Case 5:17-cv-04467-BLF Document 170 Filed 10/08/19 Page 1 of 25
`
`
`
`PAUL 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
`KRISTOPHER KASTENS (State Bar No. 254797)
`kkastens@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
`SAN JOSE DIVISION
`
`
`FINJAN, INC., a Delaware Corporation,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`
`SONICWALL, INC., a Delaware Corporation,
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`Case No.: 5:17-cv-04467-BLF-VKD
`
`
`PLAINTIFF FINJAN, INC.’S OPPOSITION
`TO DEFENDANT SONICWALL, INC.’S
`MOTION TO STRIKE SECOND
`SUPPLEMENTAL INFRINGEMENT
`CONTENTIONS
`
`
`Date:
`Time:
`Courtroom:
`Before:
`
`October 29, 2019
`10:00 a.m.
`Courtroom 2, 5th Floor
`Mag. Virginia K. DeMarchi
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`REDACTED VERSION OF DOCUMENT SOUGHT TO BE SEALED
`
`
`
`
`CASE NO.: 5:17-cv-004467-BLF-VKD
`FINJAN’S OPPOSITION TO SONICWALL’S MOTION
`TO STRIKE SECOND SUPP. INFRINGEMENT CONTENTIONS
`
`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 5:17-cv-04467-BLF Document 170 Filed 10/08/19 Page 2 of 25
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
` 
`
` 
`
` 
`
` 
`
` 
`
` 
`
` 
`
` 
`
` 
`
`i
`CASE NO.: 5:17-cv-004467-BLF-VKD
`FINJAN’S OPPOSITION TO SONICWALL’S MOTION
`TO STRIKE SECOND SUPP. INFRINGEMENT CONTENTIONS
`
` 
`
` 
`
` 
`
` 
`
` 
`
`INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................... 1 
`FACTUAL BACKGROUND ...................................................................................................... 2 
`Finjan’s Second Supplemental Contentions Fully Comply With the Court’s Order ....... 2 
`SonicWall Failed to Properly Meet and Confer Regarding its Motion ........................... 7 
` 
`ARGUMENT ............................................................................................................................... 7 
`Finjan’s Second Supplement Clearly Identifies the Accused Instrumentalities .............. 7 
`Finjan’s Second Supplement Removes Any Open-Ended Language .............................. 9 
`Finjan’s Second Supplement Complies with the Court’s Order for the ‘154 Patent ..... 10 
`Finjan’s Second Supplement Does Not Include New Contentions ............................... 11 
`Finjan’s Second Supplement For The ‘926 Patent Does Not Include
`New Contentions. ............................................................................................... 11 
`Finjan’s Second Supplement For The ‘968 Patent Does Not Include
`New Contentions. ............................................................................................... 14 
`Finjan’s Second Supplement for The ‘305 Patent Does Not Include
`New Contentions. ............................................................................................... 16 
`Finjan’s Second Supplement For The ‘844 Patent Does Not Include
`New Contentions. ............................................................................................... 16 
`Finjan’s Second Supplement For The ‘633 Patent Does Not Include
`New Contentions. ............................................................................................... 17 
`Finjan’s Second Supplement For The ‘154 Patent Does Not Include
`New Contentions. ............................................................................................... 18 
`Finjan’s Second Supplement For The ‘780 Patent Does Not Include
`New Contentions. ............................................................................................... 19 
`Finjan’s Second Supplement For The ‘822 Patent Does Not Include
`New Contentions. ............................................................................................... 20 
`Finjan’s Second Supplement For The ‘494 Patent Does Not Include
`New Contentions. ............................................................................................... 20 
`The Relief Sought by SonicWall is Unwarranted .......................................................... 21 
` 
`CONCLUSION .......................................................................................................................... 22
`
`
`
`I. 
`II. 
`
`III. 
`
`IV. 
