Case 5:17-cv-04467-BLF Document 326 Filed 12/21/20 Page 1 of 31
`
`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 (CA291900) 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 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
`
`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.
`
`PLAINTIFF FINJAN LLC’S
`OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT
`SONICWALL INC.’S MOTION FOR
`PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`
`Date: January 14, 2021
`Time: 9:00 AM
`Judge: Hon. Beth Labson Freeman
`Dept: Courtroom 3, Fifth Floor
`
`REDACTED VERSION OF DOCUMENT SOUGHT TO BE SEALED
`
`Case No. 5:17-cv-04467-BLF (VKD)
`FINJAN’S OPPOSITION TO SONICWALL’S
` MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`
`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 326 Filed 12/21/20 Page 2 of 31
`
`
`
`
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`III.
`
`IV.
`
`V.
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`INFRINGEMENT OF THE ’154 PATENT ...................................................................... 1
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`Application of the Claims to URL Rewrite ............................................................ 2
`
`Remote Creation of the First Function ................................................................... 4
`
`INFRINGEMENT OF THE ’844, ’494, AND ’926 PATENTS BASED ON CAPTURE
`ATP IN COMBINATION WITH ESA ............................................................................. 4
`
`SONICWALL GATEWAYS “RECEIVE” DOWNLOADABLES .................................... 6
`
`INFRINGEMENT OF THE ’633 AND ’822 PATENTS ................................................... 9
`
`INFRINGEMENT OF THE ’305 AND ’408 PATENTS BASED ON CAPTURE ATP IN
`COMBINATION WITH GATEWAYS AND ESA ........................................................... 9
`
`VI.
`
`INFRINGEMENT OF THE ’926 PATENT .....................................................................11
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`Capture ATP Sends Downloadable Files to Destination Computers ......................12
`
`Capture ATP also Sends Representations of Security Profile Data ........................13
`
`Capture ATP Sends Information Using Transport Protocols and a Transmitter
`Coupled to a Receiver ..........................................................................................14
`
`D.
`
`Doctrine of Equivalents ........................................................................................15
`
`VII.
`
`INFRINGEMENT OF THE ’305 PATENT .....................................................................15
`
`A.
`
`Factual Disputes Exist Regarding the ’305 Patent .................................................15
`
`VIII. THE COURT SHOULD DENY SONICWALL’S MOTION AS TO DAMAGES ...........18
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`Ample Evidence Supports a Royalty on Overseas Business Because the Business
`Arose from Domestic Infringement ......................................................................18
`
`There Is More Than Enough Evidence to Establish Actual Notice of Finjan’s
`Patents on the Dates Cited in Finjan’s Expert Reports...........................................21
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`The Evidence Demonstrates Actual Notice as to the ’822, ’968, ’780, and
`’844 Patents ..............................................................................................21
`
`The Evidence Further Demonstrates Actual Notice as to the ’926 Patent
`During the 2014–2017 Licensing Discussions ...........................................25
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`i
`
`Case No. 5:17-cv-04467-BLF (VKD)
`FINJAN’S OPPOSITION TO SONICWALL’S
`MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`
`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 326 Filed 12/21/20 Page 3 of 31
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Cases
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`
`Page(s)
`
`01 Communique Lab., Inc. v. LogMeIn, Inc.,
`687 F.3d 1292 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ........................................................................................... 11
`
`AFG Industries, Inc. v. Cardinal IG Co., Inc.,
`375 F.3d 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2004) ................................................................................ 12, 17, 18
`
`Amsted Indus. Inc. v. Buckeye Steel Castings Co.,
`24 F.3d 178 (Fed. Cir. 1994) .......................................................................................... 22, 24
`
`Apple, Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co.,
`No. 12-CV-00630-LHK, 2014 WL 252045 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 21, 2014) ................................. 10
`
`Armstrong v. Motorola, Inc.,
`374 F.2d 764 (7th Cir. 1967) ............................................................................................... 22
`
`Baldwin Graphic Sys. v. Siebert,
`512 F.3d 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ........................................................................................9, 10
`
`Bettcher Indus., Inc. v. Bunzl USA, Inc.,
`661 F.3d 629 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ............................................................................................... 9
`
`CNET Networks, Inc. v. Etilize, Inc.,
`528 F. Supp. 2d 985 (N.D. Cal. 2007) ................................................................................. 21
`
