Case 5:17-cv-04467-BLF Document 313 Filed 11/24/20 Page 1 of 15
`
`Juanita R. Brooks (CA SBN 75934) brooks@fr.com
`Roger A. Denning (CA SBN 228998) denning@fr.com
`Jason W. Wolff (CA SBN 215819) wolff@fr.com
`John-Paul Fryckman (CA SBN 317591) fryckman@fr.com
`K. Nicole Williams (CA SBN 291900) nwilliams@fr.com
`FISH & RICHARDSON P.C.
`12860 El Camino Real, Suite 400
`San Diego, CA 92130
`Telephone: (858) 678-5070 / Fax: (858) 678-5099
`
`Proshanto Mukherji (Pro Hac Vice) mukherji@fr.com
`FISH & RICHARDSON P.C.
`One Marina Park Drive
`Boston, MA 02210
`Phone: (617) 542-5070 / Fax: (617) 542-5906
`
`Robert Courtney (CA SBN 248392) courtney@fr.com
`FISH & RICHARDSON P.C.
`3200 RBC Plaza
`60 South Sixth Street
`Minneapolis, MN 55402
`Phone: (612) 335-5070 / Fax: (612) 288-9696
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff
`FINJAN LLC
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`(SAN JOSE DIVISION)
`
`FINJAN LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability
`Company,
`
`Case No. 5:17-cv-04467-BLF (VKD)
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`SONICWALL INC., a Delaware Corporation,
`
`Defendant.
`
`FINJAN LLC’S OPPOSITION TO
`SONICWALL INC.’S MOTION TO
`STRIKE NEW THEORIES IN FINJAN
`LLC’S EXPERT REPORTS
`
`Date: March 11, 2021
`Time: 9:00 a.m.
`Judge: Hon. Beth Labson Freeman
`Dept: Courtroom 3, Fifth Floor
`
`REDACTED VERSION
`
`Case No. 5:17-cv-04467-BLF (VKD)
`FINJAN’S OPPOSITION TO SONICWALL
`INC.’S MOTION TO STRIKE
`
`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 313 Filed 11/24/20 Page 2 of 15
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`STATEMENT OF FACTS ................................................................................................ 1
`
`LEGAL STANDARD ....................................................................................................... 1
`
`III.
`
`ARGUMENT.................................................................................................................... 2
`
`A.
`
`Finjan’s Infringement Theories Were Disclosed In Its Contentions .................... 2
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`The ’305 Patent ............................................................................. 2
`
`The ’408 Patent ............................................................................. 5
`The ’780 Patent ............................................................................. 6
`
`The ’154 Patent ............................................................................. 7
`
`B.
`
`Finjan’s Infringement Theories Are Consistent With This Court’s Orders ..........10
`
`10
`
`IV.
`
`CONCLUSION................................................................................................................10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`i
`
`Case No. 5:17-cv-04467-BLF (VKD)
`FINJAN’S OPPOSITION TO SONICWALL
`INC.’S MOTION TO STRIKE
`
`

`

`Case 5:17-cv-04467-BLF Document 313 Filed 11/24/20 Page 3 of 15
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page(s)
`
`Cases
`
`Apple Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co.,
`5:12-CV-0630-LHK-PSG, 2014 WL 12917334 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 9, 2014) ................... 1, 3, 5, 7
`
`Digital Reg of Texas, LLC v. Adobe Sys. Inc.,
`No. CV 12-01971-CW (KAW), 2014 WL 1653131 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 24, 2014) ....... 1, 2, 4, 5, 6
`
`Other Authorities
`
`Patent Local Rule 3-1 ................................................................................................................. 1
`
`Rewrite Engine, WIKIPEDIA, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rewrite_engine
`(last visited Nov. 22, 2020) ................................................................................................. 10
`
`ii
`
`Case No. 5:17-cv-04467-BLF (VKD)
`FINJAN’S OPPOSITION TO SONICWALL
`INC.’S MOTION TO STRIKE
`
`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 313 Filed 11/24/20 Page 4 of 15
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`Finjan provided ample notice of its theories in its initial and supplemental infringement
`
`contentions. Finjan’s expert reports marshal the evidence to provide a complete statement of their
`
`opinions, consistent with the contentions and the Court’s November 20, 2019 Order. Dkt. 210.
