Case 5:17-cv-04467-BLF Document 320 Filed 12/02/20 Page 1 of 37
`
`DUANE MORRIS LLP
`D. Stuart Bartow (SBN 233107)
`Email: DSBartow@duanemorris.com
`Nicole E. Grigg (SBN 307733)
`Email: NEGrigg@duanemorris.com
`2475 Hanover Street
`Palo Alto, CA 94304-1194
`Tel.: 650.847.4150
`Fax: 650.847.4151
`DUANE MORRIS LLP
`Joseph A. Powers
`Admitted Pro Hac Vice
`japowers@duanemorris.com
`Jarrad M. Gunther
`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
`Admitted Pro Hac Vice
`mcgaudet@duanemorris.com
`Robin L. McGrath
`Admitted Pro Hac Vice
`rlmcgrath@duanemorris.com
`David C. Dotson
`Admitted Pro Hac Vice
`dcdotson@duanemorris.com
`Jennifer H. Forte
`Admitted Pro Hac Vice
`jhforte@duanemorris.com
`1075 Peachtree Street, Ste. 2000
`Atlanta, GA 30309
`Telephone: 404.253.6900
`Facsimile: 404.253.6901
`(Complete list of counsel for Defendant
`on signature page)
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`SAN JOSE DIVISION
`FINJAN LLC., a Delaware Limited Liability
`Case No. 5:17-cv-04467-BLF (VKD)
`Company,
`DEFENDANT SONICWALL INC.’S
`MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY
`JUDGMENT
`Date:
`January 14, 2021
`Time:
`9:00 AM
`Courtroom: 3, 5th Floor
`Judge:
`Hon. Beth Labson Freeman
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`vs.
`SONICWALL, INC., a Delaware
`Corporation
`
`Defendant.
`
`REDACTED
`
`DEFENDANT SONICWALL INC.’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`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 320 Filed 12/02/20 Page 2 of 37
`
`I. 
`
`II. 
`
`III. 
`IV. 
`
`V. 
`
`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
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`NON-INFRINGEMENT OF THE ’154 PATENT ..............................................................1 
`A. 
`Background of the ’154 Patent ............................................................................... 1 
`B. 
`The ’154 Accused Products Do Not Infringe the ’154 Patent ................................ 2 
`1. 
`Literal Infringement .................................................................................... 2 
`a. 
`The Operation of the ’154 Accused Products ..................................2 
`b. 
`Finjan’s Expert Testimony Cannot Avoid Summary Judgment ......3 
`c. 
`Finjan’s “URL Rewriting” Theory ..................................................5 
`Doctrine of Equivalents .............................................................................. 6 
`2. 
`THE COMBINATION OF SONICWALL’S EMAIL SECURITY PRODUCTS AND
`CAPTURE ATP CANNOT INFRINGE THE ’844, ’494, AND ’926 PATENTS .............6 
`A. 
`The ’844, ’494, and ’926 Patents Expired in January 2017 .................................... 6 
`B. 
`Capture ATP Was Not Commercially Available for Use With SonicWall’s
`Email Security Products Until February 2017 ........................................................ 7 
`The Only Accused Sandbox in this Case is in Capture ATP .................................. 7 
`C. 
`SONICWALL GATEWAYS DO NOT RECEIVE “DOWNLOADABLES” ....................8 
`NON-INFRINGEMENT OF ’633 AND ’822 PATENTS.................................................10 
`A. 
`Background of the ’633 and ’822 Patents. ............................................................ 10 
`B. 
`Capture ATP Does Not Use or Transmit MPC (’633 Patent, Claims 1, 8 and
`14; ’822 Patent, Claim 9) ...................................................................................... 10 
`1. 
`Literal Infringement .................................................................................. 10 
`2. 
`Doctrine of Equivalents ............................................................................ 11 
`Finjan Accuses Combinations in Name Only of Infringing ’633 Patent, Claim
`14........................................................................................................................... 12 
`NON-INFRINGEMENT BASED ON SAME COMPUTER (’305 AND ’408
`PATENTS) .........................................................................................................................13 
`A. 
`The ’408 Patent ..................................................................................................... 13 
`B. 
`The ’305 Patent ..................................................................................................... 15 
`
`C. 
`
`i
`DEFENDANT SONICWALL INC.’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`CASE NO. 5:17-CV-04467-BLF (VKD)
`
`