`Convolve v. Compaq Comp. Corp.,
`812 F.3d 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ............................................................................................. 9
`
`Depuy Spine, Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc.,
`469 F.3d 1005 (Fed. Cir. 2006) ........................................................................................... 18
`
`Dunlap v. Schofield,
`152 U.S. 244 ....................................................................................................................... 22
`
`Finjan, Inc. v. Secure Computing Corp.,
`626 F.3d 1197 (Fed. Cir. 2010) ........................................................................................... 21
`
`Free Motion Fitness, Inc. v. Cybex Int'l,
`423 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2005) ........................................................................................... 10
`
`Funai Elec. Co. v. Daewoo Elecs. Corp.,
`616 F.3d 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2010) ........................................................................................... 23
`
`Good Tech. Corp. v. MobileIron, Inc.,
`No. 5:12-CV-05826-PSG, 2015 WL 4040416 (N.D. Cal. July 1, 2015) ............................. 1, 8
`
`
`
`ii
`
`Case No. 5:17-cv-04467-BLF (VKD)
`FINJAN’S OPPOSITION TO SONICWALL’S
`MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`
`

`

`Case 5:17-cv-04467-BLF Document 326 Filed 12/21/20 Page 4 of 31
`
`
`
`Interactive Pictures Corp. v. Infinite Pictures, Inc.,
`274 F.3d 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2001) ........................................................................................... 15
`
`Iron Oaks Techs. LLC v. Fujitsu Am., Inc.,
`No. 3:18-md-2835, 2018 WL 6593709 (N.D. Tex. Dec. 14, 2018) ...................................... 23
`
`Netlist v. Smart Storage Sys,
`No. 13-5889, 2014 WL 1320325 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 1, 2014) .................................................... 5
`
`Paragon Solutions, LLC v. Timex Corp.,
`566 F.3d 1075 (Fed. Cir. May 22, 2009) ............................................................................... 9
`
`Power Mosfet Techs., L.L.C. v. Siemens AG,
`378 F.3d 1396 (Fed. Cir. 2004) ........................................................................................1, 16
`
`R.R. Dynamics, Inc. v. A. Stucki Co.,
`727 F.2d 1506 ................................................................................................................ 19, 20
`
`Rates Tech. v. Mediatrix Telecom,
`688 F.3d 742 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ............................................................................................... 4
`
`SIMO Holdings Inc. v. Hong Kong uCloudlink Network Tech. Ltd.,
`376 F. Supp. 3d 369 (S.D.N.Y. 2019) ................................................................................. 23
`
`SRI Int’l, Inc. v. Advanced Tech. Labs., Inc.,
`127 F.3d 1462 (Fed. Cir. 1997) ...................................................................................... 21, 22
`
`Symantec v. Comput. Assocs. Int'l,
`522 F.3d 1279 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ........................................................................................9, 10
`
`TecSec, Inc. v. IBM,
`731 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2013) ............................................................................................. 4
`
`Tyco Healthcare Grp. LP v. Biolitec, Inc.,
`No. C-08-3129 MMC (N.D. Cal. Aug. 11, 2010) .................................................................. 3
`
`Unwired Planet L.L.C. v. Google, Inc.,
`660 Fed. Appx. 974 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 21, 2016) ............................................................... 10, 11
`
`WesternGeco LLC v. ION Geophysical Corp.,
`138 S. Ct. 2129 (2018) ........................................................................................................ 20
`
`Wi-LAN United States v. Ericsson, Inc.,
`675 F. App'x 984 (Fed. Cir. 2017)....................................................................................... 17
`
`Statutes
`
`35 U.S.C. § 271(a) ...................................................................................................................... 5
`
`
`
`iii
`
`Case No. 5:17-cv-04467-BLF (VKD)
`FINJAN’S OPPOSITION TO SONICWALL’S
`MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`
`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 326 Filed 12/21/20 Page 5 of 31
`
`
`
`Other Authorities
`
`7 Chisum on Patents § 20.03[7][c][iv] (2020 ed.)...................................................................... 22
`
`
`
`
`
`iv
`
`Case No. 5:17-cv-04467-BLF (VKD)
`FINJAN’S OPPOSITION TO SONICWALL’S
`MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`
`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 326 Filed 12/21/20 Page 6 of 31
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`This Court warned SonicWall less than a month ago “to select its most viable claims and
`
`fully brief those issues” because “a motion that inadequately addresses too many issues risks denial
`
`on all issues.” Dkt. No. 310. SonicWall ignored the Court’s advice and filed a grab-bag of cross-
`
`cutting motions presenting nearly a dozen different arguments, implicating nearly every patent and
`
`product, and raising well over a dozen deeply contested issues of fact. Naturally, its brief gives
`
`conclusory treatment to each issue—heavy on assertion, light on evidence. It should be denied.
