`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`__________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`___________________
`
`PALO ALTO NETWORKS, INC.,
`BLUE COAT SYSTEMS, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`FINJAN, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________________
`
`Case IPR2015-019741
`Patent 7,647,633
`
`__________________________________________________________
`
`PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE
`
`
`1 Blue Coat Systems, Inc., who filed a Petition in IPR2016-00480, has been joined
`
`as a petitioner in this proceeding.
`
`
`
`

`

`Patent Owner’s Response
`IPR2015-01974 (U.S. Patent No. 7,647,633)
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`PATENT OWNER’S EXHIBIT LIST ....................................................................... i 
`
`I.
` 
`
`II.
` 
`
`Introduction ...................................................................................................... 1 
`
`Facts ................................................................................................................. 4 
`
`A.
`
`  Overview of Proceedings ...................................................................... 4 
`
`B.
`
` 
`
`C.
`
` 
`
`Overview of ‘633 Patent ....................................................................... 5 
`
`Overview of Shin ................................................................................... 7 
`
`D.
`
`  Overview of Poison Java ....................................................................... 9 
`
`E.
`
` 
`
`Overview of Brown ............................................................................. 10 
`
`
`
`  Claims at Issue ............................................................................................... 11 III.
`
`A.
`
` 
`
`B.
`
` 
`
`Claim 14 .............................................................................................. 11 
`
`Claim 19 .............................................................................................. 11 
`
`IV.
`
`  Claim Construction ........................................................................................ 12 
`
`V.
`
` 
`
`VI.
`
`A.
`
` 
`
`“causing mobile protection code to be executed by the mobile
`code executor at a downloadable-information destination such
`that one or more operations of the executable code at the
`destination, if attempted, will be processed by the mobile
`protection code” (All Challenged Claims) .......................................... 12 
`
`Petitioner’s Expert Did Not Provide A Proper Obviousness Analysis ......... 19 
`
`  Petitioner Has Failed to Show that the References were publicly
`Availabile ....................................................................................................... 22 
`
`B.
`
` 
`
`C.
`
` 
`
`D.
`
` 
`
`Shin Was Not Publicly Available........................................................ 22 
`
`Poison Java Was Not Publicly Available ............................................ 23 
`
`Brown Was Not Publicly Available .................................................... 25 
`
`- i -
`
`

`

`Patent Owner’s Response
`IPR2015-01974 (U.S. Patent No. 7,647,633)
`
`  Shin Does Not Render Claims 14 And 19 Obvious Under 35 U.S.C. VII.
`
`
`§ 103(a) .......................................................................................................... 26 
`
`A.
`
` 
`
`Shin Does Not Render Obvious “causing mobile protection
`code to be executed by the mobile code executor at a
`downloadable-information destination such that one or more
`operations of the executable code at the destination, if
`attempted, will be processed by the mobile protection code”............. 27 
`
`1. 
`
`2. 
`
`Shin teaches modification of the executable code .................... 27 
`
`Even if the proper construction is not adopted, Shin fails
`to meet the claim element. ........................................................ 29 
`
`a.  Claim 14 requires the same executable code to
`be received and executed at the destination ............. 29 
`
`b.  Shin fails to disclose mobile protection code ........... 29 
`
`c.  Shin fails to render obvious a mobile code
`executor .................................................................... 31 
`
`  Poison Java in view of Brown Does Not Render Claims 14 And 19 VIII.
`
`
`Obvious Under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) ............................................................... 34 
`
`A.
`
` 
`
`Poison Java in view of Brown Does Not Render Obvious
`“causing mobile protection code to be executed by the mobile
`code executor at a downloadable-information destination such
`that one or more operations of the executable code at the
`destination, if attempted, will be processed by the mobile
`protection code” .................................................................................. 35 
`
`1. 
`
`2. 
`
`Poison Java teaches modification of the executable code ........ 35 
`
`Even if the proper construction is not adopted, Poison
`Java in view of Brown fails to render obvious the claim
`element. ..................................................................................... 37 
`
`a.  Claim 14 requires the same executable code to
`be received and executed at the destination ............. 37 
`
`b.  Poison Java in view of Brown fails to render
`obvious mobile protection code ............................... 38 
`
`- ii -
`
`

