Case 4:14-cv-02998-HSG Document 72 Filed 04/20/15 Page 1 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
`HANNAH LEE (State Bar No. 253197)
`hlee@kramerlevin.com
`MICHAEL H. LEE (State Bar. No. 264592)
`mhlee@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,
`
`Case No.: 14-CV-02298-HSG
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`SYMANTEC CORP., a Delaware Corporation,
`
`Defendant.
`
`PLAINTIFF FINJAN, INC.’S OPENING
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`June 11, 2015
`Date:
`2:00 p.m.
`Time:
`Place: Courtroom 15 – 18th Floor
`Before: Hon. Haywood S. Gilliam Jr.
`
`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
`
`____________________________________________________________________________________
` CASE NO. 14-CV-02298-HSG
`FINJAN’S OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`Juniper Ex. 1027-p. 1
`Juniper v Finjan
`
`

`

`Case 4:14-cv-02998-HSG Document 72 Filed 04/20/15 Page 2 of 30
`
`
`
`
`
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page(s)
`NOTICE OF HEARING .................................................................................................................. 1
`
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................... 1
`
`III. STATEMENT OF FACTS .............................................................................................................. 2
`
`A. Background of the Technology ............................................................................................... 2
`
`B. Summary of Finjan’s Patents .................................................................................................. 2
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`The ‘844 Patent .............................................................................................................. 4
`
`The ‘926 Patent .............................................................................................................. 4
`
`The ‘494 Patent .............................................................................................................. 4
`
`The ‘996 Patent .............................................................................................................. 4
`
`The ‘299 and ‘182 Patents ............................................................................................. 5
`
`The ‘289 and ‘154 Patents ............................................................................................. 5
`
`IV. ARGUMENT ................................................................................................................................... 5
`
`A. Finjan’s Proposed Terms ........................................................................................................ 5
`
`1. Downloadable (the ‘844 Patent: Claims 1, 15, 41, 43; the ‘926 Patent: Claims
`1, 8, 15, 22, 29, 30; the ‘494 Patent: Claims 1, 10) ....................................................... 6
`
`2.
`
`database (the ‘926 Patent: Claims 1, 8, 15, 22, 29, 30; the‘494 Patent: Claims:
`1, 10) .............................................................................................................................. 8
`
`3. Means-Plus-Function Claim Terms (3 Terms) ............................................................ 11
`
`a)
`
`b)
`
`c)
`
`“means for receiving a Downloadable” (‘844 Patent: Claim 43) ....................... 11
`
`“means for generating a first Downloadable security profile that
`identifies suspicious code in the received Downloadable” (‘844 Patent:
`Claim 43) ............................................................................................................ 13
`
`“means for linking the first Downloadable security profile to the
`Downloadable before a web server makes the Downloadable available to
`web clients” (‘844 Patent: Claim 43) ................................................................. 15
`
`B. Symantec’s Proposed Terms for Construction ..................................................................... 16
`
`i
`__________________________________________________________________________________
`FINJAN’S OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
` CASE NO. 14-CV-02998-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
`
`Juniper Ex. 1027-p. 2
`Juniper v Finjan
`
`

`

`Case 4:14-cv-02998-HSG Document 72 Filed 04/20/15 Page 3 of 30
`
`
`
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`protecting a computer from dynamically generated malicious content (the ‘289
`Patent: Claims 1, 10, 19, 22, 35, 41; the ‘154 Patent: Claims 1, 6) ............................. 17
`
`content processor (the ‘289 Patent: Claim 10; the ‘154 Patent: Claims 1, 6) .............. 18
`
`dynamically update[e/es/ing] the combined search and security results
`summary/dynamically updating the presentation when additional security
`assessments are received (the ‘299 Patent: Claims 1, 13, 20; the ‘182 Patent:
`Claims 1, 8, 15) ............................................................................................................ 20
`
`non-HTTP management data (the ‘996 Patent: Claims 1, 4, 7) ................................... 22
`
`inspection[s] (the ‘289 Patent: Claims 1, 10, 19, 22, 35, 41) ....................................... 23
`
`V. CONCLUSION .............................................................................................................................. 24
`
`
`
`
`ii
`__________________________________________________________________________________
`FINJAN’S OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
` CASE NO. 14-CV-02998-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
`
`Juniper Ex. 1027-p. 3
`Juniper v Finjan
`
`

