HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY
`
`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
`HANNAH LEE (State Bar No. 253197)
`hlee@kramerlevin.com
`MICHAEL H. LEE (State Bar No. 264592)
`mhlee@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
`
`Case No.: 14-cv-02998-HSG
`
`HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL –
`ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY
`
`PLAINTIFF FINJAN, INC.’S
`OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO
`DEFENDANT SYMANTEC CORP.’S
`SECOND SET OF INTERROGATORIES
`(NOS. 12-16)
`
`
`
`FINJAN, INC., a Delaware Corporation,
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`SYMANTEC CORP., a Delaware Corporation,
`
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`__________________________________________________________________________________
`FINJAN, INC.’S OBJECTIONS & RESPONSES TO SYMANTEC’S Case No.: 14-cv-02998-HSG
`SECOND SET OF INTERROGATORIES (NOS. 12-16)
`
`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
`
`
`
`Patent Owner Finjan, Inc. - FIN-2003, p. 1
`
`

`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26 and 33, Plaintiff Finjan, Inc. (“Finjan”) responds to Defendant
`
`Symantec Corporation (“Symantec” or “Defendant”)’s Second Set of Interrogatories
`
`(“Interrogatories”). Finjan makes these objections and responses herein (collectively “Responses”)
`
`based solely on its current knowledge, understanding, and belief as to the facts and information
`
`reasonably available to it as of the date of the Responses.
`
`Additional discovery and investigation may lead to additions to, changes in, or modifications of
`
`these Responses. The Responses, therefore, are given without prejudice to Finjan’s right to
`
`supplement these Responses pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(e), or to provide subsequently discovered
`
`information and to introduce such subsequently discovered information at the time of any trial or
`
`proceeding in this action.
`
`GENERAL OBJECTIONS
`
`1.
`
`Finjan hereby incorporates by reference each and every general objection set forth
`
`below into each and every specific Response. From time to time, a specific Response may repeat a
`
`general objection for emphasis or for some other reason. The failure to include a general objection in a
`
`specific Response shall not be interpreted as a waiver of that general objection to that Response.
`
`2.
`
`Finjan objects to each and every Interrogatory, Definition, and Instruction to the extent
`
`that they are vague, ambiguous, unintelligible, or compound.
`
`3.
`
`Finjan objects to each and every Interrogatory, Definition, and Instruction to the extent
`
`that they are overly broad and seek information not relevant to the claim or defense of any party.
`
`4.
`
`Finjan objects to each and every Interrogatory, Definition, and Instruction to the extent
`
`that they are not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible information.
`
`5.
`
`Finjan objects to each and every Interrogatory, Definition and Instruction to the extent
`
`they seek information that is not relevant to the issues in the litigation
`
`2
`__________________________________________________________________________________
`FINJAN, INC.’S OBJECTIONS & RESPONSES TO SYMANTEC’S Case No.: 14-cv-02998-HSG
`SECOND SET OF INTERROGATORIES (NOS. 12-16)
`
`Patent Owner Finjan, Inc. - FIN-2003, p. 2
`
`

`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`6.
`
`Finjan objects to each and every Interrogatory, Definition and Instruction to the extent
`
`they are not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence because they are not
`
`properly limited in time.
`
`7.
`
`Finjan objects to each and every Interrogatory, Definition, and Instruction to the extent
`
`that they are unduly burdensome and oppressive, to the extent they subject Finjan to unreasonable and
`
`undue effort or expense.
`
`8.
`
`Finjan objects to each and every Interrogatory, Definition, and Instruction to the extent
`
`that they seek information beyond Finjan’s actual knowledge, custody, or control.
`
`9.
`
`Finjan objects to each and every Interrogatory, Definition, and Instruction to the extent
`
`they are unreasonably cumulative or duplicative.
`
`10.
`
`Finjan objects to each and every Interrogatory, Definition, and Instruction to the extent
`
`they seek information that is obtainable from some other source that is more convenient, less
`
`burdensome, or less expensive.
`
`11.
`
`Finjan objects to each and every Interrogatory, Definition, and Instruction to the extent
`
`that they seek information within Defendant’s possession, custody or control.
`
`12.
`
`Finjan objects to each and every Interrogatory, Definition, and Instruction to the extent
`
`they seek information in the public domain, information equally available to Symantec from another
`
`source and/or information that can be obtained more efficiently by Symantec through other means of
`
`discovery. Defendant can ascertain such information from its own records or from other sources at
`
`least as readily as Finjan.
`
`13.
`
`Finjan objects to each and every Interrogatory, Definition, and Instruction to the extent
`
`that they seek confidential, business, financial, proprietary or sensitive information, or trade secrets of
`
`third parties, which may be subject to pre-existing protective order(s) and/or confidentiality
`
`3
`__________________________________________________________________________________
`FINJAN, INC.’S OBJECTIONS & RESPONSES TO SYMANTEC’S Case No.: 14-cv-02998-HSG
`SECOND SET OF INTERROGATORIES (NOS. 12-16)
`
`Patent Owner Finjan, Inc. - FIN-2003, p. 3
`
`