`
`SonicWall’s request would effectively require parties to identify infringement theories and all
`
`supporting evidence during fact discovery, eliminating the need for expert reports. That is not the
`
`law. Infringement contentions must identify infringement theories, not marshal all evidence
`
`collected during discovery. Finjan’s contentions disclose its theories—and more. Accordingly,
`
`SonicWall’s Motion to Strike Finjan’s Expert Reports (Dkt. 299-3) should be denied.
`
`I.
`
`STATEMENT OF FACTS
`
`Finjan served its initial infringement contentions on April 10, 2018 pursuant to Patent
`
`Local Rule 3-1. See, e.g., Declaration of Jason Wolff (“Wolff Decl.”) at ¶ 2. Finjan supplemented
`
`its Contentions three times, on November 9, 2018, May 31, 2019, and December 11, 2019. See id.
`
`at ¶¶ 5–12. Finjan updated certain infringement charts following the Court’s November 2019
`
`Order. See, e.g., Dkts. 299-16, 299-17 (Appxs. H-2 and H-4, 7/2/2020). After Finjan’s service of
`
`infringement expert reports on September 3, 2020, SonicWall alleged Finjan’s reports contained
`
`new theories. Dkt. 299-8 (Sept. 21, 2020 Email fr. J. Gunther). The parties conferred and Finjan
`
`responded with a detailed explanation with pincites for each issue raised. See Dkt. 299-8 (Oct. 2,
`
`2020 Email fr. J. Wolff). Finjan maintains these theories were properly and timely disclosed.
`
`19
`
`II.
`
`LEGAL STANDARD
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`Patent L.R. 3-1 “require[s] parties to crystallize their theories of the case early in the
`
`litigation.” Digital Reg of Texas, LLC v. Adobe Sys. Inc., No. CV 12-01971-CW (KAW), 2014
`
`WL 1653131, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 24, 2014) (citation omitted). “The threshold question in
`
`deciding whether to strike an expert report is whether the expert has permissibly specified the
`
`application of a disclosed theory or impermissibly substituted a new theory altogether.” Id. The
`
`operative word “theories” does not mean marshalling all evidence or citing minutia. Id. (quoting
`
`Apple Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., 5:12-CV-0630-LHK-PSG, 2014 WL 12917334, at *1 (N.D. Cal.
`
`Jan. 9, 2014) (“Contentions need not disclose specific evidence. . . .”)).
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`Case No. 5:17-cv-04467-BLF (VKD)
`FINJAN’S OPPOSITION TO SONICWALL INC.’S
`MOTION TO STRIKE
`
`
`

`

`Case 5:17-cv-04467-BLF Document 313 Filed 11/24/20 Page 5 of 15
`
`
`
`III. ARGUMENT
`
`A.
`
`Finjan’s Infringement Theories Were Disclosed In Its Contentions
`
`1.
`
`The ’305 Patent
`
`a.
`
`Network Traffic Probe And Destination Computer Limitations
`
`Finjan’s infringement contentions disclosed the “network traffic probe” theories described
`
`in ¶¶ 217-218 of Dr. Medvidovic’s report. Finjan has always alleged that Capture ATP infringes
`
`the ’305 claims by providing a network traffic probe that scans and diverts incoming content from
`
`its intended destination. See Exh. A (Appx. G-2, to Finjan’s 4/10/18 Infr. Contentions) at 10-11.
`
`SonicWall does not dispute that Finjan accused Capture ATP of infringement and described how a
`
`functionality satisfies the network traffic probe limitation. Instead, SonicWall argues that Finjan
`
`“failed to identify a specific component that constitutes the claimed network traffic probe, and it
`
`identified only the
`
` as the
`
`destination computer.” Mot. at 2. SonicWall’s dispute is not whether Finjan’s theory was
`
`disclosed, but instead whether Finjan’s contentions should have presented more evidence in
`
`support. It is proper for expert reports to present evidence and analysis to support theories
`
`disclosed in contentions. See Digital Reg of Texas, 2014 WL 1653131, at *5 (“[E]xpert reports are
`
`expected to provide more information than is contained in infringement contentions.”).
