Case 5:17-cv-04467-BLF Document 300 Filed 10/14/20 Page 1 of 12
`
`DUANE MORRIS LLP
`D. Stuart Bartow (SBN 233107)
`Email: DSBartow@duanemorris.com
`2475 Hanover Street
`Palo Alto, CA 94304-1194
`Telephone: 650.847.4150
`Facsimile: 650.847.4151
`DUANE MORRIS LLP
`Joseph A. Powers (PA SBN 84590)
`Admitted Pro Hac Vice
`japowers@duanemorris.com
`Jarrad M. Gunther (PA SBN 207038)
`Admitted Pro Hac Vice
`jmgunther@duanemorris.com
`30 South 17th Street
`Philadelphia, PA 19103
`Telephone: 215.979.1000
`Facsimile: 215.979.1020
`
`Attorneys for Defendant
`SONICWALL INC.
`
`DUANE MORRIS LLP
`Matthew C. Gaudet (GA SBN 287759)
`Admitted Pro Hac Vice
`mcgaudet@duanemorris.com
`Robin L. McGrath (GA SBN 493115)
`Admitted Pro Hac Vice
`rlmcgrath@duanemorris.com
`David C. Dotson (GA SBN 138040)
`Admitted Pro Hac Vice
`dcdotson@duanemorris.com
`Jennifer H. Forte (GA SBN 940650)
`Admitted Pro Hac Vice
`jhforte@duanemorris.com
`1075 Peachtree Street, Ste. 2000
`Atlanta, GA 30309
`Telephone: 404.253.6900
`Facsimile: 404.253.6901
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`SAN JOSE DIVISION
`
`FINJAN, LLC, a Delaware Corporation,
`Plaintiff,
`
`vs.
`SONICWALL INC., a Delaware
`Corporation
`
`Defendant.
`
`Case No. 5:17-cv-04467-BLF-VKD
`SONICWALL, INC.’S MOTION TO
`STRIKE NEW THEORIES IN FINJAN,
`LLC’S EXPERT REPORTS
`
`Date: March 11, 2021
`Time: 9:00 a.m.
`Dept: Courtroom 3, Fifth Floor
`Judge: Hon. Beth Labson Freeman
`
`REDACTED
`
`SONICWALL’S MOTION TO STRIKE NEW THEORIES IN FINJAN’S EXPERT REPORTS
`CASE NO. 5:17-CV-04467-BLF-VKD
`
`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 300 Filed 10/14/20 Page 2 of 12
`
`NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION
`TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD HEREIN:
`PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on March 11, 2021, at 9:00 a.m. or as soon thereafter as this matter
`may be heard, in the courtroom of the Honorable Beth Labson Freeman, at 280 S. 1st St, San Jose,
`CA 95113, Defendant SonicWall Inc. (“SonicWall”) will and hereby does move for an order striking
`certain theories in Plaintiff Finjan, LLC’s (“Finjan”) expert reports.
`This motion is based on this notice of motion and motion, the supporting memorandum of
`points and authorities set forth below, the accompanying declaration of David Dotson (“Dotson
`Decl.”), the pleadings and papers on file with the Court and all other matters properly before this
`Court.
`
`STATEMENT OF RELIEF SOUGHT
`SonicWall seeks an Order from the Court striking certain theories from Finjan’s Experts
`Reports that are not disclosed in Finjan’s Operative Infringement Contentions.
`STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE TO BE DECIDED
`Whether Finjan’s expert reports contain theories that are not disclosed in the Operative
`Infringement Contentions or violate the Court’s November 20, 2019 Order (Dkt. No. 210).
`
`i
`SONICWALL’S MOTION TO STRIKE NEW THEORIES IN FINJAN’S EXPERT REPORTS
`CASE NO. 5:17-CV-04467-BLF-VKD
`
`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 300 Filed 10/14/20 Page 3 of 12
`
`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
`
`I.
