`
`_________________________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`_________________________________
`
`Symantec Corp.,
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`Finjan, Inc.
`Patent Owner
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,141,154
`Filing Date: June 14, 2010
`Issue Date: March 20, 2012
`
`
`
`Title: System and Method for Inspecting
`Dynamically Generated Executable Code
`
`_________________________________
`
`IPR2016-01071
`
`
`PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR JOINDER
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01071
`Paper No. 3
`
`PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR JOINDER
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Petitioner Symantec Corp. (“Petitioner” or “Symantec”) moves to join its
`
`concurrently filed petition for inter partes review involving U.S. Patent No.
`
`8,141,154 (the ’154 patent) with the inter partes review requested by the Palo Alto
`
`Networks, Inc. (“PAN”) against the same patent, Palo Alto Networks, Inc. v.
`
`Finjan, Inc., IPR2016-00151 (the “PAN IPR”). The Board instituted trial in that
`
`proceeding on April 20, 2016. Symantec seeks to join as a party to the PAN IPR,
`
`and thus, has presented patentability challenges that are identical to those
`
`challenges that were instituted in PAN’s petition.
`
`The Symantec petition is timely filed under 35 U.S.C. § 315(c), as it is filed
`
`within one month of the date that the PAN IPR was instituted. See IPR2016-00151,
`
`Paper 10 at 1. As the statute provides and the Board has explained, the one-year
`
`filing window specified in § 315(b) and § 42.101(b) “shall not apply to a request
`
`for joinder under subsection (c).” 35 U.S.C. § 315(b); Dell Inc. v. Network-1
`
`Security Solutions, Inc., IPR2013-00385, Paper 17 at 4-5 (granting joinder beyond
`
`the one-year window); Microsoft Corp. v. Proxyconn, Inc., IPR2013-00109, Paper
`
`15 at 4-5 (same); 37 C.F.R. § 42.122(b) (the “time period set forth in §42.101(b)
`
`shall not apply when the petition is accompanied by a request for joinder.”).
`
`03869-00010/7948970.3
`
`1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01071
`Paper No. 3
`
`Joinder is appropriate because of the similarity between the Symantec
`
`petition and the PAN IPR. The Symantec petition relies on the exact same
`
`grounds as those instituted1 by the Board in the PAN IPR. Other factors relevant
`
`to joinder favor granting this motion, including that: (i) the same schedule for
`
`various proceedings can be adopted, (ii) Symantec is not advancing any new expert
`
`testimony, and thus, discovery will not be impacted by joinder, and (iii) joinder
`
`will not materially affect the range of issues needing to be addressed by the Board
`
`and by the parties in the joined proceedings. See Kyocera Corp. v. Softview LLC,
`
`IPR2013-00004, Paper No. 15 at 4 (Apr. 24, 2013). Moreover, Symantec is
`
`involved in other proceedings involving the ’154 patent and has an interest in
`
`ensuring the Board does not resolve an issue in this proceeding that would impact
`
`those other proceedings. Because these factors support joining these proceedings,
`
`Symantec requests the Board to grant this motion for joinder.
`
`II. RELEVANT FACTS
`
`Finjan has alleged infringement of the ’154 patent against Symantec and
`
`other entities in numerous lawsuits.
`
`On June 30, 2014, Finjan filed suit against Symantec, asserting infringement
`
`of one or more claims of the ’154 patent in Finjan, Inc. v. Symantec Corp., 3:14-
`
`cv-02998 (N.D. Cal.). The ’154 patent has also been asserted in Finjan, Inc. v.
`
`
`1 Symantec omits from its petition the grounds on which the PTAB did not institute trial.
