Case 1:18-cv-01519-MN Document 239-2 Filed 11/20/20 Page 1 of 34 PageID #: 8722
`Case 1:18—cv-01519—MN Document 239-2 Filed 11/20/20 Page 1 of 34 PageID #: 8722
`
`EXHIBIT 11
`
`EXHIBIT 11
`REDACTED VERSION
`
`REDACTED VERSION
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 3:14-cv-01197-WHO Document 227 Filed 08/01/16 Page 1 of 33Case 1:18-cv-01519-MN Document 239-2 Filed 11/20/20 Page 2 of 34 PageID #: 8723
`
`
`
`PAUL 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., a Delaware Corporation,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`
`SOPHOS INC., a Massachusetts Corporation,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`Case No.: 14-cv-01197-WHO
`
`PLAINTIFF FINJAN, INC.’S
`OPPOSITION TO SOPHOS’ DAUBERT
`MOTION AND MOTIONS IN LIMINE
`
`August 8, 2016
`Date:
`2:00 p.m.
`Time:
`Dept.: Courtroom 2, 17th Floor
`Judge: William H. Orrick
`
`
`
`
`REDACTED VERSION OF DOCUMENTS SOUGHT TO BE SEALED
`
`____________________________________________________________________________________
`FINJAN’S OPP. TO SOPHOS’ DAUBERT AND MOT. IN LIMINE Case No.: 14-cv-01197-WHO
`
`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 3:14-cv-01197-WHO Document 227 Filed 08/01/16 Page 2 of 33Case 1:18-cv-01519-MN Document 239-2 Filed 11/20/20 Page 3 of 34 PageID #: 8724
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page(s)
`
`I.
`
`ARGUMENT ................................................................................................................................ 1
`
`A.
`
`Dr. Layne-Farrar’s Opinions Are Reliable ....................................................................... 1
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`Dr. Layne-Farrar’s Opinion on Equal Value Of Each Feature Is Reliable ........... 1
`
`Dr. Layne-Farrar’s Apportionment Is Tied To The Accused
`Functionality ......................................................................................................... 5
`
`Dr. Layne-Farrar’s Opinion On Future Damages Is Reliable ............................... 7
`
`Dr. Layne-Farrar Did Not Rely on A “Rule of Thumb” To Calculate
`Royalty Rates ........................................................................................................ 8
`
`Dr. Layne-Farrar Properly Relied on Sophos’ Representations About its
`Products............................................................................................................... 10
`
`B.
`
`Dr. Medvidovic’s Opinions Are Consistent with Federal Circuit Precedent .................. 11
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`Dr. Medvidovic Does Not Provide a Duplicative Infringement Opinion ........... 11
`
`Dr. Medvidovic Supports His Opinion with Independent Analysis ................... 12
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`Dr. Bims’ Opinions Are Relevant and Reliable .............................................................. 13
`
`Dr. Cole and Dr. Mitzenmacher Rely on the Court’s Construction and The
`Asserted Claims .............................................................................................................. 14
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`Drs. Cole and Mitzenmacher Applied the Correct Construction of
`“Database” .......................................................................................................... 14
`
`Drs. Cole’s and Mitzenmacher’s Opinions for “Database” Are Supported
`and Match the Court’s Claim Construction ........................................................ 15
`
`Dr. Mitzenmacher Opined On All Elements Of the ‘780 Patent ........................ 17
`
`Dr. Cole Opined On All Elements Of the ‘580 Patent ........................................ 17
`
`E.
`
`Sophos’ Motions in Limine (“MILs”) Should be Denied ............................................... 18
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`Argument and Evidence Regarding The Final PTO Decisions is Proper. .......... 18
`
`Evidence and Argument Regarding Financial Interest Is Proper ........................ 20
`
`i
`____________________________________________________________________________________
`FINJAN’S OPP. TO SOPHOS’ DAUBERT AND MOT. IN LIMINE Case No.: 14-cv-01197-WHO
`
`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 3:14-cv-01197-WHO Document 227 Filed 08/01/16 Page 3 of 33Case 1:18-cv-01519-MN Document 239-2 Filed 11/20/20 Page 4 of 34 PageID #: 8725
`
`
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`Finjan Should be Permitted to Provide Evidence and Argument of
`Experts’ Use of Sophos’ Products to Support Direct Infringement .................... 21
`
`Finjan Should be Permitted to Describe Its Patents as a “Suite of
`Technologies” ..................................................................................................... 22
`
`Evidence and Argument Regarding Sophos’ Litigation with Fortinet Is
`Proper .................................................................................................................. 25
`
`CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................................... 25
`
`II.
