Case3:13-cv-05808-HSG Document142 Filed05/01/15 Page1 of 30
`
`
`
`
`
`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 FRANCISCO DIVISION
`
`FINJAN, INC., a Delaware Corporation,
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`PROOFPOINT, INC. and ARMORIZE
`TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`Case No.: 5:13-cv-05808-HSG
`
`PLAINTIFF FINJAN, INC.’S OPENING
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`June 24, 2015
`Date:
`10:00 AM
`Time:
`Courtroom: Courtroom 15, 18th Floor
`Judge:
`Hon. Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr.
`
`
`
`____________________________________________________________________________________
` CASE NO. 5:13-cv-05808-HSG
`FINJAN’S OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`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
`
`
`
`Blue Coat Systems - Exhibit 1037
`
`

`
`Case3:13-cv-05808-HSG Document142 Filed05/01/15 Page2 of 30
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page(s)
`
`NOTICE OF HEARING .................................................................................................................. 1
`
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................... 1
`
`
`
`
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`III. STATEMENT OF FACTS .............................................................................................................. 2
`
`A. Background of the Technology and Patents ........................................................................... 2
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`The ‘844 Patent .............................................................................................................. 2
`
`The ‘822 and ‘633 Patents ............................................................................................. 3
`
`The ‘305 Patent .............................................................................................................. 3
`
`The ‘086 Patent .............................................................................................................. 4
`
`The ‘154 Patent .............................................................................................................. 4
`
`The ‘408 Patent .............................................................................................................. 4
`
`IV. ARGUMENT ................................................................................................................................... 4
`
`A. Finjan’s Proposed Terms ........................................................................................................ 5
`
`1. Mobile Protection Code (‘822 Patent: Claims 1, 4-7, 9, 12, 14, 16-20, 26-31,
`35/ ‘633 Patent: Claims 1 ,8, 13, 14, 20, 21, 27, 28-31, 34-35, 41)............................... 5
`
`2. Database (‘086 Patent: Claims 39-42) ........................................................................... 8
`
`3.
`
`Parse Tree (‘408 Patent: Claims 1, 2, 9, 11, 22, 23-35) ............................................... 11
`
`4. Means-Plus-Function Claim Terms (2 Terms) ............................................................ 13
`
`a)
`
`b)
`
`“receiving means for receiving, at an information re-communicator,
`downloadable-information, including executable code” .................................... 14
`
`“mobile code means communicatively coupled to the receiving means
`for causing mobile protection code to be executed by a mobile code
`executor at a downloadable-information destination” ........................................ 15
`
`B. Defendants’ Proposed Terms for Construction ..................................................................... 18
`
`1. A Call to a First Function/ [Invoking / Invoke / Calling] A Second Function
`(‘154 Patent: Claims 1, 4, 6, 10) .................................................................................. 18
`
`i
`__________________________________________________________________________________
`
`FINJAN’S OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
` CASE NO. 5:13-cv-05808-HSG
`
`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
`
`
`
`

`
`Case3:13-cv-05808-HSG Document142 Filed05/01/15 Page3 of 30
`
`
`
`2. Content Processor …Safe (‘154 Patent: Claim 1) ....................................................... 20
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`Selectively Diverting Incoming Content From Its Intended Destination To
`Said Rule-Based Content Scanner (‘305 Patent: Claim 1) .......................................... 21
`
`Information-Destination/Downloadable-Information Destination (‘822 Patent:
`Claims 1, 4-9, 12-16, 28 / ‘633 Patent: Claims 1 ,7, 8, 13, 14, 21) ............................. 23
`
`Linking The First Downloadable Security Profile To The Downloadable (‘844
`Patent: Claims 15, 41, 43) / Downloadable [Includes / With] A Linked [First]
`Downloadable Security Profile (‘844 Patent: Claims 22, 23, 32, 42, 44) ................... 24
`
`V. CONCLUSION .............................................................................................................................. 25
`
`
`
`ii
`__________________________________________________________________________________
`
`FINJAN’S OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
` CASE NO. 5:13-cv-05808-HSG
`
`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
`
`
`
`

