Case 3:17-cv-00183-CAB-BGS Document 139 Filed 08/07/17 PageID.4412 Page 1 of 31
`
`
`
`PAUL ANDRE (State Bar Number 196585)
`pandre@kramerlevin.com
`LISA KOBIALKA (State Bar Number 191404)
`lkobialka@kramerlevin.com
`JAMES HANNAH (State Bar Number 237978)
`jhannah@kramerlevin.com
`KRAMER LEVIN NAFTALIS
` & FRANKEL LLP
`990 Marsh Road
`Menlo Park, CA 94025
`Telephone: (650) 752-1700
`Facsimile: (650) 752-1800
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff
`FINJAN, INC.
`
`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 THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`SAN DIEGO DIVISION
`FINJAN, INC., a Delaware Corporation,
`Case No. 3:17-cv-00183-CAB-BGS
`
`
`PLAINTIFF FINJAN, INC.’S
`OPENING CLAIM
`CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`
`
`
`ESET, LLC, a California Limited
`Liability Corporation, and ESET SPOL.
`S.R.O., a Slovak Republic Corporation,
`
`
`Defendants.
`ESET, LLC, a California Limited
`Liability Corporation, and ESET SPOL.
`S.R.O., a Slovak Republic Corporation,
`
`
`Counterclaim-Plaintiffs,
`
`v.
`
`
`
`FINJAN, INC., a Delaware Corporation,
`
`
`
`Counterclaim-Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`FINJAN’S OPENING CLAIM CONSTR. BR. CASE NO. 3:17-cv-00183-CAB-BGS
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-00183-CAB-BGS Document 139 Filed 08/07/17 PageID.4413 Page 2 of 31
`
`
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................. 1
`
`STATEMENT OF FACTS ..................................................................................... 1
`
`A.
`B.
`
`Finjan ............................................................................................................ 1
`Summary of Finjan’s Patents ....................................................................... 2
`1.
`The ‘844 Patent .................................................................................. 2
`2.
`The ‘086 Patent .................................................................................. 3
`3.
`The ‘780 Patent .................................................................................. 3
`4.
`The ‘305 Patent .................................................................................. 3
`5.
`The ‘621 and ‘755 Patents ................................................................. 4
`
`III. ARGUMENT .......................................................................................................... 4
`
`Finjan’s Proposed Terms .............................................................................. 4
`A.
`Term 1. “Downloadable” (‘844, ‘780, and ‘086 Patents) ................................ 5
`Term 2. “Downloadable” (‘621 and ‘755 Patents) ........................................... 7
`B.
`ESET’s Proposed Terms for Construction ................................................... 8
`Term 3. “before a web server makes the Downloadable available to
`web clients” (‘844 Patent) ............................................................... 8
`Term 4. “web server” (‘844 Patent) .................................................................. 8
`Term 5. “software components required to be executed by the
`Downloadable” (‘780 Patent) ........................................................ 10
`Term 6. “performing a hashing function on the Downloadable and the
`fetched software components to generate a Downloadable
`ID” (‘780 Patent at Claims 1, 18) .................................................. 11
`Term 7. “network interface, housed within a computer” (‘305 Patent at
`Claim 1) ......................................................................................... 12
`Term 8. “appended Downloadable” (‘086 Patent) ......................................... 13
`Term 9. “destination computer” (‘086 Patent, Claims 1, 9, 24) ..................... 14
`Term 10. “wherein the information pertaining to the downloadable
`includes information pertaining to an operation of the
`
`i
`FINJAN’S OPENING CLAIM CONSTR. BR. CASE NO. 3:17-cv-00183-CAB-BGS
`
`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 3:17-cv-00183-CAB-BGS Document 139 Filed 08/07/17 PageID.4414 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
`
`
`
`downloadable and distinct from information pertaining to
`the request” (‘621 Patent at Claim 1) ............................................ 15
`ESET Improperly Identifies Claims as Means-Plus-Function ........ 16
`1.
