`
`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 MOTION TO EXCLUDE
`
`
`
`
`
`sf-3723600
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00151
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Attorney Docket No. 719712801200
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`Page
`
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`PROCEDURAL HISTORY ........................................................................... 1
`
`THE BOARD SHOULD EXCLUDE PAGES 3-20 OF EXHIBIT
`2007 ................................................................................................................ 2
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`Finjan Has Failed to Provide Competent Testimony to
`Authenticate Exhibit 2007. ................................................................... 3
`
`Finjan’s Evidence is Insufficient to Support a Finding that
`Pages 3-20 of Exhibit 2007 Correspond to the Patent
`Application Allegedly Sent by Mr. Ben-Itzhak. .................................. 4
`
`III. CONCLUSION ............................................................................................... 6
`
`
`sf-3723600
`
`
`
`i
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00151
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Attorney Docket No. 719712801200
`
`Petitioner’s Exhibit List for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,141,154
`
`Exhibit Description
`
`Exhibit #
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,141,154 (“the ’154 Patent”)
`
`Declaration of Dr. Aviel D. Rubin in Support of Petition for Inter
`Partes Review (“Rubin Decl.”)
`
`U.S. Publication No. 2007/0113282 A1 (“Ross”)
`
`U.S. Publication No. 2002/0066022 A1 (“Calder”)
`
`Declaration of Dr. Aviel Rubin in support of Petitioner’s Reply
`
`Excerpt of Finjan Responses to Symantec First Interrogatories
`
`Excerpt of Finjan Supplement Responses to Symantec First
`Interrogatories
`
`Declaration of Nathan Hamstra, Esq.
`
`Deposition Transcript of Mr. Yuval Ben-Itzhak
`
`Deposition Transcript of Dr. Marc Berger, PhD
`
`Deposition Transcript of Dr. Nenand Medvidovic
`
`TCP/IP Network Administration
`
`Excerpt of File History for 09/595,839
`
`Excerpt of File History for 09/730,326
`
`Supplemental Declaration of Dr. Marc Berger, Ph.D.
`
`sf-3723600
`
`ii
`
`1001
`
`1002
`
`1003
`
`1004
`
`1005
`
`1006
`
`1007
`
`1008
`
`1009
`
`1010
`
`1011
`
`1012
`
`1013
`
`1014
`
`1015
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00151
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Attorney Docket No. 719712801200
`
`Petitioner’s Exhibits 1001-1014 were previously filed and are listed again here
`
`based on 37 C.F.R. § 42.63. Petitioner’s Exhibit 1015 is newly filed.
`
`sf-3723600
`
`iii
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00151
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Attorney Docket No. 719712801200
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(c), Palo Alto Networks, Inc. (“Petitioner”)
`
`moves to exclude portions of Exhibit 2007 relied upon by Patent Owner Finjan,
`
`Inc. (“Patent Owner” or “Finjan”), for lack of authentication and insufficient
`
`corroboration.
`
`I.
`
`PROCEDURAL HISTORY
`
`Trial in this proceeding was instituted on April 20, 2016. (Paper No. 10.)
`
`All instituted grounds depend on Patent Application No. US 2007/0113282 A1
`
`(Ex. 1003) (“Ross”). (Id. at 17.) In its Patent Owner Response, Finjan argued that
`
`Ross is not prior art because the ’154 patent was allegedly conceived and diligently
`
`reduced to practice from a time predating Ross. (Paper No. 19 at 5.) In doing so,
`
`Finjan relied on Exhibit 2007, which consists of a two page print-out of an email
`
`chain between Mr. Ben-Itzhak and Dr. Berger, and a seventeen page undated draft
`
`patent application, that supposedly was attached to the email. Finjan argues that
`
`Exhibit 2007 establishes an alleged date of conception of October 31, 2005. (Id. at
`
`7; Ex. 2007.)
`
`Petitioner timely filed and served its objections to evidence on September 8,
`
`2016. (Paper No. 22.) In its objections, Petitioner specifically objected to Exhibit
`
`2007. (Id. at 1-2.) In response, Finjan served a supplemental declaration from Dr.
`
`Berger. (Ex. 1015.) On December 6, 2016, Petitioner filed and served its
`
`Petitioner’s Reply, in which it addressed Finjan’s argument based on Exhibit 2007
`
`sf-3723600
`
`1
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00151
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Attorney Docket No. 719712801200
`
`that the ’154 patent was allegedly conceived and diligently reduced to practice
`
`from a time predating Ross. (Paper No 32 at 7-9.)
`
`II. THE BOARD SHOULD EXCLUDE PAGES 3-20 OF EXHIBIT 2007
`
`Federal Rule of Evidence 901 requires that the proponent “produce evidence
`
`sufficient to support a finding that [an] item is what the proponent claims it is.”
`
`Fed. R. Evid. 901(a). Here, the evidence fails to indicate that the document
`
`corresponding to pages 3-20 of Exhibit 2007 is the patent application which was
`
`allegedly attached to Mr. Ben-Itzhak’s, October 31, 2005 email.
`
`According to Finjan, “Yuval Ben-Itzhak, one of the inventors of the ’154
`
`Patent, emailed an invention disclosure, in the form of a draft patent application, to
`
`Dr. Marc Berger on October 31, 2005, more than two weeks before Ross’ filing
`
`date.” (Paper No. 19 at 7.) To support its statement, Finjan relies on a declaration
`
`from Dr. Berger, a former employee of Finjan who drafted its patent applications at
`
`the time, stating that on October 31, 2005 he received an email attaching a draft
`
`patent application from Mr. Ben-Itzhak. (Ex. 2010 ¶¶ 4-5.) Finjan further relies
`
`on a supplemental declaration from Dr. Berger, stating that pages 3-20 of Exhibit
`
`2007, a document that he physically located in his files, “is a copy of the Invention
`
`Disclosure that Mr. Ben-Itzhak attached in his October 31, 2005 email.” (Ex. 1015
`
`¶ 2.) Finjan also submitted a declaration from Mr. Ben-Itzhak, stating generally
`
`sf-3723600
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00151
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Attorney Docket No. 719712801200
`
`that in October 2005, he prepared a draft patent application and sent an email
`
`attaching the draft application to Dr. Berger. (Ex. 2011 ¶ 6.)
