Case 1:16-cv-00455-RGA Document 13-1 Filed 08/04/16 Page 1 of 36 PageID #: 870
`Case 1:16-cv-00455-RGA Document 13-1 Filed 08/04/16 Page 1 of 36 PagelD #: 870
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT 25
`EXHIBIT 25
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00455-RGA Document 13-1 Filed 08/04/16 Page 2 of 36 PageID #: 871
`Case 3:14-cv-03721-EMC Document 23 Filed 09/22/14 Page 1 of 1
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`ADOBE SYSTEMS INCORPORATED,
`Plaintiff,
`
` v.
`BARGAIN SOFTWARE SHOP, LLC, and
`DOES 1 THROUGH 10,
`Defendant.
` /
`
`No. C 14-03721 WHA
`
`SUA SPONTE JUDICIAL
`REFERRAL FOR PURPOSES OF
`DETERMINING RELATIONSHIP
`OF CASES
`
`Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 3-12, this order sua sponte refers the above-captioned case
`to the Honorable Judge Edward Chen to consider whether this case is related to Adobe Systems
`Incorporated v. Colorado Internet Services, LLC et al., No. 3:13-cv-04193-EMC, in which
`claims against, inter alia, Bargain Software Shop, LLC were dismissed without prejudice for
`improper joinder. All parties have until NOON ON SEPTEMBER 26, 2014 to file a response,
`opposition, or statement in support of relating the cases.
`
`IT IS SO ORDERED.
`
`Dated: September 22, 2014.
`
`
`WILLIAM ALSUP
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
`
`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
`
`For the Northern District of California
`
`United States District Court
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00455-RGA Document 13-1 Filed 08/04/16 Page 3 of 36 PageID #: 872
`Case 1:16-cv-00455-RGA Document 13-1 Filed 08/04/16 Page 3 of 36 PagelD #: 872
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT 26
`EXHIBIT 26
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00455-RGA Document 13-1 Filed 08/04/16 Page 4 of 36 PageID #: 873
`Case 3:14-cv-03721-EMC Document 28 Filed 10/06/14 Page 1 of 2
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`RELATED CASE ORDER
`
`A Motion for Administrative Relief to Consider Whether Cases Should be Related or a
`Sua Sponte Judicial Referral for Purpose of Determining Relationship (Civil L.R. 3-12) has been
`filed. The time for filing an opposition or statement of support has passed. As the judge
`assigned to the earliest filed case below that bears my initials, I find that the more recently filed
`case(s) that I have initialed below are related to the case assigned to me, and such case(s) shall
`be reassigned to me. Any cases listed below that are not related to the case assigned to me are
`referred to the judge assigned to the next-earliest filed case for a related case determination.
`
`Adobe Systems Incorporated v. Colorado Internet Services, LLC et al
`
`C 13-04193 EMC
`C 14-03721 WHA
`I find that the above case is related to the case assigned to me. EMC
`
`Adobe Systems Incorporated v. Bargain Software Shop, LLC
`
`ORDER
`
`Counsel are instructed that all future filings in any reassigned case are to bear the initials
`of the newly assigned judge immediately after the case number. Any case management
`conference in any reassigned case will be rescheduled by the Court. The parties shall adjust the
`dates for the conference, disclosures and report required by FRCivP 16 and 26 accordingly.
`Unless otherwise ordered, any dates for hearing noticed motions are vacated and must be re-
`noticed by the moving party before the newly assigned judge; any deadlines set by the ADR
`Local Rules remain in effect; and any deadlines established in a case management order continue
`to govern, except dates for appearance in court, which will be rescheduled by the newly assigned
`judge.
`
`Dated: October 6, 2014
`
`Judge Edward M. Chen
`
`-1-
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00455-RGA Document 13-1 Filed 08/04/16 Page 5 of 36 PageID #: 874
`Case 3:14-cv-03721-EMC Document 28 Filed 10/06/14 Page 2 of 2
`
`
`
` CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`
`
`I certify that on the date stated below, I lodged a copy of this order with each judicial
`officer and I mailed a copy to each counsel of record or pro se party in the cases listed above.