`

`Case 4:14-cv-02998-HSG Document 72 Filed 04/20/15 Page 4 of 30
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page(s)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Cases
`
`Abtox, Inc. v. Exitron Corp.,
`131 F.3d 1009 (Fed. Cir. 1997)........................................................................................................... 8
`
`AIA Eng’g Ltd. v. Magotteaux Intern. S/A,
`657 F.3d 1264 (Fed. Cir. 2011)........................................................................................................... 7
`
`Aventis Pharms. Inc. v. Amino Chems. Ltd.,
`715 F.3d 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2013).................................................................................................. passim
`
`Cardiac Pacemakers, Inc. v. St. Jude Med., Inc.,
`296 F.3d 1106 (Fed. Cir. 2002)............................................................................................. 15, 16, 17
`
`CCS Fitness, Inc. v. Burnswick Corp.,
`288 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2002)........................................................................................................... 7
`
`Edwards Lifesciences LLC v. Cook Inc.,
`582 F.3d 1322 (Fed. Cir. 2009)........................................................................................................... 7
`
`Finjan, Inc. v. Secure Computing Corp.,
`626 F.3d 1197 (Fed. Cir. 2010)........................................................................................................... 7
`
`In re Katz Interactive Call Processing Patent Litig.,
`639 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2011)......................................................................................................... 12
`
`Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc.,
`52 F.3d 967 (Fed. Cir. 1995)(en banc), aff’d, 517 U.S. 370 (1996) ................................................... 5
`
`Nazomi Comm’s, Inc. v. Microsoft Mobile Oy,
`Nos. 2014-1173, 2014-1178, 2014 WL 6678247 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 26, 2014)...................................... 7
`
`Noah Sys., Inc. v. Intuit Inc.,
`675 F.3d 1302 (Fed. Cir. 2012)................................................................................................... 12, 13
`
`Novatek, Inc. v. Sollami Co.,
`559 Fed. Appx. 1011 (Fed. Cir. 2014) .............................................................................................. 17
`
`Phillips v. AWH Corp.,
`415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005)(en banc) ...................................................................................... 5, 21
`
`Thorner v. Sony Computer Entm’t Am. LLC,
`669 F.3d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2012).................................................................................................. passim
`
`i
`__________________________________________________________________________________
`FINJAN’S OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
` CASE NO. 14-CV-02998-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
`
`Juniper Ex. 1027-p. 4
`Juniper v Finjan
`
`

`

`Case 4:14-cv-02998-HSG Document 72 Filed 04/20/15 Page 5 of 30
`
`
`
`Visto Corp. v. Sproqit Techs., Inc.,
`445 F. Supp.2d 1104 (N.D. Cal. 2006) ............................................................................................. 13
`
`Statutes
`
`35 U.S.C. § 112(6) ...................................................................................................................... 12, 13, 15
`
`Other Authorities
`
`Patent Local Rule 4-3(c) ..................................................................................................................... 1, 20
`
`
`
`
`ii
`__________________________________________________________________________________
`FINJAN’S OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
` CASE NO. 14-CV-02998-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
`
`Juniper Ex. 1027-p. 5
`Juniper v Finjan
`
`

