Case 5:15-cv-03295-BLF Document 469 Filed 12/15/17 Page 1 of 20
`
`
`
`
`PAUL J. ANDRE (State Bar No. 196585)
`pandre@kramerlevin.com
`LISA KOBIALKA (State Bar No. 191404)
`lkobialka@kramerlevin.com
`JAMES HANNAH (State Bar No. 237978)
`jhannah@kramerlevin.com
`HANNAH LEE (State Bar No. 253197)
`hlee@kramerlevin.com
`KRAMER LEVIN NAFTALIS
`& FRANKEL LLP
`990 Marsh Road
`Menlo Park, CA 94025
`Telephone: (650) 752-1700
`Facsimile: (650) 752-1800
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff
`FINJAN, INC.
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`FINJAN, INC., a Delaware Corporation,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`SAN JOSE DIVISION
`
`
`Case No.: 15-cv-3295-BLF-SVK
`
`PLAINTIFF FINJAN, INC.’S NOTICE OF
`MOTION AND PARTIAL RENEWED
`MOTION FOR JUDGMENT AS A
`MATTER OF LAW PURSUANT TO FED.
`R. CIV. P. 50(b)
`
` TBD
`Date:
`Time: TBD
`Place: Courtroom 3, 5th Floor
`Before: Hon. Beth Labson Freeman
`
`
`BLUE COAT SYSTEMS, INC., a Delaware
`Corporation,
`
`
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`__________________________________________________________________________________
`FINJAN’S PARTIAL RENEWED MOTION FOR JUDGMENT CASE NO. 15-cv-03295-BLF-SVK
`AS A MATTER OF LAW PURSUANT TO RULE 50(b)
`
`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 5:15-cv-03295-BLF Document 469 Filed 12/15/17 Page 2 of 20
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`III. 
`
`IV. 
`
`
`NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION .................................................................................................. 1 
`RELIEF REQUESTED ............................................................................................................................. 1 
`I. 
`LEGAL STANDARD ................................................................................................................... 1 
`II. 
`FINJAN IS ENTITLED TO JMOL THAT BLUE COAT INFRINGES THE ‘844
`PATENT ....................................................................................................................................... 2 
`FINJAN IS ENTITLED TO JMOL THAT BLUE COAT INFRINGES THE ‘494
`PATENT ....................................................................................................................................... 4 
`FINJAN IS ENTITLED TO JMOL THAT BLUE COAT WILLFULLY INFRINGES
`THE ‘844 AND ‘494 PATENTS .................................................................................................. 6 
`FINJAN IS ENTITLED TO JMOL THAT BLUE COAT OWES DAMAGES FOR
`INFRINGEMENT OF THE ‘844 OF AT LEAST $29.8 MILLION AND DAMAGES
`FOR INFRINGEMENT OF THE ‘494 PATENT OF AT LEAST $16.2 MILLION .................. 8 
`CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................................... 16 
`
`V. 
`
`VI. 
`
`
`i
`FINJAN’S PARTIAL RENEWED MOTION FOR JUDGMENT CASE NO. 15-cv-03295-BLF-SVK
`AS A MATTER OF LAW PURSUANT TO RULE 50(b)
`
`
`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 5:15-cv-03295-BLF Document 469 Filed 12/15/17 Page 3 of 20
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`
`Page(s)
`
`
`
`Cases
`
`Affinity Labs of Tex., LLC v. BMW N. Am., LLC,
`783 F. Supp. 2d 891 (E.D. Tex. 2011) ................................................................................................ 7
`
`Card-Monroe Corp. v. Tuftco Corp.,
`No. 1:14-cv-292, 2017 WL 3841878 (E.D. Tenn. Sept. 1, 2017)..................................................... 11
`
`Carnegie Mellon Univ. v. Marvell Tech. Grp. Ltd.,
`807 F.3d 1283 (Fed. Cir. 2015)......................................................................................................... 10
`
`CNET Networks, Inc. v. Etilize, Inc.,
`528 F. Supp. 2d 985 (N.D. Cal. 2007) .............................................................................................. 11
`
`Decca Ltd. v. U.S.,
`210 Ct. Cl. 546 (Ct. Cl. 1976) ........................................................................................................... 12
`
`E.E.O.C. v. Go Daddy Software, Inc.,
`581 F.3d (9th Cir. 2009) ..................................................................................................................... 2
`
`Enplas Display Device Corp. v. Seoul Semiconductor Co.,
`No. 13-cv-05038 NC, 2016 WL 4208236 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 10, 2016) ................................................ 2