`

`Case 5:17-cv-04467-BLF Document 320 Filed 12/02/20 Page 3 of 37
`
`NON-INFRINGEMENT OF THE ’926 PATENT ............................................................16 
`VI. 
`VII.  NON-INFRINGEMENT ’305 PATENT ...........................................................................19 
`VIII.  DAMAGES ........................................................................................................................20 
`A. 
`Finjan Is Not Entitled to a Royalty on SonicWall’s Non-U.S. Sales .................... 20 
`B. 
`Finjan Is Not Entitled to Damages Prior to Actual Notice of Infringement ......... 22 
`1. 
`The ’926 Patent ......................................................................................... 23 
`2. 
`The ’968 Patent, 822 Patent, 780 Patent, and 844 Patent ......................... 23 
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`DEFENDANT SONICWALL INC.’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`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 320 Filed 12/02/20 Page 4 of 37
`
`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
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`
`Page(s)
`
`Cases
`
`Akzo Nobel Coatings, Inc. v. Dow Chemical Co.
`811 F.3d. 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2016).....................................................................................................12
`
`Amsted Indus. Inc. v. Buckeye Steel Castings Co.
`24 F.3d 178 (Fed. Cir. 1994)..........................................................................................................23
`
`Arctic Cat Inc. v. Bombardier Recreational Prod. Inc.
`876 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2017)......................................................................................................22
`
`Centillion Data Sys. v. Qwest Commc’ns Int’l, Inc.
`631 F.3d 1279 (Fed. Cir. 2011)................................................................................................ 21-22
`
`Daewoo Elecs. Corp v. Funai
`616 F.3d 1357 at 3173 (Fed. Cir. 2010) .........................................................................................23
`
`Finjan v. Eset
`LLC, 17-cv-183-CAB-BGS, Dkt. 699 (S.D. Cal. Oct. 16, 2019) ..................................................23
`
`Finjan, Inc. v. Juniper Nets., Inc.
`2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 32118 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 9, 2019) ...................................................................5
`
`Finjan, Inc. v. Juniper Nets., Inc.
`2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 122762 (N.D. Cal. July 23, 2019) .......................................................... 4-5
`
`Finjan, Inc. v. Juniper Nets., Inc.
`387 F.Supp.3d 1004 (N.D. Cal. 2019) ................................................................................... 4-5, 23
`
`Int. Ventures I LLC v. Motorola Mob. LLC
`870 F.3d 1320 (Fed. Cir. 2017)......................................................................................................21
`
`Maxwell v. J. Baker, Inc.
`86 F.3d 1098 (Fed. Cir. 1996)........................................................................................................22
`
`Microsoft Corp. v. AT&T Corp.
`550 U.S. 437 (2007) .......................................................................................................................22
`
`NTP, Inc. v. Research in Motion, Ltd.
`418 F.3d 1282 (Fed. Cir. 2005)......................................................................................................22
`
`Palo Alto Nets, Inc. v. Finjan, Inc.
`752 F. App’x 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2018) ................................................................................................1
`
`Pharmastem Therapeutics, Inc. v. Viacell, Inc.
`491 F.3d 1342, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2007)............................................................................................17
`iii
`DEFENDANT SONICWALL INC.’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`CASE NO. 5:17-CV-04467-BLF (VKD)
`
`