`
`
`
`
`ii
`____________________________________________________________________________________
`FINJAN’S OPP. TO SOPHOS’ DAUBERT AND MOT. IN LIMINE Case No.: 14-cv-01197-WHO
`
`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 3:14-cv-01197-WHO Document 227 Filed 08/01/16 Page 4 of 33Case 1:18-cv-01519-MN Document 239-2 Filed 11/20/20 Page 5 of 34 PageID #: 8726
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`
`Page(s)
`
`Cases
`
`ACCO Brands, Inc. v. ABA Locks Mfr. Co.,
`501 F.3d 1307 (Fed. Cir. 2007)......................................................................................................... 22
`
`Alco Standard Corp. v. Tenn. Valley Auth.,
`808 F.2d 1490 (Fed. Cir. 1986)......................................................................................................... 22
`
`Apple, Inc. v. Motorola, Inc.,
`757 F.3d 1286 (Fed. Cir. 2014)....................................................................................................... 1, 2
`
`AVM Techs, LLC v. Intel Corp.,
`No. 10-610-RGA, 2013 WL 126233 (D. Del. Jan. 4, 2013) ............................................................... 9
`
`Coloplast A/S V. Generic Med. Devices Inc.,
`No. C10-227BHS, 2011 WL 6330064 (W.D. Wash. Dec. 19, 2011) ............................................... 11
`
`DataQuill Ltd. v. High Tech Computer Corp.,
`887 F. Supp. 2d 999 (S.D. Cal. 2011) ........................................................................................... 2, 11
`
`Energy Transp. Grp., Inc. v. William Dement Holding A/S,
`697 F.3d 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2012)........................................................................................................... 9
`
`Ericsson Inc. v. D-Link Sys., Inc.,
`773 F.3d 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2014)..................................................................................................... 6, 10
`
`Ericsson Inc. v. D-Link Corp.,
`No. 6:10-CV-473, 2013 WL 2242444 (E.D. Tex. May 21, 2013).................................................... 10
`
`Finjan, Inc. v. Blue Coat Sys., Inc.
`2015 WL 4272870 (N.D. Cal. July 14, 2015) ............................................................................. 11, 23
`
`Finjan, Inc. v. Secure Computing Corp.,
`626 F. 3d 1197 (Fed. Cir. 2010)................................................................................................ 8, 9, 24
`
`France Telecom S.A. v. Marvell Semiconductor Inc.,
`No. 12-cv-04967, 2014 WL 4272771 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 28, 2014) .................................................... 15
`
`Fresenius Med. Care Holdings, Inc. v. Baxter Int’l, Inc.,
`No. C 03-1431 SBA, 2006 WL 1330003 (N.D. Cal. May 15, 2006) ............................................... 20
`
`Fujifilm Corp. v. Motorola Mobility LLC,
`No. 12-cv-03587-WHO, 2015 WL 757575 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 20, 2015) ...................................... 13, 14
`
`i
`____________________________________________________________________________________
`FINJAN’S OPP. TO SOPHOS’ DAUBERT AND MOT. IN LIMINE Case No.: 14-cv-01197-WHO
`
`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 3:14-cv-01197-WHO Document 227 Filed 08/01/16 Page 5 of 33Case 1:18-cv-01519-MN Document 239-2 Filed 11/20/20 Page 6 of 34 PageID #: 8727
`
`
`
`Georgia-Pacific Corp. v. U.S. Plywood Corp.,
`318 F.Supp.1116 (S.D.N.Y. 1970).................................................................................................... 23
`
`Good Tech. Corp. v. Mobileiron, Inc.,
`No. 5:12-cv-5826, 2015 WL 4080431 (N.D. Cal. July 5, 2015) ........................................................ 5
`
`Halo Elecs., Inc. v. Pulse Elecs., Inc.,
`No. 2:07-CV-00331-PMP, 2013 WL 4458754 (D. Nev. Aug. 16, 2013), aff'd, 769
`F.3d 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ............................................................................................................... 20
`
`i4i Limited P’ship v. Microsoft Corp.,
`598 F.3d 831 (Fed. Cir. 2010)............................................................................................................. 1
`
`Interwoven, Inc. v. Vertical Computer Sys.,
`No. CV 10-04645 RS, 2014 WL 490996 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 4, 2014) .................................................. 22
`
`Kaufman Co. v. Lantech, Inc.,
`807 F.2d 970 (Fed. Cir. 1986)........................................................................................................... 21
`
`L.C. Eldridge Sales Co. v. Azen Mfg. Pte., Ltd.,
`No. 6:11CV599, 2013 WL 7964028 (E.D. Tex. Nov. 14, 2013), aff'd in part sub
`nom. L.C. Eldridge Sales Co. v. Jurong Shipyard Pte., Ltd., 610 F. App'x 1015 (Fed.