`
`SonicWall’s noninfringement motions largely suffer the same flaw: they ask the Court to
`
`resolve whether a skilled artisan would conclude that the contested claim limitations (or the Court’s
`
`constructions thereof) apply to the accused products. But “determination as to whether the claims,
`
`properly construed, read on the accused device is a question of fact.” Power Mosfet Techs., L.L.C.
`
`v. Siemens AG, 378 F.3d 1396, 1406 (Fed. Cir. 2004). This is especially true where, as here, these
`
`factual issues are fiercely disputed by the opposing experts. When experts disagree on the ultimate
`
`issues of how the accused products work and whether the claim limitations are met, these issues are
`
`“classic jury fodder.” Good Tech. Corp. v. MobileIron, Inc., No. 5:12-CV-05826-PSG, 2015 WL
`
`4040416, at *4 (N.D. Cal. July 1, 2015) (denying summary judgment).
`
`The final pages of SonicWall’s motion on damages fare no better. SonicWall’s proposal to
`
`exclude sales to overseas customers from the damages base ignores clear law that sales derived from
`
`domestic infringement may support a royalty. And SonicWall’s attacks on the dates of notice for
`
`certain patents err both as to the legal standard for actual notice (a low standard) and the contents of
`
`the record. SonicWall and Finjan negotiated over these patents for more than three years pre-suit.
`
`The contention that SonicWall was not on notice of Finjan’s allegations is baseless.
`
`I.
`
`INFRINGEMENT OF THE ’154 PATENT
`
`SonicWall’s motion on the ’154 Patent raises two main issues, which Finjan agrees parallel
`
`two infringement analyses addressed at summary judgment order in the Cisco litigation. As it
`
`pertains to this motion, the difference between the two analyses is where the “first function” (a
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`Case No. 5:17-cv-04467-BLF (VKD)
`FINJAN’S OPPOSITION TO SONICWALL’S
`MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`
`

`

`Case 5:17-cv-04467-BLF Document 326 Filed 12/21/20 Page 7 of 31
`
`
`
`“substitute function”) is created. For one analysis, the first function is locally created in the
`
`infringing instrumentality (e.g., URL Rewrite), while in the other analyses, it is remotely created by
`
`a third party. In the Cisco case, this Court denied summary judgment of no infringement for the
`
`former, but granted summary judgment for the latter.
`
`A.
`
`Application of the Claims to URL Rewrite
`
`With regard to the first infringement analysis, SonicWall’s Email Security Appliance
`
`(“ESA”) technology is similar to the ESA product in Cisco, on which this Court denied summary
`
`judgment of non-infringement. Dkt. No. 320-2 (Ex. 1) at 12. SonicWall’s argument regarding its
`
`ESA products relies entirely on the report of Dr. Medvidovic—Finjan’s expert—but Dr.
`
`Medvidovic’s report is contrary to SonicWall’s argument. Specifically, SonicWall asserts that “ES
`
`products do not receive content (i.e., an email) including the call to the ‘first function,’ … since the
`
`rewritten URL did not exist until the ES product inserted it into a received email.” Mot. at 5:26-27.
`
`But Dr. Medvidovic explained that the ESA “has a content processor which processes-Internet-
`
`based content, e.g., with its
`
`” (Exh.1 A at ¶ 292), and that based on that processing
`
`the “
`
` rewritten URLs” (Id. ¶ 293), thus
`
`receiving substitute URL. SonicWall’s witnesses confirmed the process too, explaining, “
`
`
`
`
`
`.” Id. (citing Exh. B (King Tr.) at 66:1-4).
`
`SonicWall admits that the ESA products substitute the rewritten URL into the received email
`
`for the second function (Mot. at 5:25–26), so the ESA products are capable of “processing content
`
`received over a network, the content including a call to a first function,” as required by the claims.
