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
`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-01197-WHO
`
`HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL –
`ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY
`
`PLAINTIFF FINJAN, INC.’S FIRST
`SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO
`DEFENDANT SOPHOS INC.’S FIRST
`SET OF INTERROGATORIES (NOS. 1, 2,
`3, 4, 5, 7, AND 8)
`
`
`
`FINJAN, INC., a Delaware Corporation,
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`SOPHOS INC., a Massachusetts Corporation,
`
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`__________________________________________________________________________________
`FINJAN’S FIRST SUPP. RESPONSES TO SOPHOS’S
`Case No.: 14-cv-01197-WHO
`FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES (Nos. 1-5, 7and 8)
`
`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
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`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”) hereby supplements its
`
`responses to Defendant Sophos Inc.’s (“Sophos” or “Defendant”) First Set of Interrogatories
`
`(“Interrogatories”). Finjan makes these supplemental 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 further
`
`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.
`
`OBJECTIONS
`
`1.
`
`Finjan incorporates by reference the General Objections and Objections to Definitions
`
`and Instructions set forth in its Objections and Responses to Sophos’ First Set of Interrogatories,
`
`served on August 11, 2014.
`
`2.
`
`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 (e.g., pursuant to the Court’s Minute Entry at Dkt. No. 36) or the Northern District of
`
`California Patent Local Rules, or by stipulation between the parties.
`
`3.
`
`Finjan objects to each and every Interrogatory, Definition, and Instruction to the extent
`
`that they impose obligations inconsistent with the ESI order or Protective Order entered on July 3,
`
`2014 at Dkt. Nos. 41 and 42, respectively; the Case Management Order at Dkt. No. 64; or the agreed
`
`upon portions of the Joint Case Management Statement filed on June 17, 2014 at Dkt. No. 35.
`
`
`
`1
`__________________________________________________________________________________
`FINJAN’S FIRST SUPP. RESPONSES TO SOPHOS’S
`Case No.: 14-cv-01197-WHO
`FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES (Nos. 1-5, 7 and 8)
`
`

`
`
`
`INTERROGATORY RESPONSES
`
`1
`
`2
`
`INTERROGATORY NO. 1:
`
`3
`
`
`
`Separately for each asserted claim of each Patent-in-Suit, state the date on which the claimed
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`invention was conceived and the date on which the claimed invention was reduced to practice, describe
`
`in detail all facts and circumstances Relating To the conception and reduction to practice of each such
`
`claimed invention, and identify each Person with knowledge of such conception or reduction to
`
`practice, including the nature of each Person’s participation, involvement, and/or contribution to such
`
`conception and/or reduction to practice.
`
`10
`
`FIRST SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 1:
`
`11
`
`
`
`Finjan objects to this Interrogatory as vague, indefinite, overly broad, unduly burdensome, and
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`ambiguous, including the term “Relating To” which is not defined. Finjan objects to this Interrogatory
`
`as unduly burdensome and overbroad to the extent it seeks information not relevant to any claim or
`
`defense of any party and/or not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
`
`Finjan objects to this Interrogatory to the extent it is unreasonably cumulative, as it seeks disclosure of
`
`documents and information subject to the Northern District of California Patent Local Rules and the
`
`schedule in this action. Finjan objects to this Interrogatory to the extent it is compound because it is
`
`comprised of multiple discrete subparts. Finjan objects to this Interrogatory to the extent it calls for a
`
`legal conclusion. Finjan objects to this Interrogatory to the extent it seeks information protected by the
`
`attorney-client privilege, the work product doctrine, or any other applicable law, privilege, doctrine, or
`
`immunity.
