Case 5:17-cv-04467-BLF Document 336 Filed 12/31/20 Page 1 of 23
`
`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 REPLY
`IN SUPPORT OF ITS 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 REPLY IN SUPPORT OF ITS 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 336 Filed 12/31/20 Page 2 of 23
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I. 
`
`II. 
`
`III. 
`IV. 
`
`Page
`NON-INFRINGEMENT OF THE ’154 PATENT ..............................................................1 
`A. 
`Gateways and Email Security (ES) Products .......................................................... 1 
`B. 
`URL Rewriting........................................................................................................ 1 
`THE COMBINATION OF ES PRODUCTS AND CAPTURE ATP DO NOT
`INFRINGE THE ’844, ’494, AND ’926 PATENTS ...........................................................3 
`SONICWALL GATEWAYS DO NOT RECEIVE “DOWNLOADABLES” ....................4 
`NON-INFRINGEMENT BASED ON SAME COMPUTER (’305 AND ’408
`PATENTS) ...........................................................................................................................6 
`A. 
`The ’305 Patent ....................................................................................................... 6 
`B. 
`The ’408 Patent ....................................................................................................... 8 
`NON-INFRINGEMENT OF THE ’926 PATENT ..............................................................8 
`V. 
`NON-INFRINGEMENT ’305 PATENT ...........................................................................10 
`VI. 
`VII.  DAMAGES ........................................................................................................................11 
`A. 
`Finjan Is Not Entitled to a Royalty on SonicWall’s Non-U.S. Sales .................... 11 
`B. 
`Finjan Is Not Entitled to Damages Prior to Actual Notice of Infringement ......... 13 
`
`
`
`
`
`i
`DEFENDANT SONICWALL INC.’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF ITS 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 336 Filed 12/31/20 Page 3 of 23
`
`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
`
`Federal Cases
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page(s)
`
`01 Communique Lab, Inc. v. LogMeIn, Inc.
`687 F.3d 1292 (Fed. Cir. 2012)..................................................................................................8
`
`Akzo Nobel Coatings, Inc. v. Dow Chemical Co.
`811 F.3d 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2016)..................................................................................................3
`
`Amseted Indus. Inc. v. Buckeye Steel Castings Co.
`24 F. 3d 178 (Fed. Cir. 1994)............................................................................................. 13-14
`
`Baldwin Graphic Sys. v. Siebert
`512 F.3d 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2008).............................................................................................. 6-7
`
`CNET Networks, Inc. v. Etilize, Inc.
`528 F. Supp. 2d 985 (N.D. Cal. 2007) .....................................................................................13
`
`FotoMedia Techs., LLC v. AOL, LLC
`CIV.A. 2:07-CV-255, 2009 WL 2175845 (E.D. Tex. July 21, 2009) .......................................6
`
`Funai, Elec. Co., Ltd., v. Daewoo Elecs. Corp.
`616 F. 3d 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2010).........................................................................................13, 15
`
`Gart v. Logitech, Inc.
`254 F.3d 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2001)................................................................................................13
`
`Iron Oaks Techs. LLC v. Fujitusu Am., Inc.
`2018 WL 6593709 (N.D. Tex. Dec. 14, 2018) ........................................................................15
`
`K-Tec, Inc. v. Vita-Mix Corp.
`696 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2012)..........................................................................................13, 15
`
`LizardTech, Inc. v. Earth Res. Mapping, Inc.
`424 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2005)..................................................................................................5
`
`Microsoft Corp. v. AT&T Corp.
`550 U.S. 437 (2007) .................................................................................................................13
`
`Minks v. Polaris Indus., Inc.
`546 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2008)................................................................................................14
`
`Morrison v. Nat’l Australia Bank ltd.
`561 U.S. 247 (2010) .................................................................................................................12
`
`MShift, Inc. v. Dig. Insight Corp.
`747 F. Supp. 2d 1147 (N.D. Cal. 2010) .....................................................................................4
`
`ii
`DEFENDANT SONICWALL INC.’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`CASE NO. 5:17-CV-04467-BLF (VKD)
`
`

