed by the same computer ............................................................... 7
`
`b) Collateral estoppel from the SonicWall case does not apply ................. 7
`
`Qualys’s “same computer” argument fails factually ................................... 9
`
`Qualys’s accused products indicate “potential exploits” ............................11
`
`a) Qualys’s claim construction argument is untimely and wrong .............11
`
`b) Qualys infringes even under its interpretation of “indicators of potential
`exploits” ...................................................................................................12
`
`Qualys’s accused products “dynamically build” while receiving the
`4.
`incoming stream ...................................................................................................13
`
`B.
`
`Summary Judgment is Not Appropriate for the ’844 and ’494 Patents ..................16
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`Qualys manipulates the Court’s claim constructions ..................................16
`
`Collateral estoppel does not apply .............................................................18
`
`Qualys ignores Dr. Cole’s opinions and the accused products ...................18
`
`Disputes of material fact exist between the experts ....................................20
`
`OPPOSITION TO QUALYS’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF
`NO DAMAGES For the ’844 and ’494 patents ................................................................21
`
`
`
`II.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`i
`
`
`
`REPLY ISO MSJ AND OPPOSITION TO
`CROSS-MSJ
`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 202 Filed 06/01/21 Page 3 of 29
`
`
`
`
`Cases
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`
`Page(s)
`
`Allen Eng’g Corp. v. Bartell Indus.,
`299 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2002) ................................................................................................ 7
`
`Amdocs (Isr.), Ltd. v. Openet Telecom, Inc.,
`761 F.3d 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2014) .............................................................................................. 15
`
`Apple, Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co.,
`No. 12-CV-00630-LHK, 2014 WL 252045 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 21, 2014) .................. 12, 18, 21, 22
`
`Arista Networks, Inc. v. Cisco Sys., Inc.,
`No. 16-CV-00923-BLF, 2017 WL 6102804 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 10, 2017) ..................................... 8
`
`Bettcher Indus., Inc. v. Bunzl USA, Inc.,
`661 F.3d 629 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ................................................................................................ 11
`
`In re Bill of Lading Transms’n & Procs’g Sys. Patent Litig.,
`681 F.3d 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ........................................................................................ 22, 23
`
`Chrimar Systems v. Ruckus Wireless, Inc.,
`No. 16-cv-00186-SI, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 136656 (N.D. Cal. July 31, 2020) ..................... 23
`
`CNET Networks, Inc. v. Etilize, Inc.,
`584 F. Supp. 2d 1260 (N.D. Cal. 2008) .................................................................................... 2
`
`Ecolab, Inc. v. FMC Corp.,
`569 F.3d 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2009) .............................................................................................. 12
`
`Foster v. Adams & Assocs., Inc.,
`No. 18-CV-02723-JSC, 2020 WL 3639648 (N.D. Cal. July 6, 2020) ....................................... 1
`
`Fresenius Med. Care Holdings, Inc. v. Baxter Int’l, Inc.,
`No. C. 03-1431, 2006 WL 1330001, at *3 (N.D. Cal. May 15, 2006) ....................................... 2
`
`Fujifilm Corp. v. Motorola Mobility,
`2015 WL 757575 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 20, 2015)........................................................................... 20
`
`Funai Elec. Co. v. Daewoo Elecs. Corp.,
`616 F.3d 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2010) .................................................................................... 6, 22, 23
`
`Gart v. Logitech, Inc.,
`254 F.3d 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2001) .............................................................................................. 22
`
`IMS Tech., Inc. v. Haas Automation, Inc.,
`206 F.3d 1422 (Fed. Cir. 2000) .......................................................................................... 6, 11
`
`
`
`ii
`
`
`
`REPLY ISO MSJ AND OPPOSITION TO
`CROSS-MSJ
`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 202 Filed 06/01/21 Page 4 of 29
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`Jackson Jordan, Inc. v. Plasser Am. Corp.,
`747 F.2d 1567 (Fed. Cir. 1984) .............................................................................................. 18