`
`
`
`Subject to and without waiving the foregoing general and specific objections, Finjan responds
`
`as follows:
`
`2
`__________________________________________________________________________________
`FINJAN’S FIRST SUPP. RESPONSES TO SOPHOS’S
`Case No.: 14-cv-01197-WHO
`FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES (Nos. 1-5, 7 and 8)
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`The date of conception for the asserted claims of U.S. Patent No. 6,154,844 (“the ‘844 Patent”)
`
`is November 8, 1996. The date of reduction to practice of the asserted claims of the ‘844 Patent is
`
`November 8, 1996. Shlomo Touboul and Nachson Gal were involved with, and may have knowledge
`
`related to the conception and reduction to practice of the ‘844 Patent.
`
`
`
`The date of conception for the asserted claims of U.S. Patent No. 6,804,780 (“the ‘780 Patent”)
`
`is November 8, 1996. The date of reduction to practice of the asserted claims of the ‘780 Patent is
`
`November 8, 1996. Shlomo Touboul was involved with, and may have knowledge related to the
`
`conception and reduction to practice of the ’780 Patent.
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`
`
`The date of conception for the asserted claims of U.S. Patent No. 7,613,918 (“the ‘918 Patent”)
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`is February 16, 2006. The date of reduction to practice of the asserted claims of the ‘918 Patent is
`
`February 16, 2006. Yuval Ben-Itzhak was involved with, and may have knowledge related to the
`
`conception and reduction to practice of the ’918 Patent.
`
`
`
`The date of conception for the asserted claims of U.S. Patent No. 7,613,926 (“the ‘926 Patent”)
`
`is November 8, 1996. The date of reduction to practice of the asserted claims of the ‘926 Patent is
`
`November 6, 1997. Yigal Edery, Nimrod Vered, David Kroll, and Shlomo Touboul were involved
`
`with, and may have knowledge related to the conception and reduction to practice of the ’926 Patent.
`
`The inventors of the ‘926 Patent were reasonably diligent in reducing the inventions of the asserted
`
`claims to practice between the dates of conception and reduction to practice.
`
`
`
`The date of conception for the asserted claims of U.S. Patent No. 7,757,289 (“the ‘289 Patent”)
`
`is December 12, 2005. The date of reduction to practice of the asserted claims of the ‘926 Patent is
`
`December 12, 2005. David Gruzman and Yuval Ben-Itzhak were involved with, and may have
`
`knowledge related to the conception and reduction to practice of the ’926 Patent.
`
`3
`__________________________________________________________________________________
`FINJAN’S FIRST SUPP. RESPONSES TO SOPHOS’S
`Case No.: 14-cv-01197-WHO
`FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES (Nos. 1-5, 7 and 8)
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`The date of conception for the asserted claims of U.S. Patent No. 8,141,154 (“the ‘154 Patent”)
`
`is December 12, 2005. The date of reduction to practice of the asserted claims of the ‘154 Patent is
`
`December 12, 2005. David Gruzman and Yuval Ben-Itzhak were involved with, and may have
`
`knowledge related to the conception and reduction to practice of the ’154 Patent.
`
`
`
`The date of conception for the asserted claims of U.S. Patent No. 8,556,580 (“the ‘580 Patent”)
`
`is May 2007. The date of reduction to practice of the asserted claims of the ‘580 Patent is July 23,
`
`2008. Yuval Ben-Itzhak, Shay Lang, and Dmitry Rubinstein were involved with, and may have
`
`knowledge related to the conception and reduction to practice of the ’580 Patent. The inventors of the
`
`‘580 Patent were reasonably diligent in reducing the inventions of the asserted claims to practice
`
`between the dates of conception and reduction to practice.
`
`
`
`The date of conception for the asserted claims of U.S. Patent No. 8,667,494 (“the ‘494 Patent”)
`
`is November 8, 1996. The date of reduction to practice of the asserted claims of the ‘494 Patent is
`
`November 8, 1996. Yigal Edery, Nimrod Vered, David Kroll, and Shlomo Touboul were involved
`
`with, and may have knowledge related to the conception and reduction to practice of the ’494 Patent.