`
`First, SonicWall cannot dispute that Finjan’s contentions described how CaptureATP
`
`satisfies the network traffic probe limitation and Finjan’s expert reports do not deviate from those
`
`contentions. Finjan’s contentions stated,
`
`Finjan’s expert report consistently states that the network
`
`Exh. B (Appx. G-2, 12/11/19) at 16.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`(Medvidovic Rep.) at ¶ 217. Finjan’s contentions further identified the Capture ATP source code
`
`demonstrating that the network traffic probe performs the infringing functionality. Exh. B at 17
`
`Exh. C
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`Case No. 5:17-cv-04467-BLF (VKD)
`FINJAN’S OPPOSITION TO SONICWALL INC.’S
`MOTION TO STRIKE
`
`
`
`
`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 313 Filed 11/24/20 Page 6 of 15
`
`
`
`See Exh. C at ¶ 218
`
` Finjan’s expert report repeats this allegation nearly verbatim.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`.
`
`The consistency between the contentions and expert report shows that SonicWall was on notice
`
`this theory.
`
`Second, Finjan’s contentions identified a “client computer” as an exemplary “destination
`
`computer” for the ’305 claims. See Exh. B (Appx G-2, 12/11/19) at 27, 29
`
`
`
` Exh. D (Appx. G-4, 12/11/19) at 27 (same); Exh. E (Appx.
`
`G-3, 12/11/19) at 27
`
` SonicWall argues these
`
`disclosures should be ignored because they are identified for a different claim (i.e., claim 13, not
`
`claim 1, from which claims 11 and 12 depend). Mot. at 2-3. But it is indisputable that both claims
`
`recite an intended destination (a destination computer), and the same limitations are to be applied
`
`consistently across the claims of a patent. (Compare claim 13 (“selectively diverting, by the
`
`computer, the received incoming content from its intended destination”) with claim 1
`
`(“selectively diverting incoming content from its intended destination to said rule-based content
`
`scanner”) (emphases added).) Accordingly, SonicWall was on notice that Finjan considered a
`
`“client computer” to be a “destination.” And, SonicWall has identified no prejudice due to
`
`Finjan’s articulation. See Apple, 2014 WL 12917334, at *3 (denying motion to strike where party
`
`“fails to identify any prejudice it has suffered”) .
`
`b.
`
`Update Manager Limitation
`
`SonicWall is wrong in its argument that 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.” Mot. at 3. Finjan has always alleged that Capture ATP infringes the
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`Case No. 5:17-cv-04467-BLF (VKD)
`FINJAN’S OPPOSITION TO SONICWALL INC.’S
`MOTION TO STRIKE
`
`
`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 313 Filed 11/24/20 Page 7 of 15
`
`
`
`’305 Patent’s asserted claims by including a rule update engine (i.e., rule update manager) for
`
`updating said database of parser and analyzer rules periodically to incorporate new parser and
`
`analyzer rules that are made available. See, e.g., Exh. A (Appx. G-2, 4/10/18) at 12 (“Capture ATP
`
`includes, or is communicatively coupled to, an updating engine (rule update manager) that can be
`
`configured to enable the AV database (database of parser and analyzer rules) to receive periodic
`
`updates for antivirus, anti-spam, and anti-phishing updates every minute”); see also Exh. F (Appx.
`
`G-2, 11/09/18) at 19. Dr. Medvidovic merely marshalled evidence of SonicWall’s infringement in
`
`his report to support the theories disclosed in Finjan’s contentions. See Digital Reg of Texas, 2014
`
`WL 1653131, at *5.
`
`SonicWall’s issue is with the identification of the “update server” as a specific example of
`
`the rule update manager, not whether the actual theory of infringement was disclosed. SonicWall
`
`cannot credibly argue that Finjan’s rule update manager theory is new given the consistency
`
`between Finjan’s contentions and its expert report. (Compare Exh. B (Appx. G-2, 12/11/19) at 19
`
`(Medvidovic Rep.) at ¶ 224
`
`contentions also alleged that
`
`
`
`with Dkt. 299-9
`
`
`
`
`
`) Finjan’s
`
`
`
`2, 12/11/19) at 19. The paragraph of Finjan’s expert report that SonicWall seeks to strike repeats
`
`this same allegation. Dkt. 299-9 at ¶ 224 (
`
`Exh. B (Appx. G-
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` The consistency and overlap between the contentions and expert report demonstrate
`
`that the same infringement theory was disclosed in both.