`Term 11. “a transmitter . . . for transmitting the appended Downloadable
`to a destination computer” (‘086 Patent at Claim 9) ..................... 16
`Term 12. “a file appender … for appending a representation of the
`Downloadable security profile data to the Downloadable, to
`generate an appended Downloadable” (‘086 Patent) .................... 17
`Term 13. “ID generator … for performing a hashing function on the
`Downloadable and the fetched software components to
`generate a Downloadable ID” (‘780 Patent, Claim 9) .................. 19
`Term 14. “a response engine for performing a predetermined responsive
`action based on the comparison” (‘621 Patent, Claims 1 and
`10) .................................................................................................. 20
`Term 15. “a response engine for performing a predetermined responsive
`action based on the comparison with the information
`pertaining to the predetermined suspicious downloadable”
`(‘621 Patent, Claim 5) ................................................................... 21
`Term 16. “a response engine . . . according to the predetermined security
`policy” (‘755 Patent) ..................................................................... 22
`Term 17. “downloadable engine for intercepting a request message
`being issued by a downloadable to an operating system”
`(‘755 Patent at Claim 3) ................................................................ 23
`Term 18. “intercepting a
`request message being
`issued by a
`downloadable to an operating system” (‘755 Patent at Claim
`3) .................................................................................................... 24
`ESET Ignores the Remainder of the Dependent Claim when
`Construing a Means-Plus-Function Limitation ............................... 25
`Term 19. “downloadable engine” (‘621 Patent at Claim 15) ........................... 25
`
`2.
`
`IV. CONCLUSION ..................................................................................................... 26
`
`
`
`ii
`FINJAN’S OPENING CLAIM CONSTR. BR. CASE NO. 3:17-cv-00183-CAB-BGS
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-00183-CAB-BGS Document 139 Filed 08/07/17 PageID.4415 Page 4 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
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
` Page(s)
`
`Federal Cases
`Abtox, Inc. v. Exitron Corp.,
`131 F.3d 1009 (Fed. Cir. 1997) .................................................................................... 7
`
`Accent Packaging, Inc. v. Leggett & Platt, Inc.,
`707 F.3d 1318 (Fed. Cir. 2013) .................................................................................... 7
`
`AIA Eng’g Ltd. V. Magotteaux Int’l S/A,
`657 F.3d 1264 (Fed. Cir. 2011) .................................................................................... 6
`
`Aventis Pharms. Inc. v. Amino Chems. Ltd.,
`715 F.3d 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2013) .................................................................. 8, 10, 11, 13
`
`Baldwin Graphic Sys., Inc. v. Siebert, Inc.,
`512 F.3d 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2008) .................................................................................. 12
`
`Blast Motion, Inc. v. Zepp Labs., Inc.,
`No. 15-CV-700 JLS (NLS), 2017 WL 476428 (S.D. Cal. Feb. 6, 2017) ................... 17
`
`Cardiac Pacemakers, Inc. v. St. Jude Med., Inc.,
`296 F.3d 1106 (Fed. Cir. 2002) .................................................................................. 25
`
`CCS Fitness, Inc. v. Burnswick Corp.,
`288 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2002) .................................................................................... 5
`
`Collaborative Agreements, LLC v. Adobe Sys. Inc.,
`No. 15-CV-03853-EMC, 2015 WL 7753293 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 2, 2015) .............. 17, 19
`
`Edwards Lifesciences LLC v. Cook Inc.,
`582 F.3d 1322 (Fed. Cir. 2009) .................................................................................... 5
`
`Finjan, Inc. v. Proofpoint, Inc.,
`3:13-cv-05808-HSG, 2015 WL 7770208 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 3, 2015).................... passim
`
`Finjan, Inc. v. Symantec Corp.,
`No. 14-CV-02998-HSG, 2017 WL 550453 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 10, 2017) ................... 5, 9
`
`Laitram Corp. v. NEC Corp.,
`163 F.3d 1342 (Fed. Cir. 1998) .................................................................................. 12
`
`iii
`FINJAN’S OPENING CLAIM CONSTR. BR. CASE NO. 3:17-cv-00183-CAB-BGS
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-00183-CAB-BGS Document 139 Filed 08/07/17 PageID.4416 Page 5 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
`
`
`
`Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc.,
`134 S. Ct. 2120 (2014) ................................................................................................ 16
`
`Nazomi Commc’ns, Inc. v. Microsoft Mobile Oy,
`Nos. 2014-1173, 2014-1178, 2014 WL 6678247 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 26, 2014) ............... 7
`
`NTP, Inc. v. Research In Motion, Ltd.,
`418 F.3d 1282 (Fed. Cir. 2005) .................................................................................... 7
`
`Odyssey Wireless, Inc. v. Apple Inc.,
`No. 15-CV-1735-H (RBB), 2016 WL 3055900 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 30, 2016) ............... 16
`
`Phillips v. AWH Corp.,
`415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) .................................................................... 4
`
`Thorner v. Sony Computer Entm’t Am. LLC,
`669 F.3d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ........................................................................... passim
`
`Federal Statutes
`35 U.S.C. § 112 ......................................................................................................... passim
`
`
`
`iv
`FINJAN’S OPENING CLAIM CONSTR. BR. CASE NO. 3:17-cv-00183-CAB-BGS
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-00183-CAB-BGS Document 139 Filed 08/07/17 PageID.4417 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
`
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`Courts across the country, and the USPTO, have recognized Finjan’s Patents for
`their straightforward and concise claims. The claims of Finjan’s Patents are written in
`straightforward language, such that computer scientists, judges, and juries can readily
`understand them. That said, the only claim term that arguably requires construction is
`the term that is explicitly defined in the specification, namely a “Downloadable.”