`
`Goulds’ Mfg. Co. v. Cowing,
`105 U.S. 253 (1881) .......................................................................................................................... 11
`
`Graver Tank & Mfg. Co., v. Linde Air Prods. Co.,
`339 U.S. 605 (1950) ............................................................................................................................ 3
`
`Greatbatch Ltd. v. AVX Corp.,
`No. 13-723-LPS, 2016 WL 7217625 (D. Del. Dec. 13, 2016) ........................................................... 6
`
`Halo Elecs., Inc. v. Pulse Elecs., Inc.,
`136 S.Ct. 1923 (2016) ......................................................................................................................... 6
`
`Imperium IP Holdings (Cayman), Ltd. v. Samsung Elecs. Co.,
`No. 4:14-cv-371, 2017 WL 4038884 (E.D. Tex. Sept. 13, 2017)....................................................... 7
`
`MobileMedia Ideas LLC v. Apple Inc.,
`780 F.3d 1159 (Fed. Cir. 2015)....................................................................................................... 3, 5
`
`Nat’l Presto Indus., Inc. v. W. Bend Co.,
`76 F.3d 1185 (Fed. Cir. 1996)............................................................................................................. 3
`
`ii
`FINJAN’S PARTIAL RENEWED MOTION FOR JUDGMENT CASE NO. 15-cv-03295-BLF-SVK
`AS A MATTER OF LAW PURSUANT TO RULE 50(b)
`
`
`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 5:15-cv-03295-BLF Document 469 Filed 12/15/17 Page 4 of 20
`
`
`
`NTP, Inc. v. Research in Motion, Ltd.,
`418 F.3d 1282 (Fed. Cir. 2005)......................................................................................................... 12
`
`Paice LLC v. Toyota Motor Corp.,
`504 F.3d 1293 (Fed. Cir. 2007)........................................................................................................... 4
`
`Railroad Dynamics, Inc. v. A. Stuki Co.,
`727 F.2d 1506 (Fed. Cir. 1984)......................................................................................................... 11
`
`Roche Palo Alto LLC v. Apotex, Inc.,
`526 F. Supp. 2d 985 (N.D. Cal. 2007), aff’d, 531 F.3d 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2008)................................. 10
`
`Shum v. Intel Corp.,
`630 F. Supp. 2d 1063 (N.D. Cal. 2009) .............................................................................................. 1
`
`Tyco Healthcare Grp., LP v. Applied Med. Res. Corp.,
`No. 9:06-cv-151, 2009 WL 5842063 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 30, 2009) ....................................................... 7
`
`Warner-Jenkinson Co., v. Hilton Davis Chem. Co.,
`520 U.S. 17 (1997) .............................................................................................................................. 3
`
`WMS Gaming Inc. v. Int’l Game Tech.,
`184 F.3d 1339 (Fed. Cir. 1999)........................................................................................................... 6
`
`Statutes
`
`35 U.S.C. § 271(a) ...................................................................................................................... 10, 11, 12
`
`35 U.S.C. § 284 ......................................................................................................................................... 8
`
`Other Authorities
`
`Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 50 ................................................................................................ 1, 6, 16
`
`
`
`
`
`iii
`FINJAN’S PARTIAL RENEWED MOTION FOR JUDGMENT CASE NO. 15-cv-03295-BLF-SVK
`AS A MATTER OF LAW PURSUANT TO RULE 50(b)
`
`
`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 5:15-cv-03295-BLF Document 469 Filed 12/15/17 Page 5 of 20
`
`
`
`
`TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD:
`
`NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION
`
`NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that as soon as the matter may be heard by the Court, Finjan,
`
`Inc. (“Finjan”) will and hereby does move the Court for an order granting its partial renewed motion
`
`for judgment as a matter of law. This Motion is based on this Notice of Motion, the Memorandum of
`
`Points and Authorities, the trial record, the pleadings and papers on file, and any evidence and
`
`argument presented to the Court.