`

`Case 5:17-cv-04467-BLF Document 320 Filed 12/02/20 Page 5 of 37
`
`Power Integrations, Inc. v. Fairchild Semiconductor Int’l., Inc.
`711 F.3d 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2013)................................................................................................ 20-21
`
`Warner-Jenkinson v. Hilton Davis Chem. Co.
`520 U.S. 17 (1997) ...................................................................................................................12, 18
`
`Statutes
`
`35 U.S.C. § 154 ......................................................................................................................................6
`
`35 U.S.C. § 271(a) ......................................................................................................................... 21-22
`
`35 U.S.C. § 287(a) ...............................................................................................................................22
`
`iv
`DEFENDANT SONICWALL INC.’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`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 320 Filed 12/02/20 Page 6 of 37
`
`TABLE OF ABBREVIATIONS
`
`Abbreviation
`Finjan or Plaintiff
`SonicWall or Defendant
`’633 Patent
`’822 Patent
`’780 Patent
`’154 Patent
`’844 Patent
`’494 Patent
`’926 Patent
`’305 Patent
`’408 Patent
`’968 Patent
`MPC
`Information-Destination
`
`’154 Accused Products1
`
`Detailed Name
`Plaintiff Finjan, LLC
`Defendants SonicWall, Inc.
`U.S. Patent No. 7,647,633
`U.S. Patent No. 7,058,822
`U.S. Patent No. 6,804,780
`U.S. Patent No. 8,141,154
`U.S. Patent No. 6,154,844
`U.S. Patent No. 8,677,494
`U.S. Patent No. 7,613,926
`U.S. Patent No. 7,975,305
`U.S. Patent No. 8,225,408
`U.S. Patent No. 6,965,968
`Mobile Protection Code
`“information-destination of the
`downloadable” / “downloadable-information
`destination”
`1.
`SonicWall’s Gateways
`2.
`SonicWall Email Security products
`3.
`Capture ATP
`4.
`Gateways + Capture ATP
`5.
`Email Security + Capture ATP
`6.
`Capture Client + Capture ATP
`7.
`Gateways + WXA
`Gateways
`Capture ATP
`Gateways + Capture ATP
`Capture Client + Capture ATP
`Email Security products
`Email Security products + Capture ATP
`
`1 In its Opposition to SonicWall’s recently filed motion to strike Finjan’s “Gateway alone” and
`“ESA alone” theories, Finjan represented that those “alone” theories likewise require Capture ATP.
`Dkt. 313 at 7-9.
`
`Accused Products or Accused Systems
`
`v
`DEFENDANT SONICWALL INC.’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`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 320 Filed 12/02/20 Page 7 of 37
`
`Detailed Name
`Email Security products, including Email
`Security Appliances and Cloud Email
`Security
`WAN Acceleration Appliance
`Content Filtering Service
`Reassembly-free deep packet inspection
`Doctrine of Equivalents
`October 22, 2020 Deposition Transcript of
`Dr. Eric Cole
`October 26, 2020 Deposition Transcript of
`Dr. Michael Mitzenmacher
`October 29, 2020 Deposition Transcript of
`Dr. Nenad Medvidović
`Expert Report of Dr. Eric Cole Regarding
`Technology Tutorial and Infringement by
`SonicWall, Inc. of Patent Nos. 6,154,844;
`7,058,822; 7,647,633; and 8,677,494
`Expert Report of Michael Mitzenmacher,
`Ph.D. Regarding Infringement by SonicWall,
`Inc. of Patent Nos. 6,804,780; 6,965,968; and
`7,613,926
`Expert Report of Dr. Nenad Medvidović
`Regarding Infringement by SonicWall, Inc. of
`Patent Nos. 8,225,408; 7,975,305; and
`8,141,154
`Expert Report of DeForest McDuff, Ph.D.
`Declaration of John Gmuender
`Plaintiff Finjan, Inc.’s Third Supplemental
`Disclosure of Asserted Claims and
`Infringement Contentions and Document
`Production Pursuant to Patent Local Rules 3-1
`and 3-2
`July 9, 2020 Deposition Transcript of Mr.
`John Gmuender
`July 16, 2020 Deposition Transcript of Mr.
`Shunhui Zhu
`July 29, 2020 Deposition Transcript of Mr.
`Dmitriy Ayrapetov
`
`Abbreviation
`ES products
`
`WXA
`CFS
`RFDPI
`DOE
`Cole Dep. or Ex. 142
`
`Mitz. Dep. or Ex. 15
`
`Med. Dep. or Ex. 16
`
`Cole Report or Ex. 17
`
`Mitz. Report or Ex. 18
`
`Med. Report or Ex. 3
`
`McDuff Report or Ex. 4
`Gmuender Decl.
`Operative Contentions
`
`Gmuender Dep. or Ex. 5
`
`Zhu Dep. or Ex. 6
`
`Ayrapetov Dep. or Ex. 7
`
`
`2 Unless otherwise noted, all exhibits referenced herein as “Ex. __” are attached to the Declaration of
`Jarrad M. Gunther In Support of Defendant SonicWall Inc.’s Motion for Summary Judgment.
`vi
`DEFENDANT SONICWALL INC.’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`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 320 Filed 12/02/20 Page 8 of 37
`
`Detailed Name
`July 24, 2020 Deposition Transcript of Mr.
`Matthew Neiderman
`July 31, 2020 Deposition Transcript of Mr.
`Alex Dubrovsky
`July 7, 2020 Deposition Transcript of Mr.
`Senthil Cheetancheri
`November 10, 2020 Deposition Transcript of
`Dr. Alessandro Orso
`Transcript of the Proceedings of the Official
`Electronic Sound Recording of January 28,
`2020 Hearing
`Finjan, Inc. v. Cisco Systems, Inc., Case No.
`17-cv-00072-BLF
`Finjan, Inc. v. Cisco Systems, Inc., Case No.
`17-cv-00072-BLF (N.D. Cal. March 30,
`2020), Dkt. No. 499
`Finjan, Inc. v. Cisco Systems, Inc., Case No.
`17-cv-00072-BLF (N.D. Cal. July 23, 2018),
`Dkt. No. 134
`
`
`
`Abbreviation
`Neiderman Dep. or Ex. 8
`
`Dubrovsky Dep. or Ex. 21
`
`Cheetancheri Dep. or Ex. 24
`
`Orso Dep. or Ex. 40
`
`1.28.2020 Hearing or Ex. 23
`
`Cisco
`
`Cisco MSJ Order or Ex. 1
`