`

`Patent Owner’s Response
`IPR2015-01974 (U.S. Patent No. 7,647,633)
`
`c.  There is no motivation to combine Poison Java
`and Brown ................................................................ 39 
`
`IX.
`
`  Claim 19 is Valid over the Cited Prior Art .................................................... 42 
`
`X.
`
` 
`
`Secondary Considerations of Non-Obviousness ........................................... 42 
`
`A.
`
` 
`
`B.
`
` 
`
`C.
`
` 
`
`Copying ............................................................................................... 42 
`
`Licensing and Commercial Success .................................................... 45 
`
`Long Felt Need .................................................................................... 51 
`
`XI.
`
`  CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 51 
`
`
`
`
`
`- iii -
`
`

`

`Patent Owner’s Response
`IPR2015-01974 (U.S. Patent No. 7,647,633)
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
` Page(s)
`
`Cases
`In re Baxter Int’l, Inc.,
`678 F.3d 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2012) .......................................................................... 19
`
`In re Bayer,
`568 F.2d 1357 (C.C.P.A. 1978) .......................................................................... 30
`
`Blue Calypso, LLC v. Groupon, Inc.,
`815 F.3d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2016) .................................................................... 27, 29
`
`Cisco Sys., Inc. v. Constellation Techs. L.L.C.,
`IPR2014-011085, Paper 11 (Jan. 9, 2015) .......................................................... 27
`
`In re Cortright,
`165 F.3d 1353 (Fed. Cir. 1999) .......................................................................... 21
`
`In re Cronyn,
`890 F.2d 1158 (Fed. Cir. 1989) .......................................................................... 27
`
`In re: Cyclobenzaprine Hydrochloride Extended-Release Capsule
`Patent Litig.,
`676 F.3d 1063 (Fed. Cir. 2012) .......................................................................... 56
`
`Demaco Corp. v. F. Von Langsdorff Licensing Ltd.,
`851 F.2d 1387 (Fed. Cir. 1988) .......................................................................... 51
`
`Diamond Rubber Co. of New York v. Consol. Rubber Tire Co.,
`220 U.S. 428 (1911) ............................................................................................ 47
`
`Finjan, Inc. v. Blue Coat Systems, Inc.,
`Case No. 13-cv- ................................................................................................ v, 7
`
`Finjan, Inc. v. Blue Coat Systems, Inc.,
`Case No. 13-cv-03999-BLF .................................................................................. v
`
`Finjan, Inc. v. Proofpoint Technologies, Inc. et al.,
`Case No. 13-cv-05808-HSG (N.D. Cal.) ........................................................ v, 53
`
`- i -
`
`

`

`Patent Owner’s Response
`IPR2015-01974 (U.S. Patent No. 7,647,633)
`
`Finjan, Inc. v. Websense, Inc.,
`Case No. 13-cv-04398 (N.D. Cal.) ................................................................. v, 52
`
`Finjan Software, Ltd. v. Secure Computing Corp.,
`Case No. 06-cv-0369-GMS .................................................................................. v
`
`Finjan Software, Ltd., v. Secure Computing Corp. et al,
`06-cv-00369-GMS (D. Del.) ............................................................................... 48
`
`Finjan Software, Ltd., v. Secure Computing Corp. et al,
`06-cv-00369-GMS (D. Del. August 18, 2009), Dkt. No. 284 ........................ v, 49
`
`Finjan Software, Ltd., v. Secure Computing Corp. et al,
`06-cv-00369-GMS (D. Del. August 18, 2009), Dkt. No. 305 ........................ v, 49
`
`Finjan v. Blue Coat,
`13-cv-03999-BLF (N.D. Cal. July 18, 2016), Dkt. No. 543 .............................. 10
`
`Finjan v. Websense, Inc.,
`13-CV-04398-BLF (N.D. Cal.) .......................................................................... 52
`
`Gaus v. Conair Corp.,
`363 F.3d 1284 (Fed. Cir. 2004) .......................................................................... 35
`
`In re Gordon,
`733 F.2d 900 (Fed. Cir. 1984) ...................................................................... 34, 38
`
`Graftech Int’l Holdgs, Inc., v. Laird Techs., Inc.,
`2016 WL 3357427 (Fed. Cir. June 17, 2016) ..................................................... 51
`
`Graham v. John Deere Co.,
`383 U.S. 1 (1966) ............................................................................................ 8, 25
`
`In re Gurley,
`27 F.3d 551 (Fed. Cir. 1994) ........................................................................ 33, 38
`
`Institut Pasteur & Universite Pierre Et Marie Curie v. Focarino,
`738 F.3d 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2013) .......................................................................... 50
`
`Intri-Plex Techs., Inc. and MMI Holdings, Ltd. v. Saint-Gobain
`Performance Plastics Rencol Ltd.,
`IPR2014-00309, Paper No. 83 (PTAB Mar. 23 2014) ....................................... 26
`
`- ii -
`
`