`
`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 5:17-cv-04467-BLF Document 170 Filed 10/08/19 Page 3 of 25
`
`
`
`Federal Cases
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`
`Page(s)
`
`Bender v. Advanced Micro Devices, Inc.,
`No. C-09-1149 MMC (EMC), 2010 WL 363341 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 1, 2010) ..................................... 21
`
`DCG Sys. v. Checkpoint Techs., LLC,
`No. C 11-03792 PSG, 2012 WL 1309161 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 16, 2012) .............................................. 21
`
`Finjan, Inc. v. Check Point Techs., Inc.,
`No. 3:18-cv-02621-WHO, Dkt. No 192 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 12, 2019) .................................................. 4
`
`Finjan, Inc. v. Sophos, Inc.,
`244 F. Supp. 3d 1016 (N.D. Cal. 2017) .............................................................................................. 8
`
`Other Authorities
`
`Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 30(b)(6) ................................................................................................ 4
`
`
`
`i
`CASE NO.: 5:17-cv-004467-BLF-VKD
`FINJAN’S OPPOSITION TO SONICWALL’S MOTION
`TO STRIKE SECOND SUPP. INFRINGEMENT CONTENTIONS
`
`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 5:17-cv-04467-BLF Document 170 Filed 10/08/19 Page 4 of 25
`
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`Defendant SonicWall, Inc.’s (“SonicWall”) Motion to Strike should be denied because Plaintiff
`Finjan, Inc.’s (“Finjan”) Second Supplemental Infringement Contentions (the “Second Supplement”)
`provide a level of specificity and elaboration that directly follows the Court’s May 1, 2019 Order and
`in fact goes beyond the requirements of the Patent Local Rules. Finjan specifically identified the
`“products, services, [and] components” that it contends infringe as required by the Court’s Order,
`along with pinpoint citation to source code to the extent SonicWall has made the relevant source code
`available. Consistent with the Court’s Order, Finjan also revised the formatting of the contentions to
`make clearer the accused theories and added explanation for the screenshots it included of SonicWall’s
`public and internal documents. As the Order directed, Finjan also provided a single chart showing how
`the Gateway products infringe in combination with Capture ATP and a single chart showing how the
`Email Security products infringe with Capture ATP. Indeed, SonicWall does not dispute that Finjan
`complied with the Court’s Order in these various respects. Thus, Finjan’s supplement provides
`SonicWall with more than adequate notice of its infringement contentions.
`Realizing it can no long dispute the sufficiency of Finjan’s infringement contentions,
`SonicWall now attempts in its Motion to fault Finjan for providing too much information. SonicWall
`cannot have it both ways. Finjan simply provides in its Second Supplement the exact information that
`SonicWall sought and the Court ordered, including identifying specific names for infringing
`components and enumerating a finite set of specific contentions for the multiple ways that the accused
`instrumentalities infringe. None of this supplemental information constitutes a new contention, since it
`was all part of Finjan’s prior contentions.
`For instance, most of SonicWall’s new complaints in its Motion concern Finjan’s specific
`naming of SonicWall’s sandboxes (i.e., CloudAV, GRID, and Capture ATP) in the Second
`Supplement’s charts for the accused Gateway products (alone) and Email Security products (alone).
`Yet Finjan made this supplement in direct compliance with the Court’s Order—first, separating the
`charts for Capture ATP (which is a standalone product/service) from the charts for the Gateway and
`Email Security products (which include the CloudAV and GRID sandboxes as components), and
`
`1
`CASE NO.: 5:17-cv-004467-BLF-VKD
`FINJAN’S OPPOSITION TO SONICWALL’S MOTION
`TO STRIKE SECOND SUPP. INFRINGEMENT CONTENTIONS
`
`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 5:17-cv-04467-BLF Document 170 Filed 10/08/19 Page 5 of 25
`
`
`
`second, specifically naming the CloudAV and GRID sandbox components in the charts for the
`Gateway and Email Security products. This is in no way an identification of a new infringement
`contention since Finjan had already identified these sandboxes as infringing in its prior infringement
`contentions.
`
`
`
`
`
`.