`
`Dr. Medvidovic’s report identifies evidence supporting that fact and explains how that functionality
`
`
`1 “Exh.” refers to the exhibits to the Declaration of Jason W. Wolff, filed herewith.
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`Case No. 5:17-cv-04467-BLF (VKD)
`FINJAN’S OPPOSITION TO SONICWALL’S
`MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`
`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 326 Filed 12/21/20 Page 8 of 31
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`meets the claim limitations. See Exh A at ¶¶ 292–295.2 SonicWall’s analysis attempts to narrow
`
`the scope of the claim so that it is not possible to both receive content and replace the original
`
`function call with a substitute function call in the same system. Yet this is described in the ’154
`
`Patent at Fig. 5 (see, e.g., 500, 505, 515) and the specification beginning at 15:65. Other evidence
`
`supports that the ESA receives rewritten URLs, too. See Exh. C (Zhu Tr.) at 224:1-225:3, Exh. D
`
`(Hawkes Tr.) at 42:11-14, and Exh. B (King Tr.) at 65:4-66:4. And Dr. Medvidovic’s report applies
`
`the claims consistent with the Court’s constructions and consistent with how a person of ordinary
`
`skill in the art would have understood the claims and supporting evidence cited in his report. Exh.
`
`A ¶¶ 34–35. No contrary analysis is identified. At least genuine issues of material fact remain.
`
`Lastly, SonicWall mischaracterizes Dr. Medvidovic’s doctrine of equivalent analysis for the
`
`challenged limitation. See Exh. A at ¶¶ 296–299. While SonicWall admits Dr. Medvidovic
`
`performs a DOE analysis of the “content processor” limitation, it disputes the sufficiency of his
`
`analysis. The analysis is sufficient. It begins by explaining that, to the extent what is identified as
`
`literally satisfying the claim elements in the previous paragraphs is not found to be the same, it is
`
`both insubstantially different and equivalent because it achieves substantially the same function,
`
`substantially the same way, to achieve substantially the same result. Exh. A at ¶ 296. It then
`
`elaborates how the security function is the same (id. at ¶ 297), how the function is performed in the
`
`same way through the use of
`
`¶ 298), and how it achieves the same result because it
`
` safe (id. at
`
`
`
` are safe (id. at ¶ 299). Simply put, this is not a summary
`
`judgment issue, rather it is a cross examination issue for trial. Tyco Healthcare Grp. LP v. Biolitec,
`
`Inc., No. C-08-3129 MMC, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 11, 2010) (“[I]t is axiomatic that disputes about
`
`
`2 SonicWall Ex. 3, which is an excerpt from Dr. Medvidovic’s infringement report, is missing
`
`pages in the range where the infringement analyses being challenged by SonicWall occurs.
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`Case No. 5:17-cv-04467-BLF (VKD)
`FINJAN’S OPPOSITION TO SONICWALL’S
`MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`
`

`

`Case 5:17-cv-04467-BLF Document 326 Filed 12/21/20 Page 9 of 31
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`material facts and credibility determinations must be resolved at trial, not on summary judgment.”).
`
`Accordingly, summary judgment of the ’154 Patent as applied to URL Rewrite should be denied.
`
`B.
`
`Remote Creation of the First Function
`
`With regard to the second infringement analysis—where the first function is created
`
`remotely—Finjan does not dispute that if the Court applies the claims as it did in Cisco, then the
`
`Court could grant summary judgment on that theory for the same reasons articulated in Cisco,
`
`namely the first function was substituted remotely by an “external factor.” Dkt. No. 320-02 (Ex. 1)
`
`at 7. In Cisco, this Court largely followed Judge Alsup’s reasoning from Juniper, which was
`
`affirmed without discussion in a Rule 36 judgment. Id. As multiple grounds for affirmance were
`
`in play in Juniper (a legal remedy and the claim constructions), the basis for the Court’s affirmance
`
`is not known, and the proper construction and application of the claims remains unresolved by the
`
`appeal. See Rates Tech. v. Mediatrix Telecom, 688 F.3d 742, 750 (Fed. Cir. 2012); TecSec, Inc. v.