`
`
`
` Richard W. Wieking, Clerk
`
`DATED: October 6, 2014
`
`
`By:
` Deputy Clerk
`
`Copies to: Courtroom Deputies
`Case Systems Administrators
`Counsel of Record
`Entered into Assignment Program: (date)
`
`-2-
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00455-RGA Document 13-1 Filed 08/04/16 Page 6 of 36 PageID #: 875
`Case 1:16-cv-00455-RGA Document 13-1 Filed 08/04/16 Page 6 of 36 PagelD #: 875
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT 27
`EXHIBIT 27
`
`

`

`Docket Navigator Summary
`Page 1 of 1
`Case 1:16-cv-00455-RGA Document 13-1 Filed 08/04/16 Page 7 of 36 PageID #: 876
`
`SEARCH
`
`MY ACCOUNT
`
`HELP
`
`CONTACT
`
`HOME
`
`LOGOUT
`
`Details
`
`Judge Richard G. Andrews
`
`Quick Facts
`
`Cases
`
`Orders
`
`Determinations
`
`Remedies
`
`Terms
`
`Order Stats
`
`Cases
`2007
`2008
`2009
`2010
`2011
`2012
`2013
`2014
`2015
`2016
`Total
`Determinations
`Infringed
`Invalid
`Not infringed
`Not invalid
`Not unenforceable
`Awards
`Damages
`Attorney Fees
`Costs
`Pre-judgment
`Interest
`Damages (Non
`Patent)
`Injunctions
`Injunction
`Terms
`Terms construed
`
`$108,977,651
`$1,349,096
`$21,188
`$1,691,640
`
`$70,000,000
`
`113
`
`2532
`
`1
`4
`12
`30
`118
`275
`373
`236
`187
`49
`1285
`
`97
`66
`121
`120
`41
`
`Name
`Actavis Elizabeth LLC v. Novartis Corporation et al
`Blackbird Tech LLC d/b/a Blackbird Technologies v Arro, Inc. et al
`Blackbird Tech LLC d/b/a Blackbird Technologies v. Foursquare Labs, Inc.
`Blackbird Tech LLC d/b/a Blackbird Technologies v. Lyft, Inc.
`Blackbird Tech LLC d/b/a Blackbird Technologies v. Uber Technologies, Inc.
`Blackbird Tech LLC d/b/a Blackbird Technologies v. Via Transportation, Inc.
`Blackbird Tech LLC d/b/a Blackbird Technologies v. VeriFone Systems, Inc.
`T-Jat Systems 2006 Ltd. v. Expedia, Inc.
`SIPCO, LLC v. Acuity Brands, Inc. et al
`Hydrogen Master Rights, Ltd. v. Dean Weston
`Optical Measurement Systems, LLC v. Broadcom Limited et al
`Optical Measurement Systems, LLC v. Marvell Technology Group, Ltd. et al
`Acceleration Bay LLC v. Activision Blizzard, Inc.
`Acceleration Bay LLC v. Electronic Arts Inc.
`Acceleration Bay LLC v. Take-Two Interactive Software, Inc. et al
`Lumetique, Inc. v. Dream-Wick, Inc.
`Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation et al v. Breckenridge Pharmaceutical, Inc.
`B Braun Melsungen AG et al v. Becton, Dickinson and Company et al
`AbbVie Inc. v. Amneal Pharmaceuticals, LLC et al
`North Star Innovations Inc. v. Cypress Semiconductor Corporation et al
`Bio-Rad Laboratories, Inc. v. Thermo Fisher Scientific Inc.
`AstraZeneca LP et al v. Watson Laboratories, Inc.
`Immersion Corporation v. Apple Inc. et al
`Spherix Incorporated v. FairPoint Communications, Inc.
`Spherix Incorporated v. Level 3 Communications, Inc. et al
`Network Managing Solutions, LLC v. AT&T Inc. et al
`Network Managing Solutions LLC v Sprint Corporation et al
`Create Alert Print Results Export Results
`
`Number
`1-16-cv-00604
`1-16-cv-00584
`1-16-cv-00585
`1-16-cv-00586
`1-16-cv-00587
`1-16-cv-00589
`1-16-cv-00588
`1-16-cv-00581
`1-16-cv-00480
`1-16-cv-00474
`1-16-cv-00468
`1-16-cv-00469
`1-16-cv-00453
`1-16-cv-00454
`1-16-cv-00455
`1-16-cv-00459
`1-16-cv-00431
`1-16-cv-00411
`1-16-cv-00398
`1-16-cv-00368
`1-16-cv-00358
`1-16-cv-00338
`1-16-cv-00325
`1-16-cv-00305
`1-16-cv-00307
`1-16-cv-00295
`1-16-cv-00296
`
