Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_17-cv-04790/USCOURTS-cand-4_17-cv-04790-21/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 15:1126 Patent Infringement

---

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

FINJAN, INC.,

Plaintiff,

v.

BITDEFENDER INC., et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 17-cv-04790-HSG (TSH)

DISCOVERY ORDER

Re: Dkt. Nos. 137, 138, 139, 144, 145

The Court held a telephonic hearing today concerning ECF Nos. 137, 138, 139 and 145. 

Despite the number of filings, there are only two issues in dispute. First, Finjan served 211 

requests for admission (“RFAs”) on June 12, 2019, the last day to do so before the July 12, 2019 

fact discovery cutoff. Bitdefender objects, saying that Finjan had previously proposed that each 

side may serve up to 50 RFAs, whereas Bitdefender had proposed that each side may serve up to 

20. See ECF No. 102, page 7. Bitdefender also says that answering the RFAs would be 

burdensome.

The Court rejects Bitdefender’s arguments. The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not 

impose a limit on the numbers of RFAs. Of course, RFAs, like any form of discovery, must be 

proportional and the Court can limit them if they are unduly burdensome – but there isn’t an a 

priori number that is the limit, unlike with depositions and interrogatories. Here, the parties had 

competing proposals, but they never reached an agreement. Finjan would have been bound by its 

proposed limit of 50 if Bitdefender had accepted it. Indeed, one strategic advantage to accepting 

an opponent’s proposal that you don’t like is to stop them from doing something worse. Here, 

however, Bitdefender rejected Finjan’s proposed limit of 50, and Finjan rejected Bitdefender’s 

proposed limit of 20, so the parties were back to the default under Rule 30, which is that there is 

no particular limit. 

The Court has reviewed the RFAs themselves, and they are reasonable and proportional. 

They mostly just ask if Bitdefender does or has done relevant things in the United States. Despite 

Case 4:17-cv-04790-HSG Document 149 Filed 07/26/19 Page 1 of 2
2

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

Bitdefender’s arguments, the Court does not agree these RFAs are burdensome. At the hearing, 

Bitdefender requested 21 days to answer the RFAs. Finjan stated that timing was acceptable. 

Accordingly, the Court ORDERS Bitdefender to answer the RFAs by August 16, 2019.

The other issue is whether Finjan has complied with the Court’s order to provide pinpoint 

source code citations in response to Bitdefender’s interrogatory No. 5. See ECF No. 114. This 

issue became clearer at the hearing, when it became evident that both sides agree what the solution 

is. Right now, Finjan’s response to interrogatory 5 contains pinpoint citations to the code that it 

claims infringes each element. But then at the end of the discussion of each element, Finjan states 

that it “will also rely on the following source code to prove that” the accused products discussed 

“meet this limitation,” and what follows is a block citation to several thousand lines of code, 

sometimes including entire files. At the hearing, Finjan explained that the pinpoint citations that 

precede the block cite show the code that infringes that limitation and that the block cite is to other 

code that is called by the infringing code in order for the software to operate. The Court 

understands that as a functional matter, you can’t operate just the infringing code – it won’t work, 

and therefore in a technical sense won’t “infringe,” unless it is used with other code to make it 

operable. However, the way Finjan’s interrogatory response is drafted leaves Finjan open to later 

contend that somewhere in the block cites is additional infringing code. The Court ORDERS

Finjan to amend its response to interrogatory No. 5 to remove this problem. Specifically, before 

each block cite Finjan must explain that the preceding pinpoint citations are the code Finjan relies 

on to show infringement of that limitation, and the block cite that follows is merely other code that 

is needed to make the infringing code for that limitation operate. In other words, Finjan must 

clarify that it is relying only on the pinpoint citations as identifying the infringing code for each 

limitation.

Finally, the motion to seal at ECF No. 144 is GRANTED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 26, 2019

THOMAS S. HIXSON

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 4:17-cv-04790-HSG Document 149 Filed 07/26/19 Page 2 of 2