Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_17-cv-04790/USCOURTS-cand-4_17-cv-04790-18/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)

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO 

STRIKE

Re: Dkt. No. 116

The Court held a telephonic hearing this morning on the parties’ joint discovery letter brief 

at ECF No. 116, and this order follows. The issue in dispute is that Finjan’s answer to 

interrogatory No. 2 includes information that Bitdefender says is covered by an NDA. See ECF 

No. 118, Ex. A (the NDA). The parties entered into the NDA on April 7, 2017. At a high level, 

the purpose of the NDA was to let the parties exchange confidential information as part of a 

negotiation over a potential licensing deal. Paragraph 3(ii) says that any confidential information 

disclosed pursuant to the NDA won’t be used by the disclosing party “as evidence in any legal 

action . . . to prove . . . an accusation of infringement of any intellectual property rights for any 

purpose . . .” Finjan apparently provided its infringement analysis of Bitdefender’s products under 

the NDA. Now, in response to interrogatory No. 2 – which asks Finjan to identify all 

communications that it contends constitute actual notice to Bitdefender of infringement – Finjan is 

listing some of those communications. Bitdefender moves to strike those communications from 

the interrogatory response, saying that’s a violation of the NDA.

Maybe it is. But the real question is whether Bitdefender is asking for the right remedy. If 

Finjan is in breach of the NDA, Bitdefender can sue it for breach of contract. There is also 

authority for the proposition that an NDA like this can make those communications inadmissible, 

Case 4:17-cv-04790-HSG Document 121 Filed 06/06/19 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

whether at summary judgment or at trial. See ZiiLabs Inc., Ltd. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., 2015 WL 

8293585, at *3 (E.D. Tex. Dec. 8, 2015); Apple, Inc. v. Motorola Mobility, Inc., 2012 WL 

5416941, at *6 (W.D. Wis. Oct. 29, 2012); Osteotech, Inc. v. Regeneration Techs., Inc., 2008 WL 

4449564, at *3-5 (D.N.J. Sept. 25, 2008). But what is the problem with including them in a 

response to an interrogatory that asks Finjan to state what it contends? This is what Finjan 

contends. The Court reviews interrogatory responses to see if they answer the question, not to

determine if the answer is legally viable. That’s what a summary judgment motion is for.1

Bitdefender’s motion to strike portions of Finjan’s response to interrogatory No. 2 is 

DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 6, 2019

THOMAS S. HIXSON

United States Magistrate Judge

 

1 At oral argument, Bitdefender argued that Finjan’s response to the interrogatory is also 

incomplete. However, that issue was not teed up by the letter brief and is not before the Court. 

Case 4:17-cv-04790-HSG Document 121 Filed 06/06/19 Page 2 of 2