`
`MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
`INTRODUCTION
`Finjan’s expert reports on infringement contain a number of theories that were either not
`disclosed in Finjan’s Third Supplemental Infringement Contentions (the “Operative Contentions”)
`or are in direct violation of this Court’s November 20, 2019 Order striking certain infringement
`theories (“November 20 Order”) (Dkt. No. 210). Despite meeting and conferring to address each of
`these theories, Finjan has refused to withdraw the theories addressed herein.
`II.
`LEGAL STANDARD
`This Court set forth the standard for a motion to strike based on new theories in a case:
`The dispositive inquiry in a motion to strike is thus whether the allegedly
`undisclosed “theory” is in fact a new theory or new element of the accused
`product alleged to practice a particular claim that was not previously identified in
`the plaintiff’s contentions, or whether the “theory” is instead the identification of
`additional evidentiary proof showing that the accused element did in fact practice
`the limitation. . . . . If the theory is new, prejudice is “inherent in the assertion of
`a new theory after discovery has closed.”
`Finjan, Inc. v. Blue Coat Sys., LLC, No. 15-cv-03295, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 220192, *13 (N.D.
`Cal. July 28, 2017) (citations omitted).
`III. THE COURT SHOULD STRIKE FINJAN’S PREVIOUSLY UNDISCLOSED
`INFRINGEMENT THEORIES
`
`A.
`
`New Infringement Theories Concerning the ’305 Patent
`1.
`The Network Traffic Probe Limitation
`The asserted claims of the ’305 Patent all recite “a network traffic probe . . . for selectively
`diverting incoming content from its intended destination to said rule‐based content scanner” (“the
`Traffic Probe Limitation”). In his expert report on infringement, Dr. Medvidovic offers the
`following new theories for this limitation that were not identified in Finjan’s Operative Contentions:
`(i) Capture ATP’s “controller server or its Capture Engine” is the “network traffic probe”; and (ii)
`the “endpoint client computer” is the “intended destination.”
`
`
`
`1
`
`SONICWALL’S MOTION TO STRIKE NEWTHEORIES IN FINJAN’S EXPERT REPORTS
`CASE NO. 5:17-CV-04467-BLF-VKD
`
`

`

`Case 5:17-cv-04467-BLF Document 300 Filed 10/14/20 Page 4 of 12
`
`In its Operative Contentions, Finjan offered a single theory for how all three accused
`products satisfy the Traffic Probe limitation:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Finjan’s Third Supplemental Contentions, Appendices G-2 (Ex. A) at 16, 30; G-3 (Ex. B) at 15, 28;
`and G-4 (Ex. C), at 14, 28; (“
`
`
`
`
`
`As shown, Finjan’s Operative Contentions failed to identify a specific component that
`constitutes the claimed network traffic probe, and it identified only the “
`” as the destination computer. In contrast, paragraphs 217 and 218
`of Dr. Medvidovic’s report identifies “Capture ATP’s controller server or its Capture Engine” as the
`claimed network traffic probe and the “endpoint client computer” (in addition to the virtual
`machines) as the claimed destination computer.
`Notably, after notifying Finjan of this issue, Finjan was unable to identify anywhere in its
`Operative Contentions that it identified Capture ATP’s controller server or its Capture Engine as the
`claimed network traffic probe. Rather, it asserted only that SonicWall had sufficient notice from
`Finjan’s conclusory assertions that Capture ATP had a network traffic probe. Ex. D, 10.2.20 Email
`from J. Wolff. Similarly, Finjan could not identify anywhere in its Operative Contentions that it
`identified the “endpoint client computer” as the destination computer in connection with asserted
`claims 11 and 12. Instead, it pointed to the Contention’s analysis of claim 13 (no longer asserted
`because it was rendered invalid), where the Contentions identified the client computer as the
`destination computer. Id. However, unlike asserted claims 11 and 12, claim 13 does not limit the
`“destination computer” to being the same computer that receives and selectively diverts incoming
`2
`
`SONICWALL’S MOTION TO STRIKE NEW THEORIES IN FINJAN’S EXPERT REPORTS
`CASE NO. 5:17-CV-04467-BLF-VKD
`
`
`
`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 300 Filed 10/14/20 Page 5 of 12
`
`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
`
`content. Compare claim 13 (“receiving, at the computer, incoming content from the Internet on its
`destination to an Internet application”) with claims 11 and 12 (“a computer, comprising: a network
`interface, housed within a computer, for receiving incoming content from the Internet on its
`destination to an Internet application running on the computer.”). Thus, Finjan could identify a
`different destination computer for claim 13 than for claims 11 and 12. As such, identifying the
`endpoint client computer as the destination computer for claim 13 did not place SonicWall on notice
`of Finjan’s theory that the endpoint computer is the destination computer of claims 11 and 12.