`
`JVW Enterprises, Inc. v. Interact Accessories, Inc.,
`424 F.3d 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2005) ................................................................................................ 7
`
`Massachusetts Inst. of Tech. v. Shire Pharms., Inc.,
`839 F.3d 1111 (Fed. Cir. 2016) .............................................................................................. 12
`
`Minks v. Polaris Industries, Inc.,
`546 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2008) .......................................................................................... 6, 22
`
`Nalco Co. v. Chem-Mod, LLC,
`883 F.3d 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2018) .............................................................................................. 23
`
`Omegaflex, Inc. v. Parker-Hannifin Corp.,
`243 F. App’x 592 (Fed. Cir. 2007) ........................................................................................... 7
`
`Ralston Purina Co. v. Far-Mar-Co., Inc.,
`772 F.2d 1570 (Fed. Cir. 1985) .............................................................................................. 22
`
`SRI Int’l v. Internet Sec. Sys.,
`511 F.3d 1186 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ...................................................................................... 2, 3, 23
`
`SRI International, Inc. v. Advanced Technology Laboratories, Inc.,
`127 F.3d 1462 (Fed. Cir. 1997) .............................................................................................. 23
`
`STV Asia Ltd. v. PRN Corp.,
`No. C06-1664 JCS, 2007 WL 521236 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 15, 2007) ........................................... 18
`
`TecSec, Inc. v. Int’l Bus. Machines Corp.,
`731 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2013) .............................................................................................. 18
`
`Trivascular, Inc. v. Samuels,
`812 F.3d 1056 (Fed. Cir. 2016) .............................................................................................. 12
`
`Statutes
`
`35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 6 ............................................................................................................... 16, 17
`
`35 U.S.C. § 287 ........................................................................................................... 6, 21, 22, 23
`
`Other Authorities
`
`7 Chisum on Patents § 20.03[7][c][iv] (2020 ed.)......................................................................... 23
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 26 .......................................................................................................................... 3
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2).................................................................................................................. 1
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(4).................................................................................................................. 4
`
`
`
`iii
`
`
`
`REPLY ISO MSJ AND OPPOSITION TO
`CROSS-MSJ
`Case No. 4:18-cv-07229-YGR (TSH)
`
`

`

`Case 4:18-cv-07229-YGR Document 202 Filed 06/01/21 Page 5 of 29
`
`
`
`
`Fed. R. Evid. 703 ........................................................................................................................... 4
`
`
`
`
`
`iv
`
`
`
`REPLY ISO MSJ AND OPPOSITION TO
`CROSS-MSJ
`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 202 Filed 06/01/21 Page 6 of 29
`
`
`
`
`I.
`
`REPLY IN SUPPORT OF FINJAN’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION
`
`In a tacit admission that it did not timely meet its burden to establish the authenticity and
`
`public availability of three prior art references for Qualys’s affirmative defenses and counterclaims
`
`of invalidity of the ’494 and ’731 Patents, Qualys has attempted to supplement the record with
`
`untimely documents and supplemental reports of two of its paid experts, Dr. Hall-Ellis and Dr.
`
`Stubblebine. These reports are a violation of Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2), and the reports and
`
`untimely documents violate the scheduling order too. D.I. 78. They should be stricken or
`
`disregarded. And even if the Court permits the untimely reports and unauthenticated documents
`
`and finds the three references are authentic, which Finjan opposes, Qualys still has not come
`
`forward with authenticated, corroborating evidence that establishes the references were publicly
`
`accessible before the filing of the patents. Dr. Hall-Ellis’s new testimony contradicts her prior
`
`sworn testimony on DSAVT and thus cannot generate a fact dispute. See Foster v. Adams &
`
`Assocs., Inc., No. 18-CV-02723-JSC, 2020 WL 3639648, at *1 (N.D. Cal. July 6, 2020) (“Under
`
`the sham affidavit rule, a ‘party cannot create an issue of fact by an affidavit contradicting . . .