`
`Case3:13-cv-05808-HSG Document142 Filed05/01/15 Page4 of 30
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`
`Page(s)
`
`
`
`Cases
`
`Aventis Pharms. Inc. v. Amino Chems. Ltd.,
`715 F.3d 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2013)..................................................................................................... 4, 18
`
`Dealertrack, Inc. v. Huber,
`No. 06-2335 AG, Dkt. No. 550, Order Ruling on Claim Construction Arguments
`(C.D. Cal. Sep. 27, 2008) .................................................................................................................. 22
`
`Fortinet, Inc. v. Sophos, Inc,
`No. C-13-5831 EMC, 2015 WL 877410 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 27, 2015) .................................................. 6
`
`Funai Elec. Co. v. Daewoo Elecs. Corp.,
`616 F.3d 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2010)..................................................................................................... 8, 19
`
`Hoechst Celanese Corp. v. BP Chems. Ltd.,
`78 F.3d 1575 (Fed. Cir. 1996)............................................................................................................. 8
`
`Inventio AG v. Thyssenkrupp Elevator Amers.,
`649 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2011)......................................................................................................... 21
`
`Karlin Tech. Inc. v. Surgical Dynamics, Inc.,
`177 F.3d 968 (Fed. Cir. 1999)........................................................................................................... 13
`
`In re Katz Interactive Call Processing Pat. Litig.,
`639 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2011)......................................................................................................... 15
`
`Lighting World, Inc. v. Birchwood Lighting, Inc.,
`382 F.3d 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2004)......................................................................................................... 21
`
`Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc.,
`52 F.3d 967 (Fed. Cir. 1995)(en banc), aff’d, 517 U.S. 370 (1996) ................................................... 4
`
`Med. Instrumentation & Diagnostics Corp. v. Elekta AB,
`344 F.3d 1205 (Fed. Cir. 2003)......................................................................................................... 14
`
`Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc.,
`No 13-369, 134 S. Ct. 2120 (2014) ................................................................................................... 23
`
`In re Papst Licensing Digital Camera Pat. Litig.,
`778 F.3d 1255 (Fed. Cir. 2015)......................................................................................................... 24
`
`Phillips v. AWH Corp.,
`415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005)(en banc).................................................................................... 4, 5, 7
`
`i
`i
`FINJAN’S OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`
` CASE NO. 5:13-cv-05808-HSG
`
`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
`
`
`
`

`
`Case3:13-cv-05808-HSG Document142 Filed05/01/15 Page5 of 30
`
`
`
`SciMed Life Sys., Inc. v. Advanced Cardiovascular Sys., Inc.,
`242 F.3d 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2001)........................................................................................................... 7
`
`Ex Parte Sonnendorfer et al.,
`2012-007103, App. No. 11/816,649 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 10, 2014) ......................................................... 22
`
`Thorner v. Sony Computer Entm’t Am. LLC,
`669 F.3d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2012)..................................................................................................... 4, 18
`
`Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc.,
`90 F.3d 1576 (Fed. Cir. 1996)............................................................................................................. 6
`
`Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC,
`770 F.3d 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2014)......................................................................................................... 21
`
`Statutes
`
`35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 6 .............................................................................................................. 14, 15, 20, 21
`
`
`
`ii
`__________________________________________________________________________________
`
`FINJAN’S OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
` CASE NO. 5:13-cv-05808-HSG
`
`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
`
`
`
`