`Cir. 2015) .................................................................................................................................... 19, 20
`
`Liquid Dynamics Corp. v. Vaughan Co.,
`449 F.3d 1209 (Fed. Cir. 2006)......................................................................................................... 15
`
`Lucent Techs, Inc. v. Gateway, Inc.,
`580 F.3d 1301 (Fed. Cir. 2009)................................................................................................. 7, 9, 22
`
`MediaTek Inc. v. Freescale Semiconductor, Inc.,
`No. 11-cv-05341 YGR, 2014 WL 2854890 (N.D. Cal. June 20, 2014) ....................................... 5, 15
`
`MediaTek Inc. v. Freescale Semiconductor, Inc.,
`No. 11-CV-5341 YGR, 2014 WL 971765 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 5, 2014) ............................................... 11
`
`Mendenhall v. Cedarapids, Inc.,
`5 F.3d 1557 (Fed. Cir. 1993)............................................................................................................. 20
`
`Micro Chem., Inc. v. Inc. v. Lextron, Inc.,
`317 F.3d 1387 (Fed. Cir. 2003)..................................................................................................... 1, 15
`
`Microsoft Corp. v. i4i Ltd. P’ship,
`131 S.Ct. 2238 (2011) ....................................................................................................................... 19
`
`Mirror Worlds, LLC v. Apple, Inc.,
`784 F. Supp. 2d 703 (E.D. Tex. 2011) ............................................................................................ 6, 9
`
`ii
`____________________________________________________________________________________
`FINJAN’S OPP. TO SOPHOS’ DAUBERT AND MOT. IN LIMINE Case No.: 14-cv-01197-WHO
`
`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 3:14-cv-01197-WHO Document 227 Filed 08/01/16 Page 6 of 33Case 1:18-cv-01519-MN Document 239-2 Filed 11/20/20 Page 7 of 34 PageID #: 8728
`
`
`
`Nortek Air Solutions, LLC v. Energy Lab Corp.,
`14-cv-02919-BLF, 2016 WL 3856250 (N.D. Cal. July 15, 2016) ...................................................... 5
`
`Perez v. Seafood Peddler of San Rafael, Inc.,
`No. 12-cv-00116-WHO, 2014 WL 2810144 (N.D. Cal. June 20, 2014) .......................................... 14
`
`Regents of Univ. of Cal. v. Micro Therapeutics, Inc.,
`No. 03-cv-05669, 2007 WL 2429412 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 23, 2007) .................................................... 15
`
`ResQNet.com, Inc. v. Lansa, Inc.,
`594 F.3d 860 (Fed. Cir. 2010)............................................................................................................. 6
`
`Sensonics, Inc. v. Aerosonic Corp.,
`81 F.3d 1566 (Fed. Cir. 1996)............................................................................................................. 2
`
`Shaw Indus. Grp., Inc. v. Automated Creel Sys., Inc.,
`No. 2015-1116, 2016 WL 1128083 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 23, 2016) ......................................................... 18
`
`Stragent, LLC v. Intel Corp.,
`No. 6:11-cv-421, 2014 WL 1389304 (E.D. Tex. March 6, 2014) ...................................................... 5
`
`Telemac Corp. v. U.S/Intellicom Inc.,
`185 F. Supp. 2d 1084 (N.D. Cal. 2001) .............................................................................................. 6
`
`Toshiba Corp. v. Imation Corp.,
`681 F.3d 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2012)......................................................................................................... 22
`
`Uniloc USA, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp.,