`
`IBM, 731 F.3d 1336, 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2013). Finjan, respectfully, responds as it did in Cisco: the
`
`claim language and constructions do not say where the first function must be created.
`
`SonicWall raises a second ground for summary judgment of non-infringement for the remote
`
`creation application. SonicWall’s argument is unclear, but the premise seems to be that the
`
`substitute function in the accused products does not “perform[] the security functionality of the
`
`claim” (Mot. at 4:6-7). But that is not a requirement of the claim or the Court’s construction of the
`
`“first function,” so it does not support summary judgment.
`
`II.
`
`INFRINGEMENT OF THE ’844, ’494, AND ’926 PATENTS BASED ON CAPTURE
`ATP IN COMBINATION WITH ESA
`
`SonicWall’s errs as a matter of law and fact in its argument that Capture ATP in combination
`
`with the Email Security Appliance (ESA) does not infringe the ’844, ’494, and ’926 Patents because
`
`“Capture ATP [allegedly] was not commercially available for use with any ES product” before the
`
`relevant patents expired. Mot. at 6:22-26, 7:1-14. Legally, commercial availability is not a
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`Case No. 5:17-cv-04467-BLF (VKD)
`FINJAN’S OPPOSITION TO SONICWALL’S
`MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`
`

`

`Case 5:17-cv-04467-BLF Document 326 Filed 12/21/20 Page 10 of 31
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`requirement for infringement. See Netlist v. Smart Storage Sys, No. 13-5889, 2014 WL 1320325,
`
`at *3 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 1, 2014) (35 U.S.C. § 271 “does not require that the infringing product be
`
`‘commercially available.’”). The Patent Act is clear: “[W]hoever without authority makes, uses,
`
`offers to sell, or sells any patented invention, within the United States or imports into the United
`
`States any patented invention during the term of the patent therefor, infringes the patent.” 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 271(a). SonicWall infringes because it at least “made” and “used” Capture ATP in combination
`
`with ESA long before any relevant patent expired, regardless of whether it also “sold” them
`
`commercially.
`
` Exh. E (SonicWall-Finjan_00549272-291, “Capture ATP/Email Security
`
`Integration”) at 00549277 (Capture ATP was integrated with ESA in at least September 2016).
`
`Factually, the record is overwhelming that the combination of Capture ATP and SonicWall’s
`
`ESA products was at least made and used long before the ’844, ’494, and ’926 Patents expired in
`
`2017. As Dr. Cole testified, the first date of infringement for “SonicWall’s Gateways, Capture ATP
`
`and Email Security combinations” was in 2012. See Exh. F, 52:8-14. And SonicWall’s documents
`
`corroborate that the combined system was made and sold long before 2017. As one example, a
`
`SonicWall document entitled “Capture ATP/Email Security Integration – Extending Advance
`
`Threat Protection to Email,” dated September 2016,3 states that a system had been made that
`
`combined the two systems. Exh. E (SonicWall-Finjan_00549272-291, “Capture ATP/Email
`
`Security Integration”) at 00549277 (describing features based on an ability to “[i]ntegrate Capture
`
`ATP into Email Security”). That document also describes the development plans and testing results
`
`for the integrated system. Id. at 00549282-83 (discussing integration challenges and solutions). The
`
`document also shows screenshots and other outputs of the combined system in use. Id. at 00549279-
`
`
`3 The document’s September 2016 date is confirmed by both the document’s metadata and its
`
`contents. See Exh. E at 00549280 (screenshot showing contemporary emails dated September
`
`2016); id. (document metadata identifying the last modified date as September 15, 2016).
`
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`Case No. 5:17-cv-04467-BLF (VKD)
`FINJAN’S OPPOSITION TO SONICWALL’S
`MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`
`

`

`Case 5:17-cv-04467-BLF Document 326 Filed 12/21/20 Page 11 of 31
`
`
`
`280 (showing web user interfaces for the integrated system). SonicWall even used the document to
`
`promote the features of the integrated system to third parties. Id. (third party presentation for
`
`
`
`customers). SonicWall does not dispute this in its brief. Accordingly, SonicWall’s motion for
`
`summary judgment of noninfringement should be denied.
`
`III.