`For these reasons, as explained further below, SonicWall’s Motion is baseless and should be
`denied.
`II.
`FACTUAL BACKGROUND
`
`Finjan’s Second Supplemental Contentions Fully Comply With the Court’s Order
`On November 9, 2018, Finjan served its first supplemental infringement contentions (the “First
`Supplement”) pursuant to agreement of the parties. SonicWall subsequently moved to compel
`additional detail and clarification regarding these contentions, which the Court granted in an Order
`dated May 1, 2019 (the “Order”) (Dkt. No. 138). The Order set forth specific instructions for the
`supplemental information and clarification that Finjan was required to provide for its contentions.
`On May 31, 2019, Finjan served second supplemental infringement contentions (the “Second
`Supplement”) pursuant to the Order. Finjan carefully followed the Court’s Order and updated its
`contentions to address every issue raised. In particular, Finjan split up the charts to specifically
`identify when the Gateway products were infringing by themselves (see, e.g., Declaration of James
`Hannah (“Hannah Decl.”) filed herewith, Ex. 1, Appendix A-1 (Second Supplement)), when the
`Gateway products were infringing in combination with Capture ATP service (see, e.g., id., Ex. 2,
`Appendix A-2 (Second Supplement)), when Capture ATP service infringes by itself (see, e.g., id.,
`Ex. 3, Appendix A-3 (Second Supplement)), when the Email appliances were infringing in
`combination with Capture ATP service (see, e.g., id., Ex. 4, Appendix A-4 (Second Supplement)), and
`when the Email appliances were infringing by themselves (see, e.g., id., Ex. 5, Appendix A-5 (Second
`Supplement)). Finjan similarly provided charts for various other products (including Capture Client
`and the SMA products), but they are not at issue in SonicWall’s motion. Finjan removed placeholder
`
`2
`CASE NO.: 5:17-cv-004467-BLF-VKD
`FINJAN’S OPPOSITION TO SONICWALL’S MOTION
`TO STRIKE SECOND SUPP. INFRINGEMENT CONTENTIONS
`
`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 5:17-cv-04467-BLF Document 170 Filed 10/08/19 Page 6 of 25
`
`
`
`references to products, services, or components that the Court found were unspecified. See Order at 5
`(requiring Finjan to “Finjan must amend its identification of accused instrumentalities to remove
`placeholder references to unspecified products, services, or components.”); see, generally, Hannah
`Decl., Ex. 1, Appendix A-1 (Second Supplement). Finjan specified whether a product or service
`infringes alone or in combination. See Order at 5 (requiring Finjan to “Finjan must specify whether a
`product or services infringes alone or in combination”); see also, e.g., Hannah Decl., Exs. 1-2,
`Appendixes A-1, A-2 (Second Supplement). Finjan fixed any confusion that the Court found arises
`from defining Capture ATP as both part of and separate from another accused instrumentality. See
`Order at 5 (requiring Finjan to “[I]f Finjan contends that the Capture ATP product infringes an asserted
`claim, both alone and in combination with some other product or service, its infringement contentions
`should make that clear”); see also, e.g., Hannah Decl., Exs. 1-2, Appendixes A-1, A-2 (Second
`Supplement). Finjan also identified for any screenshots it wishes to rely on, how what is shown in the
`screenshot maps to the particular claim limitation for which the image is referenced. See Order at 5-6
`(requiring Finjan to “identify how what is shown in the image maps to the particular claim limitation
`for which the image is referenced, such as by circling or labeling in a meaningful way the elements of
`the image that corresponds to the limitations at issue”); see also, e.g., Hannah Decl., Ex. 2, Appendix
`A-2 (Second Supplement) at 6. Finjan further identified for specific limitations of the ‘305, ‘926, ‘408,