`
`
`
`agreements or in which any third party has an expectation of privacy. Such information shall not be
`
`provided absent an express order to the contrary from a court of competent jurisdiction, or an
`
`authorization from the third party having the interest in the information’s confidentiality.
`
`14.
`
`Finjan objects to each and every Interrogatory, Definition, and Instruction to the extent
`
`they seek information protected by the attorney-client privilege, the work product doctrine, or any
`
`other applicable law, privilege, doctrine or immunity. Finjan will not disclose any information so
`
`protected, and the inadvertent disclosure or identification of any such information is not intended as,
`
`and will not constitute, a waiver of such privilege, doctrine, or immunity.
`
`15.
`
`Finjan objects to each and every Interrogatory, Definition, and Instruction to the extent
`
`they call for a legal conclusion. Finjan’s responses shall not be construed as providing legal
`
`conclusions concerning the meaning or application of any terms used in Defendant’s Interrogatories.
`
`16.
`
`Finjan objects to each and every Interrogatory, Definition, and Instruction to the extent
`
`that they are premature, as they seek documents that are set to be disclosed on scheduled dates directed
`
`by the Court or the Northern District of California Patent Local Rules.
`
`17.
`
`Finjan objects to each and every Interrogatory, Definition, and Instruction to the extent
`
`that they are premature as the Court has not yet construed the claim terms of the Patents-in-Suit.
`
`18.
`
`Finjan objects to each and every Interrogatory, Definition, and Instruction as premature
`
`to the extent they seek information that will be the subject of expert testimony.
`
`19.
`
`Finjan objects to each and every Interrogatory, Definition, and Instruction to the extent
`
`that they impose obligations inconsistent with the agreed upon portions of the Joint Case Management
`
`Statement filed on October 13, 2014 at Dkt. No. 46.
`
`4
`__________________________________________________________________________________
`FINJAN, INC.’S OBJECTIONS & RESPONSES TO SYMANTEC’S Case No.: 14-cv-02998-HSG
`SECOND SET OF INTERROGATORIES (NOS. 12-16)
`
`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
`
`
`
`Patent Owner Finjan, Inc. - FIN-2003, p. 4
`
`

`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`20.
`
`Finjan objects to each and every Interrogatory, Definition, and Instruction to the extent
`
`they assume or mischaracterize any facts. Finjan’s responses shall not be construed as agreeing to any
`
`facts or characterizations contained in Defendant’s Interrogatories.
`
`21.
`
`Finjan objects to each and every Interrogatory, Definition, and Instruction to the extent
`
`that they purport to impose any requirement or discovery obligation greater than or different from
`
`those imposed by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Local Rules of this Court, or orders of the
`
`Court governing these proceedings.
`
`22.
`
`Finjan objects to each and every Interrogatory, Definition, and Instruction to the extent
`
`that they are unduly burdensome and oppressive on the grounds that they purport to require Finjan to
`
`search its facilities and inquire of its employees other than those facilities and employees that would
`
`reasonably be expected to have responsive information. Finjan’s Responses and productions are based
`
`upon: (1) a search of facilities and files that could reasonably be expected to contain responsive
`
`information and (2) inquiries of Finjan’s employees and/or representatives who could reasonably be
`
`expected to possess responsive information.
`
`23.
`
`Finjan objects to each and every Definition, Instruction, and Interrogatory to the extent
`
`it is compound and/or contains multiple subparts. Finjan will count each subpart as a separate
`
`interrogatory pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 33(a). Finjan will not respond to
`
`interrogatories in excess of the allotted number of interrogatories established in the Court’s scheduling
`
`order.
`
`24.
`
`Finjan’s written responses and production of documents are not intended to waive, and
`
`do not constitute waiver of, any objection that Finjan may have to the admissibility, authenticity,
`
`competency, relevance, or materiality of any documents produced or referred to in response to an
`
`Interrogatory. For any and all written responses and production of documents, Finjan reserves all
`
`5
`__________________________________________________________________________________
`FINJAN, INC.’S OBJECTIONS & RESPONSES TO SYMANTEC’S Case No.: 14-cv-02998-HSG
`SECOND SET OF INTERROGATORIES (NOS. 12-16)
`
`Patent Owner Finjan, Inc. - FIN-2003, p. 5
`
`