`
`Case3:13-cv-05808-HSG Document142 Filed05/01/15 Page6 of 30
`
`
`
`I.
`
`NOTICE OF HEARING
`
`PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on June 24, 2015, at 10:00 a.m., or as soon thereafter as counsel
`
`may be heard, Plaintiff Finjan, Inc. (“Finjan”) shall request the Court adopt its proposed constructions
`
`of terms of the asserted patents as set forth below. Finjan’s constructions are supported by the points
`
`and authorities below, the Declaration of Kristopher Kastens in support thereof, the Declaration of
`
`Nenad Medvidovic in support thereof, and such other further matters as the Court may consider.
`II.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`The vast majority of the claim terms in Finjan’s patents do not require construction because
`
`they are understandable to one of ordinary skill in the art, especially in light of the intrinsic evidence.
`
`In all but a few special cases, the claims stand on their own because the plain language of the claims
`
`sets forth their meaning. For the limited number of terms that require construction, the intrinsic
`
`evidence supports Finjan’s proposed constructions. Finjan identifies five terms amongst the eight
`
`asserted patents that the Court should construe. In one instance, Finjan proposes a construction for a
`
`unique term—mobile protection code—because it is defined in the intrinsic record. For the term
`
`“database,” construction is necessary to properly construe the term in a manner that a person of
`
`ordinary skill in that art would understand it. In the case of the term “parse tree,” construction would
`
`benefit the factfinder even though this technical term is an understood term in the art. The remaining
`
`two terms require construction as a matter of law because they are “means-plus-function” terms.
`
`Defendants Proofpoint, Inc. and Armorize Technologies, Inc. (collectively “Defendants”)
`
`propose unnecessary and confusing constructions, which are not anchored to the intrinsic evidence.
`
`Defendants’ proposed constructions add limitations and rewrite the claims, improperly altering the
`
`meaning and scope of the claims. Further, Defendants attempt improperly to read limitations into the
`
`claims based on embodiments disclosed in the specification, violating basic principles of claim
`
`construction. Finally, Defendants contend that the use of “selectively” renders one claim term
`
`indefinite, notwithstanding the case law to the contrary. As such, Finjan respectfully requests the
`
`Court to adopt Finjan’s constructions which are based on the intrinsic evidence.
`
`1
`__________________________________________________________________________________
`
`FINJAN’S OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
` CASE NO. 5:13-cv-05808-HSG
`
`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
`
`
`
`

`
`Case3:13-cv-05808-HSG Document142 Filed05/01/15 Page7 of 30
`
`
`
`III.
`
`STATEMENT OF FACTS
`A.
`Finjan was founded in 1996 to develop products based on its pioneering technologies that
`
`Background of the Technology and Patents
`
`protect computers from new and unknown viruses. At the time, computers were only protected from
`
`known viruses. Essentially, “signatures” of these known viruses were created so that when a computer
`
`encountered the known virus, the computer would block the content. This traditional approach,
`
`however, did not block new or unknown viruses for which no signature had been created.
`
`To address this problem with the existing antivirus technology, Finjan developed a suite of
`
`innovative technologies that made it both possible and practical to look at the behaviors of content to
`
`determine whether to block such content. This content inspection made it possible to block malicious
`
`content, such as viruses, that were not previously known. Ultimately, Finjan developed patented
`
`technologies that protect against threats at various levels of Internet architecture by detecting abnormal
`
`behaviors and reacting to new unauthorized encroachments before a breach can occur.
`
`Finjan has asserted eight patents against Defendants, U.S. Patent Nos. 6,154,844 (“the ‘844
`
`Patent”), 7,058,822 (“the ‘822 Patent”), 7,613,918 (“the ‘918 Patent”), 7,647,633 (“the ‘633 Patent”),
`
`7,975,305 (“the ‘305 Patent”), 8,079,086 (“the ‘086 Patent”), 8,141,154 (“the ‘154 Patent”), and
`8,225,408 (“the ‘408 Patent”) (collectively “Finjan Patents”). Exs. 1-8.1 The disputed claim terms are
`found in all of these patents, except the ‘918 Patent.
`
`1. The ‘844 Patent
`
`The ‘844 Patent relates to inspecting a Downloadable2 and generating a profile that identifies
`suspicious (i.e., hostile or potentially hostile) operations that may be attempted by that Downloadable.
`
`This profile is then linked to that Downloadable. See Ex. 1, ‘844 Patent, Abstract). In this way, the
`
`system is able to characterize the behavior of the Downloadable to determine whether it is malicious.
`
`Id. To generate this profile, known as a Downloadable security profile (“DSP”), the ‘844 Patent
`
`
`
` 1
`
` All cited exhibits are exhibits attached to the Declaration of Kristopher Kastens filed herewith.
`2 The parties have agreed to the definition of “Downloadable” as a “an executable application program,
`which is downloaded from a source computer and run on the destination computer.”
`2
`__________________________________________________________________________________
`
`FINJAN’S OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
` CASE NO. 5:13-cv-05808-HSG
`
`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
`
`
`
`