`‘844, ‘780, ‘154, and ‘968 Patents, the component or components of the accused instrumentalities that
`constitutes particular claim elements identified in the Order. See Order at 7-25 (requiring Finjan to
`amend its contentions to identify the following claim elements “a network interface housed within a
`computer”, “database of parser and analyzer rules”, “Internet application running on computer”, “rule-
`based content scanner”, “rule update manager”, “patterns of types of tokens”, “database manager”,
`“database of Downloadable security profiles indexed according to Downloadable IDs”, “multi-lingual
`language detector”, “scanner instantiator”, “a scanner for the specific programming language”, “rules
`accessor”, “analyzer for dynamically detecting”, “notifier”, “inspector”, “first content inspection
`engine”, “ID generator”, “first function”, “second function”, “transmitting the input to the security
`computer for inspection, when the first function is invoked”, “computing device … receiv[ing] a
`
`3
`CASE NO.: 5:17-cv-004467-BLF-VKD
`FINJAN’S OPPOSITION TO SONICWALL’S MOTION
`TO STRIKE SECOND SUPP. INFRINGEMENT CONTENTIONS
`
`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 5:17-cv-04467-BLF Document 170 Filed 10/08/19 Page 7 of 25
`
`
`
`modified input variable”, “the input is dynamically generated by said content processor prior to being
`transmitted by said transmitter”, “policy-based cache manager”, “a memory storing a cache of digital
`content, a plurality of policies, and a policy index to the cache contents”.); see also, generally, Hannah
`Decl., Exs. 1-2, 7-9, 11-12, 14, Appendixes A-1, A-2, D-1, E-1, F-1, G-1, H-1, I-1 (Second
`Supplement).1. Thus, Finjan complied with each of the requirements of the Court’s Order.2
`As reflected in Finjan’s Second Supplement and explained below, there is little difference
`between CloudAV, GRID, and Capture ATP sandboxes.
`
`
`. Finjan’s contentions also reflect
`the fact that CloudAV and GRID are components of the accused Gateway and Email products, not
`separate products.
`
`. Hannah Decl., Ex. 15,
`
`). Accordingly, in
`its contentions, Finjan identifies the CloudAV sandbox as part of the contention that the Gateway
`products alone infringe, since CloudAV is part of the Gateway products.
`
`
`SonicWall-Finjan_00002468-95 at 2470 (
`
` See id., Ex. 16 (May 20, 2019 Email from P. Salceda to A. Jariwala)
`
`Notably, SonicWall has yet to provide a Rule 30(b)(6) deponent on the topic.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`.
`
`
`1 Some claim elements were mooted by Finjan’s April 23, 2019 Second Election of Asserted Claims
`pursuant to the Court’s Scheduling Order.
`2 SonicWall’s citation to Check Point is inapposite to the situation here. The Check Point Court has
`required the infringement contentions be charted in a different format from the norm in the District,
`including charting based on specific technologies within a single software package. Finjan, Inc. v.
`Check Point Techs., Inc., No. 3:18-cv-02621-WHO, Dkt. No 192 at 7 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 12, 2019).
`4
`CASE NO.: 5:17-cv-004467-BLF-VKD
`FINJAN’S OPPOSITION TO SONICWALL’S MOTION
`TO STRIKE SECOND SUPP. INFRINGEMENT CONTENTIONS
`
`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 5:17-cv-04467-BLF Document 170 Filed 10/08/19 Page 8 of 25
`
`
`
`
`
`Dkt. No. 111-6, McGrath Decl., Ex. 3, Appendix A-1 (First Supplement) at 6 (emphasis added)
`(
`
`As further reflected in Finjan’s Second Supplement, the GRID3 technologies include a sandbox
`connected to each of the physical Gateway and Email appliances, as evidenced by SonicWall’s
`documents and source code. GRID is not a separate product, but rather a component of the Gateway
`and Email appliances. See Hannah Decl., Ex. 16 (May 8, 2019 Email from P. Salceda to A. Jariwala)
`
`
`
`
`
`3 GRID is now known as “Capture Labs”.