`District
`DED
`DED
`DED
`DED
`DED
`DED
`DED
`DED
`DED
`DED
`DED
`DED
`DED
`DED
`DED
`DED
`DED
`DED
`DED
`DED
`DED
`DED
`DED
`DED
`DED
`DED
`DED
`
`Fi
`Ju
`Ju
`Ju
`Ju
`Ju
`Ju
`Ju
`Ju
`Ju
`Ju
`Ju
`Ju
`Ju
`Ju
`Ju
`Ju
`Ju
`Ju
`M
`M
`M
`M
`M
`A
`A
`A
`A
`
`© 2008 - 2016 Hopkins Bruce Publis
`
`https://www.docketnavigator.com/detail/summary/judge/1625
`
`7/28/2016
`
`

`

`Docket Navigator Browse
`Page 1 of 1
`Case 1:16-cv-00455-RGA Document 13-1 Filed 08/04/16 Page 8 of 36 PageID #: 877
`
`SEARCH
`
`MY ACCOUNT
`
`HELP
`
`CONTACT
`
`HOME
`
`LOGOUT
`
`Refine search
`
`Change search type
`
`Search Criteria
`
`Case status Active
`Judge Richard G. Andrews
`
`Court/Agency
`Delaware District (190)
`add some other Court/Agency
`Party or counsel
`add a party
`add a firm
`add an attorney
`Case with type of pleading
`add some other Case with type of pleadin
`Patent number
`
`Patent determination
`
`Remedy
`
`Case filed date
`
`Case terminated
`
`Order filed date
`
`Patent class
`
`Filed
`District
`Number
`Name
`Actavis Elizabeth LLC v. Novartis Corporation et al
`July 13, 2016
`DED
`1-16-cv-00604
`Blackbird Tech LLC d/b/a Blackbird Technologies v Arro, Inc. … 1-16-cv-00584
`July 8, 2016
`DED
`Blackbird Tech LLC d/b/a Blackbird Technologies v. Foursquar… 1-16-cv-00585
`July 8, 2016
`DED
`Blackbird Tech LLC d/b/a Blackbird Technologies v. Lyft, Inc.
`July 8, 2016
`DED
`1-16-cv-00586
`Blackbird Tech LLC d/b/a Blackbird Technologies v. Uber Tech… 1-16-cv-00587
`July 8, 2016
`DED
`Blackbird Tech LLC d/b/a Blackbird Technologies v. Via Trans… 1-16-cv-00589
`July 8, 2016
`DED
`Blackbird Tech LLC d/b/a Blackbird Technologies v. VeriFone … 1-16-cv-00588
`July 8, 2016
`DED
`T-Jat Systems 2006 Ltd. v. Expedia, Inc.
`July 7, 2016
`DED
`1-16-cv-00581
`SIPCO, LLC v. Acuity Brands, Inc. et al
`June 23, 2016
`DED
`1-16-cv-00480
`Hydrogen Master Rights, Ltd. v. Dean Weston
`June 22, 2016
`DED
`1-16-cv-00474
`Optical Measurement Systems, LLC v. Broadcom Limited et al
`June 21, 2016
`DED
`1-16-cv-00468
`Optical Measurement Systems, LLC v. Marvell Technology Grou… 1-16-cv-00469
`June 21, 2016
`DED
`Acceleration Bay LLC v. Activision Blizzard, Inc.
`June 17, 2016
`DED
`1-16-cv-00453
`Acceleration Bay LLC v. Electronic Arts Inc.
`June 17, 2016
`DED
`1-16-cv-00454
`Acceleration Bay LLC v. Take-Two Interactive Software, Inc. et … 1-16-cv-00455
`June 17, 2016
`DED
`Lumetique, Inc. v. Dream-Wick, Inc.
`June 17, 2016
`DED
`1-16-cv-00459
`Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation et al v. Breckenridge Ph… 1-16-cv-00431
`June 13, 2016
`DED
`B Braun Melsungen AG et al v. Becton, Dickinson and Company … 1-16-cv-00411
`June 6, 2016
`DED
`AbbVie Inc. v. Amneal Pharmaceuticals, LLC et al
`May 27, 2016
`DED
`1-16-cv-00398
`North Star Innovations Inc. v. Cypress Semiconductor Corpora… 1-16-cv-00368
`May 18, 2016
`DED
`Bio-Rad Laboratories, Inc. v. Thermo Fisher Scientific Inc.
`May 13, 2016
`DED
`1-16-cv-00358
`AstraZeneca LP et al v. Watson Laboratories, Inc.
`May 9, 2016
`DED
`1-16-cv-00338
`Spherix Incorporated v. FairPoint Communications, Inc.
`April 27, 2016
`DED
`1-16-cv-00305
`Network Managing Solutions, LLC v. AT&T Inc. et al
`April 25, 2016
`DED
`1-16-cv-00295
`Network Managing Solutions, LLC v. Sprint Corporation et al
`April 25, 2016
`DED
`1-16-cv-00296
`Network Managing Solutions, LLC v. T-Mobile USA, Inc.