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`Case No. 5:17-cv-04467-BLF (VKD)
`FINJAN’S OPPOSITION TO SONICWALL INC.’S
`MOTION TO STRIKE
`
`
`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 313 Filed 11/24/20 Page 8 of 15
`
`
`
`2.
`
`The ’408 Patent
`a.
`Dynamically Building A Parse Tree Limitation
`
`Finjan disclosed its infringement theories for the “dynamically building” limitation in its
`
`infringement contentions, and Dr. Medvidovic’s report marshalled corresponding evidence.
`
`SonicWall’s complaint is with the detail provided in Finjan’s contentions, not the disclosure of the
`
`theory. The four paragraphs SonicWall seeks to strike from Dr. Medvidovic’s report pertain to the
`
` that was identified in Finjan’s contentions as required in satisfying the
`
`“dynamically building a parse tree” limitation. Finjan stated in its contentions,
`
`
`
`12/11/19) at 17
`
` and disclosed that the
`
` Dkt. 299-10 (Appx. E-2,
`
`
`
`
`
` Finjan also disclosed that the parse tree building
`
`process requires the
`
` Id. In his opening
`
`report, Dr. Medvidovic repeats this infringement theory and details the process of dynamically
`
`building the parse tree,
`
`. Dkt. 299-9
`
`(Medvidovic Rep.) at ¶¶ 146-149. Indeed, SonicWall admits in its motion that Finjan’s expert
`
`“dedicates four full paragraphs to describing why the purported building of parse trees occurs
`
`dynamically while the incoming stream is being received.” Mot. at 4. SonicWall’s statement
`
`demonstrates that Finjan’s expert was marshalling the evidence to support the infringement theory
`
`identified in its contentions, which is entirely proper. See, e.g., Apple, 2014 WL 12917334, at *2
`
`(denying motion to strike where expert reports provided specific examples of the infringing
`
`functionalities previously disclosed in the infringement contentions).
`
`Finjan’s expert did not offer a new theory of infringement but instead supplied analysis
`
`and evidence of infringement in a cohesive manner, which is allowed. See, e.g., Digital Reg of
`
`Texas, 2014 WL 1653131, at *5.
`
`b.
`
`Dynamically Detecting Limitation
`
`Finjan disclosed its infringement theories for the “dynamically detecting” limitation it its
`
`infringement contentions, and Dr. Medvidovic marshalled the corresponding evidence in ¶ 158.
`
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`Case No. 5:17-cv-04467-BLF (VKD)
`FINJAN’S OPPOSITION TO SONICWALL INC.’S
`MOTION TO STRIKE
`
`
`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 313 Filed 11/24/20 Page 9 of 15
`
`
`
`SonicWall alleges Dr. Medvidovic “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.” Mot. at 5. Not true. Finjan’s contentions stated,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Exh. G (Appx. E-2, 12/11/19) at 18. Finjan also put SonicWall on notice that
`
`the
`
` is involved in “dynamically detecting.” Id. at 18
`
`(emphasis added). In ¶ 158, Dr. Medvidovic further details
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Dkt. 299-9 (Medvidovic Rep.) at ¶ 158. Because Finjan’s infringement theory has remained the
`
`same and Dr. Medvidovic’s analysis has only added greater detail to the theory, SonicWall’s
`
`argument should be rejected. See, e.g., Digital Reg of Texas, 2014 WL 1653131, at *5.
`
`3.
