Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_13-cv-03999/USCOURTS-cand-5_13-cv-03999-38/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 35:271 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

SAN JOSE DIVISION

FINJAN, INC.,

Plaintiff,

v.

BLUE COAT SYSTEMS, INC.,

Defendant.

Case No. 13-cv-03999-BLF 

ORDER REGARDING JUDGMENT

[Re: ECF 549, 550]

Pending before the Court is the parties’ dispute over whether the post-judgment interest 

period begins on November 20, 2015, or the date of the corrected judgment. Following a ten-day 

jury trial, the jury returned a verdict finding that Defendant Blue Coat Systems, Inc. literally 

infringed four of Plaintiff Finjan, Inc.’s patents involving computer and network security: U.S. 

Patent Nos. 6,804,780 (the “’780 patent”), 6,154,844 (the “’844 patent”), 7,418,731 (the “’731 

patent”), and 6,965,968 (the “’968 patent”). Verdict 2-3, ECF 438. Id. 

The verdict form instructed the jury that for each asserted claim that it did not find to be 

literally infringed, to answer whether that claim was infringed under the doctrine of equivalents. 

Id. The jury answered this question for each claim, even those it that it found to be literally 

infringed. Id. at 3. Before the jury was excused, the Court held a side-bar with counsel to discuss 

the jury’s verdict. Transcript 2192:16-2193:8, ECF 441. Counsel expressly waived the 

opportunity to send the jury back for further deliberations and agreed that the jury could be 

discharged and that this could be “resolve[d] on post-trial motions.” Id. at 2192:22-23 (counsel 

for Blue Coat). 

In ruling upon the parties’ bench trial issues, the Court found that Blue Coat’s “prosecution 

history estoppel defense with respect to the ’844, ’968, and ’780 patents [wa]s moot” because the 

jury found that these patents were literally infringed and were instructed not to consider whether 

Case 5:13-cv-03999-BLF Document 555 Filed 08/19/16 Page 1 of 3
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

these patents were also infringed under the doctrine of equivalents. Order on Non-Jury Legal 

Issues 12, ECF 486. On November 20, 2015, the Court, in accordance with the jury’s verdict and 

the Court’s order on non-jury legal issues, entered judgment in favor of Finjan. ECF 487.

In its post-judgment motions, Blue Coat sought to amend the judgment to clarify that for 

any claims that the jury found were literally infringed, the jury’s findings as to whether those 

claims were infringed under the doctrine of equivalents was moot. In essence, to memorialize on 

the face of the judgment the ruling the Court made in its order on non jury issues which had been 

incorporated into the November 20, 2015, judgment. Mot. for New Trial 21-22, ECF 499. To be 

consistent with counsels’ agreement at side-bar before dismissing the jury, the Court granted Blue 

Coat’s request to clarify the judgment that infringement under the doctrine of equivalents was

moot for the ’844, ’968, ’780 patents. Order Regarding Post-Judgment Motions 22, ECF 543. 

The corrected judgment filed concurrently with this order reflects that order. Blue Coat now 

argues that the date for post-judgment interest should begin from the date of the corrected 

judgment, and not November 20, 2015. ECF 550. Finjan opposes and argues that post-judgment 

interest began from November 20, 2015. ECF 549.

The Court agrees with Finjan that post-judgment interest commences beginning on the date 

of the final judgment entered on November 20, 2015. As of that date, damages were meaningfully 

ascertained and there has been no subsequent modification of the amount of the money judgment 

stated on November 20, 2015. Planned Parenthood of Columbia/Willamette Inc. v. Am. Coal. of 

Life Activities, 518 F.3d 1013, 1017–18 (9th Cir. 2008). The corrected judgment merely reflects 

the parties’ agreed resolution of an apparent inconsistency in the jury verdict that was resolved by 

counsels’ agreement before the Court released the jury and reflected in this Court’s order dated 

November 20, 2015 which was incorporated in the November 20, 2015, Judgment. Transcript 

2192:16-2193:8, ECF 441. The standard post-trial motions filed in this case did not result in any 

modification to the jury’s monetary award that is reflected in the November 20, 2015, Judgment. 

Although these motions tolled the deadline for filing any appeal, the motions did not abrogate the 

November 20, 2015, Judgment. 

This conclusion is further supported by Blue Coat’s own actions. First, it expressly 

Case 5:13-cv-03999-BLF Document 555 Filed 08/19/16 Page 2 of 3
3

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

represented to the Court that a corrected judgment would relate back to the November 20, 2015, 

Judgment. April 28, 2016 Hearing Transcript 79:6-11, ECF 540. Second, Blue Coat filed its 

Notice of Appeal on August 17, 2016, which relates to the November 20, 2015, Judgment, the 

time for appeal having been tolled during the pendency of post-trial motions. 

Thus, this Court concludes that the judgment entered on November 20, 2015, was a final 

appealable judgment and post-judgment interest commenced on that date. The Court will issue a 

separate corrected judgment.1 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 19, 2016

 ______________________________________

BETH LABSON FREEMAN

United States District Judge

 

1

The Court notes that Finjan’s proposed judgment includes a reference to the Court’s order 

regarding post-judgment motions. ECF 545-1. The Court does not find it necessary to reference 

that order in a judgment and removes this reference.

Case 5:13-cv-03999-BLF Document 555 Filed 08/19/16 Page 3 of 3