`

`Case 4:14-cv-02998-HSG Document 72 Filed 04/20/15 Page 6 of 30
`
`
`
`I.
`
`NOTICE OF HEARING
`
`PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on June 11, 2015 at 2:00 PM, 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 James Hannah in support thereof, the Declaration of Nenad
`
`Medvidovic in support thereof, and such other further matters as the Court may consider.
`II.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Finjan’s proposed constructions of the patents-in-suit are correct because they follow the
`
`canons of claim construction. One of the five terms that Finjan offers for construction, namely
`
`“Downloadable,” is explicitly defined in the intrinsic record. Another term that Finjan proposes,
`
`specifically “database,” requires construction because Symantec is attempting to define the term in a
`
`manner different from its well-understood meaning in the art. The remaining terms Finjan proposes
`
`for construction are means-plus-function claims which must be construed in light of the specification.
`
`As such, Finjan’s constructions are consistent with the intrinsic record and the understanding of those
`skilled in the art.1
`On the other hand, Symantec proposes constructions in direct violation of claim construction
`principles in a transparent attempt to avoid infringement. The six terms2 that Symantec proposes for
`construction3 are readily understood by those skilled in the art in light of the intrinsic record and
`simply do not require further clarification. In fact, most of Symantec’s proposals do not offer
`
`definitions for terms at all, but instead repeat the claim language with additional limitations. Such
`
`tactics are in direct contradiction to the case law which requires a clear disavowal in the intrinsic
`
`record in order to add limitations to the claims or change a term’s plain and ordinary meaning. Thus,
`
`
` Tellingly, Finjan’s terms have been recently construed in this District consistent with Finjan’s
`proposed constructions in Finjan, Inc. v. Sophos, Inc., Case No. 14-cv-1197-WHO (Dkt. No. 73).
`2 Symantec’s selection of six terms instead of five terms for construction is in violation of Patent Local
`Rule 4-3(c).
`3 During the meet and confer process under the Patent Local Rules, Finjan and Symantec agreed on the
`construction of the term “Downloadable security profile that identifies suspicious code in the received
`Downloadable.” Dkt. 68 at 1.
`
` 1
`
`1
`__________________________________________________________________________________
`FINJAN’S OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
` CASE NO. 14-CV-02998-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
`
`Juniper Ex. 1027-p. 6
`Juniper v Finjan
`
`

`

`Case 4:14-cv-02998-HSG Document 72 Filed 04/20/15 Page 7 of 30
`
`
`
`Finjan’s proposed plain and ordinary constructions for these terms should govern and Symantec’s
`
`forced constructions should be rejected.
`III.
`
`STATEMENT OF FACTS
`A.
`Computers are constantly under attack from computer viruses propagating on the Internet.
`
`Background of the Technology
`
`Viruses are one of the most intractable, not to mention costly, problems with computers. This is
`
`particularly the case since the advent of the “always on” Internet connection, giving computer hackers
`
`around the clock access to steal private information and compromise systems. Finjan’s visionary
`
`patented technology protects against a vast majority of these viruses at various levels in the Internet
`
`architecture by detecting abnormal behaviors and reacting to new unauthorized encroachments before a
`
`breach can occur. This is in contrast to less effective anti-virus software previously employed, which
`
`could only prevent viruses that had already been identified, often referred to as signature-based
`
`scanning software.
`B.
`Finjan was founded in 1995 with the goal of proactively shielding against a new generation of
`
`Summary of Finjan’s Patents
`
`computer virus threats spawned on the Internet. Through over a decade of research and after spending
`
`over $65 million in research and development, Finjan developed a visionary suite of anti-malware
`
`technologies that protect countless potential victims around the globe. Finjan’s portfolio of patents
`
`reflects its extensive and comprehensive development of innovative technology to protect against these
`
`new threats. Long acknowledged by the industry as a significant innovation, numerous companies
`have taken a license under its patents.4
`Finjan pioneered new technologies to protect computers and networks by using behavior-based
`
`technology, which focuses on what incoming program code intends to do, as opposed to traditional
`
`signature-based scanning. Traditional signature based virus scanning looked for an exact copy or
`
`“fingerprint” of a previously seen virus, which was adequate when viruses were created a slow rate.
`
`
`
` 4
`
` Finjan has licensed its patent portfolio to eight companies in agreements worth over $150 million.
`2
`__________________________________________________________________________________
`FINJAN’S OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
` CASE NO. 14-CV-02998-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
`
`Juniper Ex. 1027-p. 7
`Juniper v Finjan
`
`