`
`RELIEF REQUESTED
`
`Pursuant to the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 50(b), Finjan moves for renewed judgment as a
`
`matter of law (“JMOL”) that: (1) Blue Coat infringes U.S. Patent No. 6,154,844 (“the ‘844 Patent”)
`
`and U.S. Patent No. 8,677,494 (“the ‘494 Patent”); (2) Blue Coat’s infringement was and continues to
`
`be willful; and (3) Blue Coat owes damages of no less than a reasonable royalty for infringement of
`
`the ‘844 Patent and ‘494 Patent, i.e. $29.8 million and $16.2 million respectively. Blue Coat failed to
`
`present a legally sufficient evidentiary basis to support its defenses to the foregoing. For such reasons
`
`as discussed in detail below, the Court should grant Finjan’s renewed motion for judgment as a matter
`of law1.
`
`I.
`
`LEGAL STANDARD
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 50(b) states that a party may move for a renewed motion for judgment as a
`
`matter of law no later than 28 days after the jury was discharged if the motion addresses a jury issue
`
`not decided by a verdict. “Where the jury has not reached a verdict, the failure to reach a verdict does
`
`not necessarily preclude a judgment as a matter of law.” Shum v. Intel Corp., 630 F. Supp. 2d 1063,
`
`1072 (N.D. Cal. 2009) (citations omitted). Judgment as a matter of law is appropriate if the Court
`
`views the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, drawing all reasonable
`
`inferences in that party’s favor, and if “the court finds that a reasonable jury would not have a legally
`
`1 Finjan will move for renewed judgment as a matter of law on remaining issues set forth in its Rule
`50(a) motion after the Court’s entry of judgment. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 50(b) (a party may move for a
`renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law “[n]o later than 28 days after the entry of judgment—
`or if the motion addresses a jury issue not decided by a verdict, no later than 28 days after the jury was
`discharged . . .”); Nov. 21, 2017 Hearing Tr. at 15:22-16:12.
`1
`FINJAN’S PARTIAL RENEWED MOTION FOR JUDGMENT CASE NO. 15-cv-03295-BLF-SVK
`AS A MATTER OF LAW PURSUANT TO RULE 50(b)
`
`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 5:15-cv-03295-BLF Document 469 Filed 12/15/17 Page 6 of 20
`
`
`
`
`sufficient evidentiary basis to find for the party on [an] issue.’” E.E.O.C. v. Go Daddy Software, Inc.,
`
`581 F.3d, 951, 961 (9th Cir. 2009); Enplas Display Device Corp. v. Seoul Semiconductor Co., No. 13-
`
`cv-05038 NC, 2016 WL 4208236, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 10, 2016) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 50(b)).
`II.
`FINJAN IS ENTITLED TO JMOL THAT BLUE COAT INFRINGES THE ‘844
`PATENT
`Blue Coat failed to present the jury with legally sufficient evidence that GIN/WebPulse does
`not infringe Claim 15 of the ‘844 Patent. See Dkt. No.2 423 at 3, 11-13; Dkt. No. 459 at 1-3, 10-11;
`Trial Tr. at 1713:7-1734:15. Accordingly, Finjan is entitled to JMOL that Blue Coat infringes the ‘844
`
`Patent.
`
`Finjan presented substantial evidence at trial demonstrating GIN/WebPulse literally infringes
`
`the ‘844 Patent, and Blue Coat failed to present legally sufficient evidence to rebut this evidence.
`
`Finjan presented numerous Blue Coat documents, source code, witness testimony, expert testimony
`
`and testing of the Accused Products establishing that GIN/Webpulse meets the preamble and Elements
`
`1-2 of Claim 15 of the ‘844 Patent (preamble: ( “[a]n inspector system comprising”); Element 1:
`
`“memory storing a first rule set”; and Element 2: “a first content inspection engine for using the first
`
`rule set to generate a first Downloadable security profile that identifies suspicious code in a
`
`Downloadable, and for linking the first Downloadable security profile to the Downloadable before a
`
`web server makes the Downloadable available to web clients”). Specifically, Finjan presented
`
`substantial evidence that GIN/WebPulse is an inspector system (Trial Tr. at 501:22-504:14; PTX-105;
`
`JTX-3043), contains a memory with a rule set (Trial Tr. at 504:15-514:17; PTX-1025; PTX-290; PTX-
`
`295; Larsen testimony (PTX-1276 at 106:8-13, 110:16-20); PTX-575); and contains a content
`
`inspection engine that generates a profile identifying suspicious code and links the profile before
`
`making the downloadable available (Trial Tr. at 514:18-515:3, 517:11-537:13; PTX-1274; PTX-49;
`
`PTX-368; PTX-423; PTX-427; PTX-564; PTX499; PTX-1025; and JTX-3050). See also Trial Tr. at
`
`469:16-539:9, 560:9-23, 565:14-591:9, 603:18-605:11.