`
`prior deposition testimony.’”). Moreover, it is nothing but speculation for Dr. Hall-Ellis to say
`
`that the MARC record for a reference she has not reviewed is the same as for the reference on
`
`which she opined. Further, that the other two references (Mounji and Thomson) can now be found
`
`on websites that did not exist at the time of filing the patents does not establish that the references
`
`were published, indexed, and discoverable in 1997. We are no closer to knowing exactly when
`
`and where the references were published and indexed in a form that was discoverable to the public
`
`than when Finjan filed its motion. For these reasons, the reasons below, and those in Finjan’s
`
`opening brief, Finjan respectfully requests the Court grant its motion.
`
`A.
`
`Qualys Has Not Shown that DSAVT Is Authentic or Was Publicly Accessible
`
`1.
`
`Qualys has not shown DSAVT is authentic
`
`Qualys’s first assertion is the DSAVT reference used here is the same as the electronic
`
`copy Qualys’s litigation counsel, and Dr. Hall-Ellis, obtained from counsel in another other case.
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`FINJAN REPLY ISO MSJ AND
`OPPOSITION TO CROSS-MSJ
`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 202 Filed 06/01/21 Page 7 of 29
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`D.I. 195 (Mot.) at p. 20; D.I. 195-3 (Hall-Ellis Decl.) at ¶ 7, see also Finjan Fact1 1. This opinion
`
`is not in Dr. Hall-Ellis’s timely report, and in deposition she testified she had not seen actual book.
`
`As such, it is a new opinion that contradicts her deposition testimony.2 This “chain of custody”
`
`argument, at best, relates back to whatever Qualys’s litigation counsel obtained from a different
`
`law firm in another case. That it came from “a law firm representing a defendant” in another case
`
`(D.I. 195 (Mot.) at p. 20:20-21) is not a hearsay exception. The cited Mays Decl. (D.I. 195-5 at ¶
`
`2), by Qualys’s litigation counsel, does not say where Juniper obtained DSAVT so the chain of
`
`custody is broken. No admissible evidence establishes from whom or where DSAVT was
`
`originally obtained. This contrasts with the Fresenius case cited by Qualys, where the author of
`
`the document testified about its date and authenticity. Fresenius Med. Care Holdings, Inc. v.
`
`Baxter Int'l, Inc., No. C. 03-1431 SBA, 2006 WL 1330001, at *3 (N.D. Cal. May 15, 2006) (“In
`
`fact, the PRSM Specification was authenticated by its author, Mr. Ragsdale, during his
`
`deposition.”). No witness with personal knowledge has been identified here, and no admissible
`
`evidence corroborates the date. Finjan Fact 1. As a matter of law, Qualys should not be permitted
`
`to delinquently rely on its paid expert with no personal knowledge and no corroborating evidence
`
`to testify about the authenticity or date of DSAVT. CNET Networks, Inc. v. Etilize, Inc., 584 F.
`
`Supp. 2d 1260, 1272–73 (N.D. Cal. 2008) (“corroboration is generally required for testimony that
`
`is asserted to invalidate a patent.”).
`
`2.
`
`Qualys has not shown DSAVT was publicly accessible
`
`Not only has Qualys failed to authenticate the DSAVT reference, it has failed to come
`
`forward with corroborating evidence to show it was publicly accessible. See Finjan Fact 2. To
`
`establish a document was publicly accessible, Qualys must establish the reference was
`
`“disseminated or otherwise made available to the extent that persons interested and ordinarily
`
`skilled in the subject matter or art exercising reasonable diligence, can locate it.” SRI Int’l v.
`
`
`1 The citation to “Finjan Fact” in the Reply is to Finjan’s Response to Qualys’s Responsive
`Separate Statement of Undisputed Material Facts, which is filed herewith.
`2See D.I. 195-43 (Mays Ex. 38, Hall-Ellis Tr.) at 50:5-24 (“A. I told you, I have not seen the book
`because I cannot get my hands on the book. Q. The British version? A. Any version . . . I can’t tell
`you what they look like. I haven’t seen them in person.”).