`April 25, 2016
`DED
`1-16-cv-00297
`Network Managing Solutions, LLC v. United States Cellular Cor… 1-16-cv-00298
`April 25, 2016
`DED
`Network Managing Solutions, LLC v. Verizon Communications, … 1-16-cv-00299
`April 25, 2016
`DED
`Arunachalam v. International Business Machines Corporation … 1-16-cv-00281
`April 20, 2016
`DED
`Page
`1
`of 2
`Share Results Print Friendly Create Alert Create Bookmark Export Parties Export Patents
`Save Layout
`
`https://www.docketnavigator.com/browse/results/444f81db-d943-f985-f4dc-249cd5dac0de
`
`29/7/2016
`
`

`

`Docket Navigator Summary
`Page 1 of 1
`Case 1:16-cv-00455-RGA Document 13-1 Filed 08/04/16 Page 9 of 36 PageID #: 878
`
`Details
`
`Judge Richard Seeborg
`
`SEARCH
`
`MY ACCOUNT
`
`HELP
`
`CONTACT
`
`HOME
`
`LOGOUT
`
`Quick Facts
`
`Cases
`1995
`1997
`2000
`2001
`2002
`2003
`2004
`2005
`2006
`2007
`2008
`2009
`2010
`2011
`2012
`2013
`2014
`2015
`2016
`Total
`Determinations
`Infringed
`Invalid
`Not infringed
`Not invalid
`Not unenforceable
`Unenforceable
`Awards
`no awards found
`Injunctions
`Injunction
`Terms
`Terms construed
`
`1
`1
`3
`15
`25
`13
`21
`18
`18
`11
`21
`26
`27
`13
`24
`19
`25
`10
`14
`305
`
`5
`11
`12
`6
`4
`2
`
`10
`
`144
`
`Cases
`
`Orders
`
`Determinations
`
`Remedies
`
`Terms
`
`Order Stats
`
`Name
`Activision Blizzard Inc. v. Acceleration Bay LLC
`Take-Two Interactive Software, Inc. et al v. Acceleration Bay LLC
`Electronic Arts Inc. v. Acceleration Bay LLC
`Amgen Inc. et al v. Sandoz Inc. et al
`LoganTree LP v. FitBit Inc.
`Daniel L. Flamm, Sc.D. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al
`NematicITO, Inc. et al v. Spectrum Five LLC
`Greenflight Venture Corporation v. Whitepages, Inc. et al
`Windy City Innovations, LLC v. Facebook, Inc.
`Opus One Corporation v. Votigo, Inc.
`International Test Solutions, Inc. v. MIPOX International Corporation et al
`Jones v. Apple, Inc. et al
`Super Micro Computer, Inc. v. Computer Protection IP, LLC
`Whitepages, Inc. v. Isaacs et al
`Bluestone Innovations LLC v. Lowe's Companies, Inc.
`High Quality Printing Inventions, LLC v. Minted, LLC
`Core Wireless Licensing S.a.r.l. v. Apple Inc.
`Varian Medical Systems, Inc. et al v. Elekta AB et al
`IXI Mobile (R&D) Ltd. et al v. Blackberry Limited et al
`Ancora Technologies, Inc. v. Apple Inc.
`Via Vadis, LLC et al v. Netgear, Inc.
`Word to Info Inc v. Google Inc
`Finjan, Inc. v. Blue Coat Systems, Inc.
`Hawk Technology Systems, LLC v. City and County of San Francisco
`Xilinx, Inc. v. Papst Licensing GmbH & Co. KG
`IpVenture, Inc. v. FedEx Corporation et al
`Babbage Holdings, LLC v. Sony Computer Entertainment America LLC et al
`Red Pine Point LLC v. Yahoo! Inc. et al
`Red Pine Point LLC v. DIRECTV, LLC
`Red Pine Point LLC v. Sony Network Entertainment International LLC et al
`Red Pine Point LLC v. Google Inc. et al
`Red Pine Point LLC v. VUDU, Inc. et al
`Amgen Inc. et al v. Sandoz Inc. et al
`Hewlett-Packard Company v. Ninestar Image Tech Limited et al
`Red Pine Point LLC v. Apple Inc. et al
`Red Pine Point LLC v. Apple Inc. et al
`Create Alert Print Results Export Results
`
`https://www.docketnavigator.com/detail/summary/judge/944
`
`7/28/2016
`
`

`

`Docket Navigator Browse
`Page 1 of 1
`Case 1:16-cv-00455-RGA Document 13-1 Filed 08/04/16 Page 10 of 36 PageID #: 879
`
`SEARCH
`
`MY ACCOUNT
`
`HELP
`
`CONTACT
`
`HOME
`
`LOGOUT
`
`Refine search
`
`Change search type
`
`Search Criteria
`
`Case status Active
`Judge Richard Seeborg
`
`Court/Agency
`California Northern District (26)
`add some other Court/Agency
`Party or counsel
`add a party
`add a firm
`add an attorney
`Case with type of pleading
`add some other Case with type of pleadin
`Patent number
`
`Patent determination
`
`Remedy
`
`Case filed date
`
`Case terminated
`
`Order filed date
`
`Patent class
`
`Number
`Name
`Activision Blizzard Inc. v. Acceleration Bay LLC
`3-16-cv-03375
`Take-Two Interactive Software, Inc. et al v. Acceleration Bay L… 3-16-cv-03377
`Electronic Arts Inc. v. Acceleration Bay LLC
`3-16-cv-03378
`Amgen Inc. et al v. Sandoz Inc. et al
`3-16-cv-02581
`LoganTree LP v. FitBit Inc.