`632 F.3d 1292 (Fed. Cir. 2011)....................................................................................................... 6, 8
`
`Union Carbide Chems. & Plastics Tech. Corp. v. Shell Oil Co.,
`308 F.3d 1167 (Fed. Cir. 2002)......................................................................................................... 21
`
`United States v. Hankey,
`203 F.3d 1160 (9th Cir. 2000) .......................................................................................................... 20
`
`Univ. Elecs., Inc. v. Univ. Remote Control, Inc.,
`No. 8:12-cv-00329 AG (JPRx), 2014 WL 8096334 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 21, 2014) ......................... 18, 20
`
`Vita-Mix Corp. v. Basic Holding, Inc.,
`581 F.3d 1317 (Fed. Cir. 2009)......................................................................................................... 21
`
`Volterra Semiconductor Corp. v. Primarion, Inc.,
`No. 08-CV-05129-JCS, 2013 WL 6905555 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 18, 2013) ........................................... 12
`
`Volterra Semiconductor Corp. v. Primarion, Inc.,
`No. C-08-05129 JCS, 2011 WL 4079223 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 12, 2011).............................................. 18
`
`iii
`____________________________________________________________________________________
`FINJAN’S OPP. TO SOPHOS’ DAUBERT AND MOT. IN LIMINE Case No.: 14-cv-01197-WHO
`
`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 3:14-cv-01197-WHO Document 227 Filed 08/01/16 Page 7 of 33Case 1:18-cv-01519-MN Document 239-2 Filed 11/20/20 Page 8 of 34 PageID #: 8729
`
`
`
`Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC,
`792 F.3d 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2015)........................................................................................................... 1
`
`Statutes
`
`35 U.S.C. § 302 ....................................................................................................................................... 19
`
`35 U.S.C. § 307 ....................................................................................................................................... 18
`
`Rules
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a) ............................................................................................................................... 10
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(c) ............................................................................................................................... 10
`
`Fed. R. Evid. 702 ................................................................................................................................ 1, 13
`
`Fed. R. Evid. 801 .................................................................................................................................... 12
`
`Fed. R. Evid. 901 .................................................................................................................................... 18
`
`
`
`
`iv
`____________________________________________________________________________________
`FINJAN’S OPP. TO SOPHOS’ DAUBERT AND MOT. IN LIMINE Case No.: 14-cv-01197-WHO
`
`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 3:14-cv-01197-WHO Document 227 Filed 08/01/16 Page 8 of 33Case 1:18-cv-01519-MN Document 239-2 Filed 11/20/20 Page 9 of 34 PageID #: 8730
`
`
`
`Plaintiff Finjan, Inc., (“Finjan”) submits this Opposition to Sophos, Inc.’s (“Sophos”) Daubert
`
`Motion To Exclude Certain Opinions and Motions In Limine (“Sophos’ Motion”). Dkt. 215-4.
`I.
`
`ARGUMENT
`A.
