`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_____________
`
`PALO ALTO NETWORKS, INC.,
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`FINJAN, INC.,
`Patent Owner
`
`Patent No. 8,141,154
`
`_______________
`
`Inter Partes Review No. IPR2016-00151
`____________________________________________________________
`
`PETITIONER’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO EXCLUDE
`
`
`
`
`
`sf-3729666
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00151
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Attorney Docket No. 719712801200
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................... 1
`
`II. ARGUMENT .................................................................................................. 1
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`Patent Owner Has Provided No Independent Evidence
`Authenticating Pages 3-20 of Exhibit 2007 ......................................... 1
`
`Patent Owner’s Case Law Is Inapposite ............................................... 3
`
`Finjan Has Not Explained the Inconsistencies in Its Evidence. ........... 4
`
`III. CONCLUSION ............................................................................................... 5
`
`sf-3729666
`
`i
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Attorney Docket No. 719712801200
`
`IPR2016-00151
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Patent Owner Finjan’s response to Petitioner’s motion relies on inapposite
`
`case law and ignores the issue at hand: that it has failed to provide “independent
`
`evidence” to satisfy the authentication requirement. Patent Owner offers no reason
`
`for the Board to deviate from its holding in Neste Oil in finding insufficient
`
`corroborative evidence of authentication. See Neste Oil Oyj v. Reg Synthetic Fuels,
`
`LLC, No. IPR2013-00578, Paper No. 52 at 3-4 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 12, 2015). The
`
`Board should grant the motion and exclude pages 3-20 of Exhibit 2007.
`
`II. ARGUMENT
`
`A.
`
`Patent Owner Has Provided No Independent Evidence
`Authenticating Pages 3-20 of Exhibit 2007
`
`Finjan relies on a declaration from Mr. Ben-Itzhak, the inventor, and two
`
`declarations from Dr. Berger, who prosecuted the patent application, in its attempt
`
`to authenticate Exhibit 2007. (Opp’n, Paper No. 44 at 2.) Exhibit 2007 consists of
`
`an email chain (on pages 1-2) and an undated, unsigned draft patent application (on
`
`pages 3-20). (Ex. 2007.) The only evidence tying the draft patent application to
`
`the date of October 31, 2005 is the Berger declaration stating that the draft
`
`application was attached to an email of that date.
`
`As discussed in Petitioner’s motion, because Finjan relies on Exhibit 2007 in
`
`an attempt to prove prior invention, independent corroborative evidence of
`
`authenticity other than the inventor’s testimony is required. (Mot., Paper No. 38 at
`
`sf-3729666
`
`1
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00151
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Attorney Docket No. 719712801200
`
`3 (citing Neste Oil).) The Board, citing Federal Circuit precedent, explained that
`
`“[t]his rule is proper to avoid ‘circular’ situations in which a party seeks to rely on
`
`a document to corroborate a witness’ testimony, but relies on that witness’
`
`testimony to provide the date or other authentication of that document.” Neste Oil
`
`at 4.
`
`Contrary to Finjan’s argument, this case involves exactly the “circular”
`
`authentication situation prohibited by Neste Oil. (Opp’n at 4-5.) Similar to Neste
`
`Oil, in which the lab notebook page was “unsigned, undated, and unwitnessed,” the
`
`draft application at issue here is also unsigned, undated, and unwitnessed. The
`
`markings on Exhibit 2007 show that the exhibit is in fact three separate documents
`
`that have been stitched together into one exhibit. The first page of Exhibit 2007
`
`shows that it is page “1 of 1” printed out on December 12, 2005. The second page
`
`of Exhibit 2007 bears the same markings and shows that it is a separate document
`
`from page one, and also shows that it is page “1 of 1” printed out on December 12,
`
`2005. However, the document at pages 3 to 20 bears no markings showing any
`
`date, nor does it bear any signature. Thus, Finjan’s argument that the draft patent
`
`application is “dated” misses the point entirely. (Opp’n at 4.)
`
`Patent Owner attempts to distinguish Neste Oil by alleging that Mr. Yuval
`
`Ben-Itzhak’s testimony authenticates the draft patent application. Putting aside
`
`Mr. Ben-Itzhak’s lack of competence as an inventor, he never even testified that
`
`sf-3729666
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00151
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Attorney Docket No. 719712801200
`
`pages 3-20 of Exhibit 2007 is the draft application that he supposedly sent to Dr.
`
`Berger. Patent Owner’s failure to offer testimony from Mr. Ben-Itzhak, the
`
`purported author of the draft patent application, about Exhibit 2007 only further
`
`calls into question its authenticity. Thus, Mr. Ben-Itzhak does not and cannot
`
`provide any evidence to authenticate that the draft patent application of Exhibit
`
`2007 is the draft of October 31, 2005.
`
`B.