`
`At trial, Blue Coat only challenged infringement of Element 2 with the unsupported,
`
`conclusory opinion of Dr. Nielson, who did not cite any exhibits or witness testimony (aside from
`
`2 Unless indicated otherwise, all “Dkt. No.” cites herein are to the filed pleadings in this litigation.
`2
`FINJAN’S PARTIAL RENEWED MOTION FOR JUDGMENT CASE NO. 15-cv-03295-BLF-SVK
`AS A MATTER OF LAW PURSUANT TO RULE 50(b)
`
`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 5:15-cv-03295-BLF Document 469 Filed 12/15/17 Page 7 of 20
`
`
`
`
`PTX564 to show that the MAA reports also show information that is not code). Trial Tr. at 1618:16-
`
`18, 1626:8-11; MobileMedia Ideas LLC v. Apple Inc., 780 F.3d 1159, 1172 (Fed. Cir. 2015)
`
`(“Conclusory statements by an expert, however, are insufficient to sustain a jury’s verdict”). Blue
`
`Coat’s expert also did not apply the plain meaning of the claim or apply the claim language as
`
`construed by the Court. During cross examination, Blue Coat’s expert, Dr. Nielson, stated that he
`
`interpreted the claim language in a manner inconsistent with the plain meaning of the claims as one of
`
`ordinary skill in the art would, as well as did not apply the Court’s claim construction for the terms in
`
`the case. He did not apply the plain meaning and the Court’s construction for the ‘844 claim element
`
`“a first content inspection engine for using the first rule set to generate a first Downloadable security
`
`profile that identifies suspicious code in a Downloadable, and for linking the first Downloadable
`
`security profile to the Downloadable before a web server makes the Downloadable available to web
`
`clients.” See e.g., Trial Tr. at 1606:13-1610:1, 1612:6-1626:11, 1798:25-1800:20, and 1806:19-24.
`
`Finjan also presented substantial evidence that Blue Coat infringes Claim 15 (Element 2) of the
`
`‘844 Patent under the doctrine of equivalents. Trial Tr. at 469:16-496:21, 537:14-539:9; JTX-3001;
`
`JTX-3007; JTX-3043; JTX-3050; PTX-49; PTX-423; PTX-54; PTX-216; PTX-199; PTX-368; PTX-
`
`423; PTX-427; PTX-460; PTX-499; PTX-564; PTX-1025; PTX-1274. Equivalency is the “substantial
`
`sameness of the patented invention and the accused composition,” and there is no particular formula of
`
`evidence or argument required to establish infringement under the doctrine of equivalents. Nat’l
`
`Presto Indus., Inc. v. W. Bend Co., 76 F.3d 1185, 1191 (Fed. Cir. 1996); see also Warner-Jenkinson
`
`Co., v. Hilton Davis Chem. Co., 520 U.S. 17, 24-25 (1997) (citing Graver Tank & Mfg. Co., v. Linde
`
`Air Prods. Co., 339 U.S. 605, 609 (1950) (“Equivalence, in the patent law, is not the prisoner of a
`
`formula and is not an absolute to be considered in a vacuum. It does not require complete identity for
`
`every purpose and in every respect”)).