`
`2
`
`FINJAN REPLY ISO MSJ AND
`OPPOSITION TO CROSS-MSJ
`Case No. 4:18-cv-07229-YGR (TSH)
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 4:18-cv-07229-YGR Document 202 Filed 06/01/21 Page 8 of 29
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`Internet Sec. Sys., 511 F.3d 1186, 1194 (Fed. Cir. 2008). In SRI, a paper by the inventors was
`
`placed on a server on the Internet and a link to the paper was sent to a group of reviewers. Id. at
`
`1195. The “paper was not indexed or catalogued in any meaningful way to enable a person of
`
`ordinary skill to locate the paper.” Id. The court held that, while the paper was on the Internet, it
`
`was not “publicly accessible.”
`
`While all but admitting the alleged corroborating evidence, the MARC record, is not the
`
`record for the DSAVT reference relied upon by Dr. Stubblebine, Dr. Hall-Ellis untimely opines,
`
`without any personal knowledge or corroborating evidence, that a foreign publication of another
`
`version of the DSAVT is substantively the same as the one she opined on.3
`
`This is too little, too late. Dr. Hall-Ellis swore under oath that the MARC record was the
`
`record for DSAVT, and that very document was “received, cataloged, and indexed at the Merck,
`
`Sharp & Dohme Research Laboratory Library” no later than April 3, 1996. D.I. 195-39 (Hall-Ellis
`
`Rpt.) at ¶ 59. Yet the cover page, number of pages of the preface (20 vs. 32 pages), and text (222
`
`vs. 208 pages) of DSAVT do not match the MARC record. D.I. 192 (Mot.) at p. 5:7-22; D.I. 192-
`
`2 (Hall-Ellis Tr.) at 47:13-49:4. Dr. Hall-Ellis speculates the document “received, cataloged, and
`
`indexed” at the New Jersey library is a U.K. version (D.I. 195-3 (Hall-Ellis Decl.) at ¶ 17), and she
`
`then sums the preface and text pages together to show only one page difference and chalks up the
`
`difference to paper size (D.I. 195-3 at ¶ 16). The problem with this speculation is the preface grew
`
`by 12 pages in the MARC record, while the text pages shrank by 14. Clearly, this is not the same
`
`document. Further, Dr. Hall-Ellis contradicts her prior sworn testimony that the book was
`
`“received, cataloged, and indexed” at the library in New Jersey (D.I. 195-39 at ¶¶ 57, 59) with the
`
`suggestion that the MARC record is actually from a publication in the U.K. (D.I. 195-3 at 4:9-12).
`
`Because Qualys did not produce the alleged U.K. version of DSAVT for the MARC record relied
`
`upon by Dr. Hall-Ellis, it cannot corroborate her testimony. See Finjan Fact 3.
`
`Lastly, Qualys injects untimely opinions from Dr. Stubblebine too. Dr. Stubblebine is not
`
`identified in Qualys’s Fed. R. Civ. P. 26 disclosures as a fact or expert witness on the topics upon
`
`
`3 Dr. Hall-Ellis admitted she had not seen the document corresponding to the MARC record. D.I.
`195-43 (Mays Ex. 38, Hall-Ellis Tr.) at 50:5-24 (“. . . I haven’t seen them in person.”)
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`FINJAN REPLY ISO MSJ AND
`OPPOSITION TO CROSS-MSJ
`Case No. 4:18-cv-07229-YGR (TSH)
`
`

`

`Case 4:18-cv-07229-YGR Document 202 Filed 06/01/21 Page 9 of 29
`
`
`
`
`which he now opines, and his timely report offered no such opinion. To buttress the untimely
`
`Stubblebine opinions, more unauthenticated documents are offered from Qualys’s litigation
`
`counsel in the form of Exhibits 5 (D.I. 195-10) and 28 (D.I. 195-33). This too is improper. See
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(4) (a declaration must be made on personal knowledge). Nevertheless, Dr.