`Because Finjan’s Operative Contentions did not place SonicWall on notice of either theory,
`the Court should strike these theories from paragraphs 217 and 218 of Dr. Medvidovic’s report.
`2.
`The Update Manger Limitation
`Asserted claims 11 and 12 also recite “a rule update manager . . . for updating said database
`of parser and analyzer rules periodically” (“the Rule Update Limitation”). In Paragraph 224 of his
`report, Dr. Medvidovic offers the new theory that Capture ATP’s “controller (or Capture Engine) or
`an update server” is the rule update manager of the Rule Update Limitation.
`Finjan’s Operative Contentions offered a single theory that the claimed update manager is
`Capture ATP’s “
`”: “
`
`
`
`
`.” Finjan’s Third Supplemental
`Contentions, Appendices G-2 (Ex. A) at 19; G-3 (Ex. B) at 18; G-4 (Ex. C) at 17. Dr. Medvidovic’s
`report likewise identifies the “
`” as the rule update manager. Ex. E,
`Medvidovic Rep., ¶ 225 (“
`
`
`.”). Paragraph 224 of Dr. Medvidovic’s report, however, additionally
`
`offers the new theory that “
`
`
`
`” Id. ¶ 224.
`Upon being notified of this issue, Finjan asserted only that the Operative Contentions
`identified
` as the rule update manager, which is not the dispute at issue,
`and that its initial infringement contentions indicate the “rule update engine included in the
`SonicWall Gateway that is run on a server.” Ex. D, 10.2.20 Email from J. Wolff. Finjan’s initial
`3
`
`SONICWALL’S MOTION TO STRIKE NEW THEORIES IN FINJAN’S EXPERT REPORTS
`CASE NO. 5:17-CV-04467-BLF-VKD
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 5:17-cv-04467-BLF Document 300 Filed 10/14/20 Page 6 of 12
`
`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
`
`contentions, however, are not the Operative Contentions and were ultimately replaced by the
`Operative Contentions.
`B.
`New Infringement Theories Concerning the ’408 Patent
`1.
`Dynamically Building a Parse Tree
`The asserted claims of the ’408 Patent recite “dynamically building, by the computer while
`said receiving receives the incoming stream, a parse tree . . . ,”1 (the “Dynamically Building
`Limitation”). Dr. Medvidovic’s infringement report offers a never before disclosed theory as to how
`the Capture ATP purported builds a parse tree “dynamically” while Capture ATP “receives the
`incoming stream.”
`In its Operative Contentions, Finjan asserted that a parse tree is dynamically built in Capture
`ATP’s “
`” and its “
`.” Finjan’s Third Supp. Contentions,
`Appx. E-2, (Ex. F), at 17. Other than characterizing the building of these purported parse trees as
`“dynamic,” the Operative Contentions included no theory as to how Capture ATP builds a parse tree
`“dynamically” or while it “receives the incoming stream.”
`Dr. Medvidovic’s report, on the hand, dedicates four full paragraphs to describing why the
`purported building of parse trees occurs dynamically while the incoming stream is being received.
