Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_14-cv-02998/USCOURTS-cand-4_14-cv-02998-16/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 28:1338 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.

SYMANTEC CORP.,

Defendant.

Case No.14-cv-02998-HSG 

ORDER DIRECTING SUPPLEMENTAL 

CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEFING

Re: Dkt. No. 72

Neither party’s briefing or oral argument offered much help to the Court in construing the 

“means for generating” and “means for linking” claims of the ‘844 patent. Plaintiff’s argument 

that the relevant structure for these claims is the “content inspection engine” does not appear 

consistent with Federal Circuit precedent holding that “[a] computer-implemented means-plusfunction term is limited to the corresponding structure disclosed in the specification and 

equivalents thereof, and the corresponding structure is the algorithm.” Harris Corp. v. Ericsson 

Inc., 417 F.3d 1241, 1253-54 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (finding that district court erred in construing 

structure as a “symbol processor,” because that construction did not incorporate any disclosed 

algorithm); see also WMS Gaming, Inc. v. Int’l Game Tech., 184 F.3d 1339, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 1999) 

(finding that district court erred by failing to limit the claim to the algorithm disclosed in the 

specification). In addition, Plaintiff’s expert declaration is unacceptably vague as to where the 

algorithm for the “content inspection engine” is disclosed specifically in the patent. See

Medvidovic Decl. at ¶ 21 (generally asserting that “[t]he function and algorithm for the content 

inspection engine structure is discussed throughout the specification, in flow charts, and diagrams 

of the ‘844 Patent,” then string-citing numerous sections without elaboration, including the 

abstract). For its part, Defendant proposes a granular construction stitching together pieces of the 

‘844 Patent (or even the ‘194 Patent) into the supposed algorithm, but has not cited any Federal 

Case 4:14-cv-02998-HSG Document 164 Filed 01/06/17 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

Circuit cases involving this kind of cobbled-together definition of an algorithm. As the Court 

indicated at the claim construction hearing, it has substantial concerns about the practical 

workability of this kind of construction at a jury trial.

The parties are ORDERED to submit simultaneous supplemental briefs of no longer than 

ten pages by the close of business on Friday, January 13, 2017 addressing the following issues:

1. Explain why Plaintiff’s proposed construction does or does not comport with the 

rule set out in Harris and WGS Gaming. The Court instructs Plaintiff that simply 

referring back to the prior construction in the Sophos case does not answer this 

question.

2. Disclose in detail what sections of the ‘844 Patent (or other patent) you claim 

disclose the “algorithm” of the “content inspection engine.” Please include the 

actual language in your brief, rather than simply including generalized citations like 

those in paragraphs 21 and 25 of Dr. Medvidovic’s declaration.

3. Provide Federal Circuit cases involving computer-implemented means-plusfunction terms that approved constructions of structures like the one you propose. 

Again, Plaintiff should not rely on the Sophos construction, since the Court is 

aware of that case, and the Harris/WGS Gaming issue did not appear to be raised 

there (where the sole issue was indefiniteness). The parties should also provide any 

proposed guidance as to how to craft a manageable jury instruction in the event the 

Court decides that it is necessary to cite sections of the patent disclosing the 

algorithm within the claim construction itself.

The parties should be prepared to discuss these issues at the supplemental claim 

construction hearing set for January 20, 2017 at 10:00 a.m.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated:

HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR.

United States District Judge

1/6/2017

Case 4:14-cv-02998-HSG Document 164 Filed 01/06/17 Page 2 of 2