`
`
`
`Pursuant to 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-SOP 000018-227,
`
`FINJAN-SOP 000246-402, FINJAN-SOP 000418-692, FINJAN-SOP 000718-1000, FINJAN-SOP
`
`001019-1278, FINJAN-SOP 001294-1521, FINJAN-SOP 001535-1775, FINJAN-SOP 001803-2745,
`
`FINJAN-SOP 098399-636, FINJAN-SOP 101512-694, FINJAN-SOP 007414-72, FINJAN-SOP
`
`127152-481, FINJAN-SOP 102631-840, FINJAN-SOP 103915-33, FINJAN-SOP 129017-484.
`
`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
`
`
`
`Finjan reserves the right to supplement this response pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(e).
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`4
`__________________________________________________________________________________
`FINJAN’S FIRST SUPP. RESPONSES TO SOPHOS’S
`Case No.: 14-cv-01197-WHO
`FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES (Nos. 1-5, 7 and 8)
`
`

`
`INTERROGATORY NO. 2:
`
`
`
`Separately for each asserted claim of each Patent-in-Suit, describe in detail all facts and
`
`circumstances Relating To any alleged diligence between the asserted conception and reduction to
`
`practice dates, and identify each Person with knowledge of such diligence, including the nature of each
`
`Person’s participation, involvement, and/or contribution to such conception and/or reduction to
`
`practice.
`
`FIRST SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 2:
`
`
`
` Finjan objects to this Interrogatory as vague, indefinite, overly broad, unduly burdensome, and
`
`ambiguous, including the term “Relating To” which is not defined. Finjan objects to this Interrogatory
`
`as unduly burdensome and overbroad to the extent it seeks information not relevant to any claim or
`
`defense of any party and/or not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
`
`Finjan objects to this Interrogatory to the extent it is unreasonably cumulative, as it seeks disclosure of
`
`documents and information subject to the Northern District of California Patent Local Rules and the
`
`schedule in this action. Finjan objects to this Interrogatory to the extent it is compound because it is
`
`comprised of multiple discrete subparts. Finjan objects to this Interrogatory to the extent it calls for a
`
`legal conclusion. Finjan objects to this Interrogatory to the extent it seeks information protected by the
`
`attorney-client privilege, the work product doctrine, or any other applicable law, privilege, doctrine, or
`
`immunity.
`
`
`
`Subject to and without waiving the foregoing general and specific objections, Finjan responds
`
`as follows:
`
`
`
`The date of conception for the asserted claims of U.S. Patent No. 7,613,926 (“the ‘926 Patent”)
`
`is November 8, 1996. The date of reduction to practice of the asserted claims of the ‘926 Patent is
`
`November 6, 1997. Yigal Edery, Nimrod Vered, David Kroll, and Shlomo Touboul were involved
`
`5
`__________________________________________________________________________________
`FINJAN’S FIRST SUPP. RESPONSES TO SOPHOS’S
`Case No.: 14-cv-01197-WHO
`FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES (Nos. 1-5, 7 and 8)
`
`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
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`with, and may have knowledge related to the conception, diligence, and reduction to practice of the
`
`’926 Patent. Mr. Edery, Mr. Vered, Mr. Kroll, and Mr. Touboul were reasonably diligent in reducing
`
`the inventions of the asserted claims to practice between the date of conception and reduction to
`
`practice. The prosecuting attorney was reasonably diligent from the time of conception in working to
`
`prepare U.S. Application No. 08/964,388, which was filed on November 6, 1997.
`
`
`
`The date of conception for the asserted claims of U.S. Patent No. 8,556,580 (“the ‘580 Patent”)
`
`is May 2007. The date of reduction to practice of the asserted claims of the ‘580 Patent is July 23,
`
`2008. Yuval Ben-Itzhak, Shay Lang, and Dmitry Rubinstein were involved with, and may have
`
`knowledge related to the conception, diligence, and reduction to practice of the ’580 Patent. Mr. Ben-
`
`Itzhak, Mr. Lang, and Mr. Rubinstein were reasonably diligent in reducing the invention of the
`
`asserted claims to practice between the date of conception and reduction to practice. The prosecuting
`
`attorney was reasonably diligent from the time of conception in working to prepare U.S. Application
`
`No. 12/178,558, which was filed on July 23, 2008.
