Case5:13-cv-03999-BLF Document65 Filed06/16/14 Page1 of 29
`
`
`
`PAUL J. 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 JOSE DIVISION
`
`
`
`Case No.: 13-cv-03999-BLF
`
`PLAINTIFF FINJAN, INC.’S OPENING
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`Date: August 22, 2014
`Time: 9:00 a.m.
`Dept.: Courtroom 3, 5th Floor
`Judge: Beth Labson Freeman
`
`FINJAN, INC., a Delaware Corporation,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`
`BLUE COAT SYSTEMS, INC., a Delaware
`Corporation,
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`____________________________________________________________________________________
`FINJAN’S OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
` CASE NO. 13-cv-03999-BLF
`
`
`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
`
`Palo Alto Networks, Inc. - Exhibit 1092
`Palo Alto Networks, Inc. v. Finjan, Inc., IPR2016-00159
`
`

`
`
`
`I. 
`
`II. 
`
`Case5:13-cv-03999-BLF Document65 Filed06/16/14 Page2 of 29
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
` Page
`
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................ 1 
`
`STATEMENT OF FACTS ........................................................................................................... 2 
`
`A. 
`
`B. 
`
`Background of the Technology ......................................................................................... 2 
`
`Summary of Finjan’s Patents ............................................................................................ 3 
`
`1. 
`
`2. 
`
`3. 
`
`4. 
`
`5. 
`
`‘822, ‘633 Patents ................................................................................................. 3 
`
`‘844 Patent ............................................................................................................ 4 
`
`‘731 Patent ............................................................................................................ 5 
`
`‘780 Patent ............................................................................................................ 5 
`
`‘968 Patent ............................................................................................................ 5 
`
`III. 
`
`ARGUMENT ................................................................................................................................ 6 
`
`A. 
`
`Finjan’s Proposed Terms .................................................................................................. 6 
`
`1. 
`
`2. 
`
`3. 
`
`Mobile Protection Code (the ‘822, ‘633 Patents) ................................................. 6 
`
`Downloadable security profile that identifies suspicious code in the
`received Downloadable (the ‘844 Patent) ............................................................. 9 
`
`Means-plus-function Claim Terms (3 Terms) .................................................... 11 
`
`i. 
`
`ii. 
`
`Means for causing mobile protection code to be communicated to
`at least one information-destination of the downloadable-
`information, if the downloadable-information is determined to
`include executable code .......................................................................... 11 
`
`Means for determining whether to trust the first Downloadable
`security profile / means for comparing the first Downloadable
`security profile against the security policy if the first
`Downloadable security profile is trustworthy ......................................... 13 
`
`B. 
`
`Blue Coat’s Proposed Terms for Construction ............................................................... 15 
`
`1. 
`
`2. 
`
`Information-destination/Downloadable-information destination (‘822,
`‘633) .................................................................................................................... 16 
`
`Causing mobile protection code to be executed by the mobile code
`executor at a downloadable-information destination such that one or
`more operations of the executable code at the destination, if attempted,
`will be processed by the mobile protection code (‘633) ..................................... 18 
`
`i
`__________________________________________________________________________________
`FINJAN’S OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
` CASE NO. 13-cv-03999-BLF
`
`
`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
`
`Palo Alto Networks, Inc. - Exhibit 1092
`Palo Alto Networks, Inc. v. Finjan, Inc., IPR2016-00159
`
`

`
`Case5:13-cv-03999-BLF Document65 Filed06/16/14 Page3 of 29
`
`
`
`3. 
`
`4. 
`
`5. 
`
`Preamble with Typographical Errors (the ‘633 Patent) ...................................... 19 
`
`Before [a/the] web server make[s] the Downloadable available to web
`clients (the ‘844 Patent) ...................................................................................... 20 
`
`Network Gateway / Computer Gateway (the ‘731 Patent) ................................. 21 
`
`IV. 
`
`CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................................... 24 
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`__________________________________________________________________________________
`FINJAN’S OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
` CASE NO. 13-cv-03999-BLF
`
`
`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
`
`Palo Alto Networks, Inc. - Exhibit 1092
`Palo Alto Networks, Inc. v. Finjan, Inc., IPR2016-00159
`
`