`

`Case 5:17-cv-04467-BLF Document 336 Filed 12/31/20 Page 4 of 23
`
`MyMail, Ltd. v. AOL, Inc.
`476 F.3d 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2007)..................................................................................................5
`
`Novartis Corp. v. Ben Venue Labs., Inc.
`271 F.3d 1043 (Fed. Cir. 2001)..................................................................................................4
`
`PharmaStem Therapeutics, Inc. v. ViaCell, Inc.
`491 F.3d 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2007)..................................................................................................9
`
`Power Integrations, Inc. v. Fairchild Semiconductor Int’l., Inc.
`711 F.3d 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2013)................................................................................................12
`
`R.R. Dynamics, Inc. v. A. Stucki Co.
`727 F.2d 1506 (Fed. Cir. 1984)................................................................................................12
`
`Surrell v. Cal. Water Serv. Co.
`518 F.3d 1097 (9th Cir. 2008) ...................................................................................................4
`
`Symantec Corp. v. Computer Assocs. Int’l, Inc.
`522 F.3d 1279 (Fed. Cir. 2008)..................................................................................................8
`
`Unwired Planet L.L.C. v. Google, Inc.
`660 Fed. Appx. 974 (Fed. Cir. 2016) .........................................................................................7
`
`Volterra Semiconductor Corp. v. Primarion, Inc.
`796, F Supp. 2d 1025, 1037 (N.D. Cal. 2011) .........................................................................14
`
`WesternGeco LLC v. ION Geophysical Corp.
`138 S. Ct. 2129 (2018) ....................................................................................................... 11-12
`
`Federal Statutes
`
`35 U.S.C. § 271(a) ................................................................................................................... 12-13
`
`35 U.S.C. § 271(f)(2) .....................................................................................................................12
`
`35 U.S.C. § 287(a) ................................................................................................................... 13-14
`
`Rules
`
`Rule 36 .............................................................................................................................................1
`
`
`
`
`
`iii
`DEFENDANT SONICWALL INC.’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF ITS 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 336 Filed 12/31/20 Page 5 of 23
`
`TABLE OF ABBREVIATIONS
`
`Accused Products or Accused Systems
`
`iv
`DEFENDANT SONICWALL INC.’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`CASE NO. 5:17-CV-04467-BLF (VKD)
`
`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
`Defendant 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.
`
`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 336 Filed 12/31/20 Page 6 of 23
`
`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
`Comprehensive Gateway Security Suite
`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
`
`Abbreviation
`ES products
`
`WXA
`CFS
`RFDPI
`DOE
`CGSS
`Cole Dep. or Ex. 14 or Ex. 442
`
`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
`
`
`2 Unless otherwise noted, Exhibits 1-40 referenced herein are attached to the Declaration of Jarrad
`M. Gunther In Support of Defendant SonicWall Inc.’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, and
`Exhibits 41-48 reference herein are attached to the Declaration of Jarrad M. Gunther In Support of
`Defendant SonicWall Inc.’s Reply In Support of its Motion for Partial Summary Judgment.
`v
`DEFENDANT SONICWALL INC.’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF ITS 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 336 Filed 12/31/20 Page 7 of 23
`
`Detailed Name
`July 16, 2020 Deposition Transcript of Mr.
`Shunhui Zhu
`July 29, 2020 Deposition Transcript of Mr.
`Dmitriy Ayrapetov
`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
`Defendant SonicWall Inc.’s Motion for
`Partial Summary Judgment
`Plaintiff Finjan LLC’s Opposition to
`Defendant SonicWall Inc.’s Motion for
`Partial Summary Judgment
`July 14, 2020 Deposition Transcript of Mr.
`John Gordineer
`July 21, 2020 Deposition Transcript of Mr.
`Eric Hawkes
`July 24, 2020 Deposition Transcript of Mr.
`Michael King
`
`
`
`Abbreviation
`Zhu Dep. or Ex. 6
`
`Ayrapetov Dep. or Ex. 7
`
`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
`
`Motion or Dkt. No. 320
`
`“Opposition,” “Opp.,” or Dkt. No. 326
`
`Gordineer Dep. or Ex. 41
`
`Hawkes Dep. or Ex. 42
`
`King Dep. or Ex. 43
`
`vi
`DEFENDANT SONICWALL INC.’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF ITS 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 336 Filed 12/31/20 Page 8 of 23
`
`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.
`
`NON-INFRINGEMENT OF THE ’154 PATENT
`A.
`Gateways and Email Security (ES) Products
`Finjan does not dispute summary judgment on the ES Products. Opp. at 4. For the record,
`Finjan disputes the application of collateral estoppel from the Juniper decision as a result of the
`Federal Circuit’s Rule 36 Affirmance. Id. Finjan is wrong about “multiple grounds of affirmance”
`on the ’154 Patent, but that is irrelevant; the claim construction here is not based on collateral
`estoppel, but is an agreed construction, as analyzed by this Court in Cisco.
`B.
`URL Rewriting
`To be clear, Finjan presents a different infringement theory regarding SonicWall’s “URL
`Rewriting” than its theory for the URL re-writing product in Cisco. The key difference is what
`Finjan accuses as the claimed “content processor,” which (according to the claim) must receive
`content (e.g., an email) over the network – and, of crucial importance, the content received by the
`“content processor” must include a call to a first [substitute] function (alleged to be a rewritten
`URL). In Cisco, Finjan asserted that the “content processor” was a client device that received an
`email that contained a re-written URL. Cisco MSJ Order at 12. Here, Finjan asserts that the “content
`processor” is the ESA itself, i.e., the SonicWall device that actually rewrites the URLs in the email.
`Finjan’s theory that the ESA is the “content processor” fails as a matter of law, as the claim
`requires “a content processor (i) for processing content received over a network, the content
`including a call to a first function [substitute function].” By that plain language, the content
`“received over a network” must include the “call to a first function” (which according to Finjan is
`the rewritten URL) when it is received. Finjan’s URL Rewriting theory requires the Court to ignore
`the requirement that the “content” received by the “content processor” must “include[e] a call to a
`first function [substitute function]”. Finjan instead argues that the content received by the “content
`processor” need not include a call to a substitute function, but that the “content processor” (alleged
`to be the ESA) can itself modify that content to insert a call to a substitute function that was not there
`when the content processor received the content. Opp. at 2-3. Finjan’s theory fails as a matter of
`law because it contradicts the claim language.
`Notably, there is no dispute on the facts. Opp. at 2. Finjan confirmed that (i) it accuses the
`1
`DEFENDANT SONICWALL INC.’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`CASE NO. 5:17-CV-04467-BLF (VKD)
`
`