`

`Case 4:14-cv-02998-HSG Document 72 Filed 04/20/15 Page 8 of 30
`
`
`
`Finjan’s novel technology allowed it to outsmart the hackers by detecting new and unknown viruses
`
`that hackers tried to hide through obfuscation (a technique of hiding executable code so it is difficult to
`
`read and understand) and through polymorphism (when a hacker creates multiple different versions of
`
`viruses). While criminals continue to create new and innovative viruses at an alarming rate, Finjan’s
`
`patented technologies understand the actual bad behavior of a virus and describe techniques for
`
`detecting them with proper analysis and through the creation of a “profile” for the content.
`
`Accordingly, by targeting and analyzing the viruses’ behavior, Finjan’s patented technologies
`
`effectively stem the tide of malicious code based attacks. At a conceptual level, this is similar to a
`
`police officer determining that a person holding a gun, wearing a mask and following directions to a
`
`bank has the “profile” of someone likely to try to rob that bank, while previous system focused on
`
`identifying specific known criminals.
`
`Finjan also discovered that an effective way to stop viruses was to prevent them from entering a
`
`computer network to begin with. This way, a protected network can stop viruses before its starts to
`
`propagate across the numerous computers and systems inside the company’s network. With this key
`
`insight, Finjan developed technology that operate as network components, such as a security gateway
`
`and as part of the “cloud,” allowing a company to catch viruses before they run amok on a network.
`
`Network components, such as a security gateway, catch viruses early because they can inspect
`
`communication between an external computer or network and a protected computer or network. At a
`
`conceptual level, the idea is similar to the use of a physical gateway for a castle—the gateway serves
`
`as a point to inspect traffic entering and exiting the castle.
`
`The eight patents asserted against Symantec’s products in this case are: U.S. Patent Nos.
`
`6,154,844 (“’844 Patent”), 7,613,926 (“’926 Patent”), 8,677,494 (“’494 Patent”), 7,756,996 (“’996
`
`Patent”), 7,930,299 (“’299 Patent”), 8,015,182 (“’182 Patent”), 7,757,289 (“’289 Patent”), and
`8,141,154 (“’154 Patent”) (collectively “Finjan Patents”). Exs. 1-8.5 The Finjan Patents relate to a
`suite of technologies for protecting computers from viruses downloaded through the Internet. The
`
`
`
` 5
`
` 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. 14-CV-02998-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
`
`Juniper Ex. 1027-p. 8
`Juniper v Finjan
`
`

`

`Case 4:14-cv-02998-HSG Document 72 Filed 04/20/15 Page 9 of 30
`
`
`
`Finjan Patents describe different aspects of protection, providing computers with multiple layers of
`
`protection. Finjan and Symantec dispute the meaning of claim terms for the ‘844 Patent, ‘926 Patent,
`
`‘494 Patent, ‘996 Patent, ‘299 Patent, ‘182 Patent, ‘289 Patent and ‘154 Patent.
`1.
`The ‘844 Patent generally describes a behavior based system for analyzing files downloaded
`
`The ‘844 Patent
`
`from the Internet. To accomplish this, the ‘844 Patent inspects a downloaded file and generates a
`
`profile indicating the suspicious operations that may the file may attempt. See Ex. 1 (the ‘844 Patent,
`
`Abstract). To generate this profile, known as the downloadable security profile (“DSP”), the system
`
`uses a content inspector which analyzes the content of the downloaded file using a set of rules that can
`
`identify code patterns deemed suspicious. Id. at Col. 2, l. 65-Col. 3, l. 2. After the DSP has been
`
`created and identified for a particular downloadable, it can be used for a variety of purposes, from
`
`statistical analysis to making determination as to whether to allow the downloadable into a network.
`
`Id.
`
`2.
`The ‘926 Patent is a system for protecting networked computers from malicious content also
`
`The ‘926 Patent
`
`using behavior detection. See Ex. 4 (the ‘926 Patent, Abstract). Once the DSP has been generated (as
`
`described above) it can be stored in a number of ways. The ‘926 Patent describes a system for
`
`generating identities (“ID”) for downloaded files, and using those IDs to retrieve DSPs. Id. Once
`
`retrieved, a representation of the DSP and the downloaded file can be sent to a destination computer
`
`for further analysis. Id.
`3.
`The ‘494 Patent covers another system for storing DSPs. In particular, the ‘494 Patent
`
`The ‘494 Patent
`
`describes generating a DSP and storing it in a database. See Ex. 8 (the ‘494 Patent, Abstract).
`
`Additional information about the downloaded file can also be stored in the database, such as the date,
`
`time and the source of the file. Id. at Col. 21, ll. 26-28.
`4.
`The ‘996 Patent covers a system that increases the efficiency of an Internet security system.
`
`The ‘996 Patent
`
`See Ex. 4 (the ‘996 Patent, Abstract). The system efficiently manages data between a network
`4
`__________________________________________________________________________________
`FINJAN’S OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
` CASE NO. 14-CV-02998-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
`
`Juniper Ex. 1027-p. 9
`Juniper v Finjan
`
`