`
`
`
`Pursuant to 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-SOP 000018-227,
`
`FINJAN-SOP 000246-402, FINJAN-SOP 000418-692, FINJAN-SOP 000718-1000, FINJAN-SOP
`
`001019-1278, FINJAN-SOP 001294-1521, FINJAN-SOP 001535-1775, FINJAN-SOP 001803-2745,
`
`FINJAN-SOP 098399-636, FINJAN-SOP 101512-694, FINJAN-SOP 007414-72, FINJAN-SOP
`
`127152-481, FINJAN-SOP 102631-840, FINJAN-SOP 103915-33, FINJAN-SOP 129017-484.
`
`
`
`Finjan reserves the right to supplement this response pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(e).
`
`6
`__________________________________________________________________________________
`FINJAN’S FIRST SUPP. RESPONSES TO SOPHOS’S
`Case No.: 14-cv-01197-WHO
`FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES (Nos. 1-5, 7 and 8)
`
`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
`
`
`
`

`
`INTERROGATORY NO. 3:
`
`
`
`
`
`If You contend that the Patents-in-Suit are not invalid, provide all facts supporting Finjan’s
`
`contention(s), including, but not limited to, Identifying each claim element You contend is absent from
`
`any Prior Art references asserted by Sophos and the reason You contend such elements are absent;
`
`Identifying all Persons with knowledge of Your response; Identifying all Documents containing facts
`
`supporting Your response; and Finjan’s proposed claim construction for each claim element Finjan
`
`asserts is not present in the references, including, without limitation, an Identification of each portion
`
`of the claims, the specification, and the prosecution history that supports such construction, and any
`
`extrinsic evidence that supports such construction, such as expert testimony, inventor statements or
`
`testimony, dictionary definitions and publications.
`
`FIRST SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 3:
`
`
`
`Finjan objects to this Interrogatory to the extent it improperly transfers the burden of proof on
`
`Finjan to present evidence to oppose the invalidity of the Patents-in-Suit which are legally presumed
`
`valid. Finjan objects to this Interrogatory to the extent it is premature, as discovery has just
`
`commenced and it seeks disclosure of documents, information, and expert testimony subject to the
`
`Northern District of California Patent Local Rules and the schedule in this action. Finjan objects to
`
`this Interrogatory as Sophos has not served its invalidity contentions. Finjan objects to this
`
`Interrogatory to the extent it is compound because it is comprised of multiple discrete subparts. Finjan
`
`objects to this Interrogatory to the extent it calls for legal conclusions. Finjan objects to this
`
`Interrogatory to the extent it seeks information protected by the attorney-client privilege, the work
`
`product doctrine, or any other applicable law, privilege, doctrine, or immunity. Finjan objects to this
`
`Interrogatory as vague, ambiguous, unduly burdensome and overbroad.
`
`7
`__________________________________________________________________________________
`FINJAN’S FIRST SUPP. RESPONSES TO SOPHOS’S
`Case No.: 14-cv-01197-WHO
`FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES (Nos. 1-5, 7 and 8)
`
`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
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`Subject to and without waiving the foregoing general and specific objections, Finjan responds
`
`as follows:
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`
`
`Finjan’s Patents-in-Suit are legally presumed valid. 35 U.S.C. § 282. At the very least, the
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`asserted claims of the Patents-in-Suit are novel and non-obvious due to the industry praise, long-felt
`
`need, commercial licensing, copying by competitors, and commercial success of the technology
`
`covered by these patents. Finjan incorporates by reference its response to Interrogatory 4 for support
`
`of the novelty and non-obviousness of the Patents-in-Suit.