`Dr. Layne-Farrar’s opinions are reliable and satisfy the requirements of Fed. R. Evid. 702 and
`
`Dr. Layne-Farrar’s Opinions Are Reliable
`
`Daubert. Her methodologies are based on substantial, reliable evidence in the record and disclosed in
`
`her expert report. “When the methodology is sound, and the evidence relied upon sufficiently related
`
`to the case at hand, disputes about the degree of relevance or accuracy (above this minimum threshold)
`
`may go to the testimony’s weight, but not its admissibility.” i4i Limited P’ship v. Microsoft Corp., 598
`
`F.3d 831, 852 (Fed. Cir. 2010). Here, Sophos disagrees with the relevance or accuracy, which goes to
`
`weight a jury can accord Dr. Layne-Farrar’s opinion. Sophos will have the opportunity to cross-
`
`examine Dr. Layne-Farrar based on its disagreement with her opinions. Thus, the wholesale exclusion
`
`of Dr. Layne-Farrar’s opinions is not warranted nor appropriate. See, e.g., Apple, Inc. v. Motorola,
`
`Inc., 757 F.3d 1286, 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2014), overruled on other grounds by Williamson v. Citrix Online,
`
`LLC, 792 F.3d 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2015)(“A judge must be cautious not to overstep its gatekeeping role
`
`and weigh facts, evaluate the correctness of conclusions, impose its own preferred methodology, or
`
`judge credibility, including the credibility of one expert over another”); see also Micro Chem., Inc. v.
`
`Lextron, Inc., 317 F.3d 1387, 1391-92 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (where an expert’s methodology is sound and
`
`his opinions satisfy the requirements of Rule 702, underlying factual disputes and how much weight to
`
`accord the expert’s opinion are questions for the jury). Because substantial evidence supports Dr.
`
`Layne-Farrar’s methodologies, the Court should deny Sophos’ Motion.
`1.
`Dr. Layne-Farrar relied on substantial, reliable evidence for her opinion that each of the
`
`Dr. Layne-Farrar’s Opinion on Equal Value Of Each Feature Is Reliable.
`
`components in Sophos’ accused products (“Products”) should be given equal value. She reviewed
`
`numerous public and confidential Sophos documents about the features of the Products, testimony of
`
`Sophos employees, had multiple discussions with the technical experts, reviewed the report of Finjan’s
`
`technical expert, Dr. Medvidovic, and reviewed license agreements the parties produced, all of which
`
`she disclosed in her expert report and led her to the fair, reasonable, and conservative conclusion that
`
`1
`FINJAN’S OPP. TO SOPHOS’ DAUBERT AND MOT. IN LIMINE Case No.: 14-cv-01197-WHO
`
`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 3:14-cv-01197-WHO Document 227 Filed 08/01/16 Page 9 of 33Case 1:18-cv-01519-MN Document 239-2 Filed 11/20/20 Page 10 of 34 PageID #: 8731
`
`
`
`each of the components were of comparable equal economic value. See, e.g., Declaration of Sean
`
`Cunningham in Support of Sophos’ Motion (“Cunningham Decl.”), Ex. 1, Layne-Farrar (“ALF”)
`
`Report, ¶¶ 194-213; see also id., ¶¶ 65-155, 161-76, 182-84, 188-193, 195, 217-20, Ex. 2 to ALF Rpt.
`
`As she explained at deposition, Sophos chose to call out specific components of its Products in its
`
`documents to customers or investors, showing that Sophos regarded each component to be on “equal
`footing” or equally valuable to its customers. Ex. 1,1 ALF Tr. at 148:23-149:10; 155:18-157:5.
`Simply because some documents are “marketing” documents (i.e., intended to be distributed directly to
`
`customers) does not render them unreliable. Sophos’ claim that it published inaccurate representations
`
`about components in its products to potential customers or investors is simply not credible.
`
`Notably, Sophos’ rebuttal damages expert, Mr. Napper, also relied on an equal weighting of
`
`features for his opinion to apportion revenues. Ex. 1 to Finjan’s Daubert Motion (“Finjan’s Mot.”),
`
`Napper Rpt. at 100-104. Thus, Sophos cannot criticize Dr. Layne-Farrar for equally weighting features
`
`and components in Sophos’ Products in her analysis when (1) its damages expert did the same and (2)
`
`Sophos never produced any evidence to the contrary during discovery. It also cannot now argue that
`
`the experts should have relied on some other information for this analysis. Sensonics, Inc. v. Aerosonic
`
`Corp., 81 F.3d 1566, 1572 (Fed. Cir. 1996)(when damages cannot “be ascertained with precision
`
`because the evidence available from the infringer is inadequate,” any doubts must be resolved against
`
`the infringer).