`

`Patent Owner’s Response
`IPR2015-01974 (U.S. Patent No. 7,647,633)
`
`J.T. Eaton & Co. v. Atl. Paste & Glue Co.,
`106 F.3d 1563 (Fed. Cir. 1997) .......................................................................... 51
`
`In re Kahn,
`441 F.3d 977 (Fed. Cir. 2006) ............................................................................ 44
`
`KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc.,
`550 U.S. 398 (2007) .....................................................................................passim
`
`Kyocera Wireless Corp. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n,
`545 F.3d 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2008) .......................................................................... 27
`
`Leo Pharm. Prods., Ltd. v. Rea,
`726 F.3d 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2013) .......................................................................... 26
`
`In re Lister,
`583 F.3d 1307 (Fed. Cir. 2009) .......................................................................... 30
`
`In re: Magnum Oil Tools Int’l, Ltd.,
`No. 2015-1300, 2016 WL 3974202 (Fed. Cir. July 25, 2016) ........................... 44
`
`Medichem, S.A. v. Rolabo, S.L.,
`437 F.3d 1157 (Fed. Cir. 2006) .................................................................... 34, 38
`
`Microsoft Corp. v. Proxyconn, Inc.,
`789 F.3d 1292 (Fed. Cir. 2015) .................................................................... 17, 18
`
`Minnesota Mining & Mfg. Co. v. Johnson & Johnson Orthopaedics,
`Inc.,
`976 F.2d 1559 (Fed. Cir. 1992) .......................................................................... 55
`
`Orthopedic Equip. Co. v. All Orthopedic Appliances, Inc.,
`707 F.2d 1376 (Fed. Cir. 1983) .......................................................................... 56
`
`Praxair Distribution, Inc. v. INO Therapeutics LLC,
`IPR2015-00529, Paper 33 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 22, 2015) ......................................... 22
`
`In re Ratti,
`270 F.2d at 813 ............................................................................................. 36, 38
`
`Regents of University of California v. Howmedica, Inc.,
`530 F. Supp. 846 (D.N.J. Mar. 12, 1981) ........................................................... 28
`
`- iii -
`
`

`

`Patent Owner’s Response
`IPR2015-01974 (U.S. Patent No. 7,647,633)
`
`Schenck v. Nortron Corp.,
`713 F.2d 782, 218 USPQ 698 (Fed. Cir. 1983) .................................................. 25
`
`Schumer v. Lab. Computer Sys., Inc.,
`308 F.3d 1304 (Fed. Cir. 2002) ...................................................................... 6, 25
`
`SciMed Life Sys., Inc. v. Advanced Cardiovascular Sys., Inc.,
`242 F.3d 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2001) .......................................................................... 24
`
`SRI Int’l, Inc. v. Cisco Sys., Inc.,
`Civ. No. 13-1534-SLR, 2016 WL 1437655 (D. Del. Apr. 11, 2016) ................. 30
`
`SRI Int’l, Inc. v. Internet Sec. Sys. Inc.,
`511 F.3d 1186 (Fed. Cir. 2008) .......................................................................... 27
`
`In re Suitco Surface, Inc.,
`603 F.3d 1255 (Fed. Cir. 2010) .............................................................. 17, 18, 25
`
`Ex Parte Taro Fujii,
`No. 2009-011862, 2012 WL 370584 (B.P.A.I. Jan. 31, 2012) ..................... 33, 38
`
`WBIP, LLC v. Kohler Co.,
`No. 2015-1038, 2016 WL 3902668 (Fed. Cir. July 19, 2016) ............................. 9
`
`Statutes
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103(A) ............................................................................................ 31, 39
`
`Other Authorities
`
`37 C.F.R. § 1.132 ....................................................................................................... v
`
`Federal Rule of Evidence 702 ............................................................................ 25, 26
`
`- iv -
`
`