`
`Case5:13-cv-03999-BLF Document65 Filed06/16/14 Page4 of 29
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page(s)
`
`
`
`
`CASES
`
`Aventis Pharm. Inc. v. Amino Chems. Ltd.,
`715 F.3d 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2013)...................................................................................................16, 22
`
`B. Braun Med., Inc. v. Abbott Labs.,
`124 F.3d 1419 (Fed. Cir. 1997).........................................................................................................13
`
`CBT Flint Partners, LLC v. Return Path, Inc.,
`654 F.3d 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2011).........................................................................................................20
`
`Finjan, Inc. v. Secure Computing Corp.,
`626 F.3d 1197 (Fed. Cir. 2010).......................................................................................................6, 8
`
`Funai Elec. Co. v. Daewoo Elecs. Corp.,
`616 F.3d 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2010).....................................................................................................8, 17
`
`Hoechst Celanese Corp. v. BP Chems. Ltd.,
`78 F.3d 1575 (Fed. Cir. 1996)...........................................................................................................17
`
`Jang v. Boston Scientific Corp.,
`532 F.3d 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2008)...................................................................................................11, 21
`
`Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc.,
`52 F.3d 967 (Fed. Cir. 1995)(en banc), aff’d, 517 U.S. 370 (1996) ...................................................6
`
`Odetics, Inc. v. Storage Tech Corp.,
`185 F.3d 1259 (Fed. Cir. 1999).........................................................................................................15
`
`Phillips v. AWH Corp.,
`415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005)(en banc) ............................................................................................6
`
`SuperGuide Corp. v. DirecTV Enterprises, Inc.,
`358 F.3d 870 (Fed. Cir. 2004).............................................................................................................8
`
`Superior Indus., Inc. v. Masaba, Inc.,
`553 Fed. Appx. 986 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ..........................................................................................11, 21
`
`Thorner v. Sony Computer Entm’t Am. LLC,
`669 F.3d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2012).......................................................................................10, 16, 19, 23
`
`Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc.,
`90 F.3d 1576 (Fed. Cir. 1996).............................................................................................................7
`
`iii
`__________________________________________________________________________________
`FINJAN’S OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
` CASE NO. 13-cv-03999-BLF
`
`
`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
`
`Palo Alto Networks, Inc. - Exhibit 1092
`Palo Alto Networks, Inc. v. Finjan, Inc., IPR2016-00159
`
`

`
`Case5:13-cv-03999-BLF Document65 Filed06/16/14 Page5 of 29
`
`
`
`STATUTES
`
`35 U.S.C. § 112(f) .............................................................................................................................13, 14
`
`35 U.S.C. § 112(6) ......................................................................................................................11, 13, 14
`
`
`
`iv
`__________________________________________________________________________________
`FINJAN’S OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
` CASE NO. 13-cv-03999-BLF
`
`
`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
`
`Palo Alto Networks, Inc. - Exhibit 1092
`Palo Alto Networks, Inc. v. Finjan, Inc., IPR2016-00159
`
`