`
`Dr. Layne-Farrar also properly relied on the opinions of a technical expert, Dr. Medvidovic, to
`
`support her conclusion of weighing the components equally. Cunningham Decl., Ex. 1, ALF Rpt., ¶¶
`
`199, 205-206, 213; see Apple, 757 F.3d at 1321 (“patent damages experts often rely on technical
`
`expertise outside of their field when evaluating design around options or valuing the importance of the
`
`specific, infringing features on a complex device”); see also DataQuill Ltd. v. High Tech Computer
`
`Corp., 887 F. Supp. 2d 999, 1026 (S.D. Cal. 2011)(“It is routine and proper for a damages expert in a
`
`technical patent case to rely on a technical expert for background.”). Dr. Medvidovic formed his
`
`conclusion that the features in Sophos’ Products have comparably equal technical value after he
`
`
`1 Unless otherwise noted, all exhibits are attached the Declaration of Hannah Lee in Support of
`Finjan’s Opposition to Sophos’ Daubert and Motion in Limine (“Lee Decl.”).
`
`2
`FINJAN’S OPP. TO SOPHOS’ DAUBERT AND MOT. IN LIMINE Case No.: 14-cv-01197-WHO
`
`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 3:14-cv-01197-WHO Document 227 Filed 08/01/16 Page 10 of 33Case 1:18-cv-01519-MN Document 239-2 Filed 11/20/20 Page 11 of 34 PageID #: 8732
`
`
`
`completed an independent, comprehensive review of numerous Sophos documents describing Sophos’
`
`Products and their functionalities, including both marketing and architectural documents, documents
`
`for potential investors, testimony of Sophos engineers, and the expert opinions of Finjan’s
`
`infringement experts, Drs. Mitzenmacher and Cole (who each submitted extensive written expert
`
`reports after review of source code and extensive documentation about the accused products). See,
`
`e.g., Ex. 2, Medvidovic Rpt., ¶¶ 21-22, 23, 27-29, 52-146; Ex. 3, Medvidovic Tr. at 33:22-36:14,
`
`52:15-53:22. He also tested Sophos’ Products and had several conversations with Finjan’s
`
`infringement experts to understand Sophos’ accused technology. Ex. 2, Medvidovic Rpt., ¶¶ 22, 29,
`
`70, 81, 90, 97, 109, 120; Ex. 3, Medvidovic Tr. at 37:25-40:7, 42:4-19.
`
`
`
`In his report, Dr. Medvidovic discussed the bases of his opinions, including documents that
`
`describe specific components and capabilities of the UTM and Endpoint products as separate, but
`
`equally valuable, building blocks of the functionality of Sophos’ Products. Ex. 2, Medvidovic Rpt. at
`
`¶¶ 52-139; Ex. 3, Medvidovic Tr. at 199:19-201:15; 209:17-21; 261:15-262:19; Cunningham Decl.,
`
`Ex. 4; Cunningham Decl., Ex. 5 at 1197SOPHOS_00340845. He also identified the testimony of
`
`Sophos’ engineers and technical expert reports that assisted in forming his opinions. See Ex. 2,
`
`Medvidovic Rpt., ¶¶ 22, 52-60, 70, 81, 90, 97, 109-110, 127-46 (citing expert reports, deposition
`
`testimony and exhibits of Sophos employees, Messrs. Stutz, Keenan, Cook, Harris, Magdic, Howard);
`
`Ex. 3, Medvidovic Tr. at 195:5-23; 261:15-262:19. As additional support for his opinion that each
`
`component is equally valuable or important, Dr. Medvidovic cited to the testimony of Mr. Keenan,
`
`Sophos’ Vice-President of America Sales, who testified that
`
`
`
`
`
`Ex. 2, Medvidovic Rpt., ¶¶ 127, 137; Ex. 4, Keenan Tr. at 17:20-24:1, 23:15-20, 35:10-36:17, 43:22-
`
`44:7, 46:10-50:10, 73:13-76:9; Ex. 3, Medvidovic Tr. at 200:12-201:15, 209:17-21, 233:4-242:9,
`
`261:15-262:19. Thus, Dr. Medvidovic had a reasonable basis to rely upon Sophos’ documents and
`
`testimony.