`Ex. E, Medvidovic Rep., ¶¶ 146-149. Specifically, Dr. Medvidovic’s report details a three-phase
`process that purportedly occurs inside of Capture ATP, involving
`
`
`
`
` Id. at ¶¶ 146-148. According to Dr. Medvidovic’s report, the foregoing is “an
`ongoing process that adjusts as more information is received,” resulting “in a parse tree being
`dynamically built while said receiving receives the incoming stream as the tree is dynamically
`adjusted based on the incoming content.” Id. at ¶ 149.
`Dr. Medvidovic’s report is the first time Finjan identified this three-phrase process (or any
`other theory) as satisfying the requirement that the parse tree be built “dynamically” while Capture
`
`1 The language of asserted claim 22 is slightly different, reciting: “dynamically building, while said
`receiving receives the incoming stream, a parse tree whose . . . .”
`
`
`
`4
`
`SONICWALL’S MOTION TO STRIKE NEW THEORIES IN FINJAN’S EXPERT REPORTS
`CASE NO. 5:17-CV-04467-BLF-VKD
`
`

`

`Case 5:17-cv-04467-BLF Document 300 Filed 10/14/20 Page 7 of 12
`
`ATP “receives the incoming stream.” In response to this issue, Finjan could not identify where the
`Operative Contentions disclose this theory, stating only that paragraphs 146-149 of Dr.
`Medvidovic’s report merely offers “additional evidence for the theory originally presented.” Because
`¶¶146-149 of Dr. Medvidovic’s report contain new theories, they should be struck. Ex. D, 10.2.20
`Email from J. Wolff.
`2.
`Dynamically detecting . . . potential exploits
`The asserted claims of the ’408 Patent all recite “dynamically detecting, by the computer
`while said dynamically building builds the parse tree, combinations of nodes in the parse tree which
`are indicators of potential exploits” (the “Dynamically Detecting Limitation”). Like the Dynamically
`Building Limitation, Dr. Medvidovic’s infringement report provides a new theory as to how Capture
`ATP purportedly detects indicators of potential exploits “dynamically” while it “builds the parse
`tree.”
`
`” and “
`In its Operative Contentions, Finjan asserted that the “
`” both satisfy the Dynamically Detecting Limitation. However, other than
`conclusively asserting that the detection is “dynamic,” the Operative Contentions offered no theory
`as to how Capture ATP detects indicators of exploits “dynamically” while it “builds the parse tree.”
`Paragraph 158 of Dr. Medvidovic’s report, on the hand, details a never before disclosed
`theory as to how this element is satisfied, namely the same three-phase process he describes in
`connection with the Dynamically Building Limitation:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Ex. E, Medvidovic Rep., ¶ 158. Dr. Medvidovic’s report is the first time Finjan identified this
`process (or any other theory) as satisfying the detecting “dynamically” while the parse tree is being
`built requirement. In response to this issue, Finjan could not identify anywhere in the Operative
`Contentions that this theory was disclosed, stating only that paragraph 158 of Dr. Medvidovic’s
`5
`
`SONICWALL’S MOTION TO STRIKE NEW THEORIES IN FINJAN’S EXPERT REPORTS
`CASE NO. 5:17-CV-04467-BLF-VKD
`
`
`
`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 300 Filed 10/14/20 Page 8 of 12
`
`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
`
`report merely offers “additional evidence for the theory originally presented.” Ex. D, 10.2.20 Email
`from J. Wolff. Because it contains a new theory, the Court should strike paragraph 158 of Dr.
`Medvidovic’s report.
`C.
`New Infringement Theories Regarding the ’780 Patent
`Asserted Claim 9 recites “a Downloadable that includes one or more references to software
`components required to be executed by the Downloadable,” and an “ID generator…that fetches at
`least one software component . . . for performing a hashing function on the Downloadable and the
`fetched software components . . . .” (the “Fetching Limitaiton”). In its Operative Contentions, Finjan
`identified the claimed “Downloadables” with referenced “software components” as “a web page that
`includes references to JavaScript, visual basic script, ActiveX, injected iframes; and a PDF that
`includes references to JavaScript, swf files or other executables.” Finjan’s Third Supplemental
`Contentions, Appendices D-1 (Ex. G), at 2; D-2 (Ex. H) at 2, D-3 (Ex. I) at 2, D-4 (Ex. J) at 2.