`

`Patent Owner’s Response
`IPR2015-01974 (U.S. Patent No. 7,647,633)
`
`PATENT OWNER’S EXHIBIT LIST
`
`
`
`Description
`
`Exhibit-2001 Examiner’s Answer to Appeal Brief, Reexamination
`Control No. 90/013,016, Patent 7,647,633.
`
`Exhibit-2002 Ex parte FINJAN, Inc., Decision on Appeal,
`Reexamination Control No. 90/013,017, Patent 7,058,822.
`
`Exhibit-2003 Decision Granting Petition to Accept Unintentionally
`Delayed Priority Claim and Corrected Filing Receipt,
`Reexamination Control No. 90/013,016, Patent 7,647,633.
`
`Exhibit-2004 Finjan, Inc. v. Blue Coat Systems, Inc., Case No. 13-cv-
`03999-BLF, Verdict Form.
`
`Exhibit-2005 Trend Micro Granted US Patent for ActiveX and Java
`Applet Scanning Technology, Business Wire (2000).
`
`Exhibit-2006 U.S. Patent No. 5,983,348
`
`Exhibit-2007 Finjan, Inc. v. Blue Coat Systems, Inc., Case No. 13-cv-03999-
`BLF, Declaration of Dr. Peter Reiher in Support of Defendant
`Blue Coat Systems, Inc.’s Responsive Claim Construction Brief,
`Dkt. 66-1 (N.D. Cal.), filed on June 30, 2014
`
`Reserved
`
`Exhibit-2008
`to Exhibit-
`2010
`
`Exhibit-2011 Declaration of Phil Hartstein Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 1.132 with
`Exhibits, in Ex Parte Reexamination No. 90/013,016, dated
`February 18, 2014
`
`Exhibit-2012 Plaintiff Finjan’s Trial Exhibit PTX-45 from Finjan, Inc. v. Blue
`Coat Systems, Inc., Case No. 13-cv-03999-BLF, entitled “Finjan
`Attack Pack”
`
`- i -
`
`

`

`Patent Owner’s Response
`IPR2015-01974 (U.S. Patent No. 7,647,633)
`
`
`
`Description
`
`Exhibit-2013 Reserved
`
`Exhibit-2014 Plaintiff Finjan’s Trial Exhibit PTX-200 from Finjan, Inc. v. Blue
`Coat Systems, Inc., Case No. 13-cv-03999-BLF, an e-mail from
`Leigh Costin to John Ahlander dated October 11, 2007 
`
`Exhibit-2015 Reserved
`
`Exhibit-2016 Plaintiff Finjan’s Trial Exhibit PTX-204 from Finjan, Inc. v. Blue
`Coat Systems, Inc., Case No. 13-cv-03999-BLF, an e-mail from
`Tom Clare to John Ahlander dated January 30, 2008 
`
`Exhibit-2017 Reserved
`
`Exhibit-2018 Finjan, Inc. v. Blue Coat Systems, Inc., Case No. 13-cv-03999-
`BLF, Blue Coat Systems, Inc.’s Responsive Claim Construction
`Brief, Dkt. No. 66 (N.D. Cal.), filed on June 30, 2014
`
`Exhibit-2019 Declaration of Michael Goodrich, Ph.D. in Support of Patent
`Owner’s Response to Petition (Curriculum Vitae of Michael
`Goodrich)
`
`Exhibit-2020 Declaration of Harry Bims, Ph.D. in Support of Patent Owner’s
`Response to Petition with Appendix A (Curriculum Vitae of
`Harry Bims)
`
`Exhibit-2021 Declaration of S.H. Michael Kim in Support of Patent Owner’s
`Response to Petition
`
`Exhibit-2022 Deposition Transcript of Dr. Aviel Rubin for Case No. IPR2015-
`01974, taken on August 2, 2016
`
`Exhibit-2023  Deposition Transcript of Gerard P. Grenier for Case No.
`IPR2015-01974, taken on June 14, 2016
`
`Exhibit-2024 Deposition Transcript of Peter Kent for Case No. IPR2015-
`01974, taken on June 27, 2016
`
`Exhibit-2025 Deposition Transcript of Christopher Butler for Case No.
`IPR2015-01974, taken on July 7, 2016
`
`- ii -
`
`