`Cisco Markman Order or Ex. 2
`
`vii
`DEFENDANT SONICWALL INC.’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`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 320 Filed 12/02/20 Page 9 of 37
`
`NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`
`TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD HEREIN:
`PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on January 14, 2021 at 9:00 AM in Courtroom 3, 5th Floor,
`in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, San Jose Courthouse,
`located at 280 S. 1st St, San Jose, CA 95113, Defendant SonicWall Inc. (“SonicWall”) will and
`hereby does move the Court for summary judgment against Plaintiff Finjan, LLC on the grounds
`outlined in its Memorandum of Points and Authorities below.
`Specifically, SonicWall seeks an order that:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`SonicWall does not infringe claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 8,141,154
`The combination of SonicWall’s Email Security products and Capture ATP cannot
`infringe the asserted claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,154,844; 8,677,494; and 7,613,926
`SonicWall Gateways do not receive “Downloadables” and therefore cannot infringe
`the asserted claims 10 and 14 of U.S. Patent No. 8,677,494, claims 41 and 43 of U.S.
`Patent No. 6,154,844, and the asserted claim of U.S. Patent No. 6,804,780 Patent
`SonicWall does not infringe the asserted claims U.S. Patent Nos. 7,647,633 and U.S.
`Patent No. 7,058,822
`SonicWall does not infringe the asserted claims U.S. Patent Nos. 7,975,305 and
`8,225,408 based on a combination of separate, remote computers
`SonicWall does not infringe the asserted claims of U.S. Patent No. 7,613,926
`SonicWall does not infringe the asserted claims of U.S. Patent No. 7,975,305
`Finjan is not entitled to a royalty on SonicWall’s Non-U.S. Sales
`Finjan is not entitled to damages prior to actual notice of infringement of U.S. Patent
`Nos. 7,613,926; 6,965,968; 6,154,844; 7,058,822; and 6,804,780 patents
`This motion is supported by the following Memorandum of Points and Authorities, the
`Declaration of Jarrad M. Gunther and all supporting exhibits attached, the Declaration of John
`Gmuender and all supporting exhibits attached, and on such other written or oral argument as may be
`presented at or before the time this motion is heard by the Court.
`
`
`viii
`DEFENDANT SONICWALL INC.’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`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 320 Filed 12/02/20 Page 10 of 37
`
`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.
`
`SonicWall hereby moves for partial summary judgment on the seven grounds below.
`NON-INFRINGEMENT OF THE ’154 PATENT
`The ’154 non-infringement issue here is similar to the issue on which this Court granted
`summary judgment in Finjan v. Cisco regarding the Cisco “AMP” products. Ex. 1 (Cisco MSJ Order)
`at 6-11. Specifically, Finjan has not identified a “call to a first function” within the content received
`by the Accused Products. The Parties here stipulated to the same constructions for “first function” and
`“second function” from Cisco, namely, the “first function” is the substitute function, and the “second
`function” is the original function, which is different than the first function. Dkt. 214; Ex. 2 (Cisco
`Markman Order) at 38-39. Thus, Finjan must identify content received by the Accused Products that
`includes a call to a substitute function, but cannot do so.
`A.
`Background of the ’154 Patent
`The ’154 Patent “affords protection against dynamically generated malicious code.” Ex. 2 at 3
`(quoting ’154 Patent, 4:32-34). As the Court explained, a potential security problem is that a function
`call having an “input” may not appear malicious when it arrives (i.e., before the content is run), but
`the input will be used to “dynamically generate[] malicious code” at run-time. To solve this problem,
`the ’154 Patent replaces the call to the original function (i.e., the function call in the code that originally
`arrived at the gateway) with a call to a substitute function. Id. at 38; Ex. 1 at 4, 7. After this call to the
`substitute function is added into the code, the file is sent to the client computer. When the client
`computer invokes (i.e., “calls”) the substitute function, “[t]he substitute function sends the input to a
`security computer, which determines whether it is safe to invoke the original function with the input
`at a client computer.” Ex. 2 at 3. Claim 1 recites that the client computer thus will invoke the original
`function with the input only if the security computer indicates it is safe to do so. This Court explained
`the ’154 invention on page 5 of the Cisco MSJ Order. See also Palo Alto Nets, Inc. v. Finjan, Inc., 752
`F. App’x 1017, 1018 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (“the ‘first function’ is the inspection step in which the content
`is assessed for safety, and the ‘second function’ is when, having been deemed safe, the content is
`actually run.”). Thus, claim 1 is written from the perspective of the client computer being protected
`(i.e., the computer that receives the file after the “call to the substitute function” has been inserted).
`Claim 1 requires “a content processor (i) for processing content received over a network, the content
`1
`DEFENDANT SONICWALL INC.’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`CASE NO. 5:17-CV-04467-BLF (VKD)
`
`