`
`SONICWALL GATEWAYS “RECEIVE” DOWNLOADABLES
`
`SonicWall’s request (at 8–10) for summary judgment on the ’494, ’844 and ’780 Patents
`
`based on the argument that its gateway products in isolation do not “receive ‘Downloadables’” is
`
`meritless. SonicWall raises no claim construction disputes that are resolvable as a matter of law.
`
`Instead, SonicWall’s raises disputes of fact involving the application of the construed claims to the
`
`accused products. A jury could, at a minimum, find in Finjan’s favor on these issues.
`
`SonicWall’s argument that the way its gateways receive files over a network somehow does
`
`not constitute “receiving” is plainly incorrect. The gateways “receive” program files exactly as
`
`every device on the Internet does—in a sequence of network packets that contain the file’s bits.
`
`Exh. G at ¶¶ 97, 102-105; Exh. H at ¶¶ 547-554, 858-866, and 1146-1153; Exh. I (Almeroth 10-21-
`
`20 Tr.) at 232:2-6 (“A.
`
`(Gmuender Tr.) at 25:20-22
`
`
`
`.”); Exh. J
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` This and the other undisputed facts favor a finding of infringement.
`
`First, SonicWall does not dispute (at least for purposes of this motion) the well-supported
`
`opinions of Finjan’s experts that the gateways analyze Downloadables exactly as the asserted claims
`
`specify. See, e.g., Exh. H (Cole Rep.) ¶¶ 582-599, 895-907, and 1208-1226; Exh. G (Mitzenmacher
`
`Rep.) ¶¶ 106-115. For example, SonicWall does not dispute the gateways “identify suspicious code
`
`in a Downloadable,” per claim 15 of the ’844 Patent, or “perform a hashing function on the
`
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`Case No. 5:17-cv-04467-BLF (VKD)
`FINJAN’S OPPOSITION TO SONICWALL’S
`MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`
`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 326 Filed 12/21/20 Page 12 of 31
`
`
`
`Downloadable,” per claim 9 of the ’780 Patent. The SonicWall gateways undisputedly do
`
`everything the claims require to be done with a Downloadable. SonicWall’s position (Mot. at 8–
`
`10)—that gateways analyze these files without “receiving” them—is unsupportable.
`
`Second, it is also undisputed that the gateways do receive packets containing Downloadables
`
`(executable application programs) such as ActiveX, Visual Basic, and JAR files. Finjan’s experts
`
`say so, and SonicWall’s experts agree. See, e.g., Exh. G at ¶¶ 97, 102-105; Exh. H at ¶¶ 547-554,
`
`858-866, and 1146-1153; Exh. K (McDaniel 10/23/20 Tr.) at 57:5–7, 57:25–58:7 (“Q
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`.”); id. 58:11–25 (same for Visual Basic programs); id., 56:16–24
`
`(Java applets); id., 22:10–12; 59:2–59:12 (JAR programs).
`
`Third, it is also undisputed that every network device that receives a Downloadable does it
`
`in this very way: by receiving packets that contain the file. Finjan’s experts say so, with supporting
`
`evidence, see, e.g., Exh. H at ¶¶ 547-554, 858-866, and 1146-1153, and Exh. G at ¶¶ 102-105, and
`
`SonicWall’s experts agree. For example, Drs. McDaniel and Almeroth testified as follows:
`
`DR. MCDANIEL
`
`DR. ALMEROTH
`
`Q. Files when transferred over the Internet are
`
`Q. When a file is transmitted from one place to
`
`transferred in multiple packets, correct?
`
`the next over a network, is it frequently the case
`
`A. That’s correct.
`
`with HTTP that it’s broken into packets?
`
`
`
`
`
`A. Yes.
`
`
`
`
`
`(Exh. I, 232:21-24.)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` (Exh. K, 146:25–147:6.)
`
`
`
`
`
`7
`
`Case No. 5:17-cv-04467-BLF (VKD)
`FINJAN’S OPPOSITION TO SONICWALL’S
`MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`
`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 326 Filed 12/21/20 Page 13 of 31
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`In short, (1) every bit of each Downloadable file is contained within packets and received
`
`by the SonicWall gateways, (2) this is exactly how every device on every network receives every
`
`file, and (3) Downloadables received this way can be and are analyzed exactly as the claims require.
`
`A jury could, at a minimum, find that this constitutes “receiving” the Downloadable.