`
`Case5:13-cv-03999-BLF Document65 Filed06/16/14 Page6 of 29
`
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Finjan was founded nearly 20 years ago with the mission of protecting unsuspecting computer
`
`users from attack. From the onset, Finjan recognized the emergent field of cybersecurity and invented
`
`novel technologies to combat the growing threats. Finjan’s innovations and products represent the
`
`state-of-the-art for detecting and thwarting software intrusions and malicious code delivery.
`
`Cybersecurity related crimes represent a cost to consumers of $110 billion a year. Finjan is on the
`
`forefront of the fight to make our computers and networks safe.
`
`Like many technology companies, Finjan patented its inventions. Reflecting the novel
`
`inventions that it discovered, Finjan’s patents cover a range of computer security technologies. Also
`
`like many technology companies with significant investment in research and development, Finjan
`
`licenses its technology. A number of companies have agreed to license the Finjan patents for their use
`
`of the patented technologies. Blue Coat has not licensed Finjan’s patents and Finjan brought this
`
`action for patent infringement.
`
`In these claim construction proceedings, Finjan seeks construction of those terms that will
`
`assist the fact finder. Two of Finjan’s constructions are pulled directly from the specification where
`
`the applicant unambiguously defined the term. Three of the terms Finjan offers for construction are
`
`means plus function claims which require construction consistent with the specification. Because
`
`Finjan’s constructions remain true to the claim language and intrinsic evidence, all of Finjan’s
`
`straightforward claim constructions should be adopted.
`
`On the other hand, Blue Coat offers superfluous constructions for terms readily understood by
`
`persons of ordinary skill in the art, including its own expert. Accordingly, these constructions will not
`
`assist the fact finder – the goal of claim construction. In addition, Blue Coat’s proposed constructions
`
`read limitations into the claims based on embodiments in the specification –– a cardinal sin of claim
`
`construction, which, if adopted would be clear error. Blue Coat’s confusing and incorrect
`
`constructions should be rejected.
`
`1
`__________________________________________________________________________________
`FINJAN’S OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
` CASE NO. 13-cv-03999-BLF
`
`
`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
`
`Palo Alto Networks, Inc. - Exhibit 1092
`Palo Alto Networks, Inc. v. Finjan, Inc., IPR2016-00159
`
`

`
`Case5:13-cv-03999-BLF Document65 Filed06/16/14 Page7 of 29
`
`
`
`II.
`
`STATEMENT OF FACTS
`A.
`Background of the Technology
`Computer viruses cause billions of dollars of damages and lost productivity every year.
`
`Generally, viruses are executable code that perform adverse or hostile operations inside a computer or
`
`network. These operations may include modifying a computer’s operating or file system, collecting
`
`and transmitting personal information, or installing malicious programs (e.g., malware or Trojan
`
`horses). Hackers create viruses for a variety of purposes, including cyber terrorism and personal profit.
`
`Early viruses corrupted individual files and computers, but did not typically propagate
`
`throughout computer networks. As new viruses were discovered, a “signature” could be created to
`
`identify the specific virus. Traditional anti-virus software works by scanning for the specific
`
`signatures and then cordoning off suspicious files. Signature scanning is a “reactive” technology
`
`because it protects users from known viruses.
`
`The Internet presents hackers with a new way to attack users’ computers and networks. By
`
`taking advantage of executable code running on Internet browsers (such as scripts), viruses have
`
`proliferated. Now, a virus can be surreptitiously embedded in a webpage, often on a legitimate
`
`website, and exposed to thousands or millions of viewers accessing the webpage. Responding to anti-
`
`virus technology, hackers create sophisticated programs that thwart signature scanning by obfuscating
`
`the virus to avoid detection.
`
`Computer security’s goal is to protect networks, host computers, and the information they store
`
`and exchange from unauthorized access and modification. Generally, there are two locations for
`
`security mechanisms, host-based security and network-based security. Host-based security is typically
`
`security on an individual computer, such as a virus scanner running on a home PC. Network-based
`
`security takes place on a network (e.g., a security gateway or server). A security gateway operates
`
`between an external computer or network and a protected computer or network. The security gateway
`
`mediates the communication between host computers in the internal network and the external network
`
`according to security policies. For example, a security gateway can block communications that
`
`2
`__________________________________________________________________________________
`FINJAN’S OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
` CASE NO. 13-cv-03999-BLF
`
`
`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
`
`Palo Alto Networks, Inc. - Exhibit 1092
`Palo Alto Networks, Inc. v. Finjan, Inc., IPR2016-00159
`
`