`

`Case 5:17-cv-04467-BLF Document 320 Filed 12/02/20 Page 11 of 37
`
`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
`
`including a call to a first function [substitute function], and the call including an input, and (ii) for
`invoking a second function [original function, which is different than the first function] with the input,
`only if a security computer indicates that such invocation is safe.” It also requires “transmitting the
`input to the security computer for inspection, when the first function [substitute function] is invoked.”
`B.
`The ’154 Accused Products Do Not Infringe the ’154 Patent
`For all ’154 Accused Products, the dispute concerns the application of the claim language, not
`the operation of the ’154 Accused Products. As set forth below, none of the ’154 Accused Products
`receives content including a call to a substitute function, as required by the claim and the agreed claim
`constructions. Thus, the Court can resolve the issue of literal infringement as a matter of law. The
`Court can likewise resolve Finjan’s DOE theories for the ’154 Patent on the same basis, as Finjan has
`not identified any purported equivalent for the claimed “call to a first function.”
`The key points about the requirements of the “first function” are as follows. First, the Parties
`stipulated that “first function” means “substitute function”. Dkt. 214 at 2. Second, in the Cisco MSJ
`Order, the Court explained the following regarding the “substitute function”:
` “[I]n construing ‘first function’ to mean ‘substitute function,’ the Court acknowledged that the
`content received by the ‘content processor’ includes a call to ‘substitute function’ – which replaced
`the ‘original function’ at the (unclaimed) gateway.” Ex. 1 at 7.
` “It is the ‘invention’ that replaces the ‘original’ function with a ‘substitute’ function – not an
`external factor such as a hacker.” Id. at 7.
` “[T]he Court’s claim construction requires the ‘original function’ be replaced by the ‘substitute
`function.’ To hold otherwise, renders the word ‘substitute’ in the Court’s construction
`meaningless.” Id. at 7-8.
`1.
`Literal Infringement
`a.
`The Operation of the ’154 Accused Products
`None of the ’154 Accused Products substitute calls to functions into any content they receive.
`Gmuender Decl. ¶¶ 6, 8, 10, 11. Nor do any of the ’154 Accused Products receive content in which a
`substitute function has already been substituted. Id. Each of the products is addressed below.
`Gateway and ES Products. The ES products receive emails that may contain attachments and
`2
`DEFENDANT SONICWALL INC.’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`CASE NO. 5:17-CV-04467-BLF (VKD)
`
`