`ESET, on the other hand, proposes claim constructions that other District Courts
`have already rejected. These Courts have consistently held that the intrinsic records of
`the Finjan Patents do not contain any unmistakable disclaimers or disavowals that
`would justify importing limitations into Finjan’s claim terms, especially when those
`skilled in the art readily understand the terms. Furthermore, these Courts have also
`previously ruled that there is no basis to transform Finjan’s claims into mean-plus-
`function claims when the word “means” does not appear in the claims. Accordingly, no
`construction is necessary for the 18 terms ESET proposes.
`STATEMENT OF FACTS
`II.
`Finjan
` A.
`Finjan formed in 1996 when it developed proactive, behavior-based security
`software that revolutionized the security market.1 Over the past 20 years, Finjan has
`invested over $65 million in research and development to create products that detect the
`behavior of malicious code, i.e., what the code intends to, which protects users against
`previously unknown malware. Finjan’s technology is revolutionary because it provides
`a whole new realm of protection against unknown viruses compared to the traditional
`approach of security that only protects against known or signature-based threats.
`Recognizing the importance of Finjan’s proprietary technology, numerous leading
`
`
`1 Generally, malware is malicious software that is prevalent on the Internet. It can
`include executable code that performs hostile operations on a computer. Such
`operations can include modifying a computer’s operating or file system, collecting and
`transmitting personal information, or installing other malicious programs.
`
`1
`FINJAN’S OPENING CLAIM CONSTR. BR. CASE NO. 3:17-cv-00183-CAB-BGS
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-00183-CAB-BGS Document 139 Filed 08/07/17 PageID.4418 Page 7 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
`
`
`
`security companies have integrated Finjan’s behavior-based technology into their
`products and taken a license to Finjan’s patents. These licenses have generated
`approximately $250 million in revenue to date.2 Other companies, such as defendants,
`choose not to respect Finjan’s patents and deploy Finjan’s patented technology into their
`products without a license, forcing Finjan to seek protection of its well-established
`patents through the assistance of the courts.
`Summary of Finjan’s Patents
` B.
`Finjan asserts six patents against ESET’s products in this case: U.S. Patent Nos.
`6,154,844, “System and Method for Attaching a Downloadable Security Profile to a
`Downloadable” (Ex. 1, “the ‘844 Patent”),3 6,804,780, titled “System and Method for
`Protecting a Computer and a Network from Hostile Downloadables” (Ex. 2, “the ‘780
`Patent”), 7,975,305, titled “Method and System for Adaptive Rule-Based Content
`Scanners for Desktop Computers” (Ex. 3, “the ‘305 Patent”), 8,079,086, titled
`“Malicious Mobile Code Runtime Monitoring System and Methods” (Ex. 4, “the ‘086
`Patent”), 9,189,621, titled “Malicious Mobile Code Runtime Monitoring System and
`Methods” (Ex. 5, “the ‘621 Patent”), and 9,219,755, titled “Malicious Mobile Code
`Runtime Monitoring System and Methods” (Ex. 6, “the ‘755 Patent”) (collectively, the
`“Finjan Patents”). As described below, these patents form a security suite to protect
`against malware at a variety of points in the cyber-attack chain.