`
`Case5:13-cv-03999-BLF Document65 Filed06/16/14 Page8 of 29
`
`
`
`originates from a certain computer or network, or even country, or can block certain types of
`
`communications determined, or suspected of containing malware.
`B.
`Summary of Finjan’s Patents
`With the development of the Internet, Finjan recognized the threat of Internet proliferated
`
`viruses. Since the mid-1990s, it pioneered new techniques to protect computers and networks using
`
`behavior based technology. In contrast to the existing signature-based scanning, Finjan’s technology
`
`used proactive techniques for detecting malicious code. Finjan’s technology looked at what the code
`
`was intended to do and how it behaved, regardless of its signature. This allowed for detection of
`
`unknown viruses and those obfuscated by clever hackers. Although viruses are created at an alarming
`
`rate, the actual malicious behaviors utilized by the viruses are often reused. Accordingly, by targeting
`
`the viruses’ behavior, the Finjan technologies effectively stem the tide of malicious code based attacks,
`
`even for viruses that have never been seen before.
`
`Six of Finjan’s patents have been asserted against Blue Coat’s products in this case, U.S. Patent
`
`Nos. 7,058,822 (“’822 Patent”), 7,647,622 (“’633 Patent”), 6,154,844 (“’844 Patent”), 7,418,731
`
`(“’731 Patent”), 6,804,780 (“’780 Patent”), and 6,965,968 (“’968 Patent”) (collectively “Finjan
`Patents”). Exs. 1-6.1 The Finjan Patents relate to a variety of technologies for protecting computers
`from viruses downloaded through the Internet. The patents refer to information downloaded from the
`
`Internet as a “Downloadable” that can include multiple types of content. The Finjan Patents describe
`
`different aspects of protection, as well as techniques for optimization of protection systems.
`1.
`
`‘822, ‘633 Patents
`
`The ‘822 and ‘633 Patents are related patents that share the same specification and generally
`
`cover protecting network connectable devices, such as computers on a network, from malicious
`
`executable code, such as viruses, that perform undesirable operations. The patents describe a
`
`protection engine that operates within a re-communicator, such as a server or gateway computer. The
`
`protection engine intercepts information downloaded to a computer or network, and which may or may
`
`
`1 All citations to exhibits are to exhibits attached to the Declaration of James Hannah filed herewith.
`
`3
`__________________________________________________________________________________
`FINJAN’S OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
` CASE NO. 13-cv-03999-BLF
`
`
`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
`
`Palo Alto Networks, Inc. - Exhibit 1092
`Palo Alto Networks, Inc. v. Finjan, Inc., IPR2016-00159
`
`

`
`Case5:13-cv-03999-BLF Document65 Filed06/16/14 Page9 of 29
`
`
`
`not include a virus, and determines whether the information includes executable code. Executable
`
`code is information that includes operations or actions to be performed by a system or computer. For
`
`example, executable code embedded in a webpage can perform operations, such as reading files,
`
`opening connections to other URLs or responding to movements of the mouse on the computer. In this
`
`example, if the information includes executable information, the protection engine can package the
`
`information with mobile protection code (“MPC”), and security policies for protection. See Exs. 1-2
`
`(‘822 and ‘633 Patents, Fig. 3). The MPC monitors and/or intercepts potentially malicious code or
`
`operations, as would be run by a virus. Therefore, the MPC can protect against even obscured
`
`malicious operations because the behavior is analyzed, rather than verifying a known signature of the
`
`downloaded file.
`
`The ‘822 and ‘633 Patents also address when a virus intentionally misidentifies itself or is
`
`obfuscated in a way to hide executable code within downloadable information. Ex. 1 (‘822 Patent,
`
`Col. 9, ll. 14-22); Ex. 2 (‘633 Patent, Col. 9, ll.10-24). By determining whether the downloadable-
`
`information includes executable code, the claimed invention protects against threats from hidden or
`
`obfuscated executable code because it identifies code that may perform malicious operations that are
`
`not immediately apparent. The ‘822 and ‘633 Patents include multiple tests for detecting whether the
`
`downloadable-information includes executable code. See id. (‘822 Patent, Col. 12, ll. 18-27); Ex. 2
`
`(‘633 Patent, Col. 12, ll. 8-17).
`2.
`
`‘844 Patent
`
`The ‘844 Patent relates to inspecting a downloadable and associating a profile to the
`
`downloadable indicating suspicious (i.e., hostile or potentially hostile) operations that may be
`
`attempted by the downloadable. In this way, the system is able to characterize the behavior of the
`
`downloadable to determine whether it is malicious. To generate this profile, known as a downloadable
`
`security profile (“DSP”), the ‘844 Patent generally includes a content inspector that identifies
`
`suspicious operations or code in a downloadable and linking the DSP to the downloadable. The
`
`content inspector generally uses a set of rules which may include a list of operations or code patterns
`
`deemed suspicious. This list of suspicious operations or code patterns can be used to generate a DSP
`
`4
`__________________________________________________________________________________
`FINJAN’S OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
` CASE NO. 13-cv-03999-BLF
`
`
`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
`
`Palo Alto Networks, Inc. - Exhibit 1092
`Palo Alto Networks, Inc. v. Finjan, Inc., IPR2016-00159
`
`