`

`Patent Owner’s Response
`IPR2015-01974 (U.S. Patent No. 7,647,633)
`
`
`
`Description
`
`Exhibit-2026 WayBack Machine Internet Archive webpage - Inside Windows -
`An In-Depth Look into the Win32 Portable Executable File
`Format, available at
`https://web.archive.org/web/20021217024306/http://msdn.micros
`oft.com/msdnmag/issues/02/02/PE/print.asp
`
`Exhibit-2027 Trial Transcript Pages 738-740, 957, 1594, 1624-1625, 1648-
`1651, 1933-1934, 1938 from Finjan, Inc. v. Blue Coat Systems,
`Inc., Case No. 13-cv-03999-BLF
`
`Exhibit-2028 Finjan Software, Ltd., v. Secure Computing Corp. et al, 06-cv-
`00369-GMS (D. Del. August 18, 2009), Dkt. No. 305
`
`
`Exhibit-2029 Finjan Software, Ltd., v. Secure Computing Corp. et al, 06-cv-
`00369-GMS (D. Del. August 18, 2009), Dkt. No. 284
`
`Exhibit-2030 Finjan, Inc. v. Websense, Inc., Case No. 13-cv-04398 (N.D. Cal.),
`Appendix B (‘633 Patent Claim Chart) to Plaintiff Finjan, Inc.’s
`Disclosure of Asserted Claims and Infringement Contentions,
`dated February 28, 2014 
`
`Exhibit-2031 Websense, Inc. brochure - Triton APX (2015), available at
`https://www.websense.com/assets/brochures/brochure-triton-apx-
`en.pdf.  
`
`Exhibit-2032 Finjan, Inc. v. Proofpoint Technologies, Inc. et al., Case No. 13-
`cv-05808-HSG (N.D. Cal.), Appendix B (‘633 Patent Claim
`Chart) to Plaintiff Finjan, Inc.’s Disclosure of Asserted Claims
`and Infringement Contentions, dated April 17, 2014 
`
`Exhibit-2033 Proofpoint, Inc. 10-K, dated December 31, 2014 
`
`Exhibit-2034 Proofpoint Inc. 10-K, dated February 25, 2016 
`
`Exhibit-2035 Websense, Inc. Revenue and Financial Data, available at
`http://www.hoovers.com/company-information/cs/revenue-
`financial.websense_inc.89ee9262879a5b65.html.
`
`- iii -
`
`

`

`Patent Owner’s Response
`IPR2015-01974 (U.S. Patent No. 7,647,633)
`
`
`
`Description
`
`Exhibit-2036 Proofpoint, Inc. Press Release - Proofpoint Announces Fourth
`Quarter and Full Year 2015 Financial Results (Jan. 28, 2016),
`available at
`http://investors.proofpoint.com/releasedetail.cfm?releaseid=9522
`95
`
`Exhibit-2037 Plaintiff Finjan’s Trial Exhibit PTX-36 from Finjan Software,
`Ltd. v. Secure Computing Corp., Case No. 06-cv-0369-GMS, an
`e-mail from Joepen Horst to Martin Stecher et al. dated June 18,
`2004
`
`Exhibit-2038 Finjan Holdings, Inc. 8-K, dated April 7, 2015
`
`Exhibit-2039 Finjan Holdings, Inc. 8-K, dated December 30, 2015
`
`Exhibit-2040 Finjan Holdings, Inc. 8-K, dated May 14, 2015
`
`Exhibit-2041 Finjan Holdings, Inc. 8-K, dated May 20, 2016
`
`Exhibit-2042 Finjan Holdings, Inc. 8-K, dated November 15, 2015
`
`Exhibit-2043 Finjan Holdings, Inc. 8-K, dated September 24, 2014
`
`Exhibit-2044 Gartner - Magic Quadrant for Secure Web Gateways, May 28,
`2013
`
`Exhibit-2045 Gartner - Magic Quadrant for Secure Email Gateways, July 2,
`2013
`
`Exhibit-2046 Declaration of Michael Lee in Support of Patent Owner’s
`Response to Petition
`
`Exhibit-2047 Finjan, Inc. v. Blue Coat Systems, Inc., Case No. 13-cv-
`03999-BLF, Order Regarding Post-Judgment Motions, Dkt. 543
`(N.D. Cal. July 18, 2016)
`
`- iv -
`
`

`

`Patent Owner’s Response
`IPR2015-01974 (U.S. Patent No. 7,647,633)
`
`
`
`Description
`
`Exhibit-2048 Finjan, Inc. v. Blue Coat Systems, Inc., Case No. 13-cv-03999-
`BLF, Plaintiff Finjan, Inc.’s First Supplemental Objections and
`Response to Defendant Blue Coat Systems, Inc.’s Third Set of
`Interrogatories (N.D. Cal.)(Public Version), served on December
`12, 2014 
`
`- v -
`
`