`The ‘844 Patent
`1.
`The ‘844 Patent generally describes a behavior-based system for analyzing files
`downloaded from the Internet. See ‘844 Patent. To accomplish this, the ‘844 Patent
`inspects a downloaded file and generates a profile indicating the suspicious operations
`that the file may attempt. In this way, the system is able to characterize the behavior of
`the Downloadable to determine whether it is malicious. To generate this profile, known
`
`2 Finjan’s licensees include, Microsoft, M86, Trustwave | SingTel, Webroot, Websense,
`F-Secure, Avast | AVG, Proofpoint, and Sophos, among several others.
`3 All exhibits cited are attached to the Declaration of James Hannah filed herewith.
`
`2
`FINJAN’S OPENING CLAIM CONSTR. BR. CASE NO. 3:17-cv-00183-CAB-BGS
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-00183-CAB-BGS Document 139 Filed 08/07/17 PageID.4419 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
`
`
`
`as a Downloadable security profile (“DSP”), a content inspector identifies suspicious
`operations or code in a Downloadable and links the DSP to the Downloadable. After
`the DSP has been created and identified for a particular Downloadable, it can be used to
`determine whether to allow the Downloadable into a network or block it from ever
`reaching the user. Id.
`The ‘086 Patent
`2.
`The ‘086 Patent expands on the ‘844 Patent and provides a system that allows a
`Downloadable to be evaluated at another computer. Generally, the ‘086 Patent covers
`deriving a security profile for a Downloadable and sending the Downloadable and a
`representation of the profile to another computer. The destination computer can
`perform a variety of tasks with this information, including performing further malware
`analyses or informing the user of the results of the analyses in a dashboard.
`The ‘780 Patent
`3.
`The ‘780 Patent is directed to increasing the efficiency of the security system.
`Generally, the ‘780 relates to a system that generates an ID for a Downloadable. See
`‘780 Patent, Abstract. The ID is generated by a process called “hashing.”4 Modern
`security systems often create a hash of all files that are analyzed so that the system can
`readily retrieve, store, or process the file.
`The ‘305 Patent
`4.
`The ‘305 Patent also increases the efficiency of modern security systems. The
`breadth of the Internet makes it increasingly difficult to protect a network against
`attackers due to the vast amount of data that must be processed in order to ensure that
`every file is safe. To prevent every file from having to be scanned, the ‘305 Patent
`performs an initial check on the content and diverts only traffic to security scanners that
`is capable of being malicious. For example, image files are typically benign because
`they do not contain executable code and often do not need to be scanned. PDF files, on
`
`4 Hashing is a mathematical function that can be applied to data to allow more efficient
`determination of whether the data was previously seen.
`
`3
`FINJAN’S OPENING CLAIM CONSTR. BR. CASE NO. 3:17-cv-00183-CAB-BGS
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-00183-CAB-BGS Document 139 Filed 08/07/17 PageID.4420 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
`
`
`
`the other hand, can include executable code and are a common vector of attack. As a
`result, the system of the ‘305 Patent would allow the image file to continue unprocessed
`but would divert the PDF file to the scanner for further analysis. ’305 Patent at 2:10-20.
`The ‘621 and ‘755 Patents
`5.
`The ‘621 and ‘755 Patents are related and generally cover security software
`installed on client computers. They provide a system that is able to block the operations
`of malicious files as they are executing on a computer. If a file performs suspicious
`activity on the client computer, such as for example, erasing all the files on the
`computer, the activity can be halted and blocked from executing. In this way, the client
`is protected in the event an attacker is able to successfully breach the protections set in
`place at the network level.
`III. ARGUMENT
`Finjan’s Proposed Terms
` A.
`Finjan’s constructions follow the canons of claim construction and should be
`adopted. It is fundamental that when the ordinary meaning of claim language as
`understood by those of ordinary skill in the art is readily apparent even to lay judges,
`then the claims terms should be given their plain and ordinary meaning. Phillips v.
`AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc); see also Thorner v. Sony
`Computer Entm’t Am. LLC, 669 F.3d 1362, 1365–66 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (“There are only
`two exceptions to [the] general rule [of ordinary meaning]: (1) when a patentee sets out
`a definition and acts as his own lexicographer, or (2) when the patentee disavows the
`full scope of a claim term either in the specification or during prosecution.”) (citation
`omitted). As demonstrated below, the terms at issue are written in plain English and are
`readily understood by those of ordinary skill in the art. As such, the only term that
`arguably requires construction is “Downloadable” because the patentee specifically
`defined this term in the intrinsic record.
`
`4
`FINJAN’S OPENING CLAIM CONSTR. BR. CASE NO. 3:17-cv-00183-CAB-BGS
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-00183-CAB-BGS Document 139 Filed 08/07/17 PageID.4421 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
`
`
`
`“Downloadable” (‘844, ‘780, and ‘086 Patents)
`
`Term 1.
`Finjan’s Proposed Construction
`An executable application program which
`is downloaded from a source computer and
`run on the destination computer.
`
`ESET’s Proposed Construction
`Indefinite
`
`
`Alternative: An executable application
`program, which is downloaded from a
`source computer and run on the destination
`computer, wherein executable application
`program means a program in machine
`language that is ready to run on a
`particular computer.
`The patentee defined “Downloadable” in the specification stating “[a]
`Downloadable is an executable application program, which is downloaded from a
`source computer and run on the destination computer.” ‘844 Patent at 1:44-47; ‘780
`Patent at 1:50-53. For this reason, the United States Patent and Trademark Office
`(“USPTO”) and every single Court that has construed this term has adopted Finjan’s
`construction.5 In four additional patent litigation matters where the Court did not
`construe the term, the parties agreed to Finjan’s definition of the term “Downloadable.”6
`Because “the patentee acted as his own lexicographer and clearly set forth a definition”
`for the term “Downloadable” in the specification, Finjan’s construction controls as a
`matter of law. Edwards Lifesciences LLC v. Cook Inc., 582 F.3d 1322, 1329 (Fed. Cir.
`2009) (adopting patentee’s construction as defined in intrinsic record) (citing CCS
`
`5 See Ex. 7 at 2 (Finjan Software Ltd. v. Secure Computing Corp., Case No. 06-369,
`Dkt. No. 142 (D. Del.)) (“Secure Computing Case”); Finjan, Inc. v. Symantec Corp.,
`No. 14-CV-02998-HSG, 2017 WL 550453, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 10, 2017) (construing
`the term Downloadable); Ex. 8 at 9 (Palo Alto Networks, Inc. v. Finjan, Inc., IPR2016-
`00165, Paper No. 7 (PTAB Apr. 21, 2016) (construing the term Downloadable)); see
`also Ex. 9 at 1 (Finjan, Inc. v. McAfee, Inc., No. 10:cv-00593-GMS, Dkt. No. 326 (D.
`Del.) (construction of Downloadable in related patent)).
`6 See Ex. 10 at 4 (Finjan, Inc. v. Blue Coat Sys., Inc., Case No. 13-3999-BLF, Dkt. No.
`118 (N.D. Cal.) (adopting agreed upon construction of Downloadable for ‘844 Patent));
`Ex. 11 at 1 (Finjan, Inc. v. Sophos, Inc., Case No. 14-1197-WHO, Dkt. No. 54 (N.D.
`Cal.) (parties agreeing to construction of Downloadable for ‘844 Patent)); Ex. 12 at 1
`(Finjan, Inc. v. Proofpoint, Inc., Case No. 13-cv-5808-HSG, Dkt. No. 117 (N.D. Cal.)).
`
`5
`FINJAN’S OPENING CLAIM CONSTR. BR. CASE NO. 3:17-cv-00183-CAB-BGS
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-00183-CAB-BGS Document 139 Filed 08/07/17 PageID.4422 Page 11 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
`
`
`
`Fitness, Inc. v. Burnswick Corp., 288 F.3d 1359, 1366-67 (Fed. Cir. 2002)); see also
`AIA Eng’g Ltd. V. Magotteaux Int’l S/A, 657 F.3d 1264, 1276 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (holding
`that patentee acted as own lexicographer and defined the term in the patent).