`
`Finjan’s expert, Dr. Cole, testified at length in support of his opinion that Blue Coat infringes
`
`the ‘844 Patent under the doctrine of equivalents, including providing expert testimony regarding the
`
`background of the invention and the functionality of GIN/Webpulse, an element-by-element analysis
`
`of literal infringement of the ‘844 Patent, and additional testimony regarding infringement of the ‘844
`
`3
`FINJAN’S PARTIAL RENEWED MOTION FOR JUDGMENT CASE NO. 15-cv-03295-BLF-SVK
`AS A MATTER OF LAW PURSUANT TO RULE 50(b)
`
`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 5:15-cv-03295-BLF Document 469 Filed 12/15/17 Page 8 of 20
`
`
`
`
`Patent under the doctrine of equivalents. Trial Tr. at 469:16-496:21, 537:14-539:9; JTX-3001; JTX-
`
`3007; JTX-3043; JTX-3050; PTX-49; PTX-423; PTX-54; PTX-216; PTX-199; PTX-368; PTX-423;
`
`PTX-427; PTX-460; PTX-499; PTX-564; PTX-1025; PTX-1274. It is not necessary to draw a “line in
`
`the sand” between Dr. Cole’s testimony regarding infringement under the doctrine of equivalents and
`
`other relevant testimony he provided to the jury regarding literal infringement, the patent, or the
`
`technology of the Accused Product. See Paice LLC v. Toyota Motor Corp., 504 F.3d 1293, 1305 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2007) (a witness may incorporate earlier testimony regarding literal infringement and the accused
`
`product as part of testimony regarding infringement under doctrine of equivalents to avoid
`
`duplication). The only evidence Blue Coat presented to rebut Finjan’s substantial evidence of
`
`infringement are statements from Dr. Nielson, without citing any exhibits or witness testimony, that
`
`what Finjan accused is not equivalent. Trial Tr. at 1626:12-1630:5. Thus, Blue Coat failed to present
`
`legally sufficient evidence to rebut the evidence of infringement under the doctrine of equivalents.
`
`Based on the substantial evidence of infringement of the ‘844 Patent, and the lack of legally
`
`sufficient rebuttal evidence from Blue Coat, Finjan is entitled to JMOL that GIN/WebPulse infringes
`
`Claim 15 of the ‘844 Patent, literally or, alternatively, under the doctrine of equivalents.
`III.
`FINJAN IS ENTITLED TO JMOL THAT BLUE COAT INFRINGES THE ‘494
`PATENT
`Blue Coat failed to present the jury with legally sufficient evidence that GIN/WebPulse does
`
`not infringe Claim 10 of the ‘494 Patent. See Dkt. No. 423 at 3-4, 11-13; Dkt. No. 459 at 4-5, 10-11;
`
`Trial Tr. at 1713:7-1734:15. Accordingly, Finjan is entitled to JMOL that Blue Coat infringes the ‘494
`
`Patent.
`
`Finjan presented substantial evidence demonstrating that GIN/WebPulse literally infringes the
`
`‘494 Patent. During trial, Finjan presented numerous Blue Coat documents, source code, witness
`
`testimony, expert testimony and testing of the Accused Products establishing that GIN/Webpulse
`
`satisfies the preamble and Elements 1-3 of Claim 10 of the ‘494 Patent (preamble: “a system for
`
`managing Downloadables, comprising”); Element 1: “a receiver for receiving an incoming
`
`Downloadable”; Element 2: “a Downloadable scanner coupled with said receiver, for deriving
`
`security profile data for the Downloadable, including a list of suspicious computer operations that may
`4
`FINJAN’S PARTIAL RENEWED MOTION FOR JUDGMENT CASE NO. 15-cv-03295-BLF-SVK
`AS A MATTER OF LAW PURSUANT TO RULE 50(b)
`
`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 5:15-cv-03295-BLF Document 469 Filed 12/15/17 Page 9 of 20
`
`
`
`
`be attempted by the Downloadable; and”; Element 3: “a database manager coupled with said
`
`Downloadable scanner, for storing the Downloadable security profile data in a database”).
`
`Specifically, Finjan presented substantial evidence that: GIN/WebPulse contains a system for
`
`managing downloadables (Trial Tr. at 501:22-504:14, 540:18-543:12); contains a receiver for
`
`incoming downloadables (Trial Tr. at 542:14-546:13; PTX-105; and PTX-1025); contains a scanner
`
`for deriving security profile information from downloadables, including a list of suspicious operations
`
`(Trial Tr. at 546:14-552:17; PTX-211; PTX-516; JTX-3060); and contains a database manager for
`
`storing security profile in a database (Trial Tr. at 554:11-559:10; JTX-3050; deposition testimony of
`
`Chris Larsen; PTX-211; and PTX-1025). See also Trial Tr. at 469:16-496:21, 540:18-560:8. 565:14-
`
`605:11.
`
`Blue Coat challenged only Element 2 of Claim 10 of the ‘494 Patent with nothing but the
`
`conclusory, unsupported opinion of Dr. Nielson, who did not cite any exhibits or witness testimony.