`
`03869-00010/7948970.3
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01071
`Paper No. 3
`
`Palo Alto Networks, Inc., No. 3-14-cv-04908 (N.D. Cal.); Finjan, Inc. v. Websense,
`
`Inc., No. 5-14-cv-01353 (N.D. Cal.); Finjan, Inc. v. Websense, Inc., No. 5-13-cv-
`
`04398 (N.D. Cal.); Finjan, Inc. v. Sophos, Inc., No. 3-14-cv-01197 (N.D. Cal.);
`
`and Finjan, Inc. v. Proofpoint, Inc., No. 3-13-cv-05808 (N.D. Cal.).
`
`III. ARGUMENT
`
`Joinder with the Symantec IPR is justified because each factor identified by
`
`the Board as supporting joinder is met. For example, the Board has explained that
`
`a motion for joinder should: (1) explain the reasons why joinder is appropriate; (2)
`
`identify any new grounds of unpatentability asserted in the petition; (3) explain
`
`what impact (if any) joinder would have on the trial schedule for the existing
`
`review; and (4) address specifically how briefing and discovery may be simplified.
`
`Kyocera Corp. v. Softview LLC, IPR2013-00004, Paper 15 at 4 (representative
`
`order). Each of these factors is addressed below, and, when considered together,
`
`strongly support granting this motion for joinder.
`
`A.
`
`Joinder Is Appropriate
`
`Joinder between the instant petition and the PAN IPR is appropriate because
`
`they involve the same patent, the same art, the same expert declaration, and the
`
`same arguments and legal rationales. Symantec’s proposed grounds of invalidity
`
`are identical to PAN’s.
`
`03869-00010/7948970.3
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01071
`Paper No. 3
`
`Permitting joinder will not prejudice PAN or Finjan. Symantec raises no
`
`issues that are not already before the Board, and consequently, joinder would not
`
`affect the timing of the PAN IPR nor the content of any of Finjan’s responses.
`
`Moreover, PAN is amenable to coordinating with Symantec and, as such, neither
`
`PAN nor Finjan will suffer any additional costs or burdens in preparing motions
`
`and arguments.
`
`The denial of joinder, however, will prejudice Symantec. Absent joinder,
`
`Symantec would be unable to participate in the inter partes review proceeding
`
`related to the ’154 patent. Symantec is involved in other proceedings involving the
`
`’154 patent, specifically, Finjan, Inc. v. Symantec Corp., 3:14-cv-02998 (N.D.
`
`Cal.). Granting joinder would allow Symantec to ensure the Board does not
`
`resolve an issue in this proceeding that would impact that proceedings.
`
`Accordingly, because of the instant petition is substantively identical to the
`
`PAN IPR, and to avoid prejudice to Symantec, joinder is appropriate.
`
`B. No New Grounds of Unpatentability in the Symantec Petitions
`
`Symantec’s petition proposes institution of trial on the same grounds that
`
`were instituted by the Board in the PAN IPR, and Symantec relies on the same
`
`exhibits and expert testimony included in the PAN IPR. Accordingly, Symantec
`
`proposes no new grounds of unpatentability.
`
`03869-00010/7948970.3
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01071
`Paper No. 3
`
`C. No Impact on the Trial Schedule of Costs of the Proceeding
`
`Granting this motion for joinder will have no impact on the trial schedule
`
`because Symantec does not raise any issues that are not already before the Board.
`
`Finjan does not need to specifically address any issues raised by Symantec, and
`
`thus, joinder would have no impact on the cost of the proceeding. In addition,
`
`Symantec is willing to adhere to the schedule already established for IPR2016-
`
`00151. See, e.g. Motorola Mobility LLC v. Softview LLC, IPR2013-000256, Paper
`
`10 at 2-3 (June 20, 2013) (identifying “impact of the joinder on the schedule and
`
`costs of the proceeding” as a factor relevant to decide whether to join proceedings).
`
`Therefore, granting this motion for joinder will have no impact on the trial
`
`schedule.
`
`D.