`
`Case3:13-cv-05808-HSG Document142 Filed05/01/15 Page8 of 30
`
`
`
`generally includes a content inspector that identifies suspicious operations or code in a Downloadable
`
`and linking the DSP to that Downloadable. Id. The content inspector generally uses a set of rules,
`
`which may include a list of operations or code patterns deemed suspicious. Id. This list of suspicious
`
`operations or code patterns can be used to generate a DSP indicating the different combinations of
`
`malicious operations present in the downloadable. Id., Col. 2, l. 65 to Col. 3, l. 2.
`
`2. The ‘822 and ‘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. See Exs. 2 and 4, ‘822 and ‘633
`
`Patents, Abstract. The patents describe a protection engine that operates within a re-communicator,
`
`such as a server or gateway computer. The protection engine intercepts information, which may or
`
`may not include a virus, and determines whether the information includes executable code. Executable
`
`code includes information such as operations or actions 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. See Exs. 2 and 4, ‘822 and
`
`‘633 Patents, Fig. 3. The MPC monitors and/or intercepts potentially malicious code or operations.
`
`3. The ‘305 Patent
`
`The ‘305 Patent generally covers a method and system for receiving Internet content and using
`
`an adaptive rule-based content scanner to scan the incoming content and to protect against malicious
`
`code. See Ex. 5, ‘305 Patent, Abstract. The ‘305 Patent discloses an adaptive rule-based scanner that
`
`can dynamically adapt itself to scan different types of content such as JavaScript, VBScript, and
`
`HTML. Id., Col. 2, ll. 10-20. The ‘305 Patent also discloses storing a database of rules that can
`
`include analyzer and parser rules. Id., Abstract; id., Col. 2, ll. 19-27.
`
`3
`__________________________________________________________________________________
`
`FINJAN’S OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
` CASE NO. 5:13-cv-05808-HSG
`
`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
`
`
`
`

`
`Case3:13-cv-05808-HSG Document142 Filed05/01/15 Page9 of 30
`
`
`
`4. The ‘086 Patent
`
`The ‘086 Patent generally covers deriving a security profile for a Downloadable. A
`
`representation of that security profile is then appended to the Downloadable for which it was derived
`
`and/or transmitted to a destination computer. See Ex. 6, ‘086 Patent, Abstract. The security profile
`
`data may include a list of suspicious computer operations.
`
`5. The ‘154 Patent
`
`The ‘154 Patent relates to protecting a computer from dynamically generated executable code.
`
`See Ex. 7, ‘154 Patent, Abstract. Prior systems only protected against malicious content that was static.
`
`However, the ‘154 Patent describes how hackers can obfuscate content in a manner where its true nature
`
`is only revealed when dynamically generated. Id. The ‘154 Patent provides a unique type of behavioral
`
`analysis that protects against such dynamically generated malicious content. Id.
`
`6. The ‘408 Patent
`
`The ‘408 Patent shares the same specification as the ‘305 Patent and is generally directed
`
`towards scanning content to detect exploits within received content using a parse tree. See Ex. 8, ‘408
`
`Patent, Abstract. Exploits are portions of program code that are malicious. A parse tree is a
`
`technical abstract of the code that describes the received content in a manner that allows for the
`
`detection of exploits. The parse tree can be dynamically analyzed to detect exploits within the content
`
`using analyzer rules and a pattern matching engine, which identify patterns that match an exploit. See
`
`id., Col. 2, l. 25 to Col. 3, l. 6.
`IV. ARGUMENT
`The purpose of claim construction is to define the proper scope of the invention and to give
`
`meaning to claim language that the jury might otherwise misunderstand. See Markman v. Westview
`
`Instruments, Inc., 52 F.3d 967, 976 (Fed. Cir. 1995)(en banc), aff’d, 517 U.S. 370 (1996); see also
`
`Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2005)(en banc)(“The construction that stays
`
`true to the claim language and most naturally aligns with the patent’s description of the invention will
`
`be, in the end, the correct construction.”). Courts therefore “‘look to the words of the claims
`
`4
`__________________________________________________________________________________
`
`FINJAN’S OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
` CASE NO. 5:13-cv-05808-HSG
`
`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
`
`
`
`