`
`Pursuant to 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-SOP 000018-227,
`
`FINJAN-SOP 000246-402, FINJAN-SOP 000418-692, FINJAN-SOP 000718-1000, FINJAN-SOP
`
`001019-1278, FINJAN-SOP 001294-1521, FINJAN-SOP 001535-1775, FINJAN-SOP 001803-2745,
`
`FINJAN-SOP 098399-636, FINJAN-SOP 101512-694, FINJAN-SOP 007414-72, FINJAN-SOP
`
`127152-481, FINJAN-SOP 102631-840, FINJAN-SOP 103915-33, FINJAN-SOP 129017-484.
`
`Finjan reserves the right to supplement this response pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(e).
`
`INTERROGATORY NO. 4:
`
`19
`
`
`
`State Finjan’s contentions, and the factual basis for such contentions, as to any “objective
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`evidence” or “secondary considerations” of the non-obviousness of any claim of any of the Patents-in-
`
`Suit in accordance with, for example, Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17 (1966).
`
`FIRST SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 4:
`
`
`
`Finjan objects to this Interrogatory to the extent it is premature, as discovery has just
`
`commenced and it seeks disclosure of documents, information, and expert testimony subject to the
`
`Northern District of California Patent Local Rules and the schedule in this action. Finjan also objects
`
`8
`__________________________________________________________________________________
`FINJAN’S FIRST SUPP. RESPONSES TO SOPHOS’S
`Case No.: 14-cv-01197-WHO
`FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES (Nos. 1-5, 7 and 8)
`
`

`
`
`
`to this Interrogatory as Sophos has not served its invalidity contentions. Finjan objects to this
`
`Interrogatory to the extent it is compound because it is comprised of multiple discrete subparts. Finjan
`
`objects to this Interrogatory to the extent it calls for legal conclusions. Finjan objects to this
`
`Interrogatory to the extent it seeks information protected by the attorney-client privilege, the work
`
`product doctrine, or any other applicable law, privilege, doctrine, or immunity. Finjan also objects to
`
`this Interrogatory to the extent it seeks confidential, business, financial, proprietary or sensitive
`
`information or trade secrets of third parties, which is subject to pre-existing protective order(s) and/or
`
`confidentiality agreements. Finjan objects to this Request to the extent it seeks information within
`
`Sophos’s possession, custody, or control, or to the extent it seeks information in the public domain.
`
`Finjan objects to this Interrogatory as vague, ambiguous, unduly burdensome and overbroad.
`
`
`
`Subject to and without waiving the foregoing general and specific objections, Finjan responds
`
`as follows:
`
`
`
`At the very least, the Patents-in-Suit are novel and non-obvious due to the industry praise, long-
`
`felt need, licensing, copying by competitors, and commercial success of the technology covered by
`
`these patents. For example:
`
`
`
`Industry Praise:
`
`Finjan’s Vital Security Appliance Series has been praised by the International Data
`
`Corporation, who 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
`
`9
`__________________________________________________________________________________
`FINJAN’S FIRST SUPP. RESPONSES TO SOPHOS’S
`Case No.: 14-cv-01197-WHO
`FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES (Nos. 1-5, 7 and 8)
`
`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
`
`
`
`

`
`HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY
`
`solutions available.” Finjan Vial Security Web Appliance was the winner of eWEEK’s Seventh
`
`Annual Excellence Award in the Network Datastream Protection category. 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 starts. 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 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.”
`
`Licensing:
`
`In July 2005, Microsoft Corporation obtained a license to Finjan’s computer security 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
`
`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
`
`portfolio. In September 2014, Websense, Inc. took a license to Finjan’s patent portfolio.