`
`Proposals for Briefing in the Joined Proceedings
`
`Joinder will simplify briefing in both the PAN IPR and the present
`
`proceeding. In the interest of efficiency, Symantec is willing to coordinate with
`
`PAN to provide consolidated filings within the page limits set forth in the rules
`
`governing this proceeding so long as PAN is actively participating in the
`
`proceeding, or to accept other reasonable conditions on the conduct of the joined
`
`proceeding. In addition, Symantec has not filed a separate expert declaration, and
`
`thus, Finjan will not need to depose any additional witnesses. Symantec is also
`
`03869-00010/7948970.3
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01071
`Paper No. 3
`
`willing to coordinate with PAN to avoid duplicative cross-examination of Finjan
`
`expert witnesses.
`
`IV. CONCLUSION
`
`Because the factors relevant to grant of a motion for joinder strongly support
`
`joining the present proceeding to IPR2016-00151, Symantec requests this motion
`
`for joinder be granted.
`
`May 19, 2016
`
`By,
`
`Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP
`
`
`/Nathaniel A. Hamstra/
`
`
`Nathaniel A. Hamstra (Reg.No. 65,680)
`
`500 West Madison Street, Suite 2450
`Chicago, IL 60661
`Tel.: (312)705-7400
`Fax: (312)705-7401
`nathanhamstra@quinnemanuel.com
`
`
`03869-00010/7948970.3
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01071
`Paper No. 3
`
`CERTIFICATION OF SERVICE (37 C.F.R. §§ 42.6(e), 42.105(a))
`
`The undersigned hereby certifies that the above-captioned “PETITIONER’S
`
`MOTION FOR JOINDER” was served in its entirety on May 19, 2016, upon the
`
`following parties via FedEx:
`
`Attorney of Record for U.S. Patent No. 8,141,154:
`
`Dawn-Marie Bey
`Bey & Cotropia PLLC
`213 Bayly Court
`Richmond, Virginia 23229
`dawnmarie@beycotropia.com
`bc@beycotropia.com
`
`Attorney of Record for Patent Owner in IPR2016-00151:
`
`James Hannah (Reg. No. 56,369)
`Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel LLP
`990 Marsh Road
`Menlo Park, CA 94025
`Tel: (650)752-1700
`Fax: (212)715-8000
`jhannah@kramerlevin.com
`
`Jeffrey H. Price (Reg. No. 69,141)
`Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel LLP
`1177 Avenue of the Americas
`New York, NY 10036
`Tel: (212)715-7502
`Fax: (212)715-8302
`jprice@kramerlevin.com
`
`Michael Kim (Reg. No. 40,450)
`Finjan, Inc.
`2000 University Ave., Ste. 600
`E. Palo Alto, CA 94303
`Tel: 650.397.9567
`
`03869-00010/7948970.3
`
`1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01071
`Paper No. 3
`
`mkim@finjan.com
`
`Attorney of Record for Petitioner in IPR2016-00151:
`
`
`Matthew I. Kreeger
`Reg. No. 56,398
`MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP
`425 Market Street
`San Francisco, CA 94105
`MKreeger@mofo.com
`Tel: (415) 268-6467
`Fax: (415) 268-7522
`
`Jonathan Bockman
`Reg. No. 45,640
`MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP
`1650 Tysons Boulevard
`McLean, VA 22102
`JBockman@mofo.com
`Tel: (703) 760-7769
`Fax: (703) 760-7777
`
`Shouvik Biswas
`Reg. No. 68,439
`MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP
`1650 Tysons Boulevard
`McLean, VA 22102
`SBiswas@mofo.com
`Tel: (703) 760-7774
`Fax: (703) 890-2632
`
`
`03869-00010/7948970.3
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`May 19, 2016
`
`IPR2016-01071
`Paper No. 3
`
`By,
`
`Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan,
`LLP
`
`
`/Nathaniel A. Hamstra/
`
`
`Nathaniel A. Hamstra
`(Reg. No. 65,680)
`
`
`03869-00010/7948970.3
`
`3