`
`5
`CASE NO.: 5:17-cv-004467-BLF-VKD
`FINJAN’S OPPOSITION TO SONICWALL’S MOTION
`TO STRIKE SECOND SUPP. INFRINGEMENT CONTENTIONS
`
`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 5:17-cv-04467-BLF Document 170 Filed 10/08/19 Page 9 of 25
`
`
`
`Hannah Decl., Ex. 1, Appendix A-1 (Second Supplement) at 5.
`Finjan’s Second Supplement also reflects the fact that Capture ATP is a service that is sold as a
`separate product.
`
`. Id., Ex. 15, SonicWall-Finjan_00002468-95 at 2470
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`. See id., Ex. 16 (May 8, 2019 Email
`from P. Salceda to A. Jariwala); see also id. (May 20, 2019 Email from P. Salceda to A. Jariwala)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`. See, e.g., Hannah Decl., Ex. 9, Appendix F-1 (Second Supplement) at
`
` id., Ex. 10, Appendix F-5 (Second Supplement) at
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`6
`CASE NO.: 5:17-cv-004467-BLF-VKD
`FINJAN’S OPPOSITION TO SONICWALL’S MOTION
`TO STRIKE SECOND SUPP. INFRINGEMENT CONTENTIONS
`
`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 5:17-cv-04467-BLF Document 170 Filed 10/08/19 Page 10 of 25
`
`
`
`
`SonicWall Failed to Properly Meet and Confer Regarding its Motion
`On July 3, 2019, Finjan received a letter from SonicWall alleging that the Second Supplement
`did not comply with the Court’s Order and further included new infringement contentions. Dkt. No.
`164-2, McGrath Decl., Ex. A. SonicWall claimed that it was not able to provide adequate discovery
`responses given the purported deficiencies in Finjan’s infringement contentions. See Hannah Decl.,
`Ex. 17 (June 28, 2019 email from J. Forte)
`
`
`
`). The parties met and conferred on July 23, 2019 to resolve the
`issues raised in SonicWall’s July 3 letter, and Finjan agreed to further consider any issues raised in
`SonicWall’s letter that the parties were not able to address during the meet and confer. On August 27,
`2019, Finjan sent a letter to SonicWall addressing these issues. Dkt. No. 163-7, McGrath Decl., Ex. B.
`SonicWall never responded to Finjan’s letter, and simply filed the present Motion two months after last
`speaking to Finjan about these issues. Between August 27, 2019 and September 24, 2019, Finjan
`understood from SonicWall’s silence that there were no further issues with Finjan’s infringement
`contentions. In fact, during the lead counsel meet and confer on August 28 regarding the various
`deficiencies in the discovery provided by SonicWall to date, SonicWall withdrew its objection to
`providing discovery based on any purported deficiencies with the infringement contentions. See
`Hannah Decl., Ex. 17 (September 3, 2019 email from R. McGrath to H. Lee claiming that
`
`
`).
`
`
`
`III. ARGUMENT
`
`Finjan’s Second Supplement Clearly Identifies the Accused Instrumentalities
`Consistent with the Court’s Order, Finjan has separated it charts to indicate when it is accusing
`the Gateway and Email Security appliances alone and when it is accusing the Gateway and Email
`Security appliances in combination with the Capture ATP product/service. As discussed above,
`Finjan’s contentions reflect the fact that CloudAV and GRID are components within the Gateway
`products and that GRID is also a component within the Email Security appliance.
`
`
`7
`CASE NO.: 5:17-cv-004467-BLF-VKD
`FINJAN’S OPPOSITION TO SONICWALL’S MOTION
`TO STRIKE SECOND SUPP. INFRINGEMENT CONTENTIONS
`
`
`
`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 5:17-cv-04467-BLF Document 170 Filed 10/08/19 Page 11 of 25
`
`
`
`
`.