`
`Trial Tr. at 1592:20, 1597:7-12, 1598:1-2, 1603:19-21; MobileMedia Ideas LLC, 780 F.3d at 1172
`
`(“Conclusory statements by an expert, however, are insufficient to sustain a jury’s verdict”). In doing
`
`so, Dr. Nielson failed to apply the plain and ordinary meaning and the Court’s construction for the
`
`‘494 elements “a Downloadable scanner coupled with said receiver, for deriving security profile data
`
`for the Downloadable, including a list of suspicious computer operations that may be attempted by the
`
`Downloadable” and “a database manager coupled with said Downloadable scanner, for storing the
`
`Downloadable security profile data in a database.” See e.g., Trial Tr. at 1597:22-1600:16. Thus, Blue
`
`Coat failed to present legally sufficient evidence to rebut the evidence of literal infringement.
`
`Finjan also presented substantial evidence that Blue Coat infringes Element 2 of Claim 10 of
`
`the ‘494 Patent under the doctrine of equivalents. Trial Tr. at 469:16-496:21, 540:18-542:13, 552:18-
`
`554:10, 559:11-560:8; PTX-211; PTX-516; JTX-3060; PTX-1274; PTX-368; PTX-564; PTX-499;
`
`PTX-1025; PTX-427; JTX-3050; PTX-423; JTX-3043; PTX-49; PTX-216; and JTX-3001.
`
`Finjan’s expert, Dr. Cole, testified at length that Blue Coat infringes the ‘494 Patent under the
`
`doctrine of equivalents, including providing expert testimony regarding the background of the
`
`invention and the functionality of GIN/Webpulse, an element-by-element analysis of literal
`
`5
`FINJAN’S PARTIAL RENEWED MOTION FOR JUDGMENT CASE NO. 15-cv-03295-BLF-SVK
`AS A MATTER OF LAW PURSUANT TO RULE 50(b)
`
`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 5:15-cv-03295-BLF Document 469 Filed 12/15/17 Page 10 of 20
`
`
`
`
`infringement of the ‘494 Patent, and additional testimony regarding infringement of the ‘494 Patent
`
`under the doctrine of equivalents. The only evidence Blue Coat presented to rebut Finjan’s substantial
`
`evidence is statements from Dr. Nielson, without citing any exhibits or witness testimony, that what
`
`Finjan accused is not equivalent. Trial Tr. at 1601:15-1602:20. Thus, Blue Coat failed to present
`
`legally sufficient evidence to rebut the evidence of infringement under the doctrine of equivalents.
`
`Based on the substantial evidence of infringement of the ‘494 Patent, and the lack of legally
`
`sufficient evidence from Blue Coat purportedly supporting non-infringement, Finjan is entitled to
`
`JMOL that GIN/WebPulse infringes Claim 10 of the ‘494 Patent, literally or, alternatively, under the
`
`doctrine of equivalents.
`IV.
`FINJAN IS ENTITLED TO JMOL THAT BLUE COAT WILLFULLY INFRINGES
`THE ‘844 AND ‘494 PATENTS
`At trial, Finjan proved, by a preponderance of evidence, that Blue Coat willfully infringed and
`
`continues to infringe Claim 15 of the ‘844 Patent and Claim 10 of the ‘494 Patent. Halo Elecs., Inc. v.
`
`Pulse Elecs., Inc., 136 S.Ct. 1923, 1934 (2016); Greatbatch Ltd. v. AVX Corp., No. 13-723-LPS, 2016
`
`WL 7217625, at *3 (D. Del. Dec. 13, 2016). Blue Coat failed to present legally sufficient evidence to
`
`rebut the substantial evidence of willful infringement. Fed. R. Civ. P. 50(b).
`
` Willfulness is shown when the infringer knew of the patents and engaged in infringement that
`
`is malicious, deliberate, consciously wrongful or in bad faith. WMS Gaming Inc. v. Int’l Game Tech.,
`
`184 F.3d 1339, 1354 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (finding willfulness based on totality of circumstances when
`
`infringer knew of the patent and its significance and made no effort to design around it).
