`_______________
`
`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 OBJECTION TO EVIDENCE
`SUBMITTED WITH PATENT OWNER RESPONSE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00151
`
`
`
`Attorney Docket No. 719712801200
`
`In accordance with 37 C.F.R. § 42.64, Petitioner hereby objects to the
`
`following evidence that was submitted by Patent Owner with the “Patent Owner
`
`Response” in the above-captioned proceeding in which U.S. Patent No. 8,141,154
`
`(“the ’154 Patent”) is subject to inter partes review:
`
`Exhibit #
`
`Patent Owner’s Description
`
`Petitioner’s Objections
`
`2007
`
`Email Chain Re: Invention Disclosure
`
`2015
`
`2016
`
`2017
`
`2018
`
`Infringement chart created by
`Dr. Nenad Medvidovic regarding the
`products of Avast Software and the
`’154 Patent
`Infringement chart created by Dr.
`Nenad Medvidovic regarding the
`products of F-Secure and the ’154
`Patent
`’154 Patent Infringement chart
`regarding the products of Websense,
`Inc., served in Finjan v. Websense,
`Inc., 13-CV-04398-BLF (N.D. Cal.),
`February 28, 2014
`’154 Patent Infringement chart
`regarding the products of Proofpoint,
`Inc. and Armorize Technologies, Inc.,
`served in Finjan, Inc. v. Proofpoint,
`Inc. and Armorize Technologies, Inc.,
`13-cv-05808-HSG (N.D. Cal.), April
`17, 2014
`
`Fed. R. Evid. 901
`(authentication)
`Fed. R. Evid. 1002 (best
`evidence)
`Fed. R. Evid. 802
`(hearsay)
`Fed. R. Evid. 401/402/403
`(relevance)
`Fed. R. Evid. 802
`(hearsay)
`Fed. R. Evid. 401/402/403
`(relevance)
`Fed. R. Evid. 802
`(hearsay)
`Fed. R. Evid. 401/402/403
`(relevance)
`Fed. R. Evid. 802
`(hearsay)
`
`Fed. R. Evid. 401/402/403
`(relevance)
`Fed. R. Evid. 802
`(hearsay)
`
`1
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00151
`
`
`
`Attorney Docket No. 719712801200
`
`2035
`
`Paragraphs 74 through 80 of
`Declaration of Dr. Nenad Medvidovic
`
`Fed. R. Evid. 401/402/403
`(relevance)
`Fed. R. Evid. 703 (bases
`of expert)
`A. Exhibit 2007—Email Chain Re: Invention Disclosure
`
`Petitioner objects to Exhibit 2007 as lacking proper authentication under
`
`Fed. R. Evid. 901 and as not the best evidence under Fed. R. Evid. 1002. Patent
`
`Owner has not presented any evidence that Exhibit 2007 is authentic, nor that the
`
`document is self-authenticating under Fed. R. Evid. 902. Patent Owner has also
`
`failed to provide any evidence that pages 3 through 20 of Exhibit 2007 are the draft
`
`patent application referred to in the email of page 2 of Exhibit 2007.
`
`Petitioner further objects to Exhibit 2007 as hearsay under Fed. R. Evid. 801
`
`that does not fall under an exception of Fed. R. Evid. 803 or 804.
`
`B.
`
`Exhibits 2015 through 2018—Infringement Charts
`
`Exhibits 2015 through 2018 appear to be infringement charts Patent Owner
`
`provided in prior district court litigations unrelated to Petitioner. Petitioner objects
`
`to these exhibits as irrelevant to this proceeding under Fed. R. Evid. 402.
`
`Petitioner further objects to these exhibits as hearsay under Fed. R. Evid. 801 that
`
`does not fall under an exception of Fed. R. Evid. 803 or 804.
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00151
`
`
`
`Attorney Docket No. 719712801200
`
`C.
`
`Paragraphs 74 through 80 of Exhibit 2035—Declaration of Dr.
`Nenad Medvidovic
`
`Petitioner objects to paragraphs 74 through 80 of Exhibit 2035 under Fed. R.
`
`Evid. 703 as relying on improper evidence. In these paragraphs, Dr. Medvidovic
`
`offers testimony that relies on Exhibits 2015 through 2018, which, as discussed
`
`above, are irrelevant to this proceeding and constitute inadmissible hearsay.
`
`Accordingly, these portions of Dr. Medvidovic’s declaration are also irrelevant and
`
`constitute impermissible hearsay.
`
`In accordance with 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b)(1), these objections are being
`
`timely served within five (5) business days of service of the Patent Owner
`
`Response, which was served on August 31, 2016.
`
`To the extent that Patent Owner’s Response relies upon evidence previously
`
`submitted in its Preliminary Response, Petitioner previously served timely
`
`objections to such evidence.
`
`
`Dated: September 8, 2016
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`3
`
`
`
`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 Objection to Evidence
`
`Submitted with Patent Owner Response was served as of the below date on the
`
`Patent Owner via e-mail (by agreement) to the following counsel of record for the
`
` / Kim Helenius /
`Kim Helenius
`
`
`4
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`Dated: September 8, 2016