`

`Case 5:17-cv-04467-BLF Document 320 Filed 12/02/20 Page 12 of 37
`
`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
`
`perform numerous security-related tasks. In certain situations, the email attachments may be sent to
`Capture ATP for analysis. Id. at ¶ 8. The Gateways operate similarly to the ES products, but
`
`
`
`
`
`. Id. at ¶ 5. When a Gateway sends packets to Capture ATP,
`. Id. at ¶ 12.
`
`. Id. at ¶¶ 5, 8.
`Capture Products. Capture Client runs on an endpoint device, instead of a gateway or ES
`device. Similar to the Gateways and ES products, Capture Client can send files (in this case, from the
`endpoint) to Capture ATP for analysis. Id. at ¶ 10.
`
`
` Id.
`With respect to Capture ATP alone, Capture ATP analyzes files as they are received. It does
`not insert any calls to functions (including a call to a substitute function) into files and does not invoke
`any functions within the received file that perform the security functionality of the claim. As part of
`its analysis, Capture ATP
`
`
`. Id. at ¶¶ 12-13.
`In sum, none of the ’154 Accused Products receive content in which a call to an original
`function within that content has been substituted with a call to a substitute function.
`b.
`Finjan’s Expert Testimony Cannot Avoid Summary Judgment
`Dr. Medvidovic does not identify any “call to a first function” that is a call to a “substitute
`function” for any ’154 Accused Product. Instead, he identifies a conclusory laundry list of purported
`“first functions” [substitute functions]. See Ex. 3 (Med. Report) ¶¶ 239, 245, 246, 248, 250, 256, 272,
`293, 313. But none of these purported “first functions” has any specific relationship to the Accused
`Products. For example, he does not identify any “first functions” created by a SonicWall product that
`could perform the security functionality of the substitute function. Also, some are not even functions,
`some are standard JavaScript functions, some are generic descriptions of types of functions, and some
`are even malicious functions. Overall, there are two basic failures with what Dr. Medvidovic identifies.
`First, Dr. Medvidovic does not identify any call to a function that was substituted into the
`received content as part of the Accused Systems. Instead, he opines that both the call to the “substitute
`3
`DEFENDANT SONICWALL INC.’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`CASE NO. 5:17-CV-04467-BLF (VKD)
`
`

`

`Case 5:17-cv-04467-BLF Document 320 Filed 12/02/20 Page 13 of 37
`
`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
`
`function” and the “original function” can exist within the content as originally created. This renders
`the word “substitute” in the Court’s construction meaningless. If whatever Finjan intends to target as
`the substitute function was present in the content (file) when it was created, it is not a “substitute”
`function; it is an “original functions” because no substitution occurred. Finjan’s infringement analysis
`ignores the Court’s construction and fails as a matter of law, as it did in the Cisco case. Ex. 1 at 8-9.
`Second, nothing Finjan identifies as the “substitute function” performs the security
`functionality of the claim – i.e., sending the “input” to a security computer for inspection when
`invoked. Ex. 2 at 3 (“The substitute function sends the input to a security computer, which determines
`whether it is safe to invoke the original function with the input at a client computer.”). This is because,
`as set forth above, the ’154 Accused Products do not use a function within the content being evaluated
`to transmit the content or any part thereof for analysis. Highlighting this failure is Dr. Medvidovic’s
`identification of malicious functions (such as those inserted by a hacker) as purported “first functions”
`(substitute functions). See, e.g., Ex. 3 ¶¶ 246 (obfuscate or conceal automatic downloads of malware),
`247 (attempt to inject malicious HTML and/or JavaScript), 248 (downloading malware), 250
`(embedded malicious iframe). Of course, malicious functions cannot be a “substitute function,” and
`the Court has previously rejected this theory. Ex. 1 at 7-9 (“The Court is not persuaded that a hacker’s
`code ‘inspects the input’ to ‘determine if executing the original function with the input violates a
`security policy’ or operate as ‘the inspection step.’”).
`In sum, evaluating Finjan’s infringement theories against the agreed claim construction, the
`’154 Accused Products do not receive “content including a call to a [substitute function], and the call
`including an input,” nor do they have a “transmitter for transmitting the input to the security computer
`for inspection, when the [substitute function] is invoked.” Finjan cannot identify any substitute
`function call within the content received by the content processor, nor any function that transmits the
`input to the security computer for inspection when invoked.
`Notably, in Finjan’s case against Juniper, Judge Alsup cited this Court’s construction in
`granting summary judgment to Juniper. Finjan, Inc. v. Juniper Nets., Inc., 387 F.Supp.3d 1004 at
`1010-11 (N.D. Cal. 2019); Finjan, Inc. v. Juniper Nets., Inc., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 122762, at *4-5
`(N.D. Cal. July 23, 2019) (construing “content processor” to mean a processor that processes modified
`4
`DEFENDANT SONICWALL INC.’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`CASE NO. 5:17-CV-04467-BLF (VKD)
`
`