`3-16-cv-02443
`Daniel L. Flamm, Sc.D. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al
`5-16-cv-02252
`Greenflight Venture Corporation v. Whitepages, Inc. et al
`3-16-cv-01837
`Windy City Innovations, LLC v. Facebook, Inc.
`4-16-cv-01730
`International Test Solutions, Inc. v. MIPOX International Corp… 3-16-cv-00791
`Jones v. Apple, Inc. et al
`3-16-cv-00714
`Whitepages, Inc. v. Isaacs et al
`3-16-cv-00175
`Core Wireless Licensing S.a.r.l. v. Apple Inc.
`3-15-cv-05007
`Varian Medical Systems, Inc. et al v. Elekta AB et al
`3-15-cv-04428
`IXI Mobile (R&D) Ltd. et al v. Blackberry Limited et al
`3-15-cv-03754
`Via Vadis, LLC et al v. Netgear, Inc.
`3-15-cv-03573
`Word to Info Inc v. Google Inc
`3-15-cv-03486
`Finjan, Inc. v. Blue Coat Systems, Inc.
`5-15-cv-03295
`IpVenture, Inc. v. FedEx Corporation et al
`4-14-cv-04894
`Amgen Inc. et al v. Sandoz Inc. et al
`3-14-cv-04741
`Finjan, Inc. v. Symantec Corporation
`3-14-cv-02998
`Karl Storz Endoscopy-America, Inc. v. Stryker Corporation et al
`3-14-cv-00876
`Symantec Corporation v. RPost Holdings, Inc. et al
`3-14-cv-00238
`Delphix Corp. v. Actifio, Inc.
`5-13-cv-04613
`Software Rights Archive, LLC v. Facebook, Inc.
`5-12-cv-03970
`Dimdim, Inc. et al v. Williamson
`3-12-cv-03403
`Duraflame, Inc. v. Hearthmark, LLC
`3-12-cv-01205
`
`District
`CAND
`CAND
`CAND
`CAND
`CAND
`CAND
`CAND
`CAND
`CAND
`CAND
`CAND
`CAND
`CAND
`CAND
`CAND
`CAND
`CAND
`CAND
`CAND
`CAND
`CAND
`CAND
`CAND
`CAND
`CAND
`CAND
`
`Filed
`June 16, 2016
`June 16, 2016
`June 16, 2016
`May 12, 2016
`May 5, 2016
`April 26, 2016
`April 8, 2016
`April 6, 2016
`February 17, 2016
`February 11, 2016
`January 11, 2016
`October 30, 2015
`September 25, 20
`August 17, 2015
`August 4, 2015
`July 29, 2015
`July 15, 2015
`November 4, 2014
`October 24, 2014
`June 30, 2014
`February 26, 2014
`January 15, 2014
`October 4, 2013
`July 27, 2012
`July 2, 2012
`March 9, 2012
`
`Page
`
`1
`
`of 1
`
`Share Results Print Friendly Create Alert Create Bookmark Export Parties Export Patents
`
`Save Layout
`
`https://www.docketnavigator.com/browse/results/6dbd2b5c-146f-b87d-a2af-5621c6face46
`
`29/7/2016
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00455-RGA Document 13-1 Filed 08/04/16 Page 11 of 36 PageID #: 880
`Case 1:16-cv-00455-RGA Document 13-1 Filed 08/04/16 Page 11 of 36 PagelD #: 880
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT 28
`EXHIBIT 28
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00455-RGA Document 13-1 Filed 08/04/16 Page 12 of 36 PageID #: 881
`Case 3:14-cv-01197-WHO Document 27 Filed 05/23/14 Page 1 of 25
`
` 
`
`PAUL J. ANDRE (State Bar No. 196585)
`pandre@kramerlevin.com
`LISA KOBIALKA (State Bar No. 191404)
`lkobialka@kramerlevin.com
`JAMES HANNAH (State Bar No. 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.
`
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
`
`FINJAN, INC.,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`
`SOPHOS INC.,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`Case No.: 14-cv-01197-WHO
`
`PLAINTIFF FINJAN, INC.’S
`OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT SOPHOS
`INC.’S MOTION TO TRANSFER VENUE
`PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 1404(A)
`
`Date: June 18, 2014
`Time: 2:00 p.m.