`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`objections or other questions regarding the admissibility, authenticity, competency, relevance, or
`
`materiality of any documents produced or referred to in response to an Interrogatory, as evidence in
`
`this Litigation or any other proceeding, action, or trial.
`
`25.
`
`Finjan’s written responses and production of documents are based upon information and
`
`writings available to and located by its attorneys as of service of these Responses. Finjan has not
`
`completed its investigation of the facts relating to this case, has not completed discovery in this action,
`
`and has not completed preparation for trial. All the information supplied and documents and things
`
`produced are based only on such information and documents that are reasonably available and
`
`specifically known to Finjan and its attorneys as of the date of service of these Responses. Therefore,
`
`Finjan’s written responses and production of documents are without prejudice to its right to
`
`supplement and/or amend its written responses and production of documents and to present at trial or
`
`other proceeding evidence discovered hereafter.
`
`OBJECTIONS TO DEFINITIONS AND INSTRUCTIONS
`
`1.
`
`In addition to the objections set forth below, Finjan hereby specifically incorporates
`
`each and every general objection set forth above in its objections to Symantec's “Definitions.”
`
`2.
`
`Finjan incorporates by reference its objections to the Definitions and Instructions set
`
`forth in Finjan’s Objections and Responses to Symantec’s First Set of Requests for Production (Nos. 1-
`
`73) and Finjan’s Objections and Responses to Symantec’s First Set of Interrogatories (Nos. 1-11).
`
`INTERROGATORY RESPONSES
`
`Subject to and without waiving its general objections and objections to Definitions set forth
`
`above, each of which is specifically incorporated into the specific Responses contained below, Finjan
`
`hereby responds to Symantec’s Interrogatories as follows:
`
`
`
`6
`__________________________________________________________________________________
`FINJAN, INC.’S OBJECTIONS & RESPONSES TO SYMANTEC’S Case No.: 14-cv-02998-HSG
`SECOND SET OF INTERROGATORIES (NOS. 12-16)
`
`Patent Owner Finjan, Inc. - FIN-2003, p. 6
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`7
`__________________________________________________________________________________
`FINJAN, INC.’S OBJECTIONS & RESPONSES TO SYMANTEC’S Case No.: 14-cv-02998-HSG
`SECOND SET OF INTERROGATORIES (NOS. 12-16)
`
`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
`
`
`
`Patent Owner Finjan, Inc. - FIN-2003, p. 7
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`8
`__________________________________________________________________________________
`FINJAN, INC.’S OBJECTIONS & RESPONSES TO SYMANTEC’S Case No.: 14-cv-02998-HSG
`SECOND SET OF INTERROGATORIES (NOS. 12-16)
`
`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
`
`
`
`Patent Owner Finjan, Inc. - FIN-2003, p. 8
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`.
`
`INTERROGATORY NO. 13:
`
`
`
`Separately for each Asserted Claim, identify all legal and factual bases for your contention that
`
`such claim is not invalid, providing for each element, the basis for any contention that this element is
`
`not found in the prior art and an explanation of why this element would not have been obvious to a
`
`person of ordinary skill in the art (providing your definition of such a person) over the prior art of the
`
`9
`__________________________________________________________________________________
`FINJAN, INC.’S OBJECTIONS & RESPONSES TO SYMANTEC’S Case No.: 14-cv-02998-HSG
`SECOND SET OF INTERROGATORIES (NOS. 12-16)
`
`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
`
`
`
`Patent Owner Finjan, Inc. - FIN-2003, p. 9
`
`