`ESET’s position that the term is indefinite is contrary to the intrinsic record and
`the testimony of numerous experts, including its own. As set forth above, the Finjan
`Patents provide a precise definition of “Downloadable” that dozens of technical experts
`have applied and adopted by various district court juries, as well as the USPTO and the
`USPTO’s Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”). Declaration of Nenad Medvidovic
`(“Medvidovic Decl.”) filed herewith, ¶¶12, 13. In fact, ESET’s expert, Dr. Spafford,7
`agreed that Downloadable was readily understood and specifically applied Finjan’s
`proposed construction in his analysis. Ex. 13, Finjan, Inc. v. Symantec Corp., Case No.
`10-593-GMS (D. Del.), Trial Tr. at 2083:3-11 (Dr. Spafford applying “Downloadable”
`for U.S. Patent No. 6,092,1948 (“the ‘194 Patent”)); id. at 2086:14-17 (applying
`“downloadable” for U.S. Patent No. 6,480,962 (Ex. 22, the “’962 Patent”)); id. at
`2107:9-18; see also Ex. 14 (Finjan, Inc. v. Proofpoint, Inc., Case No. 13-cv-5808-HSG,
`Dkt. No. 143-1 (N.D. Cal.) (Dr. Spafford applying “Downloadable”). Simply put,
`ESET has no basis for its position. See id.
`ESET’s alternative construction is contrary to the intrinsic record. Specifically,
`ESET attempts to further define “executable application program” to “mean[] a program
`in machine language that is ready to run on a particular computer.” Medvidovic Decl.,
`¶¶13–16. However, the Finjan Patents are replete with examples of Downloadable that
`are not only in machine language, but also scripting languages such as HTML and
`JavaScript. Id., ¶15; see also ‘844 Patent at Abstract; id. at 1:47-55, 62-65. Thus,
`ESET’s construction should be rejected because it is unduly limited and does not cover
`
`
`7 Dr. Spafford has been used by multiple defendants in district court litigation in
`opposition of Finjan.
`8 The ‘194 Patent shares the same specification as the ‘780 Patent and is incorporated by
`reference by the ‘844, ‘780, ‘086, ‘621, and ‘755 Patents.
`
`6
`FINJAN’S OPENING CLAIM CONSTR. BR. CASE NO. 3:17-cv-00183-CAB-BGS
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-00183-CAB-BGS Document 139 Filed 08/07/17 PageID.4423 Page 12 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
`
`
`
`all embodiments contemplated in the specification. Accent Packaging, Inc. v. Leggett &
`Platt, Inc., 707 F.3d 1318, 1326 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (“a claim interpretation that excludes a
`preferred embodiment from the scope of the claim is rarely, if ever, correct.”) (internal
`quotations omitted) (citation omitted).
`Finjan’s construction is proper because it is the definition in the specification,
`which previous courts, the USPTO, and the PTAB have adopted in the past.
` “Downloadable” (‘621 and ‘755 Patents)
`Term 2.
`Finjan’s Proposed Construction
`An executable application program which
`is downloaded from a source computer and
`run on the destination computer.
`
`ESET’s Proposed Construction
`A small executable or interpretable
`application program, which is downloaded
`from a source computer and run on a
`destination computer
`Consistent with the controlling case law, Finjan’s proposed construction for
`“Downloadable” is the same across all of the Finjan Patents, and is properly construed
`“an executable application program which is downloaded from a source computer and
`run on the destination computer.” NTP, Inc. v. Research In Motion, Ltd., 418 F.3d
`1282, 1293 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (claims in the same patent family are to be construed
`consistently). This is especially appropriate here, where the ‘621 and ‘755 Patents both
`incorporate by reference the ‘780 Patent, which, as discussed above, explicitly defines
`the term “Downloadable.” Accordingly, the proper construction of “Downloadable” is
`Finjan’s construction. Medvidovic Decl., ¶¶17–19.