`
`See, e.g., Hannah Decl., Ex. 9, Appendix F-1 (Second Supplement) at 8
`
`
` id., Ex. 10, Appendix F-
`); see also id., Ex. 16 (May 8, 2019
`
`
`5 (Second Supplement) at 3
`Email from P. Salceda to A. Jariwala)
`
`); id., Ex. 15, SonicWall-Finjan_00002468-95 at 2470 (
`
`
`
`
`
`
`). In its Motion, SonicWall baselessly attempts to limit the definition of Gateway and Email
`Security appliances to their physical form to exclude CloudAV and GRID.4 Motion at 5. However, as
`this Court has consistently found, Finjan is allowed to define the accused system of infringement,
`regardless of whether some components may be in the cloud, as long as the components operate
`together to form an infringing system. See, e.g., Finjan, Inc. v. Sophos, Inc., 244 F. Supp. 3d 1016,
`1044-48 (N.D. Cal. 2017) (finding support for infringement of an appliance product infringing (UTM)
`with components in the cloud (SXL); in addition finding infringement by Sophos Live Cloud despite
`the components being in the cloud and Finjan coining the term “Sophos Live Cloud” for purposes of
`grouping various infringing components). Because CloudAV and GRID are part of the accused
`Gateway and Email appliances and not separate products, Finjan is not required to chart them
`separately.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`4 Finjan’s Second Supplement also includes contentions that do not involve cloud components. See,
`e.g., Hannah Decl., Ex. 1, Appendix A-1 (Second Supplement) at 8.
`8
`CASE NO.: 5:17-cv-004467-BLF-VKD
`FINJAN’S OPPOSITION TO SONICWALL’S MOTION
`TO STRIKE SECOND SUPP. INFRINGEMENT CONTENTIONS
`
`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 5:17-cv-04467-BLF Document 170 Filed 10/08/19 Page 12 of 25
`
`
`
`Supplement) at
`
`. See, e.g., Hannah Decl., Ex. 9, Appendix F-1 (Second
`
`
`
`
`); id., Ex. 10, Appendix F-5 (Second Supplement) at
`). By naming the CloudAV and GRID sandboxes in this manner, Finjan simply
`provides more detail as to the infringing components of the accused Gateway and Email appliances as
`required by the Court’s Order.
`To the extent that SonicWall disputes these factual underpinnings of Finjan’s infringement
`contentions, that is an issue for another day but does not relate to whether Finjan’s contentions
`properly provide notice under the Patent Local Rules. Finjan specifically identified the accused
`instrumentalities in separate charts as required by the Court’s Order, and thus there is no basis to strike
`its contentions.
`
`Finjan’s Second Supplement Removes Any Open-Ended Language
`Finjan’s uses “Contention [number]” in parts of its Second Supplement to specifically identify
`the multiple ways that the accused instrumentalities infringe for various elements. Finjan made this
`modification to its contentions to comply with the Court’s Order to clearly delineate among various
`infringement contentions. These references to “Contention [number]” are in no way open ended
`“examples” of infringement or “catch-all” statements. Rather, they are a set number of contentions
`that Finjan explicitly identifies that can be combined in different ways. For many of the charts there is
`only one contention. See, e.g., Hannah Decl., Ex. 6, Appendix C-1 (Second Supplement) (showing
`only one contention); see also Dkt. No. 163-7, McGrath Decl., Ex. B at 2 (identifying charts with a
`single contention). In other charts, specifically charts where Finjan alleges that several components of
`the same accused product meet one claim element, Finjan provided multiple contentions. For example,
`in the ‘844 Patent infringement chart, Finjan identifies multiple infringing receivers and specifically
`differentiates these theories by contention number. See, e.g., Hannah Decl., Ex. 1, Appendix A-1
`(Second Supplement) at 30-34 (identifying four components that are receivers in Contentions 1-4), 35-
`40 (identifying four components that meet the “generating” element in Contentions 1-4). Finjan
`alleges that within each chart, any contention for one element (e.g. “Contention 1”) within a single
`
`9
`CASE NO.: 5:17-cv-004467-BLF-VKD
`FINJAN’S OPPOSITION TO SONICWALL’S MOTION
`TO STRIKE SECOND SUPP. INFRINGEMENT CONTENTIONS
`
`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 5:17-cv-04467-BLF Document 170 Filed 10/08/19 Page 13 of 25
`
`
`
`chart may be used with a different contention (e.g. “Contention 1” or “Contention 2”) for another
`element of the same chart. Contrary to SonicWall’s arguments, there is no prohibition against
`disclosing multiple alternate contentions of infringement in this manner. Rather, this approach
`complies with the Court’s Order by identifying a finite number of contentions that do not use open-
`ended language.
