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
`
`FINJAN, INC., a Delaware Corporation,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`
`PALO ALTO NETWORKS, INC.,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`Case No.: 14-cv-04908-EMC
`
`HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL –
`ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY
`
`PLAINTIFF FINJAN, INC.’S
`OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO
`DEFENDANT PALO ALTO NETWORKS,
`INC.’S FIRST SET OF
`INTERROGATORIES (NOS. 1-13)
`
`
`
`Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26 and 33, Plaintiff Finjan, Inc. (“Finjan”) responds to Defendant
`
`Palo Alto Networks, Inc. (“PAN” or “Defendant”)’s First 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.
`
`1
`__________________________________________________________________________________
`FINJAN’S OBJECTIONS & RESPONSES TO PALO ALTO
`CASE NO. 14-CV-04908-EMC
`NETWORKS’ FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES (NOS. 1-13)
`
`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:
`
`
`
`For each Asserted Patent, state in detail all facts and information (including without limitation
`
`the identity of documents and persons knowledgeable) concerning any secondary considerations (also
`
`known as objective indicia) relating to the alleged nonobviousness of the claimed subject matter,
`
`including without limitation: any long-felt but unfulfilled need, unexpected results, failure of others,
`
`commercial success, acquiescence, license granted to the Asserted Patents, professional approval, lack
`
`of contemporaneous invention, prior skepticism, copying or laudatory statements by others; the nexus
`
`between each alleged indicia of nonobviousness and each Asserted Claim to which that indicia
`
`allegedly applies; and the three (3) Finjan employees Finjan believes are most knowledgeable about
`
`the factual bases supporting Finjan’s contentions.
`
`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
`
`
`
`15
`__________________________________________________________________________________
`FINJAN’S OBJECTIONS & RESPONSES TO PALO ALTO
`CASE NO. 14-CV-04908-EMC
`NETWORKS’ FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES (NOS. 1-13)
`
`

`

`RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 5:
`
`
`
`Finjan objects to this Interrogatory as vague and ambiguous, including the term “most
`
`knowledgeable.” 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 that 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 will not produce such
`
`information 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. Finjan
`
`objects to this Interrogatory to the extent that it seeks information beyond Finjan’s actual knowledge,
`
`custody, or control. 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 to the extent it seeks information within Defendants’
`
`possession, custody or control, or to the extent it seeks information in the public domain; Defendant
`
`can ascertain such information from its own records or from other sources at least as readily as Finjan.
`
`Finjan objects to this Interrogatory as vague and ambiguous. Finjan objects to this Interrogatory as
`
`premature to the extent it calls for subsequent discovery in this action and/or expert testimony that will
`
`be provided according to deadlines set by the Court.
`
`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:
`
`16
`__________________________________________________________________________________
`FINJAN’S OBJECTIONS & RESPONSES TO PALO ALTO
`CASE NO. 14-CV-04908-EMC
`NETWORKS’ FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES (NOS. 1-13)
`
`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
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`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
`
`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
`
`17
`__________________________________________________________________________________
`FINJAN’S OBJECTIONS & RESPONSES TO PALO ALTO
`CASE NO. 14-CV-04908-EMC
`NETWORKS’ FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES (NOS. 1-13)
`
`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
`
`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.
`
`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 and a related patent. 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 asserted 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 the asserted patents. In addition, the patented technology of
`
`the Patents-in-Suit has been copied by PAN and other companies.
`
`
`
`
`
`18
`__________________________________________________________________________________
`FINJAN’S OBJECTIONS & RESPONSES TO PALO ALTO
`CASE NO. 14-CV-04908-EMC
`NETWORKS’ FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES (NOS. 1-13)
`
`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
`
`Commercial Success:
`
`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. Based on information presently
`
`available to Finjan, Finjan’s Vital Security 7.0 product in or about 2004, and later versions,
`
`incorporated technology of: claim 1, claim 9, claim 17, and claim 18 of the ‘780 Patent; claim 1, claim
`
`4, claim 9, claim 12, claim 16, and claim 28 of the ‘822 Patent; claim 1, claim 8, claim 13, claim 14,
`
`claim 21, claim 28, claim 34, and claim 41 of the ‘633 Patent; claim 1, claim 13, claim 23, claim 26,
`
`claim 32, and claim 33 of the ‘968 Patent; and claim 1, claim 6, claim 7, claim 13, claim 14, claim 17,
`
`claim 18, claim 20, and claim 22 of the ‘731 Patent.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Pursuant to Rule 33(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, additional information
`
`responsive to this interrogatory will be in Finjan’s forthcoming document production in this matter.
`
`Finjan’s investigation of this matter is ongoing and it will comply with Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(e) should
`
`additional information become known to it.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`19
`__________________________________________________________________________________
`FINJAN’S OBJECTIONS & RESPONSES TO PALO ALTO
`CASE NO. 14-CV-04908-EMC
`NETWORKS’ FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES (NOS. 1-13)
`
`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
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`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 February 25, 2015 I caused the following document(s) to be served:
`
`PLAINTIFF FINJAN, INC.’S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO
`DEFENDANT PALO ALTO NETWORKS, INC.’S FIRST SET OF
`INTERROGATORIES (NOS. 1-13)
`
`by electronic mail, addressed as follows:
`
`Michael A. Jacobs
`Emily Friesen Regier
`Morrison & Foerster LLP
`425 Market Street
`San Francisco, CA 94105-2482
`MJacobs@mofo.com
`ERegier@mofo.com
`
`Rudy Y. Kim
`Morrison & Foerster LLP
`755 Page Mill Road
`Palo Alto, California 94304-1018
`RKim@mofo.com
`
`
`
`I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on February
`
`25, 2015, in Menlo Park, California.
`
`
`
`
`Steven D. Dennison
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`__________________________________________________________________________________
`FINJAN’S OBJECTIONS & RESPONSES TO PALO ALTO
`CASE NO. 14-CV-04908-EMC
`NETWORKS’ FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES (NOS. 1-13)
`
`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
`
`
`
`