`While ESET’s construction is largely aligned with Finjan’s construction, it
`improperly imports a purportedly “small” limitation in its construction. This is incorrect
`because terms in the same patent family should be given the same construction and thus,
`the same construction as the ‘844, ‘780, and ‘086 Patents applies to these patents. See
`Nazomi Commc’ns, Inc. v. Microsoft Mobile Oy, Nos. 2014-1173, 2014-1178, 2014 WL
`6678247, at *2-3 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 26, 2014) (affirming district court’s construction,
`relying on presumption that courts should construe the same term consistently across
`related patents); Abtox, Inc. v. Exitron Corp., 131 F.3d 1009, 1010 (Fed. Cir. 1997)
`
`7
`FINJAN’S OPENING CLAIM CONSTR. BR. CASE NO. 3:17-cv-00183-CAB-BGS
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-00183-CAB-BGS Document 139 Filed 08/07/17 PageID.4424 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
`
`
`
`(holding it would be improper to construe a term differently across related patents,
`given their common ancestry). Furthermore, another expert in opposition to Finjan
`adopted Finjan’s construction of “Downloadable” in providing opinions regarding the
`‘621 and ‘755 Patents. Ex. 15 (IPR2017-00995, ‘621 Patent) at ¶36; Ex. 16 (IPR2017-
`00997, ‘755 Patent) at ¶36. As such, the Court should adopt Finjan’s construction of
`“Downloadable” for all of the Finjan Patents.
`ESET’s Proposed Terms for Construction
` B.
`ESET’s proposed constructions are flawed for at least two reasons. First, ESET
`imports limitations into the terms at issue without the presence of a clear and
`unmistakable disclaimer in the intrinsic record. Thorner, 669 F.3d at 1365-66 (plain
`and ordinary meaning applies unless patentee acts as lexicographer or patentee disavows
`scope of claim term). The remainder of ESET’s proposed constructions are an apparent
`attempt to transform the claims into means-plus-function limitations, even though the
`terms do not contain “means” and have definite structure to a person of skill in the art,
`which are the touchstones of means-plus-function limitations.
`“before a web server makes the Downloadable available to
`Term 3.
`web clients” (‘844 Patent)
`
`ESET’s Proposed Construction
`Finjan’s Proposed Construction
`before deployment of the Downloadable to
`No construction necessary. Plain and
`a web server
`ordinary meaning should apply.
`“web server” (‘844 Patent)
`Term 4.
`Finjan’s Proposed Construction
`No construction necessary. Plain and
`ordinary meaning should apply.
`
`ESET’s Proposed Construction
`the server on which the Downloadable is
`deployed and which responds to requests
`from web clients for content.
`“Before a web server makes the Downloadable available to web clients” does not
`require construction and should be given its plain and ordinary meaning because it is
`readily understood by those or ordinary skill in the art. Aventis Pharms. Inc. v. Amino
`Chems. Ltd., 715 F.3d 1363, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (presumption that plain and ordinary
`meaning applies); Medvidovic Decl., ¶¶20–21. As written, the claims of the ‘844 Patent
`8
`FINJAN’S OPENING CLAIM CONSTR. BR. CASE NO. 3:17-cv-00183-CAB-BGS
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-00183-CAB-BGS Document 139 Filed 08/07/17 PageID.4425 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
`
`
`
`require that the system derive a security profile and link it to the Downloadable before
`the Downloadable is made available to web clients. In this way, the web client is
`protected against malicious Downloadables because the files are analyzed before they
`are made available to the client. Since the terms are understood on their face, there is no
`reason to deviate from the plain language of the claims.
`Similar attempts to distort this claim language is not new, and have been
`consistently rejected. Most recently, the Honorable Haywood Gilliam held that the term
`required no construction because the language is readily understood and any additional
`limitations were unjustified. With respect to the “deployment” language specifically,
`the court held that “construing the term to require ‘deployment’ would exclude
`preferred embodiments from the claims … or import limitations from the specifications
`into the claims.” Finjan v. Symantec, 2017 WL 550453, at *16 (citations omitted).
`Judge Gilliam’s reasoning is based on the intrinsic record. ‘844 Patent at 5:14-19
`(“[t]he network gateway 110 includes network protection engine 135 ...”), 5:28-33 (“the
`network protection engine 135 ... must generate the DSP, and compare the DSP against
`local security policies...”), 7:40-42 (“Fig. 5…exemplifies each of the network protection
`engine 135 and the computer protection engine 180”), 7:67-8:2 (“The content engine
`525 is similar to the content inspection engine 160 of the inspector 125.”); see also
`8:17-36 (describing additional embodiments from parent application where content
`inspection engine is included in content scanner on gateway); see also Medvidovic
`Decl., ¶¶22–24. As such, ESET’s construction has no intrinsic support and should be
`rejected.
`Further, “web server” is a well understood term by pe