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`10
`__________________________________________________________________________________
`FINJAN’S FIRST SUPP. RESPONSES TO SOPHOS’S
`Case No.: 14-cv-01197-WHO
`FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES (Nos. 1-5, 7 and 8)
`
`

`
`HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY
`
`Copying by Competitors:
`
`On June 6, 2005 Finjan filed a complaint of infringement against Secure Computing
`
`Corporation (“Secure Computing”) asserting that Secure Computing infringed the ‘780 and ‘822
`
`Patents. That case proceeded to trial, where the jury found that all of the asserted Finjan patents were
`
`valid in light of the asserted prior art. Secure Computing was also found to infringe the ‘780 and ‘822
`
`Patents, and awarded Finjan damages on Secure Computing revenue of $65.75 million. On August 18,
`
`2009, the District Court in the Secure Computing case enhanced Finjan’s jury verdict. The court based
`
`its reasoning for enhancing damages partly on a finding that “Finjan’s patents were copied
`
`deliberately” and “Finjan patents represented a technology that [Secure] wished to compete with and
`
`emulate in the market.” Secure Computing even named this copying in their code and called it “Finjan
`
`Buster” or “Finjan Killer.” Finjan was also awarded a permanent injunction against Secure Computing
`
`for infringing Finjan’s ‘780 and ‘822 Patents. In addition, the patented technology of the Patents-in-
`
`Suit has been copied by Sophos and other companies.
`
`Commercial Success:
`
`Based on information presently available to Finjan, Finjan’s Vital Security 7.0 product in or
`
`about 2004 incorporated technology of claim 1, claim 9, claim 17, and claim 18 of the ‘780 Patent, and
`
`claim 1, claim 15, claim 22, and claim 43 of the ‘844 Patent. IDC reported that Finjan had revenues of
`
`$6.5 million in 2001, $6.1 million in 2002, $9.3 million in 2003, $12.9 million in 2004, $16.4 million
`
`in 2005, and $19.7 million in 2006.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`11
`__________________________________________________________________________________
`FINJAN’S FIRST SUPP. RESPONSES TO SOPHOS’S
`Case No.: 14-cv-01197-WHO
`FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES (Nos. 1-5, 7 and 8)
`
`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 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: Jury Verdict and Judgment in
`
`Finjan Software, Ltd. v. Secure Computing Corp., No. 06-cv-00369 (D. Del.), Dkt. No. 226, 242;
`
`Memorandum Order dated August 18, 2009 in Finjan Software, Ltd. v. Secure Computing Corp., Dkt.
`
`No. 305; Finjan’s Disclosure of Infringement Contentions to Sophos Pursuant to Patent L.R. 3-1 and 3-
`
`2; FINJAN-SOP 010935-11016, FINJAN-SOP 020684-712, FINJAN-SOP 007474-92, FINJAN-SOP
`
`024011-36, FINJAN-SOP 024047, FINJAN-SOP 098263-98, FINJAN-SOP 098288-329, FINJAN-
`
`SOP 098330-32, FINJAN-SOP 098333-36, FINJAN-SOP 098337, FINJAN-SOP 098338, FINJAN-
`
`SOP 098339-40, FINJAN-SOP 098341-42, FINJAN-SOP 098343-44, FINJAN-SOP 098345,
`
`FINJAN-SOP 098397-98, FINJAN-SOP 005391-5718, FINJAN-SOP 005719-5844, FINJAN-SOP
`
`005845-6110, FINJAN-SOP 006111-6440, FINJAN-SOP 006441-6521, FINJAN-SOP 006522-6602,
`
`FINJAN-SOP 006603-6765, FINJAN-SOP 006766-6938, FINJAN-SOP 006939-7135, FINJAN-SOP
`
`007136-7254, FINJAN-SOP 007255-7343, FINJAN-SOP 130503-50, FINJAN-SOP 000018-227,
`
`FINJAN-SOP 000246-402, FINJAN-SOP 000418-692, FINJAN-SOP 000718-1000, FINJAN-SOP
`
`001019-1278, FINJAN-SOP 001294-1521, FINJAN-SOP 001535-1775, FINJAN-SOP 001803-2745,
`
`FINJAN-SOP 009296-9325, FINJAN-SOP 035955-75, FINJAN-SOP 021638-62, FINJAN-SOP
`
`021713-35, FINJAN-SOP 022146-68, FINJAN-SOP 036018-36, FINJAN-SOP 035933-54, FINJAN-
`
`SOP 029779-803, FINJAN-SOP 029830-54, FINJAN-SOP 029682-703, FINJAN-SOP 132593-612.