`
`Case5:13-cv-03999-BLF Document65 Filed06/16/14 Page10 of 29
`
`
`
`indicating the different combinations of malicious operations present in the downloadable. Ex. 3 (‘844
`
`Patent, Col. 2, l. 65-Col. 3, l. 2). After the DSP has been created and identified for a particular
`
`downloadable, it can be used to determine whether to allow the downloadable into a network or to be
`
`delivered to a computer. Id.
`3.
`
`‘731 Patent
`
`The ‘731 Patent is generally directed towards methods and systems for caching at a computer
`
`gateway. “Caching” relates to the use of a cache (i.e., temporary storage) of content, such as
`
`webpages. Information previously stored can be reused from the cache instead of fetching the
`
`webpage across the Internet every time the site is visited, thereby reducing bandwidth and processing
`
`requirements.
`
`The ‘731 Patent generally includes a scanner for scanning incoming files from the Internet and
`
`deriving a security profile, a file cache for storing files, a security profile cache for storing security
`
`profiles for files, and a security policy cache for storing security policies for intranet computers within
`
`an intranet. The ‘731 Patent allows a much more efficient system by caching downloaded content and
`
`corresponding derived profiles, thereby reducing the need to re-analyze content previously downloaded
`
`to derive a security profile. Generally, the cached security profiles can be compared to the security
`
`policies to determine if any restrictions should be placed on the Downloadable.
`4.
`
`‘780 Patent
`
`The ‘780 Patent relates to systems and techniques for generating an ID for a Downloadable.
`
`The ID is generated by a process called “hashing.” Hashing is a mathematical function that can be
`
`applied to data to allow more efficient determination of whether the data was previously seen. The
`
`‘780 Patent describes hashing the Downloadable along with referenced components to generate the ID
`
`for the Downloadable. The ID generated can be applied to one component of the Downloadable, to a
`
`subset of the components, to all of the components of a Downloadable or stored for later use. Finjan
`
`and Blue Coat do not dispute the meaning of the ‘780 Patent’s terms.
`5.
`
` ‘968 Patent
`
`The ‘968 Patent generally covers a policy-based cache manager. The system uses a policy
`
`5
`__________________________________________________________________________________
`FINJAN’S OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
` CASE NO. 13-cv-03999-BLF
`
`
`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
`
`Palo Alto Networks, Inc. - Exhibit 1092
`Palo Alto Networks, Inc. v. Finjan, Inc., IPR2016-00159
`
`