`
`It is undisputed that Blue Coat had knowledge of the ‘844 and ‘494 Patents before July 15,
`
`2015, the date this action commenced, and made no efforts to design around these patents in the
`
`development of GIN/Webpulse. In the Pretrial Statement and Order, Blue Coat stipulated that it knew
`
`of the ‘844 Patent since August 28, 2013 (the date of the Complaint in the Finjan, Inc. v. Blue Coat
`
`Sys., Inc., 13-cv-03999-BLF (N.D. Cal.) previous litigation (“Blue Coat I”)) and that it knew of the
`
`‘494 Patent since at least May 1, 2014 (when the parties filed a Second Joint Case Management
`
`Statement in Blue Coat I). Dkt. No. 359 at 8. It also stipulated it would not present any evidence at
`
`trial regarding non-infringing alternatives or design-arounds. Id. at 13. Despite the fact Blue Coat had
`6
`FINJAN’S PARTIAL RENEWED MOTION FOR JUDGMENT CASE NO. 15-cv-03295-BLF-SVK
`AS A MATTER OF LAW PURSUANT TO RULE 50(b)
`
`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 5:15-cv-03295-BLF Document 469 Filed 12/15/17 Page 11 of 20
`
`
`
`
`known of the ‘844 and ‘494 Patents for years, and a jury found on August 4, 2015 that Blue Coat
`
`infringed the ‘844 Patent in Blue Coat I, it decidedly elected to take affirmative steps to continue to
`
`infringe the ‘844 Patent by implementing new technology in GIN (FRS), and infringe the ‘494 Patent
`
`by implementing new technology in Webpulse (YARA). Trial Tr. at 471:3-17; 482:5-483:23; 486:19-
`
`487:23, 488:24-491:12, 496:25-497:3, 539:11-24; 542:14-24; 543:13-19; 547:3-13; 548:12-549:12;
`
`551:1-23; 553:25-554:10; 555:12-25; 560:18-23; 587:21-25; 590:8-591:1; 595:1-14, 1411:4-1414:12;
`
`PTX-55; PTX-48; PTX-49; PTX-211; PTX-516; JTX-3060; PTX-55; JTX-3043; JTX-3050; Imperium
`
`IP Holdings (Cayman), Ltd. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., No. 4:14-cv-371, 2017 WL 4038884, at *3 (E.D.
`
`Tex. Sept. 13, 2017) (“Following a jury verdict and entry of judgment of infringement and no
`
`invalidity, a defendant’s continued infringement will be willful absent very unusual circumstances”)
`
`(citing Affinity Labs of Tex., LLC v. BMW N. Am., LLC, 783 F. Supp. 2d 891, 899 (E.D. Tex. 2011)).
`
`Other fact and expert testimony at trial showed Blue Coat has willfully infringed the ‘844 and
`
`‘494 Patent since at least 2015 when the new GIN/Webpulse technology was implemented. Id. Mr.
`
`Schoenfeld, Blue Coat’s Senior Vice President of Product Management, testified that Blue Coat did
`
`nothing to substantively change its products following the jury’s verdict of infringement in Blue Coat
`
`I. Trial Tr. at 1404:17-1405:4, 1406:15-1407:5, 1409:24-1410:16; 2005:9-13. Blue Coat’s argument
`
`at trial that it thought the Blue Coat I verdict gave it a right to use GIN/Webpulse without taking a
`
`license to the ‘844 and ‘494 Patents is directly contradicted by the trial testimony of Mr. Schoenfeld
`
`who confirmed that Blue Coat knew it did not receive a portfolio license to all of Finjan’s patents and
`
`the Blue Coat I verdict was limited to the specific products at issue in that case which are different
`
`from the products accused here. Trial Tr. at 1406:12-1407:5.
`
`Finjan also presented unrebutted expert testimony from Dr. Cole that no reasonable company in
`
`the computer security industry would have increased its infringement, as Blue Coat did, while a patent
`
`case is pending against it. Trial Tr. 463:20-469:11; 562:12-16; Tyco Healthcare Grp., LP v. Applied
`
`Med. Res. Corp., No. 9:06-cv-151, 2009 WL 5842063, at *2-3 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 30, 2009) (holding
`
`evidence of standard industry practice is relevant to analysis of willful infringement). Rather than act
`
`as Blue Coat did, Dr. Cole testified that a reasonable computer security company would get a license,
`
`7
`FINJAN’S PARTIAL RENEWED MOTION FOR JUDGMENT CASE NO. 15-cv-03295-BLF-SVK
`AS A MATTER OF LAW PURSUANT TO RULE 50(b)
`
`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 5:15-cv-03295-BLF Document 469 Filed 12/15/17 Page 12 of 20
`
`
`
`
`reduce the infringing technology or create next generation products that do not infringe. Trial Tr. at
`
`562:12-18. Dr. Cole provided further unrebutted testimony that a reasonable company would not
`
`continue developing and releasing products containing infringing technologies after a verdict of
`
`infringement against the company. Trial Tr. at 562:24-564:5.