`Finjan does not identify archive or compressed files (e.g., a ZIP file) that may include one or more
`files within the archive as being a Downloadable with referenced software components.
`Additionally, for the Fetching Limitation, Finjan’s Operative Contentions refer only to the
`downloading of additional content from the Internet. See, e.g., Appx. D-1 (Ex. G) at 6. Nowhere
`does Finjan’s Operative Contentions reference archive files or articulate a theory for the Fetching
`Limitation in which a file is extracted from an archive file and then hashed.
`However, Paragraph 134 of Dr. Mitzenmacher’s expert report includes this exact theory:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Ex. K, Mitzenmacher Rep., ¶ 134 (emphases added).
`
`
`
`6
`
`SONICWALL’S MOTION TO STRIKE NEW THEORIES IN FINJAN’S EXPERT REPORTS
`CASE NO. 5:17-CV-04467-BLF-VKD
`
`

`

`Case 5:17-cv-04467-BLF Document 300 Filed 10/14/20 Page 9 of 12
`
`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
`
`Because Finjan’s theory of extracting files from an archive file was not disclosed in its
`Operative Contentions, Paragraph 134 of Dr. Mitzenmacher’s report should be struck.
`D.
`New Infringement Theories Regarding ’154 Patent
`1.
`Gateway Alone and ESA Alone Theories
`In his expert report, Dr. Medvidovic asserts that the Gateways and ESAs each “individually”
`infringe claim 1 of the ’154 Patent. Ex. E, Medvidovic Rep., ¶¶ 268, 288. However, the operative
`contentions for the ’154 Patent – Finjan’s Fourth Supplemental Appendices H-2-H-4, and H-6-H-7 –
`accuse only the “Gateways in combination with Capture ATP” and “ESAs in combination with
`Capture ATP.” Ex. L, Appx. H-2, Ex. M, Appx. H-4.
`Upon notice of this issue, Finjan argued that these theories are supported by Appendices H-1
`and H-5 of its infringement contentions. Ex. D, 10.2.20 Email from J. Wolff. But Finjan’s prior
`counsel of record withdrew these appendices after a meet and confer with SonicWall, a fact now
`disputed by Finjan’s new counsel, who neither participated in the discussions nor was counsel of
`record at the time. See Ex. N, 4.2.20 Email from McGrath. But SonicWall memorialized that
`“Finjan is withdrawing Appendices H-1 and H-5 . . .” in a post-meet and confer email, in which it
`explicitly asked Finjan to “please advise immediately” if it “believe[d] we have misunderstood any
`of the foregoing,” Id. Finjan never advised of any disagreement regarding the withdrawal of
`Appendices H-1 or H-5. Months later, after Finjan served revised Appendices H-2 – H-4 (not H-1 or
`H-5), counsel for SonicWall emailed Finjan about Appendices H-3, H-6, and H-7, leading Finjan to
`serve further revised versions of those appendices. Ex. O, 7-23-20 Email from J. Hannah; Ex. P, 7-
`24-20 Email from J. Hannah; Ex Q, 7-2-20 Email from J. Hannah; Ex. R, 7-13-20 Email from D.
`Dotson. Despite further confirmatory emails from SonicWall that Appendices H-1 and H-5 had
`been withdrawn, Finjan never disputed this fact nor did it serve revised appendices, as it did with
`Appx. H-3 after explicitly refusing to withdraw that appendix. Ex. S, 7-23-20 Email from D.
`Dotson; Ex. T, 7-24-20 Email from D. Dotson; Ex. U, 7-24-20 Email from J. Hannah.