`

`Case 4:14-cv-02998-HSG Document 72 Filed 04/20/15 Page 10 of 30
`
`
`
`management server and a plurality of client computers by encoding Internet traffic with management
`
`data. See id. at Col. 1, ll. 5-52. The system includes a gateway communicator for receiving
`
`management data intended for the at least one client computer, a gateway data embedder for inserting
`
`non-HTTP management data within an HTTP message, and a client data extractor for extracting non-
`
`HTTP management data from within an HTTP message. See id. (Abstract).
`5.
`The ‘299 and ‘182 Patents generally relate to secure Internet searching. See Ex. 5 (the ‘299
`
`The ‘299 and ‘182 Patents
`
`Patent, Abstract); Ex. 6 (the ‘182 Patent, Abstract) In particular, the ‘299 and ‘182 Patents provide a
`
`system that provides security assessments for web pages or media content located using an Internet
`
`search engine. Ex. 5 at Col. 2, ll. 11-16.
`6.
`The ‘289 and ‘154 Patents generally describe systems for protecting a computer from
`
`The ‘289 and ‘154 Patents
`
`dynamically generated executable code. See Ex. 7 (the ‘289 Patent, Abstract); Ex. 8 (the ‘154 Patent,
`
`Abstract). Prior systems only protected against malicious content that was static. However, in today’s
`
`world, web pages are much more dynamic, and hackers can obfuscate content in a manner where its
`
`true nature is only revealed when dynamically generated. Id. The ‘289 and ‘154 Patents provide a
`
`unique type of behavioral analyses that protects against such dynamically generated malicious content.
`
`Id.
`IV. ARGUMENT
`A.
`Finjan’s Proposed Terms
`Finjan’s constructions follow the canons of claim construction and should be adopted here.
`
`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); 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.”). Finjan has identified five
`
`terms that the Court should construe. In one instance, Finjan proposes a construction for a claim term
`5
`__________________________________________________________________________________
`FINJAN’S OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
` CASE NO. 14-CV-02998-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
`
`Juniper Ex. 1027-p. 10
`Juniper v Finjan
`
`