`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`claimed priority date, including, without limitation, commercial success of the claimed invention, long-
`
`felt need for the claimed invention, prior failed attempts to make the claimed invention and copying of
`
`the claimed invention, and all document and things in support of your position that all persons with
`
`knowledge in support of your position. Further, to the extent that you contend that any reference set
`
`forth in Symantec's invalidity contentions does not qualify as prior art or is inadmissible at trial,
`
`identify all bases for your contention.
`
`RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 13:
`
`
`
`Finjan objects to this Interrogatory as compound and composed of multiple subparts. Finjan
`
`objects to this Interrogatory as confusing and unintelligible, particularly the phrase “and all documents
`
`and things in support of your position that all persons with knowledge in support of your position.”
`
`Finjan objects to this Interrogatory to the extent it requires disclosure of expert opinion at times set to
`
`be disclosed pursuant to a scheduling order to be issued by the Court. Finjan also objects tot this
`
`Interrogatory to the extent it is unduly burdensome and requires Finjan to provide information that is
`
`the subject of Defendant’s invalidity contentions. Finjan objects to this Interrogatory to the extent it
`
`seeks information that is subject to attorney-client privilege, attorney work product, the common
`
`interest doctrine, or any other applicable privilege or immunity. Finjan also objects to this
`
`Interrogatory as premature because the Court has not yet issued a claim construction order. Finjan also
`
`objects to this Interrogatory to the extent it seeks confidential business, financial, proprietary, or
`
`sensitive information of third parties which may be subject to a pre-existing protective order(s) and/or
`
`confidentiality agreements. Finjan further objects to this Interrogatory to the extent it seeks
`
`information in Defendant’s possession or control. Finjan also objects to this Interrogatory because it is
`
`Defendant’s burden to prove invalidity. Finjan also objects that it is premature to provide a rebuttal to
`
`Symantec’s invalidity contentions. Symantec has not served adequate invalidity contentions to
`
`10
`__________________________________________________________________________________
`FINJAN, INC.’S OBJECTIONS & RESPONSES TO SYMANTEC’S Case No.: 14-cv-02998-HSG
`SECOND SET OF INTERROGATORIES (NOS. 12-16)
`
`Patent Owner Finjan, Inc. - FIN-2003, p. 10
`
`

`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`properly put Finjan on fair notice regarding its invalidity allegations in this action. Symantec asserted
`
`a laundry list of patents, references and/or products as prior art (for certain patents, over 50 items) and
`
`“incorporated by reference all prior art references” identified in such patents or references. It also
`
`stated in its invalidity contentions that it “intends to rely upon all prior art references disclosed, listed,
`
`and/or asserted” as prior art in ten other Finjan litigations. Symantec has also not sufficiently
`
`identified the source code for the prior art products it has asserted in its invalidity contentions.
`
`
`
`Notwithstanding the above general and specific objections, the Patents-in-Suit are presumed
`
`valid. 35 U.S.C. § 282. Secondary considerations of non-obviousness of the patented inventions
`
`include copying of the inventions by others in the marketplace, long-felt need, commercial success,
`
`licensing, and praise by others. Finjan’s Vital Security Appliance Series has been praised by the
`
`International Data Corporation, which hailed Finjan as the inventor of proactive content behavior
`
`inspection. Finjan was the finalist in two of SC Magazine’s 2007 Awards, Best Security Company and
`
`Best Security Solution for Government – Finjan Vital Security Web Appliance. Finjan was the winner
`
`of the Winner of Excellence in Anti-Malware and Winner of Excellence in Gateways in the Info
`
`Security Products Guide – Product Excellence Awards 2007. SC Magazine rated the Finjan Vital
`
`Security NG-6100 five out of five stars. PC Pro stated that the Finjan Vital Security NG-1100
`
`appliance “is one of the best solutions available.” Finjan Vial Security Web Appliance was the winner
`
`of eWEEK’s Seventh Annual Excellence Award in the Network Datastream Protection category and
`
`named in the top ten Most Interesting Products exhibited at RSA 2009 by eWEEK. CRN.com review
`
`praised Finjan’s Vital Security Web appliance because “Finjan’s Vital Security can make a difference
`
`in organizations concerned about security and compliance.” SC Magazine gave the Finjan Vital
`
`Security NG-8000 five out of five stars. SC Magazine commented that the Finjan Vital Security Web
`
`Appliance Series was “[j]ust about the most comprehensive product of its kind [they have] tested.” An
`
`11
`__________________________________________________________________________________
`FINJAN, INC.’S OBJECTIONS & RESPONSES TO SYMANTEC’S Case No.: 14-cv-02998-HSG
`SECOND SET OF INTERROGATORIES (NOS. 12-16)
`
`Patent Owner Finjan, Inc. - FIN-2003, p. 11
`
`