`
`The ’780 Patent
`
`Finjan disclosed its Capture ATP theories for the ’780 Patent in its initial infringement
`
`contentions and in each supplement. Exh. H (Appx. D-2, 4/10/18); Exh. I (Appx. D-2, 11/09/18);
`
`Exh. J (Appx. D-3, 5/31/19); Exh. K (Appx. D-3, 12/11/19). SonicWall’s contention that “Finjan
`
`does not identify archive or compressed files (e.g., a ZIP file) … as being a Downloadable” is
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`wrong. Mot. at 6. Finjan’s initial contentions identified multiple examples of file types (including
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`archive and compressed file types such as a .zip file type) corresponding to the Downloadable in
`
`claim 9 as satisfying the “Fetching Limitation.” See, e.g., Exh. H (Appx. D-2, 4/10/18) at 19-20
`
`(stating, “Capture ATP includes a communications engine for obtaining a Downloadable that
`
`includes one or more references to software components required to be executed by the
`
`Downloadable. Capture ATP analysis files including Executables (PE, Mach-O, DMG), PDFs,
`
`Office 97-2003, Office, and Archives (.jar, .apk, .rar, .gz, .zip)” and citing SonicWall
`
`documentation for support). Finjan’s final supplemental infringement contentions further provided
`
`examples of Downloadables and associated hashing that satisfy the “Fetching Limitation.” See
`
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`Case No. 5:17-cv-04467-BLF (VKD)
`FINJAN’S OPPOSITION TO SONICWALL INC.’S
`MOTION TO STRIKE
`
`
`

`

`Case 5:17-cv-04467-BLF Document 313 Filed 11/24/20 Page 10 of 15
`
`
`
`Exh. K (Appx. D-3, 12/11/19) at 5
`
`
`
`). Each of these file types, including
`
`archive and compressed file types such as the .zip file type, is a web-based file/executable that is
`
`downloadable from the Web and thus falls under the final infringement contentions’ disclosure of
`
`Id. Finjan
`
`identified its theories and examples of Downloadable and hashing elements that match those
`
`theories in its contentions. This is consistent with the local rules, which do not require plaintiffs to
`
`identify all examples of infringing functionalities in the contentions. See Apple, 2014 WL
`
`12917334, at *2 (denying motion to strike where the expert report “simply point[ed] to a specific
`
`example of the [functionality] disclosed in [the] infringement contentions.”).
`
`Consistent with the infringement contentions, Dr. Mitzenmacher’s infringement report
`
`provides examples of several types of files that correspond to the claimed Downloadable and
`
`hashing elements. See, e.g., Exh. L (Mitzenmacher Rep.) at ¶¶ 118, 122, 124, and 126-134.
`
`Dr. Mitzenmacher’s disclosure of compressed and archived files and subsequent hashing in ¶ 134
`
`is another example of a Downloadable, consistent with Finjan’s contentions. Id. ¶ 134
`
` Dr. Mitzenmacher’s identification of
`
`
`
`evidence of infringement, including examples of the claimed Downloadable that match Finjan’s
`
`infringement contentions, is proper.
`
`4.
`
`The ’154 Patent
`a.
`Gateway And ESA Theories
`
`SonicWall’s complaints for the ’154 Patent focus on the “alone” theories in
`
`Dr. Medvidovic’s report. The argument in its brief is not what was identified in its email and the
`
`parties’ conference. SonicWall addresses its complaints under the header “new infringement
`
`theories,” but SonicWall does not contend the “alone” theories are new. See Mot. at 7:3-9:9. In
`
`fact, SonicWall acknowledges Finjan’s disclosure of these theories. See Dkt. 300-25 (12/17/19
`
`Email from R. McGrath) (referencing the Gateway and ESA “alone charts”). Instead, SonicWall
`
`argues Finjan withdrew Appendices H-1 and H-5 disclosing the “alone” theories and that Dr.
`
`
`
`
`
`7
`
`Case No. 5:17-cv-04467-BLF (VKD)
`FINJAN’S OPPOSITION TO SONICWALL INC.’S
`MOTION TO STRIKE
`
`
`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 313 Filed 11/24/20 Page 11 of 15
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`Medvidovic attempts to “revive” these contentions. See Mot. at 7:10-25; see also Exhs. M and N
`
`(Appxs. H-1 and H-5, 12/11/19). This is not what happened, and SonicWall is conflating the
`
`infringement theory and a separate damages issue.
`
`Finjan’s ’154 Patent infringement theory for the Gateway and ESA requires Capture ATP.
`
`This theory is completely in agreement with the infringement theories for which SonicWall makes
`
`no objection in its motion. At its core, the issue is that Gateway and ESA components include
`
`, so both the so-called “alone” theory, which is objected to, and
`
`the “combination” theory, which is not objected to, are the same theory. SonicWall overlooks that
`
`Dr. Medvidovic’s report relies upon Capture ATP features to satisfy the infringement reads—as
`
`disclosed in Finjan’s infringement contentions—and the reference to either the Gateway or ESA
`
`“alone” in his report still identifies functionality from Capture ATP. See Exh. C at ¶¶ 271, 274,
`
`280-81, 291-94, and 300-01; see also Dkts. 299-16, 299-17 (Appxs. H-2 and H-4, 7/2/2020). At
`
`most, this is a damages issue, not an infringement issue. The Gateways and ESAs each include
`
` so they each have the alleged infringing
`
` functionality. Id.;
`
`see also Exh. C at ¶¶ 79
`
`(McDuff Op. Rep.) at 80, n. 292 (noting the same). Capture ATP is also
`
`; Exh. O
`
`
`
` as Dr. McDuff explains. See, e.g., Exh. O at 14. In each instance, Dr.
