Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-01197/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-01197-14/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 35:145 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.

SOPHOS, INC.,

Defendant.

Case No. 14-cv-01197-WHO 

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO USE 

CODENAMES; GRANTING IN PART 

MOTION TO SEAL CONFIDENTIAL 

INFORMATION; GRANTING MOTION 

TO SEAL TRANSCRIPT AND ORDER; 

AND GRANTING MOTION TO 

CLARIFY PRIOR ORDER

Re: Dkt. Nos. 257, 269, 277, 283

Trial is set for September 6, 2016 in this patent case. The parties (and one non-party) have 

filed motions to address administrative issues in advance of trial. I rule on four of these pending 

motions below.

I. MOTION TO USE CODENAMES

Finjan requests that I order the parties to use codenames and redacted versions of license 

agreements concerning the Patents-in-Suit at the trial set for September 6, 2016. Dkt. No. 257. 

Finjan argues that, because I asserted at the August 8, 2016 hearing that I will not seal the 

courtroom, codenames are necessary to protect the identities of its licensees and the confidential 

terms of its license agreements. Id.at 1.

Sophos objects to the use of codenames arguing that the information Finjan claims is 

confidential is already in the public domain. Dkt. No. 264. It further argues that the identity of 

the licensees is important to its damage analysis, that codenames will confuse the jury and the 

record, and that Finjan has not adequately identified how this information will prejudice its 

licensees. Dkt. No. 264. Finally, it argues that the court could employ other means of protecting 

the information, for example by turning off the display screens to the gallery when the licenses are 

Case 3:14-cv-01197-WHO Document 290 Filed 08/30/16 Page 1 of 4
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

being displayed. Id.

One of Finjan’s licensees (“Licensee”) filed a third-party declaration in partial support of 

Finjan’s motion, stating that the terms of the license agreements are commercially sensitive and 

that it will be harmed if the terms of its license agreement with Finjan are revealed to its 

competitors because the Licensee’s competitors could use this information to gain an advantage 

against the Licensee in future negotiations. 

I conclude that Finjan and its licensees have shown good cause that the identity of Finjan’s 

licensees and the terms of the license agreements are commercially sensitive and that Finjan’s 

licensees would suffer harm if this information was publicly revealed. While Sophos identifies 

some information that is already in the public domain, much of the information at issue remains 

confidential. Sophos is correct that the size of the licensees is important context for the jury, but it

may present evidence about the licensees’ size without revealing the exact names and identities of 

the licensees to the public. I am not persuaded that Sophos will suffer prejudice if it is not able to 

call the licensees by their real names. Sophos has not identified a sound alternative for protecting 

the identity of the licensees or the terms of the license agreements. Turning off the gallery screens 

will do little as Sophos maintains that “oral testimony is likely required to clearly communicate” 

the intricacies of its damage testimony and so intends to discuss the confidential terms in open 

court on the record. Dkt. No. 287 at 2. 

Because Finjan has shown good cause for protecting the identity of its licensees, I GRANT 

Finjan’s motion to use codenames and to redact the licensee names from its agreements. 

II. NON-PARTY MOTION TO SEAL CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION

A non-party Finjan licensee (“Licensee”) moves to seal confidential information regarding 

its identity and the terms of its License Agreement (“Agreement”) with Finjan at trial. Dkt. No. 

269.1 The Licensee requests that certain sections of its Agreement be redacted, and that the 

courtroom be briefly sealed during trial to protect the confidentiality of the Agreement. Id. at 2. 

The Licensee notes that in Finjan v. Blue Coat Sys., Inc., No. 13-cv-03999-BLF, D.I. 400 at 1 

 

1

It also requested oral argument on its motion. Oral argument is unnecessary on this subject, and 

its request is DENIED.

Case 3:14-cv-01197-WHO Document 290 Filed 08/30/16 Page 2 of 4
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

(N.D. Cal. July 22, 2015), the court granted a similar request, redacted the Agreement, and briefly 

sealed the courtroom to protect the Licensee’s confidential information.

Trials are matters of public record. I will not seal the courtroom during trial. 

As an alternative, the Licensee requests that I (1) order counsel and witnesses to publish 

the Agreement to the jury and courtroom alone, and not the general public; (2) order counsel and 

witnesses not to state the Commercially Sensitive Terms of the Agreement; and (3) order counsel 

and witnesses not to refer to the Licensee using a code name from which its identity can be 

determined. Id. at 5.

Sophos objects to this motion in part. Sophos does not object to sealing most sections the 

Licensee identifies as “Commercially Sensitive” but objects to sealing Sections 1.1, the first clause 

of 2.1, 3.1(a), and Exhibit A. Dkt. No. 262-2. It argues that oral testimony regarding these 

sections is important to properly presenting its damage evidence and to Mr. Napper’s testimony. 

Dkt. No. 262 at 2. 

I agree that oral testimony may be important to Sophos’s damage evidence. Sophos has 

identified a few narrow terms from the Agreement that it would like to discuss in court which, if 

discussed in conjunction with a codename, are not likely to reveal the identity of or commercially 

harm the Licensee. 

I GRANT the Licensee’s motion in part. I order (1) counsel and witnesses to publish the 

Agreement to the jury and courtroom alone, and not to the general public, (2) with the exception 

of Sections 1.1, the first clause of 2.1, 3.1(a), and Exhibit A, counsel and witnesses shall not state 

the Commercially Sensitive Terms of the Agreement, and (3) counsel and witnesses shall refer to 

the Licensee only by a code name. Counsel and witnesses may discuss the terms included in 

Sections 1.1., the first clause of 2.1, 3.1(a), and Exhibit A of the Agreement as long as they use an 

appropriate code name when referring to the Licensee.

III. MOTION TO REQUEST COURT TO SEAL CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION IN 

COURT TRANSCRIPT AND ORDER ON MOTIONS IN LIMINE

Finjan moves to seal portions of the Pretrial Conference Transcript and portions of my 

August 22, 2016 Order on Sophos’s and Finjan’s Daubert Motions and Motions in Limine. Dkt. 

Case 3:14-cv-01197-WHO Document 290 Filed 08/30/16 Page 3 of 4
4

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

Nos. 254, 262. Specifically, Finjan seeks to seal information regarding a confidential license 

agreement. Finjan argues that this information was not meant to be publically available, could 

prejudice the licensing parties if it is publicized, and has been designated by Finjan as “Highly 

Confidential – Attorneys’ Eyes Only.” Dkt. No. 277 at 2. Finjan also argues that its request is 

narrowly tailored as it is limited only to documents for which good cause for filing under seal 

exists. Id.

I agree that Finjan has shown good cause to file the requested documents under seal and its 

request is narrowly tailored to confidential information. I GRANT Finjan’s Administrative 

Motion to Request Court Seal Confidential Portions of Pretrial Conference Transcript and Order 

on Motions in Limine. The identified portions will be redacted from these documents. 

IV. MOTION TO CLARIFY ORDER ON FINJAN MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 4

Finjan requests clarification on my August 22, 2016 Order on Finjan’s Motion in Limine 

No. 4. Dkt. No 262. I GRANT Finjan’s motion for clarification. Consistent with my prior order, 

Sophos may only use the Delaware Action as evidence in support of its damages and willful 

infringement arguments. Sophos may not use the Delaware Action as evidence of invalidity or 

infringement. The parties should offer limiting instructions regarding Sophos’s potential use of 

the Delaware Action.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 30, 2016

______________________________________

WILLIAM H. ORRICK

United States District Judge

Case 3:14-cv-01197-WHO Document 290 Filed 08/30/16 Page 4 of 4