`
`
`
`Dr. Medvidovic’s opinion that there are seven equally valued components of the SAV Engine
`
`is also based on substantial evidence in the record. Ex. 2, Medvidovic Rpt. at ¶¶ 52-124, 140-42. Dr.
`
`Medvidovic based his opinion of equal value in part on Sophos’ express representation in an investor
`
`3
`FINJAN’S OPP. TO SOPHOS’ DAUBERT AND MOT. IN LIMINE Case No.: 14-cv-01197-WHO
`
`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 3:14-cv-01197-WHO Document 227 Filed 08/01/16 Page 11 of 33Case 1:18-cv-01519-MN Document 239-2 Filed 11/20/20 Page 12 of 34 PageID #: 8733
`
`
`
`document that the SAV engine “comprises a collection of analysis, processing, and intelligence
`
`modules.” Cunningham Decl., Ex. 2; Ex. 3, Medvidovic Tr. at 243:12-244:15, 249:23-253:3. In this
`
`document, Sophos describes its “Technology architecture and components,” including “key core
`
`technologies underpinning its solutions.” Cunningham Decl., Ex. 2 at 60. Sophos lists seven
`
`“modules” in the Sophos Antivirus Engine comprising “the extensible architecture” of the engine for
`
`“detecting and neutralizing emerging threats.” Id.; Ex. 3, Medvidovic Tr. at 244:25-245:20; 249:23-
`
`253:3. Dr. Medvidovic’s opinions are also based on his independent review of numerous documents
`
`concerning the SAV engine, and Dr. Cole and Dr. Mitzenmacher’s extensive analysis of the SAV’s
`
`engine architecture and functionality. Ex. 2, Medvidovic Rpt., ¶ 141; Ex. 3, Medvidovic Tr. at 33:22-
`
`36:14, 37:25-40:7, 44:2-22, 52:15-53:22, 247:20-248:11; 261:15-262:19. Thus, his opinions have
`
`reliable foundation, and can be reasonably relied upon.
`
`
`
`Dr. Medvidovic also provided a reliable opinion that there are twelve capabilities of
`
`SophosLabs that are of comparably equal technical value. Ex. 2, Medvidovic Rpt., at ¶¶ 123-24, 143-
`
`45; see id., generally, ¶¶ 52-124; Ex. 5 at 1197SOPHOS_01251785. He has two decades of experience
`
`in software systems architectures and studying how software engineers “identify their systems,
`
`different aspects of those systems, how they model them, how they visually represent them, how they
`
`choose the levels of abstraction for describing those systems, how they choose what matters and what
`
`doesn’t matter, how they distinguish between things that are given equal importance versus things that
`
`are not equally important….” Ex. 2, Medvidovic Rpt., App. A; Ex. 3, Medvidovic Tr. at 257:20-258:2.
`
`With his significant experience in the field of diagramming complex technology, he reasonably
`
`concluded that each of the capabilities listed were of equal technical value after reviewing Sophos’
`
`diagram of the SophosLabs components. Ex. 2, Medvidovic Rpt., at ¶¶ 52, 124, 143-45; Ex. 3,
`
`Medvidovic Tr. at 256:2-258:7. Thus, Dr. Layne-Farrar had a reliable basis to apply an equal value to
`
`each of the SophosLabs capabilities. Her analysis is sound as it is based on Sophos’ representations of
`
`capabilities in the SophosLabs product, opinions of technical experts, Sophos’ documents, and relevant
`
`deposition testimony, as discussed above. In fact, her apportionment using an equal weighting of
`
`capabilities results in a more conservative damages estimate, as she gives less weight to Live
`
`Protection, a point that Sophos acknowledges in its Motion. Mot. at 4; Cunningham Decl., Ex. 1, ALF
`
`4
`FINJAN’S OPP. TO SOPHOS’ DAUBERT AND MOT. IN LIMINE Case No.: 14-cv-01197-WHO
`
`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 3:14-cv-01197-WHO Document 227 Filed 08/01/16 Page 12 of 33Case 1:18-cv-01519-MN Document 239-2 Filed 11/20/20 Page 13 of 34 PageID #: 8734
`
`
`
`Rpt., ¶ 213. Given the substantial and reasonable bases supporting Dr. Layne-Farrar’s opinion for
`
`weighting of components, Sophos’ dispute with her opinion can be appropriately addressed during
`
`cross-examination. MediaTek Inc. v. Freescale Semiconductor, Inc., No. 11-cv-05341 YGR, 2014 WL
`
`2854890, at *2-4 (N.D. Cal. June 20, 2014)(denying motion to exclude patentee's damages expert
`
`because whether the expert should have further apportioned the value of the patented feature compared
`
`to the entire smallest saleable patent-practicing unit (“SSPPU”) went to the weight of the testimony,
`
`not its admissibility).