`

`Case 5:17-cv-04467-BLF Document 336 Filed 12/31/20 Page 9 of 23
`
`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
`
`ESA as the “content processor” and (ii) it is the ESA that rewrites the URL: “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 ‘
`
`’ (Id. ¶ 293)”. Opp. at 2. The only dispute is a
`legal one: does a content processor (the alleged ESA) that admittedly does not receive content
`including a call to a first [substitute] function – but that instead creates the alleged call to the
`substitute function in the content after it receives that content over the network – satisfy the claim
`requirement of “processing content received over a network, the content including a call to a first
`function.” The answer is unambiguously no.
`Faced with clear claim language and undisputed facts, Finjan reengages in claim
`construction, arguing that Figure 5 supports its position. Opp. at 3. Finjan is wrong. Claim 1
`requires that the “content processor” also “invok[e] a second function [original function] with the
`input, only if a security computer indicates” that it is safe to do so. In Fig. 5, the “client computer”
`is the only device that “invoke[s] original function with input” (step 595), when it is safe to do so.
`The “client computer” also receives the content from the gateway computer (step 525) including the
`call to the first function that the gateway computer inserted (steps 515, 520). The client computer’s
`content processor is what is covered by claim 1. There is no support for Finjan’s theory.
`Finally, Finjan concludes that “[o]ther evidence supports that the ESA receives rewritten
`URLs, too,” with a string cite to deposition testimony but no further explanation. Opp. at 3. The
`cited testimony does not support Finjan’s argument. See Opp., Ex. C at 224:1-225:3 (no discussion
`of URL rewriting); Ex. D at 42:11-14 (confirming name of plugin related to rewritten URLs); Ex. B
`at 65:4-66:4 (confirming URL in an email is rewritten by the ESA and delivered to recipient). In
`sum, none of this testimony indicates that the ESA receives emails containing rewritten URLs. This
`is not surprising, as Dr. Medvidovic did not make any such claim in his report.
`With respect to DOE, Finjan attempts a summary of Dr. Medvidovic’s overall DOE analysis,
`but does not point to any specific analysis by Dr. Medvidovic describing any equivalent to the
`claim’s requirement of receiving content including “a call to a first function”, which is the substitute
`function. Opp. at 3. A generalized DOE analysis is not legally sufficient to support DOE for a
`2
`DEFENDANT SONICWALL INC.’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`CASE NO. 5:17-CV-04467-BLF (VKD)
`
`