`

`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`
`I.
`
`Patent Owner’s Response
`IPR2015-01974 (U.S. Patent No. 7,647,633)
`
`Petitioner’s proposed grounds fail because it has no evidence to supports its
`
`positions, its arguments are contrary to the plain language of the claims, and it has
`
`taken positions that are directly contrary to the positions adopted in an underlying
`
`litigation involving the same patent, namely U.S. Patent No. 7,647,633 (Ex. 1001,
`
`the “‘633 Patent”). For at least these reasons, Palo Alto Networks, Inc.’s (“PAN”)
`
`and Blue Coat Systems, Inc.’s (“Blue Coat”) (collectively “Petitioner”) Petition is
`
`fatally flawed and Claims 14 and 19 should be confirmed.
`
`Petitioner has no evidence to support its Petition because its expert, Dr.
`
`Rubin, has not provided his interpretation of the claims. During routine discovery
`
`in this case, Patent Owner Finjan, Inc. (“Finjan”) took the deposition of
`
`Petitioner’s expert, Dr. Rubin. During his deposition, Petitioner instructed Dr.
`
`Rubin not to answer any questions regarding his interpretation of the claims. This
`
`improper strategy is fatal to the Petition because the Federal Circuit has made clear
`
`that an expert “must identify each claim element, state the witnesses’ interpretation
`
`of the claim element, and explain in detail how each claim element is disclosed in
`
`the prior art reference.” Schumer v. Lab. Computer Sys., Inc., 308 F.3d 1304,
`
`1315-1316 (Fed. Cir. 2002). Without Dr. Rubin’s interpretation of the claims in
`
`the record, Petitioner’s arguments lack evidentiary support and the Petition is
`
`baseless.
`
`- 1 -
`
`

`

`Patent Owner’s Response
`IPR2015-01974 (U.S. Patent No. 7,647,633)
`
`
`In addition, Petitioner’s arguments are directly contrary to the plain language
`
`of the claims and the positions that were adopted in a litigation held in the
`
`Northern District of California. One of the main issues in these proceedings is
`
`whether Claim 14 of the ‘633 Patent requires executable code to be unmodified
`
`when it is received at an information-communicator and eventually executed at a
`
`destination. If it is found that the executable code is unmodified, then there is no
`
`doubt that the prior art is irrelevant to the ‘633 Patent.
`
`This same issue arose in the Finjan v. Blue Coat litigation and the Court held
`
`that Claim 14 of the ‘633 Patent requires the executable code to be unmodified. In
`
`the Blue Coat litigation, Petitioner argued that Claim 14 requires that the
`
`executable code to be unmodified based on the specification of the ‘633 Patent:
`
`First, the intrinsic record is clear that ‘without modifying the
`executable code’ should be included in the construction…. In fact, the
`Downloadable is never modified, and as discussed above, the [‘822
`and ‘633] patents specifically teach away from modifying the
`Downloadable. Looking at
`this from common sense,
`if
`the
`Downloadable itself was modified, there would be no need to monitor
`or intercept executable code operations as described in the patents
`because the would be monitored or intercepted operations would not
`exist by virtue of being proactively modified instead of being allowed
`to be attempted or occur. (emphasis in original)
`
`See Ex. 2018 (Petitioner’s Claim Construction Brief) at 18-21.
`
`- 2 -
`
`

`

`
`The District Court adopted the Petitioner’s position and held that “[i]t is clear from
`
`Patent Owner’s Response
`IPR2015-01974 (U.S. Patent No. 7,647,633)
`
`the specification that the MPC does not modify the executable code.” See Ex.
`
`1036 (Claim Construction Order) at 9-10, 14-15. Because the District Court’s
`
`construction is based on the specification, it is consistent with Phillips and the BRI
`
`standard. As discussed more fully below, the proper claim construction is
`
`dispositive because the prior art modifies executable code while the ‘633 Patent
`
`does not modify executable code.
`
`Finally, Petitioner did not address the abundant secondary considerations
`
`that demonstrate that the challenged claims are not obvious. Petitioner wrote
`
`emails and prepared marketing material that demonstrates its intention to copy
`
`Finjan’s technology, including the ‘633 Patent. Ex. 2016 at 1 (“Finjan killer
`
`report”); Ex. 2012 at 16 (“[Petitioner’s] WebPulse provides sandboxing just like
`
`Finjan to analyze next steps of [mobile malicious code] scripts and web content.”);
`
`Ex. 2012 at 22 (“Although several other vendors have started to emulate this
`
`technique, Finjan has several core patents as well as deeper and broader techniques
`
`for catching more obscure and complex malware.”). In addition, Petitioner was
`
`found to infringe Claim 14 of the ‘633 Patent and failed to address this fact in its
`
`Petition. Because the Petitioner failed to provide an complete obviousness
`
`analysis, Claims 14 and 19 of the ‘633 Patent should be confirmed. Graham v.
`
`John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17-18 (1966); KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S.
`
`- 3 -
`
`