`
`Furthermore, Sophos’ cases do not show that district courts “routinely” exclude apportionment
`
`methodologies. Mot. at 5. In Good Tech. and Stragent, the damages experts solely relied on their own
`
`assumptions and did not rely on any technical experts to determine what features of the accused
`
`products were implicated by the asserted patents. Good Tech. Corp. v. Mobileiron, Inc., No. 5:12-cv-
`
`5826, 2015 WL 4080431, at *7 (N.D. Cal. July 5, 2015); Stragent, LLC v. Intel Corp., No. 6:11-cv-
`
`421, 2014 WL 1389304, at *4 (E.D. Tex. March 6, 2014). In Nortek, the damages expert relied on the
`
`entire market value rule, did no apportionment of the SSPPU, and reviewed marketing documents to
`
`determine what patented features drove customer demand. Nortek Air Solutions, LLC v. Energy Lab
`
`Corp., No. 14-cv-02919-BLF, 2016 WL 3856250, at *5 (N.D. Cal. July 15, 2016). Here, Dr. Layne-
`
`Farrar employed a vastly different approach. She apportioned each Product, (i.e. the SSPPU) to the
`
`patented features and looked to marketing documents only to understand which components were
`
`included as part of the entire product, giving each listed component an equal weight based on all the
`
`information identified above. Notably, in Finjan, Inc. v. Blue Coat Sys., Inc., No. 13-cv-3999-BLF
`
`(N.D. Cal.) (“Finjan I”), while the Court initially questioned whether Dr. Layne-Farrar had sufficient
`
`basis for her testimony regarding the weighting of features of Blue Coat’s accused products, she found
`
`Dr. Layne-Farrar’s testimony had adequate foundation at trial based on similar categories of evidence.
`
`Ex. 6, Finjan I Trial Tr. at 1116:3-1118:12; see also Ex. 7 at 9-10. Thus, Dr. Layne-Farrar has reliable
`
`foundation for her opinions regarding equal weighting of components.
`2.
`Sophos’ claim that Dr. Layne-Farrar employed an “inflated” royalty base because there is some
`
`Dr. Layne-Farrar’s Apportionment Is Tied To The Accused Functionality.
`
`overlap of accused features among Finjan’s Asserted Patents highlights Sophos’ fundamental
`
`5
`FINJAN’S OPP. TO SOPHOS’ DAUBERT AND MOT. IN LIMINE Case No.: 14-cv-01197-WHO
`
`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 3:14-cv-01197-WHO Document 227 Filed 08/01/16 Page 13 of 33Case 1:18-cv-01519-MN Document 239-2 Filed 11/20/20 Page 14 of 34 PageID #: 8735
`
`
`
`misunderstanding of what constitutes a proper damages methodology. Applying the principles
`
`required for a sound damages analysis, Dr. Layne-Farrar apportioned the SSPPU’s revenues for each
`
`Product to the footprint of each patent’s invention to ensure that her royalty base is tethered to the
`
`specific infringing technology of a specific patent and captured the patented functionality on a per
`patent basis. See Uniloc USA, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., 632 F.3d 1292, 1317 (Fed. Cir. 2011)(citing
`ResQNet.com, Inc. v. Lansa, Inc., 594 F.3d 860, 869 (Fed. Cir. 2010)); see also Mirror Worlds, LLC v.
`
`Apple, Inc., 784 F. Supp. 2d 703, 725-26 (E.D. Tex. 2011) (vacating damages award where expert
`
`failed to do a per-patent damages anal