`
`
`
`Finjan reserves the right to supplement this response pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(e).
`
`12
`__________________________________________________________________________________
`FINJAN’S FIRST SUPP. RESPONSES TO SOPHOS’S
`Case No.: 14-cv-01197-WHO
`FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES (Nos. 1-5, 7 and 8)
`
`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
`
`
`
`

`
`INTERROGATORY NO. 5:
`
`
`
`
`
`Identify by product name and internal Finjan name or designation Each product offered for sale
`
`or sold by or under license from Finjan which Finjan contends practices any alleged invention
`
`described, disclosed or claimed in any of the Patents-in-Suit.
`
`FIRST SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 5:
`
`
`
`Finjan objects to this Interrogatory as vague, ambiguous, overbroad, and unduly burdensome,
`
`including the term “Each.” Finjan objects to this Interrogatory to the extent it is compound because it
`
`is comprised of multiple discrete subparts. Finjan objects to this Interrogatory to the extent it calls for
`
`legal conclusions. Finjan objects to this Interrogatory to the extent it seeks information protected by
`
`the attorney-client privilege, the work product doctrine, or any other applicable law, privilege,
`
`doctrine, or immunity. Finjan also objects to this Interrogatory to the extent it seeks confidential,
`
`business, financial, proprietary or sensitive information or trade secrets of third parties, which is
`
`subject to pre-existing protective order(s) and/or confidentiality agreements. Finjan objects to this
`
`Request to the extent it seeks information within Sophos’s possession, custody, or control, or to the
`
`extent it seeks information in the public domain. Finjan objects to this Interrogatory to the extent it is
`
`unreasonably cumulative, as it seeks disclosure of information subject to the Northern District of
`
`California Patent Local Rules and the schedule in this action.
`
`
`
`Subject to and without waiving the foregoing general and specific objections, Finjan responds
`
`as follows:
`
`
`
`The Vital Security product version 7.0 and later versions incorporates or reflects certain claims
`
`of at least the ‘780 Patent and ‘844 Patent.
`
`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,
`
`13
`__________________________________________________________________________________
`FINJAN’S FIRST SUPP. RESPONSES TO SOPHOS’S
`Case No.: 14-cv-01197-WHO
`FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES (Nos. 1-5, 7 and 8)
`
`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
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`including but not limited to the following bates-labeled documents: FINJAN-SOP 011939 - 011954,
`
`FINJAN-SOP 021666 - 021668, FINJAN-SOP 006111 - 006440, FINJAN-SOP-016979-017015,
`
`FINJAN-SOP 005391 - 005718, FINJAN-SOP 005719 - 005844 FINJAN-SOP 005845 – 006110,
`
`FINJAN-SOP 006441-006521, FINJAN-SOP 006522-006602, FINJAN-SOP 006603-006765,
`
`FINJAN-SOP 006766-006938, FINJAN-SOP 006939-007135, FINJAN-SOP 007136-007254,
`
`FINJAN-SOP 007255-007374.
`
`
`
`Finjan reserves the right to supplement this response pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(e).
`
`INTERROGATORY NO. 7:
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`
`
`Describe all losses and/or damages, including without limitation the amount of any lost profits
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`or reasonable royalties Finjan contends it incurred as a proximate result of Sophos’ alleged
`
`Infringement of the Patents-in-Suit, including without limitation the precise monetary losses contended
`
`by Finjan, the facts or circumstances Finjan is relying on to support such contention, and the process,
`
`calculations and formulas used to determine the amount of the alleged damages.
`
`FIRST SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 7:
`
`
`
`Finjan objects to this Interrogatory as vague, ambiguous, overbroad, and unduly burdensome,
`
`including the term “precise.” Finj