`
`Medvidovic’s Report matches Finjan’s disclosures of its theories. Notably, SonicWall makes no
`
`complaint about the theory in Appendices H-2 and H-4 (Finjan’s infringement charts for Gateway
`
`+ Capture ATP and ESA + Capture ATP, respectively), which expressly disclose this infringement
`
`theory. It is the exact same theory whether it incorporates Gateway
`
` or the ESA
`
` or the combination of the two
`
`
`
`
`
`SonicWall does not dispute that the combined theory was disclosed, and thus it has not been
`
`prejudiced.
`
`SonicWall’s motion is premised on a technicality, rather than the substance of the theory.
`
`It points to various emails to suggest Finjan withdrew Appendices H-1 and H-5 regarding the
`
`“alone” theory. See, e.g., Dkts. 299-18, 299-20, 299-24. Yet, at no point did Finjan expressly
`
`
`
`
`
`8
`
`Case No. 5:17-cv-04467-BLF (VKD)
`FINJAN’S OPPOSITION TO SONICWALL INC.’S
`MOTION TO STRIKE
`
`
`

`

`Case 5:17-cv-04467-BLF Document 313 Filed 11/24/20 Page 12 of 15
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`withdraw the appendices, despite SonicWall’s attorney argument this was its “understanding.”
`
`Dkt. 300-2 at 3:23. Indeed, after the initial messages SonicWall identifies, the parties continued
`
`discussing the contentions, and nothing in the record suggest these charts were withdrawn.
`
`(Compare Dkt. 299-20 at 4 (requesting withdrawal of H-1, H-3, and H-5) with id. at 1 (revising H-
`
`3).) While irrelevant to the underlying substantive issue, Finjan did not withdraw its contentions.
`
`Lastly, SonicWall is wrong that “there is no support” for the “‘SonicWall’s server’ and
`
`‘server computer’ [to be] the claimed ‘security computer.’” See Mot. at 9. Finjan’s theory is that
`
`is the security computer. See generally Dkts. 299-16, 299-17. Dr. Medvidovic’s
`
`reference to SonicWall’s server describes evidence for this theory because, as he explained,
`
`Exh. C (Medvidovic Rep.) at ¶¶ 274; see also id. at 64, 81. Finjan’s contentions
`
`disclosed, “
`
`Dkt. 299-16 at 9, 11; see also id. at 1 (i
`
` See
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Dr. Medvidovic’s description that information is transmitted
`
`
`
`for analysis is consistent with Finjan’s contentions because
`
`
`
`. See, e.g., Dkt. 299-9 at ¶ 274, 281. Thus, SonicWall’s argument is one of semantics.
`
`Dr. Medvidovic’s use of the term “SonicWall’s server,” to summarize the details of previously
`
`disclosed theories
`
` is proper.
`
`
`
`b.
`
`URL Processing Theories
`
`Finjan disclosed its “URL processing” theories in its infringement contentions, and Dr.
`
`Medvidovic’s report marshals the evidence matching this theory in his report. Claim 1 of the ’154
`
`Patent requires “a content processor (i) for processing content received over a network.” Finjan’s
`
`infringement contentions disclosed that this claim limitation is satisfied by
`
` See Dkt. 299-17 (A) at 11
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`9
`
`Case No. 5:17-cv-04467-BLF (VKD)
`FINJAN’S OPPOSITION TO SONICWALL INC.’S
`MOTION TO STRIKE
`
`
`

`

`Case 5:17-cv-04467-BLF Document 313 Filed 11/24/20 Page 13 of 15
`
`
`
`described
`
`. In his report, Dr. Medvidovic
`
`
`
`See, e.g., Dkt. 299-9 (Medvidovic Rep.) at ¶ 293-94. Not only is Dr. Medvidovic’s
`
`discussion based on Finjan’s infringement contentions, but a person of ordinary skill in the art
`
`would understand URL rewriting to refer to a method for modifying URLs. See Rewrite Engine,
`
`WIKIPEDIA, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rewrite_engine (last visited Nov. 22, 2020) (Modifying
`
`URLs “is called URL rewriting.”). As such,
`
` is not a new theory, and SonicWall’s
`
`motion to strike Dr. Medvidovic’s report in relation to
`
` should be denied.