`

`Case 5:17-cv-04467-BLF Document 336 Filed 12/31/20 Page 10 of 23
`
`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
`
`specific claim requirement, such as the “call to first function” element at issue here. Akzo Nobel
`Coatings, Inc. v. Dow Chemical Co., 811 F.3d 1334, 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (equivalency must be
`established on limitation-by-limitation basis by “particularized testimony and linking argument”).
`
`II.
`
`THE COMBINATION OF ES PRODUCTS AND CAPTURE ATP DO NOT INFRINGE
`THE ’844, ’494, AND ’926 PATENTS
`Finjan does not dispute that ES products were not commercially released with Capture ATP
`until after the ’844, ’494, and ’926 Patents expired. Opp. at 4-6. Instead, Finjan claims there is
`“overwhelming” evidence that the combination of ESA with Capture ATP was “at least made and
`used long before the ’844, ’494, and ’926 Patents expired in 2017.” Id. at 5. Finjan cannot
`substitute rhetoric for evidence. The sum total of its cited evidence is (1) a single document
`purportedly from September 2016 (four months before the ’844, ’494, and ’926 Patents expired) and
`(2) speculative testimony about the first use of Capture ATP from its infringement experts, including
`Dr. Cole, who have no first-hand knowledge of that issue. Id. at 4-6. Each is addressed below.
`First, the purported September 2016 document is labeled “MRD,” i.e., it is a “Market
`Requirements Document” – it is written in the future tense to describe what the product shall do in
`the future and what the development team needs to implement to achieve those goals. Ex. 41 at
`56:22-57:1 (“…. So MRDs -- to tell development what to build.”); see Opp., Ex. E at 00549277
`(“MRD: Integrate Capture ATP into Email Security,” identifying desired goals of the integration)
`(emphasis added), 00549282 (“ES / Capture Integration Challenges”), 00549290 (“ES/Capture:
`Additional Work”). This document is not evidence that the accused combination was made or used
`as of September 2016, and its date is consistent with the actual evidence that the ES products were
`first available with Capture ATP in February 2017. Motion at 7; Gmuender Decl. ¶ 7. The fact that
`this September 2016 document does not reflect a then-existing product is confirmed by the testimony
`of both SonicWall witnesses to whom Finjan showed the document that the document does not
`reflect the actual architecture of the ES products when they were eventually integrated with Capture
`ATP, as reflected in the source code. Ex. 42 at 123:14-124:5, 125:11-126:9; Ex. 43 at 83:20-84:1,
`85:5-24. Thus, the document shows nothing more than SonicWall’s intent in September 2016 to
`integrate ES products with Capture ATP and cannot support any inference to the contrary.
`
`3
`DEFENDANT SONICWALL INC.’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`CASE NO. 5:17-CV-04467-BLF (VKD)
`
`

