UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`__________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`___________________
`
`SYMANTEC CORP.
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`FINJAN, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`
`____________________
`
`Case IPR2015-01892
`Patent 8,677,494
`
`__________________________________________________________
`
`DECLARATION OF S.H. MICHAEL KIM IN SUPPORT OF PATENT
`OWNER’S RESPONSE PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. § 42.120
`
`
`
`
`__________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`___________________
`
`SYMANTEC CORP.
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`FINJAN, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`
`____________________
`
`Case IPR2015-01892
`Patent 8,677,494
`
`__________________________________________________________
`
`DECLARATION OF S.H. MICHAEL KIM IN SUPPORT OF PATENT
`OWNER’S RESPONSE PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. § 42.120
`
`
`
`
`I, S.H. Michael Kim, make the following declaration under penalty of
`
`Case IPR2015-01892
`U.S. Patent No. 8,677,494
`
`
`perjury:
`
`1.
`
`I make this Declaration based upon my own personal knowledge,
`
`information, belief, and I would and could competently testify to the matters set
`
`forth herein if called upon to do so.
`
`2.
`
`I am currently the Senior Director, Intellectual Property (IP) Counsel
`
`of Finjan Holdings, Inc. I have been IP counsel since March 2015. The assignee
`
`of U.S. Patent No. 8,677,494 (“the ‘494 Patent) under inter partes review is Finjan
`
`Inc. (“Finjan”), a wholly owned-subsidiary of Finjan Holdings, Inc. The ‘494
`
`Patent issued on March 18, 2014.
`
`3.
`
`As part of my responsibilities, I oversee the enforcement, prosecution,
`
`and post-grant proceedings of patents assigned to Finjan in district courts and
`
`before the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office (“PTO”). I am familiar with Finjan’s
`
`licensing practices and also assist in the licensing of Finjan’s world-wide patent
`
`portfolio.
`
`4.
`
`Finjan was founded in 1997. It has invested over 65 million dollars in
`
`developing patented technology related to proactive content behavior inspection.
`
`Such investment contributed to Finjan being awarded 27 U.S. issued patents and
`
`27 issued foreign patents. To date, Finjan has licensed its technology in the
`
`industry receiving over $155 million dollars in royalty payments.
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`Finjan’s successful licensing program includes Microsoft, M86,
`
`Case IPR2015-01892
`U.S. Patent No. 8,677,494
`
`
`5.
`
`Trustwave, Intel/McAfee, Webroot, F-Secure, Websense, Inc. (“Websense”),
`
`Proofpoint, Inc. (“Proofpoint”), Armorize Technologies, Inc. (“Armorize”) and
`
`Avast Software (“Avast”). Several of the SEC filings that reflect some of these
`
`licenses are Patent Owner Exhibits 2017-2022.
`
`6.
`
`Finjan’s successful licensing program was bolstered with the issuance
`
`of the ‘494 Patent on March 18, 2014 . Since the issuance of the ‘494 Patent,
`
`Finjan has entered into five licenses.
`
`7.
`
`On April 7, 2015, a license agreement was entered into with F-Secure
`
`in order to at least use, make, sell, offer to sell, import or export the inventions of
`
`the ‘494 Patent and other Finjan patents. On November 15, 2015, a license
`
`agreement was entered into with Avast in order to at least use, make, sell, offer to
`
`sell, import or export the inventions of the Finjan patents, including the ‘494
`
`Patent. On December 30, 2015, Finjan entered into another license agreement with
`
`a large network security computer company in order to at least use, make, sell,
`
`offer to sell, import or export the inventions to the ‘494 Patent and other Finjan
`
`patents.
`
`8.
`
`On March 18, 2014, Finjan asserted infringement of the ‘494 Patent
`
`against Websense and that its products embodied inventions of the ‘494 Patent.
`
`Finjan v. Websense, Inc., 14-CV-01353-BLF (N.D. Cal.) (that case was later
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`combined with another case asserting other patents against Websense). On
`
`Case IPR2015-01892
`U.S. Patent No. 8,677,494
`
`
`September 24, 2014, the parties settled and Websense entered into a license
`
`agreement in order to at least use, make, sell, offer to sell, import or export the
`
`inventions of the ‘494 Patent and other Finjan patents.
`
`9.
`
`In a different litigation (Finjan v. Proofpoint and Armorize, 13-CV-
`
`05805-HSG (N.D. Cal.)), Finjan settled with Proofpoint and Armorize. As part of
`
`the settlement, Proofpoint and Armorize entered into a license agreement to at least
`
`use, make, sell, offer to sell, import or export the inventions of the ‘494 Patent and
`
`other Finjan patents.
`
`10. The licensees of the ‘494 Patents are competitors in the computer
`
`network security field with Finjan or Finjan’s licensees.
`
`11. Attached to the Patent Owner’s Response are Exhibits 2015 and 2016,
`
`which are Gartner Magic Quandrant reports that show competitors within the
`
`computer network security field.
`
`12.
`
`I hereby declare that all statements made herein of my own
`
`knowledge are true and that all statements made on information and belief are
`
`believed to be true; and further that these statements were made with the
`
`knowledge that willful false statements and the like so made are punishable by fine
`
`or imprisonment, or both, under Section 1001 of Title 18 of the United States
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`Code, and that such willful false statements may jeopardize the validity of the
`
`Case IPR2015-01892
`U.S. Patent No. 8,677,494
`
`
`patent and any inter partes decision issuing thereon.
`
`
`____________________________________________________________
`Print Name Signature
`
`
`
`Date
`
`
`S.H. Michael Kim
`
`
`
`
`
`
`June 21, 2016
`
`
`
`4
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