`

`Case 5:17-cv-04467-BLF Document 320 Filed 12/02/20 Page 14 of 37
`
`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). The Juniper court specifically rejected Finjan’s argument that the received content must
`merely have two different functions, but need not substitute one for the other. It ruled (consistent with
`this Court’s construction) that the received content must contain a call to a substitute function that is
`substituted into the content. Juniper, 387 F.Supp.3d at 1011 (“The claimed ‘first function’ then clearly
`involves the ‘substitute function,’ which sends the content’s input to the security computer for
`inspection once invoked. . . . the substitute function exists only after the original content is modified
`at the gateway computer.”). The Federal Circuit affirmed the Juniper Court’s ruling of summary
`judgment of non-infringement. Finjan, Inc. v. Juniper Nets., Inc., 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 32118, (Fed.
`Cir. Oct. 9, 2019)
`Likewise, both this Court and the Juniper Court rejected Finjan’s argument that any
`modification to incoming content at any point by anyone – including insertion of malicious functions
`by hackers before it enters the claimed system – was sufficient to satisfy the claim language (one of
`the arguments Finjan makes here). The Juniper Court found that such content “ultimately amounts to
`the original content initially received by the claimed system.” Juniper, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 122762
`at *6-7. Thus, the content in such a scenario “does not involve a substitute function.” Id. This Court
`reached the same conclusion (citing the Juniper Order). Ex. 1 at 7-8.
`c.
`Finjan’s “URL Rewriting” Theory
`With respect to the ES products, Dr. Medvidovic accuses a “URL rewriting” capability (which
`is subject to SonicWall’s pending motion to strike (Dkt. 300)). URL rewriting allows the ES products
`to rewrite a URL within an email to be a different URL, before passing the email to its recipient. To
`be clear, this is different than the “URL rewriting” argument that survived summary judgment in
`Cisco. Here, Dr. Medvidovic alleges that the claimed “content processor” is in the ES products. Ex. 3
`¶ 292. According to the claim, the ES product must receive content over a network, including a call to
`a first function. The problem is that Dr. Medvidovic identifies the rewritten URL as the alleged “first
`function,” but it is undisputed that it is the accused ES products that insert the rewritten URL into the
`received email. Ex. 3 ¶ 293. Accordingly, the ES products do not receive content (i.e., an email)
`including the call to a “first function,” as the claim requires, since the rewritten URL did not exist until
`the ES product inserted it into a received email. Thus, even if Finjan is correct that a rewritten URL is
`5
`DEFENDANT SONICWALL INC.’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`CASE NO. 5:17-CV-04467-BLF (VKD)
`
`

`

`Case 5:17-cv-04467-BLF Document 320 Filed 12/02/20 Page 15 of 37
`
`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
`
`a call to a first function (a fact question according to the Court in Cisco), Dr. Medvidovic has not set
`forth any cognizable infringement theory for the URL rewriting capability. He has not identified any
`“content processor” that receives content including a call to a first function (i.e., the rewritten URL).
`2.
`Doctrine of Equivalents
`For each ’154 Accused Product, Dr. Medvidovic makes essentially the same conclusory DOE
`arguments: “[product/combination] perform the same function because they receiving[sic] incoming
`content inspect the content using [component(s)] for scanning, and proceed with the function calls
`of[sic] the content is determined safe.” Ex. 3 ¶¶ 259, 277, 297, 318. He then argues
`“[product/combination] perform the same function the same way because they receive incoming
`content that include[sic] a call to a first function and an input, and [component(s)], for scanning
`incoming content to determine if the invocation is safe, and [invokes a second function with the input
`/ for invoking the second function with the input].” Id. at ¶¶ 260, 278, 298, 319. He provides no
`purported equivalent for receiving content “including a call to a first function.” He provides a
`purported DOE analysis for the larger “content processor” limitation, but does not provide any
`equivalent for receiving content including “a call to a first fu