`
`Finjan’s Second Supplement Complies with the Court’s Order for the ‘154 Patent
`Finjan’s Second Supplement specifically identifies the accused transmitter for transmitting the
`input to a security computer for inspection when the first function is invoked. It does so by providing a
`pinpoint citation in the source code of the accused products. See, e.g., Hannah Decl., Ex. 12, Appendix
`H-1 (Second Supplement) at 15-16 (identifying the transmission of an input to a security computer
`when the first function is invoked). In claiming that Finjan does not disclose how the transmitting
`occurs, SonicWall appears to misunderstand the ‘154 Patent. The claim requires that the content
`processor invoke the first function of the received content, not that the transmitter invokes the first
`function. Id. The transmitter merely sends the input to the security computer when the first function is
`invoked by the content processor. Thus, Finjan correctly identified by pinpoint source code citation
`the accused transmitters in the accused instrumentalities (to the extent that SonicWall had provided the
`source code at the time of the Second Supplement5) that transmit the input when the first function is
`invoked by the content processor. There is no dispute that Finjan identified the content processor in
`the accused instrumentalities, nor does SonicWall dispute that Finjan identified “first functions” that
`are part of the content received over the network. See, e.g., id. at 2-4. Finjan contends that the content
`processor invokes the first function (which is part of the content received over the network) as part of
`the “processing content” claim element, which is described (and identified by pinpoint source code
`citation) in Finjan’s infringement contentions. Accordingly, SonicWall’s complaints have no merit.
`
`
`5 As noted above, SonicWall only recently produced source code for some of the accused
`instrumentalities after months of Finjan requesting that they would provide it. See Hannah Decl., Ex.
`16 (April 25, 2019 Email from A. Jariwala to P. Salceda) (
`
`); id. (August 22, 2019 Email from D. Dotson to A. Jariwala)
`).
`
`
`
`10
`CASE NO.: 5:17-cv-004467-BLF-VKD
`FINJAN’S OPPOSITION TO SONICWALL’S MOTION
`TO STRIKE SECOND SUPP. INFRINGEMENT CONTENTIONS
`
`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 5:17-cv-04467-BLF Document 170 Filed 10/08/19 Page 14 of 25
`
`
`
`
`Finjan’s Second Supplement Does Not Include New Contentions
`Finjan’s Second Supplement conforms with the Court’s Order to specifically identify the
`“products, services, or components” that are infringing. As an initial matter, the Court required Finjan
`to identify when the Gateway and Email appliances infringe on their own and when they infringe in
`combination with the Capture ATP product. Thus, as discussed above, Finjan made separate charts for
`the Gateway (alone), Gateway with Capture ATP (combination), Capture ATP (alone), Email
`appliances with Capture ATP (combination), and Email appliances (alone).