`
`Stubblebine’s opinion does not establish the version of DSAVT he relied upon was publicly
`
`accessible. After the close of fact and expert discovery, Dr. Stubblebine apparently located
`
`documents on the Internet (how or at whose direction he does not specify), reviewed a page with
`
`information pertaining to the wrong version of DSAVT, and leaps to the conclusion that since he
`
`found what he asserts is a later version of DSAVT on the Internet, the earlier version must have
`
`been publicly accessible at some earlier time. D.I. 195-4 (Stubblebine Decl.) at ¶ 4. Daubert
`
`issues aside, Qualys is attempting to use its paid expert as a conduit to publish hearsay from one
`
`unauthenticated and uncorroborated document to another on a core issue: public accessibility.
`
`Qualys cannot use its experts as an end-run around authenticity or corroboration. Fed. R. Evid.
`
`703. Finjan requests that the Court strike or disregard the untimely Stubblebine opinions and
`
`unauthenticated Mays Exhibits 5 (D.I. 195-10) and 28 (D.I. 195-33).
`
`B.
`
`Qualys Has Not Shown Mounji and Thomson Are Authentic and Were
`Publicly Accessible
`
`1.
`
`Qualys has not shown Mounji and Thomson are authentic
`
`Qualys offered Dr. Hall-Ellis’s testimony from her timely report to authenticate Mounji
`
`and Thomson. But that testimony simply confirmed the documents she downloaded from the
`
`Internet are the copies produced in the litigation, and repeats that opinion in her untimely report.
`
`This circular and uncorroborated confirmation that a downloaded document is the same as what
`
`was produced in the litigation does not make it authentic. Her untimely report does not support
`
`their authenticity or the availability of a hearsay exception, nor does it excuse Qualys’s failure to
`
`corroborate this testimony with admissible evidence from the authors, publishers, or custodians.
`
`See Finjan Fact 4.
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`FINJAN REPLY ISO MSJ AND
`OPPOSITION TO CROSS-MSJ
`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 202 Filed 06/01/21 Page 10 of 29
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`2.
`
`Qualys has not shown Mounji and Thomson were publicly accessible
`
`That Mounji and Thomson were recently downloaded from a third-party source does not
`
`establish or corroborate that they are authentic or were publicly accessible before November 6,
`
`1997. See Finjan Facts 5-9. Dr. Hall-Ellis’s untimely report attempts to bolster the credibility of
`
`the post-1997 third party sources, but conspicuously absent is any evidence as to when and where
`
`Mounji and Thomson were indexed and publicly accessible by 1997. See D.I. 195-3 at ¶¶ 23-25.
`
`This is because “these [] repositories were not created for the sole purpose of indexing references
`
`and providing dispositive dates for when a reference was published.” Id. at ¶ 21.
`
`3.
`
`The untimely Stubblebine Declaration does not cure these deficiencies
`
`As requested above, Dr. Stubblebine’s untimely report on the authenticity and public
`
`availability of Thomson should be stricken or disregarded, as should Mays Exhibit 35, which is
`
`another unauthenticated, untimely document. But even if the Court does not strike or disregard
`
`these materials, it is still insufficient for Qualys to corroborate the authenticity and public
`
`14
`
`availability of Thomson.4 Omitted from Dr. Stubblebine’s untimely opinions is that there is no
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`Thomson paper at the alleged link. Dr. Stubblebine says nothing of the nature and reach of the
`
`symposium, who was invited to attend, or whether the papers listed were indexed and searchable
`
`in 1997. He cannot say because the unauthenticated documents do not say, and he has not
`
`demonstrated any personal knowledge of any of these documents or facts.
`
`
`4 The untimely Stubblebine report does not mention Mounji.
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`FINJAN REPLY ISO MSJ AND
`OPPOSITION TO CROSS-MSJ
`Case No. 4:18-cv-07229-YGR (TSH)
`
`

`

`Case 4:18-cv-07229-YGR Document 202 Filed 06/01/21 Page 11 of 29
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`II.
`
`OPPOSITION TO QUALYS’S MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT5
`
`A.