`
`Patent Owner’s Case Law Is Inapposite
`
`Petitioner’s motion demonstrated that the testimony presented by Finjan is
`
`not independent, as it is from Finjan’s inventor and the application’s patent
`
`prosecutor. (Mot. at 3-4 (citing Microsoft Corp. v. Surfcast, Inc., No. IPR2013-
`
`00292, Paper No. 93 at 16-17 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 14, 2014); Sprint Commc’ns Co. v.
`
`Comcast IP Holdings, LLC, No. 12-1013-RGA, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10836, at
`
`*10-11 (D. Del. Jan. 30, 2015); see also Lacks Indus., Inc. v. McKechnie Vehicle
`
`Components USA, Inc., 322 F.3d 1335, 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2003)).) As such,
`
`Petitioner showed that the testimony offered by Finjan is insufficient to
`
`authenticate the draft patent application on pages 3-20 of Exhibit 2007.
`
`Nowhere in its response, however, does Finjan distinguish the case law cited
`
`by Patent Owner, nor does Finjan cite to any case law to the contrary. Finjan relies
`
`on Lacotte and Reese for the unremarkable proposition that “testimony of a
`
`witness, other than an inventor to the actual reduction to practice” may be used to
`
`sf-3729666
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00151
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Attorney Docket No. 719712801200
`
`provide independent corroboration. (Opp’n at 3.) But neither case involved the
`
`submission of declarations from an inventor and a patent prosecutor to provide
`
`independent corroboration. Rather, in both cases, the independent corroborating
`
`evidence consisted of laboratory notebooks from research assistants who aided the
`
`inventor in their reductions to practice. Lacotte v. Thomas, 758 F.2d 611, 612
`
`(Fed. Cir. 1985); Reese v. Hurst, 661 F.2d 1222, 1226-27 (C.C.P.A. 1981). Thus,
`
`Lacotte and Reese have no bearing on the issue at hand.
`
`C.
`
`Finjan Has Not Explained the Inconsistencies in Its Evidence.
`
`Beyond its failure to address Petitioner’s relevant case law, Finjan has no
`
`explanation for the inconsistencies in Exhibit 2007 discussed in Petitioner’s
`
`motion. (Mot. at 4-5.) In particular, Finjan has no response to the fact that the
`
`draft patent application in Exhibit 2007 has a different title from the document
`
`referred to in Mr. Ben-Itzhak’s October 31, 2005 email. (Id.) The difference in the
`
`titles strongly suggests that to the extent any document was attached to the October
`
`31, 2005 email, it is not the draft application in Exhibit 2007.
`
`Faced with the deficiency of its evidence, Finjan argues that it was
`
`Petitioner’s duty to cross examine Finjan’s witnesses in order to establish the
`
`sufficiency of its evidence. (Opp’n at 5.) Nothing requires Petitioner to assist
`
`Patent Owner in remedying its deficient evidence. Petitioner was required to
`
`timely object to the evidence, which it did, and to file a timely motion to exclude,
`
`sf-3729666
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00151
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Attorney Docket No. 719712801200
`
`which it also did. Cross examination, to the extent taken, is optional. Indeed, in
`
`the case cited by Finjan, no cross examination was taken at all. (Opp’n at 5 (citing
`
`Toyota Motor Corp. v. Am. Vehicular Scis. LLC, No. IPR2013-00417, Paper
`
`No. 78 at 12-13 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 7, 2015) (“AVS elected not to cross examine Ms.
`
`Broadhurst, as it could have.”) (emphasis added)). As in the Toyota case,
`
`Petitioner is relying on “this record, and under [IPR] procedures,” which support a
`
`finding of lack of authenticity.
`
`III. CONCLUSION
`
`For the foregoing reasons, the Board should exclude pages 3-20 of Finjan’s
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`
`
`By: / Shouvik Biswas /
`Shouvik Biswas
` Registration No.: 68,439
`MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP
`1650 Tysons Boulevard, Suite 400
`McLean, VA 22102
`Tel: (703) 760-7774
`Attorney for Petitioner
`
`Exhibit 2007 for lack of authentication.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated: January 10, 2017
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`sf-3729666
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00151
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Attorney Docket No. 719712801200
`
`Certificate of Service (37 C.F.R. § 42.6(e)(4))
`
`I hereby certify that the attached PETITIONER’S REPLY IN SUPPORT
`
`OF MOTION TO EXCLUDE was served on the below date on the Patent Owner
`
`via e-mail (by consent) to the following counsel of record for the 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
`jprice@kramerlevin.com
`svdocketing@kramerlevin.com
`mkim@finjan.com
`
`Petitioner’s counsel of record in IPR2016-01071:
`
`Nathaniel A. Hamstra (Lead Counsel)
`nathanhamstra@quinnemanuel.com
`
`/Kristine Obrenovic/
`Kristine Obrenovic
`
`
`
`
`Dated: January 10, 2017
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`sf-3729666
`
`