`Notwithstanding the foregoing, Finjan now contends Appendices H-1 and H-5 were never
`withdrawn, taking advantage of Finjan’s change of counsel. To allow Finjan to succeed in such
`gamesmanship would frustrate the Court’s telephonic meet and confer requirements and the ability
`7
`
`SONICWALL’S MOTION TO STRIKE NEW THEORIES IN FINJAN’S EXPERT REPORTS
`CASE NO. 5:17-CV-04467-BLF-VKD
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 5:17-cv-04467-BLF Document 300 Filed 10/14/20 Page 10 of 12
`
`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
`
`of parties to resolve issues without Court involvement. Had Finjan given any indication it was not
`withdrawing H-1 and H-5, SonicWall would have brought this issue to the Court’s attention months
`ago, as it expressly advised Finjan it would do if agreement could not be reached. Ex. V, 7-23-20
`Email from D. Dotson.
`If, despite the foregoing, the Court nevertheless concludes that Appendices H-1 and H-5
`were not withdrawn, they should be struck (along with the portions of ¶¶270, 274, 275, 276-281,
`283-285, 287, 288-291, 293, 294, 296-302, and 304-305 of Dr. Medvidovic’s report regarding
`Gateway/ESA only theories), because they are in direct violation of Magistrate Judge DeMarchi’s
`November 20, 2019 Order striking Finjan’s Gateway and ESA alone theories (Dkt. No. 210), which
`is the very reason SonicWall insisted that Finjan withdraw Appendices H-1 and H-5 in the first
`place:
`
`In Finjan’s Second Supplemental Infringement Contentions, Finjan’s gateway and ESA
`alone charts each asserted that the claimed “security computer” is satisfied by the Cloud
`AV and GRID sandboxes, both of which have been stricken from Finjan’s
`Contentions by the Court’s November 20 Order. In light of the Court’s Order, Finjan
`does not have any gateway or ESA alone theory that has been previously disclosed.
`Upon review of the current versions of H‐1 and H‐5, it appears that all Finjan did was
`remove the reference to the Cloud AV and GRID sandbox and instead, simply refer
`generically to a “security computer” without identifying which component constitutes
`the security computer. To the extent Finjan contends that the security computer is
`satisfied by the Cloud AV and GRIDS sandboxes, Appendices H‐1 and ‐5 are in
`violation of the Court’s Nov. 20 Order and must be withdrawn. To the extent Finjan
`contends the security computer is satisfied by a different component, please (i) identify
`which component(s) within the gateway and ESA devices Finjan contends is the
`security computer; and (ii) identify where in its First Supplemental Contentions Finjan
`identified that component as the security computer.
`Ex. W, 12.17.19 Email from R. McGrath (emphasis added). Notably, Appendices H-1 and H-5 on
`which Finjan now relies identify no component as the “security computer.” Ex. X, Appx. H-1 at 10;
`8
`
`SONICWALL’S MOTION TO STRIKE NEW THEORIES IN FINJAN’S EXPERT REPORTS
`CASE NO. 5:17-CV-04467-BLF-VKD
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 5:17-cv-04467-BLF Document 300 Filed 10/14/20 Page 11 of 12
`
`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
`
`Ex. Y, Appx. H-5 at 10.
`Paragraphs 274, 281, 294, 301 of Dr. Medvidovic’s report, for example, attempt to revive
`Finjan’s Gateway and ESA alone theories, pointing to Capture ATP, “SonicWall’s server”, and/or
`“server computer” as the alleged “security computers”. Ex. E, Medvidovic Rep. ¶¶ 274, 281, 294,
`301. As for Capture ATP being the security computer – that is not a Gateway/ESA “alone” theory,
`but is duplicative of Finjan’s Gateway plus Capture ATP and ESA plus Capture ATP theories. Ex. L,
`Appx. H-2 at 7, 14; Ex. M, Appx. H-4 at 7, 14. Regarding the generic “SonicWall’s server” and
`“server computer” as the claimed “security computer,” there is no support for these theories in
`Finjan’s Operative Contentions.
`2.