`
`Other circumstantial evidence at trial showed that Blue Coat willfully infringed Finjan’s ‘844
`
`and ‘494 Patents. Finjan presented evidence, including Blue Coat’s internal e-mails in 2011,
`
`demonstrating that Blue Coat had secretly obtained Finjan’s patented technology in its M86 licensee’s
`
`product and, after analysis, identified the features in Finjan’s technology that Blue Coat should
`
`incorporate into its products. Trial Tr. at 1414:15-1420:23; PTX-929; PTX-113.
`
`Despite arguing that Blue Coat could not have willfully infringed as the infringing technology
`
`in Blue Coat I was purportedly identical to the accused technology in this case, Blue Coat provided no
`
`evidence, from fact or expert witnesses, to support this argument. As discussed above, the evidence
`
`showed that Blue Coat implemented new technology, and did not have a license to all of Finjan’s
`
`patents by way of the jury verdict in Blue Coat I. Based on the substantial evidence Finjan presented
`
`and the lack of evidence provided by Blue Coat to rebut the evidence of willfulness, Finjan requests
`
`the Court grant judgment as a matter of law that Blue Coat willfully infringes the ‘844 and ‘494
`
`Patents.
`V.
`FINJAN IS ENTITLED TO JMOL THAT BLUE COAT OWES DAMAGES FOR
`INFRINGEMENT OF THE ‘844 OF AT LEAST $29.8 MILLION AND DAMAGES FOR
`INFRINGEMENT OF THE ‘494 PATENT OF AT LEAST $16.2 MILLION
`Finjan presented substantial evidence at trial that it is entitled to damages in the amount of no
`
`less than a reasonable royalty for Blue Coat’s infringement of the ‘844 and ‘494 Patents pursuant to 35
`
`U.S.C. § 284. Finjan presented evidence supporting a reasonable royalty of damages through
`
`numerous exhibits and both fact and expert testimony, including testimony from its damages expert,
`
`technical experts, and Finjan’s President. Blue Coat failed to present sufficient evidence to rebut
`
`Finjan’s evidence of damages.
`
`Specifically, as discussed below, Finjan presented substantial evidence that there are 175
`
`million users of the infringing FRS component of GIN/Webpulse, which is 1/46 of the GIN/Webpulse
`
`8
`FINJAN’S PARTIAL RENEWED MOTION FOR JUDGMENT CASE NO. 15-cv-03295-BLF-SVK
`AS A MATTER OF LAW PURSUANT TO RULE 50(b)
`
`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 5:15-cv-03295-BLF Document 469 Filed 12/15/17 Page 13 of 20
`
`
`
`
`product. Finjan also presented substantial evidence that there are 75 million users of the infringing
`
`DRTR technology of GIN/Webpulse, and 2.7% of the incoming web traffic to GIN/Webpulse goes to
`
`the recent version of DRTR (that was not previously accounted for in the jury’s damages award in Blue
`
`Coat I). Finjan also presented substantial evidence that a reasonable licensing fee for the ‘844 and
`
`‘494 Patents is $8/user consistent with an 8-16% royalty rate that Finjan uses in its licensing practices.
`
`As a result, the jury heard substantial evidence, which Blue Coat failed to rebut with sufficient
`
`evidence, that it should award damages of no less than $29.8 million for Blue Coat’s infringement of
`
`the ‘844 Patent, and no less than $16.2 million for Blue Coat’s infringement of the ‘494 Patent.
`
`Finjan’s damages expert, Dr. Meyer, testified about her expert opinions, based on Blue Coat’s
`
`documents and witnesses, Finjan’s documents and witnesses, industry publications and testimony of
`
`Finjan’s technical experts. Trial Tr. at 1189:14-1227:21, 1234:20-1242:1; PTX-727; PTX-743; PTX-
`
`744; PTX-245; JTX-3080; PTX-55; PTX-526; JTX-3050; PTX-1283. Dr. Meyer testified that the
`
`hypothetical negotiation dates are (as agreed to by the parties) were: March 18, 2014 for the ‘494
`
`Patent and July 15, 2015 for the ‘844 Patent. Trial Tr. at 1187:19-1188:10; Dkt. Nos. 384, 393. She
`
`also testified that a user-based methodology for determining a reasonable royalty for infrin