`SonicWall does not contend Finjan provided new theories of infringement for its contentions
`involving Capture ATP. Motion at 13-15. Rather, SonicWall argues that Finjan provided new theories
`for its contentions for the Gateway and Email appliances (alone) by identifying “CloudAV Sandbox”
`and “GRID Sandbox.” However, SonicWall is incorrect. CloudAV sandbox and GRID sandbox are
`not standalone products, but rather, as reflected in Finjan’s contentions, components of the Gateway
`and Email appliances. As such, Finjan identified the same contentions as it did before, but more
`explicitly identified the specific components of the Gateway and Email appliances that satisfy claim
`elements, as SonicWall requested and the Court ordered. Indeed, the charts that Finjan provided with
`its First Supplement stated that
` Dkt. No. 111-18, McGrath Decl., Ex. 9, Appendix F-1 (First Supplement) at 3. These prior
`charts make reference to CloudAV and to GRID sandbox either explicitly or implicitly by referring to
` Because SonicWall asked for more clarity, Finjan has now provided
`more detail as to the names of those sandboxes, i.e., CloudAV Sandbox and GRID Sandbox, as well as
`pinpoint source code citations. SonicWall cannot now complain that Finjan has provided too much
`detail when Finjan did exactly what it requested and the Court ordered. Thus, Finjan’s Second
`Supplement is proper, as further discussed below for each patent that SonicWall raises in its Motion.
`
`
`
`
`
`Finjan’s Second Supplement For The ‘926 Patent Does Not Include New
`Contentions.
`Finjan specifically identifies in its Second Supplement the downloadable identifier in the
`Gateway products as the CloudAV sandbox component that hashes to create identifiers of
`Downloadables. See Hannah Decl., Ex. 9, Appendix F-1 (Second Supplement) at 6-8 (providing
`
`11
`CASE NO.: 5:17-cv-004467-BLF-VKD
`FINJAN’S OPPOSITION TO SONICWALL’S MOTION
`TO STRIKE SECOND SUPP. INFRINGEMENT CONTENTIONS
`
`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 5:17-cv-04467-BLF Document 170 Filed 10/08/19 Page 15 of 25
`
`
`
`pinpoint citations to source code). This is not a new contention since the CloudAV sandbox is a
`component of the previously disclosed Gateway products and not a separate product (which SonicWall
`does not dispute). Id., Ex. 15, SonicWall-Finjan_00002468-95 at 2470.
`
`
`
` Dkt. No. 111-18, McGrath Decl., Ex. 9, Appendix F-1 (First Supplement) at 7. In
`addition, Finjan included screenshots in its First Supplement that referred to the CloudAV sandbox.
`Id. at 8-9. That is consistent with what Finjan identifies in the chart to its Second Supplement, i.e.,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Hannah Decl., Ex. 9, Appendix F-1 (Second Supplement) at 6.
`Finjan also specifically identifies the receiver and downloadable identifier in the Email Security
`appliances. In particular, Finjan explains that the Email Security appliances include honeypots and
`webcrawlers that are receivers that receive Downloadables. See id., Ex. 10, Appendix F-5 (Second
`Supplement) at 4. This is consistent with the charts in Finjan’s First Supplement that specifically state
`that,
`
`
`
` Id., Ex. 18, Appendix F-3 (First
`Supplement) at 4. One of these cloud components are the honeypots and webcrawlers6, which are
`shown below to be part of the Email Security appliances.
`
`
`6 SonicWall has thus far refused to provide source code of the honeypots and webcrawlers despite
`SonicWall’s documents confirming their existence. See Ex. 16 (May 13, 2019 Email from A. Jariwala
`to P. Salceda)
`; id. (May 20, 2019 Email from A.
`Jariwala to P. Salceda)
`
`
`12
`CASE NO.: 5:17-cv-004467-BLF-VKD
`FINJAN’S OPPOSITION TO SONICWALL’S MOTION
`TO STRIKE SECOND SUPP. INFRINGEMENT CONTENTIONS
`
`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 5:17-cv-04467-BLF Document 170 Filed 10/08/19 Page 16 of 25
`
`
`
`
`Hannah Decl., Ex. 10, Appendix F-5 (Second Supplement) at 4 (emphasis added) citing Ex. 23 at 6.
`Consistent with the Court’s directive to provide more detail to its contentions, Finjan specifically
`identified the component name of the receiver, i.e., honeypots and webcrawlers, based on discovery
`provided by SonicWall to date.
`With respect to the downloadable identifier in the Email Security appliance, Finjan specifically
`identifies this in its Second Supplement as the GRID sandbox component that hashes a Down