`
`Case5:13-cv-03999-BLF Document65 Filed06/16/14 Page11 of 29
`
`
`
`index to efficiently manage cached content. Finjan and Blue Coat do not dispute the meaning of the
`
`‘968 Patent’s terms.
`
`III. ARGUMENT
`A.
`Finjan’s Proposed Terms
`Finjan’s claim construction follows the fundamental principles of claim construction. The
`
`purpose of claim construction is to define the proper scope of the invention and to give meaning to
`
`claim language when the jury might otherwise misunderstand a claim term in the context of the patent.
`
`See Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 52 F.3d 967, 976 (Fed. Cir. 1995)(en banc), aff’d, 517
`
`U.S. 370 (1996). “The construction that stays true to the claim language and most naturally aligns with
`
`Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2005)(en banc). If a claim term is non‐technical, is in plain
`
`the patent’s description of the invention will be, in the end, the correct construction.” Phillips v. AWH
`
`English, and derives no special meaning from the patent and its prosecution history, then the term
`
`should be given its “plain and ordinary meaning” and the Court does not need to construe that term.
`
`See Finjan, Inc. v. Secure Computing Corp., 626 F.3d 1197, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (rejecting argument
`
`that district court “shirked its responsibility to construe a disputed claim term by adopting ‘plain and
`ordinary meaning’”).
`The claims of the Finjan Patents, although technical, were drafted in a manner that an ordinary
`
`person skilled in the art could understand. In fact, there are only a few claims in the asserted patents
`
`that require construction given the clear drafting of the claim language. Finjan’s constructions are
`
`consistent with the specification, unlike Blue Coat’s proposed constructions, which are often
`
`contradictory to the specification and add unnecessary ambiguity and limitations to well understood
`
`claim language.
`1.
`
`Mobile Protection Code (the ‘822, ‘633 Patents)
`
`Term in Dispute
`
`mobile protection code
`
`Finjan’s Proposed
`Construction
`code capable of
`monitoring or
`intercepting potentially
`
`Blue Coat’s Proposed
`Construction
`runtime code for
`monitoring for an
`attempt of an
`
`6
`__________________________________________________________________________________
`FINJAN’S OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
` CASE NO. 13-cv-03999-BLF
`
`
`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
`
`Palo Alto Networks, Inc. - Exhibit 1092
`Palo Alto Networks, Inc. v. Finjan, Inc., IPR2016-00159
`
`

`
`Case5:13-cv-03999-BLF Document65 Filed06/16/14 Page12 of 29
`
`
`
`malicious code
`
`executable code
`operation and for
`causing an operation to
`occur in response to
`the executable code
`operation
`Finjan and Blue Coat agree that Mobile Protection Code (“MPC”) requires construction
`
`because it does not have an ordinary meaning outside the context of the ‘822 and ‘633 Patents. The
`
`term is used in claims 1 and 9 of the ‘822 Patent and claims 1, 8, 13, and 14 of the ‘633 Patent. For
`
`example, claim 9 of the ‘822 Patent states:
`1. A computer processor-based method, comprising:
`receiving, by a computer, downloadable-information;
`determining, by the computer, whether the downloadable-information includes
`executable code; and
`based upon the determination, transmitting from the computer mobile protection
`code to at least one information-destination of the downloadable-information, if
`the downloadable-information is determined to include executable code.
`
`Ex. 1 (‘822 Patent, Col. 21, l. 65-Col. 22, l. 20).
`
`
`
`As set forth above, MPC, in the context of the ‘822 and ‘633 Patents, is the code that protects a
`
`computer from harmful operations. While MPC is not a term often used in the art, the intrinsic record
`
`provides the proper meaning. Declaration of Nenad Medvidovic in Support of Finjan’s Opening Claim
`
`Construction Brief (“Medvidovic Decl.”) at ¶ 12; Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576,
`
`1582 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (“It is well-settled that, in interpreting an asserted claim, the court should look
`
`first to the intrinsic evidence of record, i.e., the patent itself, including the claims, the specification and,
`
`if in evidence, the prosecution history.”). Finjan’s construction is taken straight from the specification
`
`which provides that “mobile protection code [causes] one or more predetermined malicious operations
`
`or operation combinations of a Downloadable to be monitored or otherwise intercepted.” Ex. 1 (‘822
`
`Patent, Col. 3, ll. 6-10). Thus, Finjan’s construction should be adopted because the intrinsic record
`
`fully supports it.
`
`In fact, Finjan’s construction is so readily apparent from the specification, that it was adopted
`
`in a prior litigation. Ex. 7 at 3 (Ex. A to Final Joint Claim Construction Chart, Finjan Software Ltd. v.
`
`7
`__________________________________________________________________________________
`FINJAN’S OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
` CASE NO. 13-cv-03999-BLF
`
`
`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
`
`Palo Alto Networks, Inc. - Exhibit 1092
`Palo Alto Networks, Inc. v. Finjan, Inc., IPR2016-00159
`
`