`Dept.: Courtroom 2, 17th Floor
`Judge: William H. Orrick
`
`
`
`
` 
`___________________________________________________________________________________
`FINJAN’S OPPOSITION TO SOPHOS’S MOTION
` CASE NO. 14-cv-01197-WHO
`TO TRANSFER VENUE PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 1404(A)
`
`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 1:16-cv-00455-RGA Document 13-1 Filed 08/04/16 Page 13 of 36 PageID #: 882
`Case 3:14-cv-01197-WHO Document 27 Filed 05/23/14 Page 2 of 25
` 
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`2.
`
`B.
`
`
`I.
`II.
`III.
`
`IV.
`
`V.
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................1
`STATEMENT OF ISSUES ..........................................................................................................2
`STATEMENT OF FACTS ...........................................................................................................2
`A.
`
`This District Has Various Connections To Finjan, Sophos And This Action ..................3
`1.
`Finjan’s Principal Place of Operations And Key Witnesses Are In This
`District...................................................................................................................3
`Sophos, Its Witnesses And Its Infringing Activity Have Substantial
`Connection To This District ..................................................................................5
`The Prior Delaware Actions Do Not Have The Connections To This Suit That
`Sophos Claims ..................................................................................................................7
`ARGUMENT ................................................................................................................................9
`
`Both Public and Private Factors Weigh Against Transfer to the District of
`A.
`Delaware .........................................................................................................................10
`1.
`Finjan’s Decision To File This Lawsuit In Its Home Forum Is Entitled to
`Substantial Weight ..............................................................................................10
`The Convenience to the Parties Weighs Against Transfer .................................11
`The Convenience to the Witnesses Weighs Against Transfer ............................12
`There Is Substantial Ease of Access to Evidence In This District ......................13
`There Is Substantial Local Interest in the Controversy .......................................14
`The Congestion of Cases in the District of Delaware Weighs Against
`Transfer ...............................................................................................................15
`It Is Not Feasible to Consolidate This Case with Any Other Case In
`Delaware .............................................................................................................16
`Each Forum Is Familiar with the Applicable Law ..............................................17
`8.
`Judicial Economy Weighs Against Transfer ...................................................................17
`1.
`Transferring This Case To Delaware Based On Finjan’s Prior Delaware
`Actions Would Not Enhance Judicial Economy .................................................17
`Sophos’ Authority Regarding Transfer Based On Judicial Economy Is
`Inapposite ............................................................................................................19
`CONCLUSION ...........................................................................................................................21
`
`2.
`3.
`4.
`5.
`6.
`
`7.
`
`2.
`
`
`B.
`
`i
`__________________________________________________________________________________
`FINJAN’S OPPOSITION TO SOPHOS’S MOTION
` CASE NO. 14-cv-01197-WHO
`TO TRANSFER VENUE PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 1404(A)
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00455-RGA Document 13-1 Filed 08/04/16 Page 14 of 36 PageID #: 883
`Case 3:14-cv-01197-WHO Document 27 Filed 05/23/14 Page 3 of 25
` 
`
`
`CASES
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page(s)
`
`Allstar Marketing Grp., LLC v. Your Store Online, LLC,
`666 F.Supp.2d 1109 (C.D. Cal. 2009) .........................................................................12, 13, 20
`
`Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Genentech,
`No. 13-cv-2045 SJ, 2013 WL 3829599 (N.D. Cal. July 23, 2013)..........................................19
`
`Cisco Sys. Inc. v. Tivo, Inc.,
`No. C 12-02766 RS, 2012 WL 3279532 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 10, 2012) .......................................20
`
`CSR Tech., Inc. v. Bandspeed, Inc.,
`No. CV-11-1948-PHX-GMS, 2012 WL 1150863 (D. Ariz. Apr. 5, 2012) .............................20
`
`Decker Coal Co. v. Commonwealth Edison Co.,
`805 F.2d 834 (9th Cir. 1986) ...................................................................................................10
`
`Digitech Image Techs., LLC v. Leica Camera AG,
`No. SACV12-01677-ODW(MRWx), 2012 WL 6062749 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 5, 2012) .........13, 14
`
`Eli Lilly & Co. v. Genentech, Inc.,