`

`
`398, 418 (2007); WBIP, LLC v. Kohler Co., No. 2015-1038, 2016 WL 3902668, at
`
`Patent Owner’s Response
`IPR2015-01974 (U.S. Patent No. 7,647,633)
`
`*5 (Fed. Cir. July 19, 2016) (“[W]e have repeatedly stressed that objective
`
`considerations of non-obviousness must be considered in every case.”) (emphasis
`
`in original)(citations omitted).
`
`
`II.
`
`FACTS
`
`A.
`
` Overview of Proceedings
`
`On August 4, 2015, a jury found that Blue Coat infringed Claim 14 of the
`
`‘633 Patent. Ex. 2004 at 4. The jury also confirmed the validity of Claim 14 of the
`
`‘633 Patent over United States Patent No. 5,983,348 (Ex. 2006, “the ‘348 Patent”
`
`or “Ji”), which contains the same disclosure as the primary references at issue in
`
`this proceeding. Ex. 2004 at 6.
`
`On September 30, 2015 and January 20, 2016, PAN and Blue Coat,
`
`respectfully, submitted Petitions in Case Nos. IPR2015-01974 and IPR2016-00480
`
`requesting inter partes review (“IPR”) of certain claims of U.S. Patent No.
`
`7,647,633 (Ex. 1001, the “‘633 Patent”). On March 29, 2016, the Board rendered a
`
`decision denying IPR of Claims 1–4, 6–8, 13, 28, and 38 of the ‘633 Patent and
`
`granting IPR of Claims 14 and 19. See Decision on Institution, IPR2015-01974,
`
`Paper 7 (“PAN Institution Decision”). Shortly thereafter, the Board granted Blue
`
`Coat’s Petition and Motion for Joinder with respect to Claims 14 and 19. See
`
`- 4 -
`
`

`

`
`Decision on Institution and Grant of Motion for Joinder, IPR2016-00480, Paper 9
`
`Patent Owner’s Response
`IPR2015-01974 (U.S. Patent No. 7,647,633)
`
`(“Blue Coat Institution Decision”).
`
`The District Court confirmed the jury’s verdict on July 18, 2016. The Court
`
`specifically held that Claim 14 was valid over Ji because it teaches modifying
`
`executable code while Claim 14 of the ‘633 Patent does not. Ex. 2047, Finjan v.
`
`Blue Coat, 13-cv-03999-BLF (N.D. Cal. July 18, 2016), Dkt. No. 543 at 18-19.
`
`B.
`
` Overview of ‘633 Patent
`
`The ’633 Patent claims priority to a number of patents and patent
`
`applications, including U.S. Provisional Patent Application No. 60/205,591 and
`
`U.S. Patents Nos.7,058,822 (“the ‘822 Patent”), 6,804,780 (“the ‘780 Patent”),
`
`6,092,194 (Ex. 1013, “the ‘194 Patent”), 6,480,962 (“the ‘962 Patent”), and
`
`6,167,520 with an earliest claimed priority date of January 29, 1997. See Ex. 2003
`
`at 1.
`
`The ‘633 Patent describes systems and methods for protecting against
`
`malicious executable code. ‘633 Patent at Abstract. In particular, for the
`
`challenged claims, the ‘633 Patent describes a network “re-communicator” that
`
`receives downloadable-information that includes executable code (i.e. is a
`
`“Downloadable”). Id. at 2:39–44. The re-communicator causes mobile protection
`
`code (“MPC”) and the downloadable-information with executable code to be
`
`- 5 -
`
`