`
`HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY
`
`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
`
`
`
`article by InformationWeek described the Finjan Vital Security 6100 appliance as taking “signature
`
`based protection to the next level by actually executing the code of the site you’re visiting in a sandbox
`
`in real time.”
`
`In July 2005, Microsoft Corporation obtained a license to Finjan’s patents. Microsoft obtained
`
`a license to Finjan’s technology in order to advance their security innovation just after entering the
`
`computer security market. At the time Microsoft obtained a license to Finjan’s patents Microsoft had
`
`nearly no market share in the computer security space and was heading to compete against large well-
`
`established companies. Microsoft saw the value of licensing Finjan’s technology to help give them a
`
`boost and now Microsoft is one of the more dominant players with Microsoft Security Essentials
`
`product. A Microsoft spokesperson stated that “Finjan has done some interesting product innovation
`
`in the security space.” In November 2009, Finjan licensed its patents to M86 Security. In March
`
`2012, Finjan licensed its patents to Trustwave Holdings, Inc. In July 2012, Finjan licensed its patents
`
`to Webroot Inc. In November 2012, McAfee, Inc./Intel Corporation (“Intel”) took a license to Finjan’s
`
`patent portfolio. In September 2014, Websense, Inc. took a license to Finjan’s patent portfolio.
`
`
`
`Finjan’s Vital Security 7.0 product in or about 2004 and later versions incorporated technology
`
`of claims 1, 7, 11, 15, 16, 41, and 43 of the ‘844 Patent. Finjan had sales of $12.9 million in 2004,
`
`$16.4 million in 2005, and $19.7 million in 2006. These sales were primarily the result of the Finjan
`
`platform, specifically, the Vital Security suite.
`
`
`
`Pursuant to Rule 33(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, further information responsive
`
`to this interrogatory may be derived or ascertained from Finjan’s document production in this matter,
`
`including but not limited to the following bates-labeled documents: Finjan’s Disclosure of Asserted
`
`Claims and Infringement Contentions and Document Production Accompanying Disclosure to
`
`Defendants Pursuant to Patent L.R. 3-1 and 3-2, FINJAN-SYM 003128-455, FINJAN-SYM 003456-
`
`12
`__________________________________________________________________________________
`FINJAN, INC.’S OBJECTIONS & RESPONSES TO SYMANTEC’S Case No.: 14-cv-02998-HSG
`SECOND SET OF INTERROGATORIES (NOS. 12-16)
`
`Patent Owner Finjan, Inc. - FIN-2003, p. 12
`
`