`No. 13-cv-0919 YGR, 2013 WL 4396718 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 13, 2013) ....................................19
`
`Finjan, Inc. v. McAfee Inc. et al.,
`Case No. 10-cv-00593-GMS (D. Del.) (“McAfee Action”) ............................................8, 9, 18
`
`Finjan Software Ltd. v. Aladdin Knowledge Sys. Inc. et al.,
`Case No. 08-cv-00300-GMS (D. Del.) (“Aladdin Action”) ................................................8, 17
`
`Finjan Software Ltd. v. Secure Computing Corp.,
`Case No. 06-cv-00369-GMS (D. Del.) (“Secure Computing Action”) .........................8, 18, 19
`
`In re Genentech,
`566 F.3d 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2009)................................................................................................13
`
`In re Volkswagen of Am., Inc.,
`566 F.3d 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2009)................................................................................................20
`
`InCorp Servs., Inc. v. Incsmart.Biz Inc.,
`No. 11-CV-4660-EJD-PSG, 2012 WL 3685994 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 24, 2012) ....................10, 13
`
`Micron Tech., Inc. v. Mosaid Techs., Inc.,
`518 F.3d 897 (Fed. Cir. 2008)..................................................................................................20
`
`One StockDuq Holdings, LLC v. Becton, Dickinson & Co.,
`No. 2:12-cv-03037-JPM-tmp, 2013 WL 1136726 (W.D. Tenn. Mar. 18, 2013) ....................17
`
`ii
`__________________________________________________________________________________
`FINJAN’S OPPOSITION TO SOPHOS’S MOTION
` CASE NO. 14-cv-01197-WHO
`TO TRANSFER VENUE PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 1404(A)
`
`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 1:16-cv-00455-RGA Document 13-1 Filed 08/04/16 Page 15 of 36 PageID #: 884
`Case 3:14-cv-01197-WHO Document 27 Filed 05/23/14 Page 4 of 25
` 
`
`Peregrine Semiconductor Corp. v. RF Micro Devices, Inc.,
`No. 12cv911-IEG (WMC), 2012 WL 2068728 (S.D. Cal. June 8, 2012) .......10, 11, 13, 14, 15
`
`Piper Aircraft Co. v. Reyno¸
`454 U.S. 235 (1981) .................................................................................................................11
`
`Realtime Data, LLC v. Stanley¸
`Nos. 6:09cv326-LED-JDL, 6:09cv327-LED-JDL, 6:09cv333-LED-JDL, 2010 WL
`1064474 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 18, 2010) .........................................................................................20
`
`SKF Condition Monitoring, Inc. v. SAT Corp.,
`No. 07CV1116 BTM (NLS), 2008 WL 706851 (S.D. Cal. Feb. 27, 2008) .............................15
`
`Stewart Org., Inc. v. Ricoh Corp.,
`487 U.S. 22 (1988) ...................................................................................................................10
`
`STX, Inc. v. Trik Stik, Inc.,
`708 F.Supp. 1551 (N.D. Cal. 1988) .........................................................................................10
`
`Trend Micro Inc. v. RPost Holdings, Inc.,
`No. 13-cv-05227-WHO, 2014 WL 1365491 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 7, 2014) ...................................10
`
`Van Slyke v. Capital One Bank,
`503 F.Supp.2d 1353 (N.D. Cal. 2007) .....................................................................................14
`
`STATUTES
`
`28 U.S.C. §1400(b) ..........................................................................................................................7
`
`28 U.S.C. §1404(a) ..........................................................................................................................1
`
`
`
`iii
`__________________________________________________________________________________
`FINJAN’S OPPOSITION TO SOPHOS’S MOTION
` CASE NO. 14-cv-01197-WHO
`TO TRANSFER VENUE PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 1404(A)
`
`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 1:16-cv-00455-RGA Document 13-1 Filed 08/04/16 Page 16 of 36 PageID #: 885
`Case 3:14-cv-01197-WHO Document 27 Filed 05/23/14 Page 5 of 25
` 
`
`Plaintiff Finjan, Inc. (“Finjan”) respectfully submits this opposition to the “Motion to Transfer
`
`Venue Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1404(a)” filed by Defendant Sophos Inc. (“Sophos”) on May 9, 2014
`
`(Dkt. No. 26).
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`The Northern District of California is the most appropriate venue for this action. This District
`
`has far more connection to the parties and key witnesses and is much more convenient than Delaware,
`
`Sophos’ proposed forum. Finjan’s center of operations and the primary Finjan witnesses are located in
`
`this District. Sophos has invested in an office in this District in order to reap the commercial benefits
`
`of doing business in this District’s high-technology Silicon Valley. Key Sophos witnesses are based in
`
`this Silicon Valley office. Sophos has established a local presence and every day engages in a
`
`substantial amount of infringing activity in this District. In fact, Sophos has also already admitted that
`
`venue is proper in a co-pending litigation in this District involving many of the same Sophos products.