`
`A.
`
`Finjan Has Failed to Provide Competent Testimony to
`Authenticate Exhibit 2007.
`
`Finjan has relied on a declaration from its inventor, Mr. Ben-Itzhak, as well
`
`as declarations from the Finjan employee who drafted the patent application that
`
`issued as the ’154 patent, Dr. Berger, to authenticate Exhibit 2007. While
`
`normally, the testimony of persons having personal knowledge of the documents
`
`could be sufficient to support a finding that the item is authentic, “the context in
`
`which these exhibits are offered requires more.” Neste Oil Oyj v. Reg Synthetic
`
`Fuels, LLC, No. IPR2013-00578, Paper No. 52 at 3-4 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 12, 2015).
`
`Specifically, because Finjan relies on Exhibit 2007 in an attempt to prove prior
`
`invention, independent corroborative evidence of authenticity is required. See id.
`
`at 4.
`
`The testimony presented by Finjan is not independent, as it is from Finjan’s
`
`inventor and the patent attorney who prosecuted the application. Microsoft Corp.
`
`v. Surfcast, Inc., No. IPR2013-00292, Paper No. 93 at 16-17 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 14,
`
`2014) (requiring “independent confirmation of the inventor’s testimony” to prove
`
`the “date and identity of a physical exhibit offered to show conception” (emphasis
`
`in original); 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) (holding
`
`sf-3723600
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00151
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Attorney Docket No. 719712801200
`
`that testimony from patent prosecutor employed by patent holder “does not provide
`
`sufficient independent corroboration” to establish date of conception); see also
`
`Lacks Indus., Inc. v. McKechnie Vehicle Components USA, Inc., 322 F.3d 1335,
`
`1350 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (holding cross-corroboration of oral testimony to be
`
`insufficient). Thus, testimony from Mr. Ben-Itzhak and Dr. Berger cannot be used
`
`to authenticate Exhibit 2007.
`
`B.
`
`Finjan’s Evidence is Insufficient to Support a Finding that Pages
`3-20 of Exhibit 2007 Correspond to the Patent Application
`Allegedly Sent by Mr. Ben-Itzhak.
`
`Even if the declarations submitted by Finjan could be used to determine
`
`authenticity, Finjan’s evidence is insufficient to support a finding that Mr. Ben-
`
`Itzhak sent the draft patent application in Exhibit 2007 to Dr. Berger on October
`
`31, 2005. As an initial matter, there is no indication of what attachments, if any,
`
`were associated with the October 31, 2005 email. The email itself does not include
`
`a document icon indicating that an attachment was included (Ex. 2007 at 2), nor is
`
`there any evidence that any draft application was physically attached to the email
`
`print-out Dr. Berger found in his files.
`
`In addition, Exhibit 2007 actually suggests that the “attachment” included
`
`within the exhibit is not the same document that was attached to the email sent on
`
`October 31. In the email of October 31, Mr. Ben-Itzhak states that the title of the
`
`draft application he is attaching is “System and method for the remote inspection
`
`sf-3723600
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00151
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Attorney Docket No. 719712801200
`
`of code.” (Ex. 2007 at 2.) However, the document included within Exhibit 2007 is
`
`titled “System and Method for Inspecting Dynamically Generated Executable
`
`Code.” (Id. at 3.) Neither Finjan, nor any of its declarants, have explained the
`
`discrepancy in titles. 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.
`
`Finjan’s only support for its allegation that the document in Exhibit 2007 is
`
`the same as the supposed attachment to the October 31, 2005 email is Dr. Berger’s
`
`recollection of events occurring over 10 years ago. Yet during his deposition, Dr.
`
`Berger admitted time and time again that he could not remember specific dates
`
`relating to his work on the Finjan patents, including dates on which he received the
`
`invention disclosures. (Ex. 1010 at 10:19-18:22.) Indeed, in his October 31, 2005
`
`email, Dr. Ben-Itzhak refers to at least one other version of the draft application,
`
`which may or may not be the document corresponding to pages 3-20 of Exhibit
`
`2007. (Ex. 2007 at 2.) Finjan has provided no evidence establishing which version
`
`of the draft patent application corresponds to pages 3-20 of Exhibit 2007, nor has it
`
`ruled out whether any other versions existed. Tellingly, Finjan has failed to
`
`provide any declaration from Mr. Ben-Itzhak confirming that the document at
`
`pages 3-20 of Exhibit 2007 is in fact the same draft application he supposedly
`
`attached to his October 31, 2005 email.
`
`sf-3723600
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00151
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Attorney Docket No. 719712801200
`
`Accordingly, Finjan has failed to provide sufficient evidence to show that
`
`Mr. Ben-Itzhak provided a draft patent application to Dr. Berger on October 31,
`
`2005, or that if he did, the document corresponding to pages 3-20 of Exhibit 2007
`
`is the same as the draft patent application sent by Mr. Ben-Itzhak to Dr. Berger on
`
`October 31, 2005.
`
`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: December 28, 2016
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`sf-3723600
`
`6
`
`
`
`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 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: December 28, 2016
`
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`sf-3723600
`
`