Case 4:18-cv-07229-YGR Document 208 Filed 06/15/21 Page 1 of 3
`
`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) 210-2900
`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
`
`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
`
`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
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff
`FINJAN LLC
`
`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)
`
`JOINT MOTION TO STAY
`LITIGATION
`
`))))))))))
`
`FINJAN LLC
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`QUALYS INC.,
`
`Defendant.
`
`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. 4:18-cv-07229-YGR
`
`JOINT MOTION TO STAY
`
`

`

`Case 4:18-cv-07229-YGR Document 208 Filed 06/15/21 Page 2 of 3
`
`The parties jointly request the Court stay the litigation pending the outcome of appellate
`review of the court’s summary judgment order in Finjan v. ESET (S.D. Cal. Case No. 17-cv-0183)
`(“ESET Action”).
`As the parties informed the Court during the March 26, 2021, hearing in this action, the
`court in the ESET Action issued a summary judgment order finding U.S. Patent Nos. 6,154,844
`and 6,804,780 invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 112 for indefiniteness (“ESET Order”). See Transcript
`of March 26, 2021 Hearing at 31:4-37:4 and 43:3-44:11; Dkt. No. 869 of ESET Action. Finjan
`will appeal the ESET Order, and its predicate claim construction order. Qualys maintains that the
`ESET Order and the outcome of any appellate review are relevant to the instant litigation because
`(1) the’844 Patent is asserted in this case and (2) a second patent asserted in this case—U.S. Patent
`No. 8,677,494—is a continuation of the ’780 Patent.
`After meeting and conferring over the issues, the parties agree that the interests of judicial
`economy as well as the resources of the Court and the parties are best served by staying this
`litigation pending the outcome of Finjan’s appeal. For example, the ’844 and ’494 Patents are
`among four presently asserted patents in this litigation; these two patents therefore represent a
`significant number of issues in the case that may be resolved or narrowed based on the outcome
`of Finjan’s appeal (such as the parties’ several infringement and invalidity theories regarding these
`two patents). Moreover, if the appeal affirms the ESET Order, it would dispose of the ’844 Patent
`(and, Qualys contends, the ’494 Patent); however, if the appeal reverses the ESET Order or the
`underlying claim construction order, it would resolve Qualys’s collateral estoppel defense for this
`particular issue. Waiting for resolution of Finjan’s appeal could also reduce the burden on the
`Court by potentially eliminating or narrowing summary judgment issues for the Court to decide.
`The parties therefore jointly request the Court stay the litigation, including all pending
`deadlines related to their summary judgment motions and the hearing for the same, pending the
`completion of any appellate review of the order at Dkt. No. 869 in the ESET Action.
`
`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. 4:18-cv-07229-YGR
`
`1
`
`JOINT MOTION TO STAY
`
`

`

`Case 4:18-cv-07229-YGR Document 208 Filed 06/15/21 Page 3 of 3
`
`Dated: June 15, 2021
`
`Dated: June 15, 2021
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`FISH & RICHARDSON P.C.
`
`By:
`
`/s/ Juanita R. Brooks
`JUANITA R. BROOKS
`
`Counsel for Plaintiff
`FINJAN, LLC
`
`WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI
`
`By:
`
`/s/ Christopher D. Mays
`CHRISTOPHER D. MAYS
`
`Counsel for Defendant
`QUALYS INC.
`
`ATTESTATION PURSUANT TO CIVIL L.R. 5-1(I)
`In accordance with Civil Local Rule 5-1(i)(3), I attest that concurrence in the filing of this
`document has been obtained from any other signatory to this document.
`
`/s/ Christopher D. Mays
`Christopher D. Mays
`
`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. 4:18-cv-07229-YGR
`
`2
`
`JOINT MOTION TO STAY
`
`