`“URL Rewriting” Theory
`Claim 1 recites “a content processor (i) for processing content received over a network, the
`content including a call to a first function, and the call including an input.” Dr. Medvidovic’s expert
`report accuses a “URL Rewriting” feature within the ESAs of infringing claim 1, asserting that the
`rewritten URL is the claimed “first function,” which the Court has construed as a “substitute
`function.” Ex. E, Medvidovic Rep., ¶ 293; see also id. at ¶¶ 294, 301, 302.
`Neither the operative infringement contentions for the ESAs (i.e., Appx. H-4 (ESA + Capture
`ATP) and withdrawn Appx. H-5 (ESA alone)) even reference the ESA’s URL Rewriting feature,
`much less allege that a rewritten URL is the claimed “first function.” During the Parties’ meet and
`confer, Finjan could not show otherwise, but pointed only to generic discussions of URLs in its
`contentions. Ex. D, 10.2.20 Email from J. Wolff.
`
`THE COURT SHOULD STRIKE FINJAN’S INFRINGEMENT THEORIES THAT
`VIOLATE THE COURT’S NOVEMBER 20 ORDER
`The Court’s November 20, 2019 Order required Finjan to “re-serve its Gateway-only and
`ESA-only disclosures to eliminate contentions that certain limitations are met by cloud-based
`resources or components.” Dkt. No. 210 at 6. In so ordering, the Court relied on Finjan’s
`representation that “the accused Gateway and ESA instrumentalities were capable of infringing
`along (i.e., “one the box”) without connection to any cloud-based component, as well as in
`combination with Capture ATP.” Id. at 4-5.
`
`IV.
`
`
`
`9
`
`SONICWALL’S MOTION TO STRIKE NEW THEORIES IN FINJAN’S EXPERT REPORTS
`CASE NO. 5:17-CV-04467-BLF-VKD
`
`

`

`Case 5:17-cv-04467-BLF Document 300 Filed 10/14/20 Page 12 of 12
`
`During the hearing on Finjan’s motion for leave to supplement its infringement contention,
`Judge DeMarchi confirmed that the Gateway and Email Security appliances must infringe without
`accessing any cloud-based functionality:
`THE COURT: So Finjan writes . . . that it understands . . . the contentions that it wants
`to add would have been unobjectionable had they simply been characterized as Cloud
`based rather than as local gateways and ESA technology and that my order striking the
`contentions was formal rather than substantive.
`So that is a misreading of my order . . . what I concluded was that Finjan had identified
`two categories of infringing instrumentalities, at least as relates to this question of
`gateways and ESA, and that was gateways and ESA alone that don't require access to
`any cloud-based functionality but infringe on the box and the gateways and ESA in
`combination with a cloud functionality called Capture ATP.
`Dkt. 232, 1/28/2020 Hearing Transcript at 5:4-20 (emphasis added).
`Despite this express guidance from the Court, Finjan’s expert reports include Gateway-only
`infringement theories that require access to cloud-based functionality.
`A.
`Finjan’s Gateway-only Theory for the ’494
`Claim 10 of the ’494 Patent recites a “database manager . . . for storing the Downloadable
`security profile in a database.” In claiming that the Gateways alone infringe claim 10, Paragraph
`1361 of Dr. Cole’s infringement report identifies a SQL database storing content strings as the
`database in which Downloadable security profiles are stored. Ex. Z, Cole Rep., ¶ 1361. The
`document Dr. Cole cites for this proposition, however, clearly states that this SQL database “
`
`” i.e., it is not on the Gateways. Id. citing SonicWall-Finjan_00519307 at 309.
`Because Finjan’s Gateway alone infringement theory requires storing data in a database
`located in the cloud, the theory violates the Court’s November 20 Order and should be struck from
`paragraph 1361 of Dr. Cole’s report.
`
`
`
`
`
`10
`
`SONICWALL’S MOTION TO STRIKE NEW THEORIES IN FINJAN’S EXPERT REPORTS
`CASE NO. 5:17-CV-04467-BLF-VKD
`
`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
`
`