`
`Summary Judgment of Noninfringement for the ’408 Patent Is Not
`Appropriate6
`
`For each of the contested limitations for the ’408 Patent, Finjan’s expert Dr. Medvidovic
`
`set forth a reasoned analysis that is supported by facts in the record, including (1) evidence that a
`
`single Qualys “
`
`” satisfies the “computer” limitations in the ’408 Patent; (2)
`
`evidence that Qualys searches for “potential exploits” and indicators of those exploits (such as
`
`
`
`); and (3) evidence that Qualys’s system receives data and
`
`immediately stores it in an in-memory structure that satisfies a “parse tree.” Qualys’s motion does
`
`little to address this evidence, and there is nothing in the record indicating why the evidence
`
`Finjan relies upon is irrelevant or inaccurate. Indeed, Qualys’s expert submitted a rebuttal report
`
`that disagreed with the conclusions of Finjan’s expert—but without anything to substantiate his
`
`conclusion other than off-the-record “conversations” with Qualys’s engineers and attorneys.
`
`While Qualys is free to dispute the conclusions drawn from this evidence at trial, at summary
`
`judgment all facts and inferences must be construed in the light most favorable to the non-movant.
`
`IMS Tech., Inc. v. Haas Automation, Inc., 206 F.3d 1422, 1429 (Fed. Cir. 2000); see also
`
`
`5 Qualys called its motions “cross-motions.” They are not cross-motions because they do not
`cross Finjan’s motion for summary judgment on the same legal issues. Finjan has moved for leave
`for additional pages. If the Court declines to grant it, it may disregard the additional pages in this
`brief and it is respectfully noted that Finjan opposes Qualys’s motions concerning the ’844 and
`’494 Patents based on Finjan’s response to Qualys’s Separate Statement of Fact. Finjan also notes
`the law on notice for damages, where Qualys is incorrect. Per the Federal Circuit, “Letters that
`specifically identify a product and offer a license for that product do constitute actual notice.”
`Minks v. Polaris Industries, Inc., 546 F.3d 1364, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2008). The only “detail”
`required by § 287 is detail sufficient to “support an objective understanding that the recipient may
`be an infringer” and to identify the “specific product or group of products” at issue. Funai Elec.
`Co. v. Daewoo Elecs. Corp., 616 F.3d 1357, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2010).
`
`6 In a footnote, Qualys states that if the Court grants Qualys’s “renewed” motion to strike,
`summary judgment is appropriate for an additional reason. Even if the Court grants Qualys’s
`“renewed” motion in its entirety, Qualys did not move to strike Finjan’s Web Application
`Scanning theories. See D.I. 194 at p. 5 (seeking to strike “[p]aragraphs 184-185 (to the extent
`discussing vulnerability scans) and 186-196,” but not seeking to strike other paragraphs, such as
`those relating to Web Application Scanning). Thus, if Qualys were to somehow prevail on its
`motion to strike, Finjan disagrees that any further summary judgment would be appropriate.
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`FINJAN REPLY ISO MSJ AND
`OPPOSITION TO CROSS-MSJ
`Case No. 4:18-cv-07229-YGR (TSH)
`
`

`

`Case 4:18-cv-07229-YGR Document 202 Filed 06/01/21 Page 12 of 29
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`Omegaflex, Inc. v. Parker-Hannifin Corp., 243 F. App’x 592, 595 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Because
`
`Qualys’s entire argument is effectively that its own expert disagrees with the conclusions of
`
`Finjan’s expert, the Court should deny Qualys’s motion.
`
`1.
`
`Qualys’s “same computer” argument fails legally
`
`Not all of the asserted claims require that the accused functionality be performed by a
`
`single computer. JVW Enterprises, Inc. v. Interact Accessories, Inc., 424 F.3d 1324, 1335 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2005) (disfavoring importing non-recited limitations into the claims).
`
`a)
`
`The ’408 Patent does not expressly require that all claimed steps
`be performed by the same computer
`
`The premise for Qualys’s argument is that “[e]ach asserted claim of the ’408 patent . . .