`

`Case 4:14-cv-02998-HSG Document 72 Filed 04/20/15 Page 11 of 30
`
`
`
`—downloadable—that is explicitly defined in the specification. For the term “database,” construction
`
`is necessary because Symantec is applying the term in an unreasonable manner that is inconsistent with
`
`the ordinary meaning of the term. The remaining three terms require construction because, as a matter
`
`of law, they are “means-plus-function” elements.
`
`In comparison, Symantec proposes unnecessary limitations in an attempt to support its non-
`
`infringement positions and to create unnecessary disputes. Because these proposed constructions
`
`circumvent the plain language, create ambiguity, and alter the scope of the claims, they should be
`
`rejected. See Aventis Pharms. Inc. v. Amino Chems. Ltd., 715 F.3d 1363, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2013)
`
`(“Courts are required therefore to ‘look to the words of the claims themselves . . . to define the scope
`
`of the patented invention.’”) (citation omitted); see also Thorner v. Sony Computer Entm’t Am. LLC,
`
`669 F.3d 1362, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (“We do not read limitations from the specification into claims;
`
`we do not redefine words. Only the patentee can do that.”).
`
`1.
`
`Downloadable (the ‘844 Patent: Claims 1, 15, 41, 43; the ‘926 Patent:
`Claims 1, 8, 15, 22, 29, 30; the ‘494 Patent: Claims 1, 10)
`
`Term in Dispute
`
`Downloadable
`
`Finjan’s Proposed
`Construction
`an executable
`application program,
`which is downloaded
`from a source
`computer and run on
`the destination
`computer
`
`Symantec’s Proposed
`Construction
`mobile code that is
`requested by an
`ongoing process and
`downloaded from a
`source computer to a
`destination computer
`for automatic
`execution
`
`
`
`The term “Downloadable” is found in a number of claims in the ‘844, ‘926, and ‘494 Patents.
`
`Finjan’s construction of this term should be adopted because it is the exact same definition the patentee
`
`gave the term in the specification.
`
`
`
`Specifically, the ‘844 Patent at Col. 1, ll. 44-47 states: “A Downloadable is an executable
`
`application program, which is downloaded from a source computer and run on the destination
`
`computer.” The ‘494 Patent at Col. 1, ll. 33-38, recites the same definition of “Downloadable” by
`
`virtue of incorporating by reference U.S. Patent Nos. 6,804,780 and 6,092,194, which provide this very
`
`6
`__________________________________________________________________________________
`FINJAN’S OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
` CASE NO. 14-CV-02998-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
`
`Juniper Ex. 1027-p. 11
`Juniper v Finjan
`
`

`

`Case 4:14-cv-02998-HSG Document 72 Filed 04/20/15 Page 12 of 30
`
`
`
`definition of “Downloadable.” See Ex. 18, ’194 Patent at Col. 1, ll. 44-46; Ex. 17, ‘780 Patent at Col.
`
`1, ll. 50-53. As shown above, this is the exact same construction Finjan proposes for this term.
`
`Because the patentee chose to act as a lexicographer and explicitly define the term “Downloadable” in
`
`the specification, Finjan’s construction controls as a matter of law. Edwards Lifesciences LLC v. Cook
`
`Inc., 582 F.3d 1322, 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (“we will adopt a definition that is different from the
`
`ordinary meaning when ‘the patentee acted as his own lexicographer and clearly set forth a definition
`
`of the disputed claim term in either the specification or prosecution history’”) (citing CCS Fitness, Inc.
`
`v. Burnswick Corp., 288 F.3d 1359, 1366-67 (Fed. Cir. 2002)); see also AIA Eng’g Ltd. v. Magotteaux
`
`Intern. S/A, 657 F.3d 1264, 1276 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (holding that the patentee acted as his own
`
`lexicographer and defined the term in the patent).
`
`
`
`This is not the first time this term has been construed. In six litigations involving the same or
`
`similar patents, “Downloadable” has been construed with the definition provided in the specification
`and consistent with Finjan’s proposal.6 In fact, in a prior litigation between Finjan and Symantec,
`Symantec argued for the same construction it proposes above and the court rejected Symantec’s
`
`construction finding that it “departs from the patent specification and injects ambiguity into the term.”
`
`See Ex. 10 at 1 n.1 (Finjan, Inc. v. McAfee, Inc., Symantec Corp., et al., Case No. 10-593 (D. Del.),
`
`Dkt. No. 326 (“McAfee Claim Construction Order”)). As such, the Court should adopt Finjan’s
`
`construction of “Downloadable” to maintain consistency with these other decisions. See Nazomi
`
`Comm’s, Inc. v. Microsoft Mobile Oy, Nos. 2014-1173, 2014-1178, 2014 WL 6678247, at *2-3 (Fed.
`
`
` See Ex. 9 at 2 (Finjan Software Ltd. v. Secure Computing Corp., Case No. 06-369 (D. Del.), Dkt. No.
`142) and Finjan, Inc. v. Secure Computing Corp., 626 F.3d 1197, 1205-06 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (defendant
`Secure Computing appealed the district court’s claim construction order to the Federal Circuit, but
`specifically declined to appeal the construction of the term “Downloadable” in a related patent). See
`also, Ex. 10 at 1 (McAfee Claim Construction Order) (construction of Downloadable in related patent).
`In four other patent litigation matters, the parties agreed to Finjan’s definition of the term
`“Downloadable.” See Ex. 13 at 4 (Finjan, Inc. v. Blue Coat Sys., Inc., Case No. 13-3999-BLF (N.D.
`Cal.), Dkt. No. 118) (adopting agreed upon construction of Downloadable for ‘844 Patent); Ex. 12 at 1
`(Finjan, Inc. v. Sophos, Inc., Case No. 14-1197-WHO (N.D. Cal.), Dkt. No. 54) (parties agreeing to
`construction of Downloadable for ‘844, ‘926, and ‘494 Patents); Ex. 14 at 1 (Finjan, Inc. v. Proofpoint,
`Inc., et al., Case No. 13-cv-5808-HSG (N.D. Cal.), Dkt. No. 117) (pending and the Court has not yet
`issued a claim construction order); Ex. 11 at 1 (Finjan, Inc. v. Websense, Inc., Case No. 13-4398-BLF
`(N.D. Cal.), Dkt. No. 93 (“Websense Claim Construction Statement”) (case dismissed).
`7
`__________________________________________________________________________________
`FINJAN’S OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
` CASE NO. 14-CV-02998-HSG
`
` 6
`
`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
`
`Juniper Ex. 1027-p. 12
`Juniper v Finjan
`
`