`
`SonicWall’s contrary assertions are non sequiturs or at most fact disputes about how a skilled
`
`artisan would apply the construed claims to the products. Its argument (at 9:13–15) that the
`
`gateways “analyze[] the data within the IP packets” without first “extracting the packet data and
`
`reassembling (i.e., reconstructing) [the] file” is irrelevant. None of the claims require that the
`
`Downloadables must be “reassembled” and “reconstructed”—only that they are “received” and
`
`“obtained” as part of the packets that contain them, which they are in the SonicWall products. See,
`
`e.g., ’494 Patent, cl. 10; ’844 Patent, cls. 41 and 43; and ’780 Patent, cl. 9. At most, the experts
`
`dispute whether a skilled artisan would understand “receiving” to require “reassembly.” SonicWall
`
`offers zero evidence for this—not even its experts’ ipse dixit (see Mot. at 9:13–10:6)—and such
`
`expert disputes “are classic jury fodder” in any case. Good Tech., 2015 WL 4040416, at *4.
`
`Also for a jury to decide is SonicWall’s factual contention (Mot. at 9:24–25) that “any given
`
`IP packet itself is not executable because it does not contain the entirety of the file.” First, its own
`
`expert refutes this and admits there are files that fit into a single packet. Exh. I at 235:9-13 (“Q. Are
`
`all files sent through multiple packets? A. I don’t think so. If you had a file that could fit into a
`
`single packet, then the answer would be no.”). Second, the plain language of the court’s
`
`construction of “Downloadable” specifies that the underlying programs must be executable, not the
`
`packets that contain them. As discussed, there is no dispute that the ActiveX, Visual Basic, JAR
`
`files and other programs within the received packets are “executable application programs.” See
`
`Exh. K (McDaniel 10-23-2020 Tr.) at 57:5–7, 57:25–8:7 (ActiveX), 58:11–25 (Visual Basic),
`
`56:16–24 (Java), and 22:10–12, 59:2–59:12 (JAR programs). Finally, a skilled artisan would
`
`understand that merely transmitting an executable program over a network in packets does not
`
`Case No. 5:17-cv-04467-BLF (VKD)
`8
`FINJAN’S OPPOSITION TO SONICWALL’S
`MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 5:17-cv-04467-BLF Document 326 Filed 12/21/20 Page 14 of 31
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`change its inherently executable nature. SonicWall cited zero evidence that a skilled artisan would
`
`think otherwise and any such factual expert dispute would be a question for the jury anyway.
`
`IV.
`
`INFRINGEMENT OF THE ’633 AND ’822 PATENTS
`
`This issue is moot because the ’633 and ’822 Patents were dismissed. Dkt. No. 324.
`
`V.
`
`INFRINGEMENT OF THE ’305 AND ’408 PATENTS BASED ON CAPTURE ATP
`IN COMBINATION WITH GATEWAYS AND ESA
`
`Summary judgment is not appropriate here because the claims of the ’408 and ’305 Patents
`
`are not limited to being “performed by or located within the same computer” as SonicWall alleges
`
`(at 13).4 The asserted claims are open-ended, and as a matter of law the articles “a” and “the” within
`
`them means “one or more.” Convolve v. Compaq Comp. Corp., 812 F.3d 1313, 1321 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2016). The Federal Circuit has held: “[t]hat ‘a’ or ‘an’ can mean ‘one or more’ is best described as
`
`a rule, rather than merely as a presumption or even a convention,” and that “[t]he exceptions to this
`
`rule are extremely limited: a patentee must evince a clear intent to limit ‘a’ or ‘an’ to ‘one.’” Baldwin
`
`Graphic Sys. v. Siebert, 512 F.3d 1338, 1342-43 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (internal quotation marks and
`
`citations omitted). In view of this basic claim construction principle, it is legal error to limit “a”
`
`claimed article to a single, unitary structure absent a compelling reason in the intrinsic evidence.
`
`Symantec v. Comput. Assocs. Int'l, 522 F.3d 1279, 1291 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (concluding “that the
`
`ordinary meaning of the terms ‘computer’ and ‘computer system’ to one of ordinary skill in the art
`
`in 1990 was not limited to a single, stand-alone computer or workstation and that the district court
`
`erred by unduly limiting its construction of those terms.”); see also Paragon Solutions, LLC v. Timex
`
`Corp., 566 F.3d 1075,