`
`requires that all claimed steps be performed by or located within the same computer.” D.I. 195
`
`(Mot.) at p. 3. Qualys is simply wrong. Claim 1 is the only asserted claim that includes
`
`“computer” in every limitation. That is not the case for the remaining asserted claims (22, 23, 35).
`
`Claim 22 refers to a “computer” only in the preamble, and the parties agree the preamble is not
`
`limiting. See Add’l Facts 31-327; D.I. 195-6 (’408 Pat.) at cl. 22; Exh. 8 (Medvidovic Op.) ¶ 368
`
`(“preamble is not limiting”); Exh. 9 (Rubin Op.) ¶ 261 (Qualys’s expert opining that the
`
`“preamble is generally not limiting”); see Allen Eng'g Corp. v. Bartell Indus., 299 F.3d 1336, 1346
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2002) (“Generally, the preamble does not limit the claims.”). Claim 23 requires that “a
`
`computer” receives information, but it does not require that all subsequent limitations are
`
`performed by that same “computer.” See Add’l Fact 33; D.I. 195-6 (’408 Pat.) at cl. 23. And
`
`Claim 35requires a “computer” in only one limitation. See Add’l Fact 34; Id at cl. 35. For this
`
`reason, Qualys’s “single computer” argument at best applies only to claim 1, and should be denied
`
`out of hand for the other claims.
`
`b)
`
`Collateral estoppel from the SonicWall case does not apply
`
`Rather than focus on the claim language, Qualys cites to the SonicWall case and argues
`
`that Finjan is “collaterally estopped from disputing that the ’408 Patent must be performed by the
`
`
`7 The citation to “Fact” or “Add’l Fact” in the Opposition are to Finjan’s Responsive Separate
`Statement of Undisputed Material Facts, and the citation to “Exh” are to the Declaration of Jason
`W. Wolff ISO, filed herewith.
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`FINJAN REPLY ISO MSJ AND
`OPPOSITION TO CROSS-MSJ
`Case No. 4:18-cv-07229-YGR (TSH)
`
`

`

`Case 4:18-cv-07229-YGR Document 202 Filed 06/01/21 Page 13 of 29
`
`
`
`
`same computer.” D.I. 195 (Mot.) at p. 4. However, the SonicWall case involved different issues
`
`(different asserted claims and different products), and thus, collateral estoppel does not apply.
`
`For collateral estoppel to apply, “four conditions must be met: ‘(1) the issue at stake was
`
`identical in both proceedings; (2) the issue was actually litigated and decided in the prior
`
`proceedings; (3) there was a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issue; and (4) the issue was
`
`necessary to decide the merits.’” Arista Networks, Inc. v. Cisco Sys., Inc., No. 16-CV-00923-BLF,
`
`2017 WL 6102804, at *11 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 10, 2017) (quoting Oyeniran v. Holder, 672 F.3d 800,
`
`806 (9th Cir. 2012)). There are several differences between the SonicWall case and this one, the
`
`most relevant of which is that the claims are different across the two cases. Claims 23 and 35,
`
`which are asserted here, were not at issue in SonicWall. See Add’l Fact 35; D.I. 195-16 (Ex. 11,
`
`Order Granting in Part and Denying In Part Defendant’s Motion For Partial Summary Judgment,
`
`No. 17-cv-04467-BLF, D.I. 420 (Mar. 5, 2021)) at pp. 19-20. And whileclaims 1 and 22 were at
`
`issue in SonicWall, the parties’ argument and the Court’s rationale was based only on the
`
`language in claim 1. See generally Id. at 18-24 (not addressing the differences in claims 1 and
`
`22); Exh. 10 (Redacted Version of Finjan’s Opp. to SonicWall’s Mot. for Partial Summary
`
`Judgment, No. 17-cv-04467-BLF, D.I. 327-3 (Dec. 21, 2020) at pp. 9-11 (not addressing the
`
`differences in claims 1 and 22); Exh. 11 (Redacted Version of SonicWall’s Mot. for Partial
`
`Summary Judgment, No. 17-cv-04467-BLF, D.I.