`

`Case 4:14-cv-02998-HSG Document 72 Filed 04/20/15 Page 13 of 30
`
`
`
`Cir. Nov. 26, 2014) (affirming district court’s construction of term relying on presumption that courts
`
`should construe the same term consistently across related patents); see also Abtox, Inc. v. Exitron
`
`Corp., 131 F.3d 1009 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (holding it would be improper to construe a term differently
`
`across related patents, given their common ancestry).
`
`
`
`Aside from the fact that Symantec’s construction is contrary to the explicit definition provided
`
`in the specification, Symantec’s construction improperly adds limitations not found in the patentee’s
`
`definition of “Downloadable.” First, Symantec includes “mobile code” in the definition, a term which
`
`itself requires construction. Declaration of Nenad Medvidovic in Support of Finjan’s Opening Claim
`
`Construction Brief (“Medvidovic Decl.”), ¶ 13. Second, Symantec attempts to add unwarranted
`
`limitations in the claims requiring that the Downloadable be “requested by an ongoing process,” and
`
`set “for automatic execution.” Id., ¶¶ 14-15. Each of these limitations is contrary to the specification,
`
`which unambiguously defines the term without the additional limitations of the Symantec’s proposed
`
`construction. See Thorner, 669 F.3d at 1366 (“We do not read limitations from the specification into
`
`claims; we do not redefine words. Only the patentee can do that.”).
`
`
`
`Neither the intrinsic nor extrinsic evidence suggest a construction of “Downloadable” different
`
`from how the patentee itself defined it in the specification. As such, Finjan’s construction should be
`
`adopted because it is consistent with the intrinsic record.
`
`2.
`
`database (the ‘926 Patent: Claims 1, 8, 15, 22, 29, 30; the‘494 Patent:
`Claims: 1, 10)
`
`Term in Dispute
`
`Database
`
`Symantec’s Proposed
`Construction
`organized collection of
`data
`
`Finjan’s Proposed
`Construction
`a collection of
`interrelated data
`organized according to
`a database schema to
`serve one or more
`applications
`
`The proper construction of “database” is “a collection of interrelated data organized according
`
`to a database schema to serve one or more applications.” Finjan seeks construction of this term
`
`consistent with the understanding of one of skill in the art because Symantec is attempting to rewrite
`
`the generally understood meaning to support its invalidity case. Specifically, Symantec attempts in its
`8
`__________________________________________________________________________________
`FINJAN’S OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
` CASE NO. 14-CV-02998-HSG
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18