`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`SAN JOSE DIVISION
`
`Case No. 15-cv-03295-BLF
`
`
`
`ORDER GRANTING-IN-PART AND
`DENYING-IN-PART FINJAN'S
`MOTION TO STRIKE BLUE COAT'S
`AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES, WITH
`LEAVE TO AMEND
`
`FINJAN, INC.,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`BLUE COAT SYSTEMS, LLC,
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Finjan moves to strike Blue Coat’s sixth, ninth, and tenth affirmative defenses. Blue Coat
`
`opposes. The parties appeared for oral argument on the motion on November 10, 2016.
`
`For the reasons stated on the record and below, the Court GRANTS-IN-PART and
`
`DENIES-IN-PART Finjan’s motion:
`
`With respect to Blue Coat’s sixth affirmative defense, titled “Limitation on Damages,” the
`
`Court finds that Blue Coat has sufficiently alleged facts to give Finjan “fair notice of the defense.”
`
`Simmons v. Navajo Cnty., Ariz., 609 F.3d 1011, 1023 (9th Cir. 2010) (quoting Wyshak v. City Nat.
`
`Bank, 607 F.2d 824, 826 (9th Cir. 1979) (per curiam)). The Court therefore DENIES Finjan’s
`
`motion with respect to this defense.
`
`With respect to Blue Coat’s ninth affirmative defense, titled “Collateral Estoppel / Res
`
`Judicata / Waiver,” the Court finds that Blue Coat has failed to allege sufficient facts to give
`
`Finjan fair notice. See id. Collateral estoppel, res judicata, and waiver are distinct defenses, but
`
`Blue Coat failed to allege them separately. Further, the Court finds the facts alleged insufficient.
`
`Blue Coat did not identify which infringement claim(s) (e.g., by patent and product) it contends
`
`are barred by res judicata, which infringement issue(s) (e.g., by patent and product, as relevant) it
`
`contends are collaterally estopped, nor which right(s) it contends it waived. The Court therefore
`
`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
`
`Northern District of California
`
`United States District Court
`
`
`
`Case 5:15-cv-03295-BLF Document 140 Filed 11/14/16 Page 2 of 2
`
`
`
`GRANTS Finjan’s motion to strike the ninth affirmative defense and GRANTS Blue Coat leave to
`
`amend its allegations of collateral estoppel, res judicata, and waiver.
`
`With respect to Blue Coat’s tenth affirmative defense, titled “Patent Misuse,” the Court
`
`finds that Blue Coat has failed to allege sufficient facts to give Finjan fair notice. Id. Blue Coat’s
`
`allegations have not alleged with sufficient particularity how Finjan has “impermissibly broadened
`
`the physical or temporal scope of [its] patent grant” or how Finjan’s actions have had
`
`“anticompetitive effects.” Princo Corp. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 616 F.3d 1318, 1328 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2010). The Court therefore GRANTS Finjan’s motion to strike the tenth affirmative defense and
`
`GRANTS Blue Coat leave to amend its allegation of patent misuse.
`
`Any amended answer must be filed no later than December 5, 2016. Blue Coat is not
`
`permitted, absent further leave of Court, to allege any additional affirmative defenses.
`
`IT IS SO ORDERED.
`
`
`
`Dated: November 14, 2016
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` ______________________________________
`BETH LABSON FREEMAN
`United States District Judge
`
`
`
`2
`
`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
`
`Northern District of California
`
`United States District Court
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
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.
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.
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
