`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`Palo Alto Networks, Inc.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`Finjan, Inc.
`Patent Owner
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,141,154
`Filing Date: June 14, 2010
`Issue Date: March 20, 2012
`
`Title: System and Method for Inspecting
`Dynamically Generated Executable Code
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review No. 2015-01979
`
`Petitioner’s Objections to Supplemental Evidence Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.64
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Objections to Evidence
`
`IPR2015-01979 (U.S. Patent No. 8,141,154)
`
`
`
`Petitioner Palo Alto Networks, Inc. (“Petitioner”) objects to the Declaration
`
`of Michael Goodrich served by Finjan, Inc. (“Patent Owner”) as supplemental
`
`evidence in support of its Patent Owner Response.
`
`
`
`Patent Owner served its Patent Owner’s Response on July 12, 2016. Paper
`
`No. 22. Petitioner objected to Patent Owner’s evidence on July 19, 2016. Paper
`
`No. 23. Patent Owner served supplemental evidence on August 2, 2016.
`
`Petitioner’s objections to Patent Owner’s supplemental evidence are timely under
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b)(1). By serving these objections on Patent Owner, Petitioner
`
`reserves its right to file a motion to exclude the Goodrich Declaration under 37
`
`C.F.R. § 42.64(c).
`
`I.
`
`DECLARATION OF MICHAEL GOODRICH
`
`Petitioner objects to the admissibility of the Goodrich Declaration under
`
`FRE 702 because it does not disclose supporting facts or data, or is based on
`
`unreliable facts, data, or methods, or includes testimony outside the scope of Dr.
`
`Goodrich’s specialized knowledge that will not assist the trier of fact.
`
`For example, Dr. Goodrich opines that the infringement charts discussed by
`
`Dr. Medvidovic: “[D]emonstrate that the companies discussed therein were able to
`
`obtain success as a result of their licenses from Finjan for the ’154 Patent. These
`
`charts confirm that the ’154 Patent is not obvious because they are adequate
`
`secondary considerations of licensing and commercial success.” Goodrich Decl. at
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Objections to Evidence
`
`IPR2015-01979 (U.S. Patent No. 8,141,154)
`
`
`
`
`9. Dr. Goodrich’s opinion with respect to Dr. Medvidivic’s opinions regarding
`
`secondary considerations is not based on sufficient facts or data, is not the product
`
`of reliable principles and methods, will not assist the trier of fact because the
`
`subject of the testimony is not within the scope of Dr. Goodrich’s alleged expertise
`
`and should therefore be excluded under FRE 702.
`
`In another example, Dr. Goodrich states that his review of the Kim
`
`Declaration (Ex. 2004) confirms that Mr. Kim had personal knowledge of
`
`competitors in the security field, knowledge of Patent Owner’s assertions of
`
`infringement, and extensive experience in the field of computer network security.
`
`Goodrich Decl. at 10. The Goodrich Declaration’s opinions regarding the Kim
`
`Declaration are not based on personal knowledge, are not helpful to the
`
`determination of a fact in issue, are irrelevant, are confusing, and are of minimal
`
`probative value and should be excluded under FRE 401, 402, 403, 602 and 701.
`
`To the extent Dr. Goodrich’s testimony related to the Kim Declaration are
`
`intended to be expert opinions, the opinions are outside the scope of Dr.
`
`Goodrich’s alleged technical expertise. For example, Dr. Goodrich is not an expert
`
`in the fields of competition in the network security business and Patent Owner’s
`
`licensing programs. For these reasons, the Goodrich Declaration is also
`
`inadmissible under FRE 702.
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Objections to Evidence
`
`IPR2015-01979 (U.S. Patent No. 8,141,154)
`
`
`
`The Goodrich Declaration provides opinions related to the articles submitted
`
`by Patent Owner as Exhibits 2009, 2011-2013. Dr. Goodrich’s opinions regarding
`
`Exhibits 2009, 2011-2013 are not based on adequate supporting facts or data and
`
`are therefore inadmissible under FRE 702.
`
`Finally, Petitioner objects to the Goodrich Declaration because it is not cited
`
`in Patent Owner’s Response and is an untimely submission of new expert
`
`testimony.
`
`
`
`Dated: August 9, 2016
`
`COOLEY LLP
`ATTN: Patent Group
`1299 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Suite 700
`Washington, DC 20004
`Tel: (703) 456-8000
`Fax: (202) 842-7899
`
`
`
`
`
`
`By:
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`COOLEY LLP
`
`/Orion Armon/
`Orion Armon
`Reg. No. 65,421
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Objections to Evidence
`
`IPR2015-01979 (U.S. Patent No. 8,141,154)
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(e), the undersigned certifies that on August 9,
`
`2016, a complete and entire copy of this Petitioner’s Objections to Supplemental
`
`Evidence Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.64, was served by filing this document through
`
`the Patent Review Processing System and via electronic mail upon the following
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Jeffrey H. Price
`KRAMER LEVIN NAFTALIS &
`FRANKEL LLP
`1177 Avenue of the Americas
`New York, NY 10036
`Phone: (212) 715-7502
`Fax: (212) 715-8302
`jprice@kramerlevin.com
`
`By:
`
`
`
`/Orion Armon/
`Orion Armon
`Reg. No. 65,421
`
`
`
`counsel of record for Patent Owner:
`
`
`
`
`James Hannah
`KRAMER LEVIN NAFTALIS &
`FRANKEL LLP
`
`
`
`990 Marsh Road
`
`
`
`Menlo Park, CA 94025
`
`
`Phone: (650) 752-1712
`
`
`Fax: (650) 752-1812
`
`
`jhannah@kramerlevin.com
`
`
`Michael Kim
`Finjan, Inc.
`2000 University Ave., Ste. 600
`E. Palo Alto, CA 94303
`Phone: 650.397.9567
`mkim@finjan.com
`USPTO Reg. No. 40,450
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`135247737 v1