`
`In contrast, neither party has an office in Delaware and no relevant witnesses have been
`
`identified in Delaware. Rather, Sophos’ request for transfer rests predominantly on a previous
`
`litigation between the parties in Delaware that is now closed and pending appeal. However, that
`
`Delaware action involved completely different claims and provides no basis for transferring this action
`
`to Delaware. Indeed, the instant action and the previous Delaware action involve different patents
`
`covering different technology and functionality, and various Sophos products are accused of
`
`infringement in the instant action that were never at issue in the Delaware case. Moreover, the
`
`circumstances of the parties have significantly changed since the Delaware litigation. For instance,
`
`both parties have since opened offices in this District where new key witnesses are based.
`
`For these reasons, Finjan chose to bring this suit in the Northern District of California, not
`
`Delaware or any other District. It was not, as Sophos concocts, to avoid an unfavorable verdict in
`
`Delaware. In fact, Finjan has had great success in Delaware, including a jury verdict in a previous case
`
`1
`__________________________________________________________________________________
`FINJAN’S OPPOSITION TO SOPHOS’S MOTION
` CASE NO. 14-cv-01197-WHO
`TO TRANSFER VENUE PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 1404(A)
`
`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 1:16-cv-00455-RGA Document 13-1 Filed 08/04/16 Page 17 of 36 PageID #: 886
`Case 3:14-cv-01197-WHO Document 27 Filed 05/23/14 Page 6 of 25
` 
`
`that one of the patents that is asserted against Sophos in the instant litigation (as well as two additional
`
`Finjan patents) is valid and infringed, resulting in an award to Finjan of millions of dollars in damages
`
`and a permanent injunction. Sophos’ focus on the previous Delaware case between the parties as
`
`opposed to convenience factors reveals its true intentions for its motion: Sophos seeks to transfer this
`
`action to Delaware because it believes that the same court which awarded it a favorable judgment two
`
`years ago in a different litigation will rule in its favor again in this case. Not only are Sophos’ hopes
`
`unfounded given the significant differences between the issues presented in the two cases, but in any
`
`event, Sophos’s tactical preference of where it wishes to litigate does not serve as a valid basis for
`
`transferring this action.
`
`Rather, Sophos “bears a heavy burden” to show that the “balance of convenience clearly favors
`
`transfer” from California to Delaware in order to disrupt Finjan’s choice of its home forum for this
`
`action. Sophos has failed to do so. Indeed, no case cited by Sophos allows transfer with the strong
`
`degree of connection to the original forum present here. For these reasons, as discussed in greater
`
`detail below, Finjan respectfully requests the Court deny Sophos’s Motion.
`
`II.
`
`STATEMENT OF ISSUES
`
`Whether Sophos has carried the burden to demonstrate that transfer of this action from Finjan’s
`
`chosen forum of this District to the District of Delaware is necessary.
`
`III.
`
`STATEMENT OF FACTS
`
`On March 14, 2014, Finjan filed the complaint in this action against Sophos for patent
`
`infringement, which Finjan amended on April 8, 2014. Dkt. Nos. 1, 5. Finjan alleges that Sophos
`
`infringes eight Finjan patents, specifically, U.S. Patent Nos. 8,141,154, 6,154,844, 7,757,289,
`
`7,613,926, 7,613,918, 6,804,780 (“the ‘780 Patent”), 8,677,494 and 8,566,580 (collectively, the
`
`“Patents-in-Suit”). Finjan’s patents cover technology in the field of computer and network security.
`
`Finjan alleges that Sophos infringes the Patents-in-Suit by making, using, selling, offering for sale
`
`2
`__________________________________________________________________________________
`FINJAN’S OPPOSITION TO SOPHOS’S MOTION
` CASE NO. 14-cv-01197-WHO
`TO TRANSFER VENUE PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 1404(A)
`
`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 1:16-cv-00455-RGA Document 13-1 Filed 08/04/16 Page 18 of 36 PageID #: 887
`Case 3:14-cv-01197-WHO Document 27 Filed 05/23/14 Page 7 of 25
` 
`
`and/or importing Sophos’ computer and network security products, particularly those using Sophos
`
`Live Protection, Advanced Threat Protection, WebLENS, Behavioral Genotype, and SSL connections
`
`technologies, including but not limited to the following: Enduser Protection Suites, Endpoint
`
`Antivirus, Endpoint Antivirus-Cloud, Sophos Cloud, Unified Threat Management, Next-Gen Firewall,
`
`Secure Web Gateway, Secure Email Gateway, Web Application Firewall, Network Storage Antivirus,
`
`Virtualization Security, SharePoint Security, Secure VPN, Secure Wi-Fi and Server Security. Dkt. No.
`
`15 at ¶ 33.1
`
`As shown by the factual background below, the Northern District of California has a strong
`
`connection to this accused infringement, as well as to the parties and the relevant witnesses