`
`Case3:13-cv-05808-HSG Document142 Filed05/01/15 Page10 of 30
`
`
`
`themselves . . . to define the scope of the patented invention.’” Aventis Pharms. Inc. v. Amino Chems.
`
`Ltd., 715 F.3d 1363, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (citations omitted). The plain and ordinary meaning
`
`typically governs unless the patentee has redefined the term or has disavowed claim scope. Thorner v.
`
`Sony Computer Entm’t Am. LLC, 669 F.3d 1362, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (“There are only two
`
`exceptions to this general rule [of plain and ordinary meaning]: 1) when a patentee sets out a definition
`
`and acts as his own lexicographer, or 2) when the patentee disavows the full scope of a claim term
`
`either in the specification or during prosecution.”) (citation omitted).
`
`Claim terms should be interpreted from the perspective of how a person of ordinary skill in the
`
`art understands them in the context of the patent. Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1312-13 (Fed. Cir. 2005)(en
`
`banc). Here, a person of ordinary skill in the art has a bachelor’s degree in computer science or related
`
`field, and (1) two years of industry experience and/or (2) an advanced degree in computer science or
`
`related field. See Declaration of Nenad Medvidovic in Support of Finjan’s Opening Claim
`
`Construction Brief (“Medvidovic Decl.”), ¶ 10.
`
`As shown below, Finjan’s constructions follow these guiding principles of claim construction.
`A.
`While the vast majority of the claim terms in the Finjan Patents do not require construction,
`
`Finjan’s Proposed Terms
`
`there are five claim terms that should be construed. Finjan’s proposed constructions for these five
`
`terms should be adopted, as described below.
`
`1. Mobile Protection Code (‘822 Patent: Claims 1, 4-7, 9, 12, 14, 16-20, 26-31,
`35/ ‘633 Patent: Claims 1 ,8, 13, 14, 20, 21, 27, 28-31, 34-35, 41)
`
`Term in Dispute
`
`mobile protection code
`
`Finjan’s Proposed
`Construction
`code capable of
`monitoring or
`intercepting potentially
`malicious code
`
`Defendants’ Proposed
`Construction
`code communicated to at
`least one information-
`destination that, at
`runtime, monitors or
`intercepts actually or
`potentially malicious code
`operations
`
`There is no plain and ordinary meaning of the term “mobile protection code” (“MPC”) outside
`
`the context of the ‘822 and ‘633 Patents to a person of ordinary skill in the art. Medvidovic Decl., ¶¶
`
`5
`__________________________________________________________________________________
`
`FINJAN’S OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
` CASE NO. 5:13-cv-05808-HSG
`
`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
`
`
`
`