`

`Case 5:17-cv-04467-BLF Document 336 Filed 12/31/20 Page 11 of 23
`
`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
`
`Second, neither Dr. Cole nor any other expert stated that the combination of the ES products
`and Capture ATP first infringed in 2012. Rather, Dr. Cole stated that the first date of infringement
`by any accused SonicWall product was in 2012 when “
`
`” Ex. 44 at 51:17-20, 55:18-56:9. Dr. Cole alleged Capture ATP was “developed and deployed”
`in the winter of 2013, but he admitted he has no direct knowledge of Capture ATP’s development
`history, Motion at 7 (citing Ex. 14 at 57:2-59:16), and Finjan admits that it was not released until
`later. Opp. at 24, ll. 6-11. Moreover, he never opined on when the ES products were first combined
`with Capture ATP. Dr. Cole’s opinions concerning the development and release of Capture ATP are
`based solely on speculation and do not even speak to its combination with the ES products. MShift,
`Inc. v. Dig. Insight Corp., 747 F. Supp. 2d 1147, 1165 (N.D. Cal. 2010) (“…unsupported conjecture
`or conclusory statements are insufficient to defeat summary judgment. Surrell v. Cal. Water Serv.
`Co., 518 F.3d 1097, 1103 (9th Cir. 2008).”). The question of what SonicWall did or did not do with
`respect to products is a historical fact about which an “expert” without first-hand knowledge has
`nothing to add, and an expert cannot create a question of fact by speculating in a manner to his
`client’s liking. Novartis Corp. v. Ben Venue Labs., Inc., 271 F.3d 1043, 1051 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (“If
`all expert opinions on infringement … were accepted without inquiry into their factual basis,
`summary judgment would disappear from patent litigation.”). In sum, there is no dispute of fact that
`SonicWall’s ES products were first available with Capture ATP in February 2017.
`III.
`SONICWALL GATEWAYS DO NOT RECEIVE “DOWNLOADABLES”
`Finjan’s Opposition does not demonstrate any fact issue regarding the receiving/obtaining of
`“Downloadables,” as required by the ’494, ’844, and ’780 Patents. There is no dispute that files are
`transmitted via the Internet in a series of packets (or, in rare cases, a single packet), with each packet
`including (i) packet data and (ii) additional information used only for transmitting the packet data.
`Opp. at 6; Motion at 9-10. This is akin to disassembling a device (e.g., a bicycle) and sending its
`various components in packages through the mail, which components can then be reassembled upon
`receipt. It is also undisputed that SonicWall’s Gateways do not reassemble files.
`As a matter of law, one (or more) IP packets cannot meet the Court’s construction of a
`“Downloadable,” which is “an executable application program, which is downloaded from a source
`4
`DEFENDANT SONICWALL INC.’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`CASE NO. 5:17-CV-04467-BLF (VKD)
`
`

`

`Case 5:17-cv-04467-BLF Document 336 Filed 12/31/20 Page 12 of 23
`
`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
`
`computer and run on the destination computer.” Finjan agreed to this construction, and its experts
`have admitted that to be executable, an application program must be structured “in a certain way so
`that it can be executed.” Motion at 9 (citing Ex. 14 at 69:17-70:6). Finjan offers no evidence or
`expert opinion that an IP packet is structured such that it can be executed. Opp. at 7-9. This is
`because it cannot. Just as a disassembled bicycle that is sent in pieces through the mail in one or
`more packages needs to be unwrapped and reassembled before the bike can be ridden (e.g.,
`executed), the data sent in an IP packet is not executable until it extracted from the IP packet(s) and
`reassembled. Motion at 9-10. Whether the file data travels in multiple packets (almost always the
`case) or a single packet is irrelevant; the data must be extracted and assembled to be “executable.”
`Ex. 16 at 57:23-59:11; Gmuender Decl. ¶¶ 3-5. Most of Finjan’s long list of other defendant-targets
`appear to do exactly that at their firewalls (i.e., reassemble files into executable form for inspection
`at the gateway); SonicWall does not, and no evidence suggests otherwise. Gmuender Decl. ¶ 5.
`This is not, as Finjan claims, a jury question. The application of an agreed claim
`construction to undisputed facts is properly resolved at summary judgment. MyMail, Ltd. v. AOL,
`Inc., 476 F.3d 1372, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (“MyMail argues that even under the district court’s
`claim construction, the third-party modem banks in the defendants’ systems perform
`‘authentication,’ as the patent defines that term. Because there is no dispute regarding the operation
`of the accused systems, that issue reduces to a question of claim interpretation and is amenable to
`summary judgment.”). Likewise, the fact that Finjan’s agreement results in summary judgment does
`not relieve Finjan from the consequence of its agreement. Id.; LizardTech, Inc. v. Earth Res.
`Mapping, Inc., 424 F.3d 1336, 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (plaintiff “cannot now argue against that claim
`construction simply because it resulted in an adverse ruling on summary judgment.”).
`Finally, Finjan’s Opposition raises what could have been a DOE dispute over whether
`receiving IP packets containing parts of an executable application program is equivalent to receiving
`a Downloadable. Opp. at 7. Finjan, however, has admittedly failed to preserve a DOE theory for
`this element, and thus cites no expert opinion no DOE. Opp. at 6-9. The fact SonicWall’s Motion
`does not dispute other elements of the asserted ’494, ’844, and ’780 Patent claims is irrelevant, as
`SonicWall’s Gateways neither receive nor obtain Downloadables.
`5
`DEFENDANT SONICWALL INC.’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`CASE NO. 5:17-CV-04467-BLF (VKD)
`
`