`

`
`transferred to the destination, without modifying the executable code. ‘633 Patent
`
`Patent Owner’s Response
`IPR2015-01974 (U.S. Patent No. 7,647,633)
`
`at 2:66–3:4, 4:12-16, 10:39-44.
`
`As noted in the Background of the Invention Section, the invention disclosed
`
`and claimed in the ‘633 Patent is distinct over the same prior art at issue in this
`
`proceedings. Specifically, the Background of the ‘633 Patent distinguishes itself
`
`over the prior art because the prior art modifies executable code while the ‘633
`
`Patent does not modify executable code:
`
`To make matters worse, certain classes of viruses are not well
`recognized or understood, let alone protected against. It is observed by
`this inventor, for example, that Downloadable-information comprising
`program code can include distributable components (e.g. Java™
`applets and JavaScript scripts, ActiveX™ controls, Visual Basic, add-
`ins and/or others). It can also include, for example, application
`programs, Trojan horses, multiple compressed programs such as zip
`or meta files, among others. U.S. Pat. No. 5,983,348 to Shuang,
`however, teaches a protection system for protecting against only
`distributable components including “Java applets or ActiveX
`controls”, and further does so using resource intensive and high
`bandwidth static Downloadable content and operational analysis,
`and modification of the Downloadable component; Shuang further
`fails to detect or protect against additional program code included
`within a tested Downloadable.
`
`- 6 -
`
`

`

`
`Id. at 1:58–2:6 (emphasis added).2 As discussed below, each of the primary
`
`Patent Owner’s Response
`IPR2015-01974 (U.S. Patent No. 7,647,633)
`
`references in this proceeding contains the same disclosure as the Ji reference
`
`distinguished in the specification of the ‘633 Patent.
`
`C.
`
` Overview of Shin
`
`Insik Shin and John C. Mitchell “Java Bytecode Modification and Applet
`
`Security” (1998) (Ex. 1009, “Shin”) teaches modification of Java by instrumenting
`
`the incoming applet with security functions. The Board has already concluded that
`
`Shin is similar to Ji which was distinguished in the specification of the ‘633 Patent.
`
`IPR2015-01974, Board Decision Granting Institution, Paper No. 7 at 10 (“Upon
`
`review of Shin and comparison of its disclosure to that which the Office considered
`
`in the reexamination proceeding, we are persuaded that the technology for which
`
`Shin is relied upon in the Petition is substantially the same as that which was
`
`considered relevant in Ji.”); see also ‘633 Patent at 1:58–2:6 (“U.S. Pat. No.
`
`5,983,348 to Shuang [Ji], however, teaches…modification of the Downloadable
`
`component.”) (emphasis added). Indeed, Shin confirms the problems identified in
`
`
`2 While the above text refers to “Shuang,” a cursory look at the referenced patent,
`
`namely the ‘348 Patent, demonstrates that inventor is Shuang Ji. As such, the ‘348
`
`Patent will be referred to as “Ji” for the purposes of these proceedings.
`
`- 7 -
`
`

`

`
`the specification of the ‘633 Patent. Shin’s Table 2 and Figure 6 (reproduced
`
`Patent Owner’s Response
`IPR2015-01974 (U.S. Patent No. 7,647,633)
`
`below) shows an overhead cost of 999% for 250KB Java class file.
`
`
`
`
`
`Ex. 1009, Shin at 14-15.
`
`In other words, Shin shows a system that is resource intensive because it
`
`modifies the Downloadable which teaches away from the ‘633 Patent. Ex. 2019
`
`(“Goodrich Decl.”) at ¶45-46; Ex. 1009, Shin at 4 (“Our safety mechanism
`
`- 8 -
`
`

`

`
`substitutes one executable entity….This safety mechanism must be applied before
`
`Patent Owner’s Response
`IPR2015-01974 (U.S. Patent No. 7,647,633)
`
`the applet is executed.”) (emphasis added), (“The following sections explain how
`
`modified executable entities are inserted in Java bytecode.”). There is no need for
`
`mobile protection code because the system in Shin prevents all malicious behavior
`
`it intends to prevent. Ex. 1009, Shin at 4 (“This paper presents a safety mechanism
`
`for Java applets that is sufficient to solve the problems summarized above.”
`
`(emphasis added).
`
`D.
`
` Overview of Poison Java
`
`Poison Java is reference that discusses the commercial program AppletTrap
`
`(which is covered by the Ji patent) among other things. As the Board has already
`
`noted, the Poison Java reference is largely the same reference as Ji with less detail.
`
`IPR2015-01974, Board Decision Granting Institution, Paper No. 7 at 7-8 (“subject
`
`matter disclosed in Poison Java is the same as the subject matter disclosed in Ji….
`
`To be sure, Ji provides more detail of the disclosed system tha