`
`Case3:13-cv-05808-HSG Document142 Filed05/01/15 Page11 of 30
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`13-15. Rather, the patentee acted as his own lexicographer and explicitly defined MPC in the
`
`specifications of the ‘822 and ‘633 Patents. See Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576,
`
`1582 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (“a patentee may choose to be his own lexicographer and use terms in a manner
`
`other than their ordinary meaning, as long as the special definition of the term is clearly stated in the
`
`patent specification or file history.”). Specifically, the patents provide that “mobile protection code
`
`[causes] one or more predetermined malicious operations or operation combinations of a
`
`Downloadable to be monitored or otherwise intercepted.” Ex. 2, ‘822 Patent, Col. 3, ll. 6-10. This
`
`straightforward definition from the intrinsic record should be used for construction, because the
`
`patentee, acting as a lexicographer, gave a specific and unambiguous definition to a term that is
`
`otherwise not routinely used in the art. Fortinet, Inc. v. Sophos, Inc., No. C-13-5831 EMC, 2015 WL
`
`877410, at *12-13 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 27, 2015) (construing term based on definition recited in the
`
`specification); Medvidovic Decl., ¶ 13. Thus, Finjan’s proposed construction should be adopted.
`
`Moreover, Finjan’s proposed construction is consistent with the purpose of the ’822 and ‘633
`
`Patents to “protect one or more personal computers (“PCs”) and/or other intermittently or
`
`persistently network accessible devices or processes from undesirable or other malicious
`
`operations.” Ex. 2, ‘822 Patent, Abstract. The patents further elaborate that MPC is not limited to
`
`a particular form, and can have multiple forms, such as “static code,” i.e., code that is not running
`
`or executing. Specifically, the specification states “[e]mbodiments also provide for delivering
`
`static, configurable and/or extensible remotely operable protection policies to a Downloadable-
`
`destination, more typically as a sandboxed packaged including the mobile protection code….”
`
`Id., Col. 2, ll. 42-47 (emphasis added). As Finjan’s proposed construction is consistent with the
`
`specification, it should be adopted.
`
`Indeed, Finjan’s proposed construction for MPC was adopted in a prior litigation. See Ex. 10,
`
`Final Joint Claim Construction Chart, Finjan Software Ltd. v. Secure Computing Corp., Case No. 1:06-
`
`cv-00369 (D. Del. Aug. 24, 2007), Dkt. No. 108-1. That previous case involved the currently asserted
`
`‘822 Patent and was appealed to the Federal Circuit with the verdict upheld. Id. In another case that is
`
`currently pending in the Northern District of California, Finjan, Inc. v. Blue Coat Systems, Inc., Case
`
`6
`__________________________________________________________________________________
`
`FINJAN’S OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
` CASE NO. 5:13-cv-05808-HSG
`
`