`
`Case5:13-cv-03999-BLF Document65 Filed06/16/14 Page13 of 29
`
`
`
`Secure Computing Corp., Case No. 1:06-cv-00369 (D. Del. Aug. 24, 2007), Dkt. No. 108-1. That
`
`previous case involving the ‘822 Patent was appealed to the Federal Circuit and the verdict upheld.
`
`Finjan, Inc. v. Secure Computing Corp., 626 F.3d 1197 (Fed. Cir. 2010). Despite the adoption of
`
`Finjan’s construction in the previous case, Blue Coat’s proposal deviates significantly from the prior
`
`construction.
`
`Blue Coat’s proposed construction is improper because it attempts to import the unnecessary
`
`limitation of the MPC being “runtime code.” SuperGuide Corp. v. DirecTV Enterprises, Inc., 358 F.3d
`
`870, 875 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (“[I]t is important not to import into a claim limitations that are not part of
`
`the claim.”). Blue Coat’s importation of the limitation “runtime code” contradicts embodiments
`
`disclosed in the ‘822 and ‘633 Patents in which the MPC is non-runtime. For example, the ‘822 Patent
`
`discloses a server that can receive a Downloadable that includes executable code. Ex. 1 (‘822 Patent,
`
`Col. 2, l. 37-Col. 4, l. 41). In this example embodiment provided in the patents, the server can analyze
`
`the Downloadable and package it with the MPC. Id. The single package is then sent to the destination
`
`to protect it from malicious operations. Id. In this example, the MPC is not runtime code because it is
`
`never run by the server. It is simply packaged with the incoming Downloadable and sent to the
`
`destination. Because Blue Coat’s proposed construction excludes this preferred embodiment, its
`
`construction should be rejected because it violates a fundamental principle of clam construction.
`
`Blue Coat’s limitation requiring the MPC to “caus[e] an operation to occur in response to the
`
`executable code operation” also reads out the preferred embodiments from the ‘822 and ‘633 patents—
`
`a cardinal sin of patent law. Funai Elec. Co. v. Daewoo Elecs. Corp., 616 F.3d 1357, 1371 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2010) (rejecting claim construction that excluded an example embodiment). The patents disclose
`
`embodiments in which the MPC invokes other components to respond to the detection of executable
`
`code, rather than responding to executable code itself. For example, the ‘822 and ‘633 Patents disclose
`
`embodiments with a separate protection policy component for responding to malicious operations. Ex.
`
`1 (‘822 Patent, Col. 3, ll. 10-15); Ex. 2 (‘633 Patent, Col. 3, ll.10-15)(“[t]he sandboxed package also
`
`includes protection policies (operable alone or in conjunction with further Downloadable-destination
`
`stored or received policies/MPCs) for causing one or more predetermined operations to be performed if
`
`8
`__________________________________________________________________________________
`FINJAN’S OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
` CASE NO. 13-cv-03999-BLF
`
`
`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
`
`Palo Alto Networks, Inc. - Exhibit 1092
`Palo Alto Networks, Inc. v. Finjan, Inc., IPR2016-00159
`
`

`
`Case5:13-cv-03999-BLF Document65 Filed06/16/14 Page14 of 29
`
`
`
`one or more undesirable operations of the Downloadable is/are intercepted.”)(emphasis added); see
`
`also id. at Fig. 3. Because Blue Coat’s proposed construction requires the MPC to respond to the
`
`detection of executable code itself instead of allowing the MPC to invoke other components, it is
`
`prohibitively restrictive and improper.
`
`Blue Coat’s proposed construction also eliminates the primary purpose of MPC by removing
`
`the requirement that the MPC be used for protection or security. That MPC is used for computer and
`
`network security is plain from the term itself, as Mobile Protection Code, and is described throughout
`
`the specification. As disclosed in the very first sentence of the ‘822 and ‘633 Patents, the invention is
`
`directed to “[p]rotection systems and methods provide for protecting one or more personal computers
`
`(‘PCs’) and/or other intermittently or persistently network accessible devices . . . .” Exs. 1-2 (‘822
`
`and ‘633 Paten