`
`B.
`
`Finjan’s Infringement Theories Are Consistent With This Court’s Orders
`
`Finjan’s Gateway- and ESA-alone theories for the ’494 Patent are consistent with the
`
`Court’s November 20, 2019 Order. Dkt. 210. SonicWall’s suggestion that the Accused Products
`
`may in no instance communicate with a remote device such as the cloud is wrong. Mot. at 10. As
`
`stated in the Order, the “alone” theories are proper so long as the accused products do not require
`
`a connection to the cloud to infringe. Dkt. 210 at 5:11-21. The ’494 Patent’s “alone” theories as
`
`described in the expert reports do not require connection to cloud-based components to infringe.
`
`The document cited by Dr. Cole, and referenced by SonicWall, demonstrates how the Gateways
`
`satisfy the storage limitation
`
`See Exh. P (SonicWall
`
`Threat Research Database) at 00519309.
`
`
`
`
`
` Id. (emphasis added). Thus the Gateway does not need to connect to the
`
`cloud to infringe because it locally performs the infringing limitation of storing security profile
`
`data. That data might be later sent to the cloud is irrelevant—that is (at most) an additional step in
`
`an open-ended claim. Finjan’s expert reports are consistent with the Court’s Order.
`
`IV. CONCLUSION
`
`As Finjan sufficiently disclosed its infringement theories in its infringement contentions,
`
`Finjan respectfully requests that the Court deny SonicWall’s motion to strike portions of Finjan’s
`
`expert reports.
`
`
`
`
`
`10
`
`Case No. 5:17-cv-04467-BLF (VKD)
`FINJAN’S OPPOSITION TO SONICWALL INC.’S
`MOTION TO STRIKE
`
`
`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 313 Filed 11/24/20 Page 14 of 15
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated: November 24, 2020
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ K. Nicole Williams
`Juanita R. Brooks (CA SBN 75934)
`brooks@fr.com
`Roger A. Denning (CA SBN 228998)
`denning@fr.com
`Jason W. Wolff (CA SBN 215819)
`wolff@fr.com
`John-Paul Fryckman (CA 317591)
`fryckman@fr.com
`K. Nicole Williams (CA 291900)
`nwilliams@fr.com
`FISH & RICHARDSON P.C.
`12860 El Camino Real, Ste. 400
`San Diego, CA 92130
`Phone: (858) 678-5070 / Fax: (858) 678-5099
`
`Proshanto Mukherji (Pro Hac Vice)
`mukherji@fr.com
`FISH & RICHARDSON P.C.
`One Marina Park Drive
`Boston, MA 02210
`Phone: (617) 542-5070/ Fax: (617) 542-5906
`
`Robert Courtney (CA SNB 248392)
`courtney@fr.com
`FISH & RICHARDSON P.C.
`3200 RBC Plaza
`60 South Sixth Street
`Minneapolis, MN 55402
`Phone: (612) 335-5070 / Fax: (612) 288-9696
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff
`FINJAN LLC
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`11
`
`Case No. 5:17-cv-04467-BLF (VKD)
`FINJAN’S OPPOSITION TO SONICWALL INC.’S
`MOTION TO STRIKE
`
`
`

`

`Case 5:17-cv-04467-BLF Document 313 Filed 11/24/20 Page 15 of 15
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`The undersigned hereby certifies that a true and correct copy of the above and foregoing
`
`document has been served on November 24, 2020, to all counsel of record who are deemed to
`
`have consented to electronic service via the Court’s CM/ECF system. Any other counsel of record
`
`will be served by electronic mail and regular mail.
`
`
`
`/s/ K. Nicole Williams
`K. Nicole Williams
`
`Attorney for Plaintiff
`FINJAN LLC.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. 5:17-cv-04467-BLF (VKD)
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`