`
`Case3:13-cv-05808-HSG Document142 Filed05/01/15 Page12 of 30
`
`
`
`No. 4:13-cv-03999-BLF (N.D. Cal.) (“the Blue Coat case”), Dkt. No. 118, the Court adopted a
`
`modified version of Finjan’s construction of MPC that deviated from the definition provided in the
`patent specifications. Ex. 11 at 8.3 Such a deviation from the specification is improper and should not
`be adopted here. See Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1329 (“the specification may reveal a special definition
`
`given to a claim term by the patentee that differs from the meaning it would otherwise possess. In such
`
`cases, the inventor's lexicography governs.”). Rather, Finjan’s construction, which the Court adopted
`
`in the Secure Computing case, should be adopted because it follows the fundamental canons of claim
`
`construction by staying true to the explicit definition provided in the specification.
`
`Defendants’ proposal deviates from the specifications (and the prior claim construction orders)
`
`because it adds the limitations of “code communicated to at least one information-destination” at
`“runtime.”4 As these limitations are not required by the definition in the specification, Defendants’
`proposed construction imports limitations into the claims and rewrites the meaning of this term, a
`
`“cardinal sin” of claim construction. Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1319-20, quoting SciMed Life Sys., Inc. v.
`
`Advanced Cardiovascular Sys., Inc., 242 F.3d 1337, 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2001).
`
`First, Defendants’ proposed construction imports the limitation that the MPC code must be
`
`“communicated to at least one information-destination.” However, this is inconsistent with the claims
`
`of the patents because not all claims require the MPC to be communicated to a destination. For
`
`example, Claim 14 of the ‘633 Patent does not require the MPC to be communicated to a
`
`destination:
`
`14. A computer program product, comprising …
`
`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.
`
`
` 3
`
` The court in the Blue Coat case adopted the following construction for MPC: “code that, at runtime,
`monitors or intercepts actually or potentially malicious code operations.”
`4 Another difference between the parties’ respective proposed construction is Defendants’ inclusion of
`the phrase “actually or potentially malicious code operations,” while Finjan uses the phrase
`“potentially malicious code.” While it is unclear whether Defendants’ proposal is substantively
`different from Finjan’s construction, Defendants’ proposal deviates from the definition provided in the
`specification. As such, Finjan’s proposal, which is directly from the specification, should be adopted.
`7
`__________________________________________________________________________________
`
`FINJAN’S OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
` CASE NO. 5:13-cv-05808-HSG
`
`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
`
`
`
`

`
`Case3:13-cv-05808-HSG Document142 Filed05/01/15 Page13 of 30
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`Ex. 4, ‘633 Patent, Col. 21, l. 58 to Col. 22, l. 5. While the ‘822 and ‘633 Patents have some claims
`
`requiring the MPC to be communicated to an information-destination, they also have claims, like
`
`Claim 14 above that do not require the MPC to be communicated. Thus, Defendants’ construction
`
`requiring communication to an information-destination is improper because imports a limitation not
`
`required by Claim 14.
`
`Second, Defendants’ attempt to import a limitation of “at runtime” into the construction
`
`contradicts embodiments disclosed in the ‘822 and ‘633 Patents in which the MPC is not runtime code.
`
`For example, the specifications of the ‘822 and ’633 Patents disclose a server that can receive a
`
`Downloadable that includes executable code. Ex. 2, ‘822 Patent, Col. 2, l. 37 to Col. 4, l. 41. In these
`
`example embodiments, the server analyzes the Downloadable and packages it with the MPC. Id. The
`
`server sends the single package to the destination to protect it from malicious operations without ever
`
`running the MPC. Id. For these embodiments, the MPC is not monitoring or intercepting “at runtime”
`
`because the server never runs the MPC. Since the MPC is never run, it is not operating “at runtime.”
`
`Because Defendants’ proposed construction excludes this preferred embodiment, it contradicts the
`
`intrinsic evidence. Funai Elec. Co. v. Daewoo Elecs. Corp., 616 F.3d 1357, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2010)
`
`(citing Hoechst Celanese Corp. v. BP Chems. Ltd., 78 F.3d 1575, 1581 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (for the
`
`proposition that “a claim construction that excludes a preferred embodiment is rarely, if ever,
`
`correct”)).
`
`Therefore, Finjan’s proposed construction should be adopted because it is consistent with the
`
`specifications of the ‘822 and ‘633 Patents.
`
`2. Database (‘086 Patent: Claims 39-42)
`
`Term in Dispute
`
`Database
`
`Defendants’ Proposed
`Construction
`a structured set of data
`
`Finjan’s Proposed
`Construction
`a collection of
`interrelated data
`organized according to a
`database schema to serve
`one or more applications
`
`
`
`The term “database” should be construed as “a collection of interrelated data organized
`
`according to a database schema to serve one or more applications.” Finjan’s proposed construction is
`8
`__________________________________________________________________________________
`
`FINJAN’S OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
` CASE NO. 5:13-cv-05808-HSG
`
`

`
`Case3:13-cv-05808-HSG Document142 Filed05/01/15 Page14 of 30
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8