`
`
`
`581, FINJAN-SYM 003582-847, FINJAN-SYM 003848-4177, FINJAN-SYM 004178-258, FINJAN-
`
`SYM 004259-339, FINJAN-SYM 004340-502, FINJAN-SYM 004503-675, FINJAN-SYM 004676-
`
`872, FINJAN-SYM 004873-991, FINJAN-SYM 004992-5111, FINJAN-SYM 036135-53, FINJAN-
`
`SYM 39596-677, FINJAN-SYM 049345-73, FINJAN-SYM 052672-97, FINJAN-SYM 052708,
`
`FINJAN-SYM 058250-51, FINJAN-SYM 058252-53, FINJAN-SYM 058254-56, FINJAN-SYM
`
`058257-58, FINJAN-SYM 0058259-60, FINJAN-SYM 058261, FINJAN-SYM 058276, FINJAN-
`
`SYM 058279-84, FINJAN-SYM 058343-64, FINJAN-SYM 094899-916, FINJAN-SYM 094917-36,
`
`FINJAN-SYM 102273-308, FINJAN-SYM 124128-75.
`
`Additional information will be the subject of expert opinion to be disclosed on the dates to be
`
`set by the Court’s schedule. Finjan reserves its right to supplement this interrogatory pursuant to Fed.
`
`R. Civ. P. 26(e), including subsequent to any amendments to Symantec’s invalidity contentions.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`13
`__________________________________________________________________________________
`FINJAN, INC.’S OBJECTIONS & RESPONSES TO SYMANTEC’S Case No.: 14-cv-02998-HSG
`SECOND SET OF INTERROGATORIES (NOS. 12-16)
`
`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
`
`
`
`Patent Owner Finjan, Inc. - FIN-2003, p. 13
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`14
`__________________________________________________________________________________
`FINJAN, INC.’S OBJECTIONS & RESPONSES TO SYMANTEC’S Case No.: 14-cv-02998-HSG
`SECOND SET OF INTERROGATORIES (NOS. 12-16)
`
`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
`
`
`
`Patent Owner Finjan, Inc. - FIN-2003, p. 14
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`15
`__________________________________________________________________________________
`FINJAN, INC.’S OBJECTIONS & RESPONSES TO SYMANTEC’S Case No.: 14-cv-02998-HSG
`SECOND SET OF INTERROGATORIES (NOS. 12-16)
`
`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
`
`
`
`Patent Owner Finjan, Inc. - FIN-2003, p. 15
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`16
`__________________________________________________________________________________
`FINJAN, INC.’S OBJECTIONS & RESPONSES TO SYMANTEC’S Case No.: 14-cv-02998-HSG
`SECOND SET OF INTERROGATORIES (NOS. 12-16)
`
`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
`
`
`
`Patent Owner Finjan, Inc. - FIN-2003, p. 16
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ James Hannah
`
`
`By:
`Paul Andre (State Bar. No. 196585)
`Lisa Kobialka (State Bar No. 191404)
`James Hannah (State Bar No. 237978)
`Hannah Lee (State Bar No. 253197)
`Michael H. Lee (State Bar No. 264592)
`KRAMER LEVIN NAFTALIS & FRANKEL LLP
`990 Marsh Road
`Menlo Park, CA 94025
`Telephone: (650) 752-1700
`Facsimile: (650) 752-1800
`pandre@kramerlevin.com
`lkobialka@kramerlevin.com
`jhannah@kramerlevin.com
`hlee@kramerlevin.com
`mhlee@kramerlevin.com
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff
`FINJAN, INC.
`
`
`
`
`
`DATED: April 27, 2015
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`17
`__________________________________________________________________________________
`FINJAN, INC.’S OBJECTIONS & RESPONSES TO SYMANTEC’S Case No.: 14-cv-02998-HSG
`SECOND SET OF INTERROGATORIES (NOS. 12-16)
`
`Patent Owner Finjan, Inc. - FIN-2003, p. 17
`
`

`
`
`
`PROOF OF SERVICE
`
`I, Steven D. Dennison, am employed in the Menlo Park, California office of Kramer Levin
`
`Naftalis & Frankel LLP. I am over the age of 18 and not a party to the within action. My business
`
`address is 990 Marsh Road, Menlo Park, California 94025. I am readily familiar with the firm’s
`
`practice of collecting and processing of mail for mailing with the U.S. Postal Service and overnight
`
`delivery services.
`
`On April 27, 2015, I caused the following document(s) to be served:
`
`PLAINTIFF FINJAN, INC.’S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO
`DEFENDANT SYMANTEC CORP.’S SECOND SET OF
`INTERROGATORIES (NOS. 12-16)
`
`by electronic mail, addressed as follows:
`
`Sean Pak
`Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP
`50 California Street, 22nd Floor
`San Francisco, CA 94111-4788
`seanpak@quinnemanuel.com
`
`Alexander Rudis
`Kate E. Cassidy
`Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP
`51 Madison Avenue, 22nd Floor
`New York, NY 10010
`alexanderrudis@quinnemanuel.com
`katecassidy@quinnemanuel.com
`
`David A. Nelson
`Lauren Hilleman
`Amit B. Patel
`Brianne Straka
`Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP
`500 W. Madison Street, Ste. 2450
`Chicago, IL 60661
`davenelson@quinnemanuel.com
`laurenhillemann@quinnemanuel.com
`amitbpatel@quinnemanuel.com
`briannestraka@quinnemanuel.com
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`__________________________________________________________________________________
`FINJAN, INC.’S OBJECTIONS & RESPONSES TO SYMANTEC’S Case No.: 14-cv-02998-HSG
`SECOND SET OF INTERROGATORIES (NOS. 12-16)
`
`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
`
`
`
`Patent Owner Finjan, Inc. - FIN-2003, p. 18
`
`

`
`
`
`I declare under penalty of perjury under the law of the United States that the foregoing is true
`
`and correct. Executed on April 27, 2015, in Menlo Park, California.
`
`
`
`_____________________________
`Steven D. Dennison
`
`2
`__________________________________________________________________________________
`FINJAN, INC.’S OBJECTIONS & RESPONSES TO SYMANTEC’S Case No.: 14-cv-02998-HSG
`SECOND SET OF INTERROGATORIES (NOS. 12-16)
`
`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
`
`
`
`Patent Owner Finjan, Inc. - FIN-2003, p. 19