`

`Case 5:17-cv-04467-BLF Document 336 Filed 12/31/20 Page 13 of 23
`
`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
`
`IV. NON-INFRINGEMENT BASED ON SAME COMPUTER (’305 AND ’408 PATENTS)
`Finjan seeks to avoid summary judgment on the ’305 and ’408 Patents by ignoring the
`plainly stated physical requirements of the asserted claims.
`A.
`The ’305 Patent
`The relevant portion of asserted claims 11 and 12 state:
`a network interface, housed within a computer, for receiving incoming content from
`the Internet on its destination to an Internet application running on the computer;
`a database of parser and analyzer rules corresponding to computer exploits, stored
`within the computer,
`It is irrelevant that the word “a” means “one or more” computer, which is the entire basis of
`Finjan’s Opposition. As demonstrated by the Baldwin case that Finjan cites, the rule that “a” can
`mean “one or more” simply means that the claims do not limit a claimed apparatus to having a single
`one of the claimed article. See Baldwin Graphic Sys. v. Siebert, 512 F.3d 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2008).
`But to qualify as a claimed article, an accused article must contain all specified elements in the
`claim. Here, that means that to qualify as the “computer” recited in the claims, at least one computer
`in each accused system must have three things: (i) a “network interface” that is “housed within” the
`computer, which network interface must receive incoming content from the Internet; (ii) an “Internet
`application” running on the computer; and (iii) a “database of parser and analyzer rules” stored by
`the computer. An accused system can have multiple such “computers,” but to qualify as a claimed
`“computer” in the first place, these three requirements must each be met. See, e.g., FotoMedia
`Techs., LLC v. AOL, LLC, CIV.A. 2:07-CV-255, 2009 WL 2175845, at *6–7 (E.D. Tex. July 21,
`2009) (addressing issue of “whether the steps recited in the claims” that recite “a server” can “be
`performed by different servers” and concluding that “a single server must execute all of the steps of
`the claimed invention” because “a system which distributes processing of the various claimed steps
`amongst multiple servers would be beyond the scope of the claims.”).
`There is no case law suggesting the article “a” nullifies the requirements of a claim. For
`example, the claim in Baldwin recited a “cleaning system” with “a pre-soaked fabric roll.” The
`Federal Circuit held that “a pre-soaked fabric roll” did not limit the claimed system to only a single
`6
`DEFENDANT SONICWALL INC.’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`CASE NO. 5:17-CV-04467-BLF (VKD)
`
`

`

`Case 5:17-cv-04467-BLF Document 336 Filed 12/31/20 Page 14 of 23
`
`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
`
`such fabric roll, and so the claim could be infringed by a cleaning system with multiple fabric rolls.
`Baldwin, 512 F.3d at 1341. (Defendant “sold its accused fabric rolls in sets of three or between six
`and nine, but not individually.”). However, the Federal Circuit required the accused clean