Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_17-cv-06946/USCOURTS-cand-3_17-cv-06946-12/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.

ZSCALER, INC.,

Defendant.

Case No. 17-cv-06946-JST (KAW)

ORDER REGARDING JOINT 

DISCOVERY LETTER

Re: Dkt. Nos. 117

Plaintiff Finjan, Inc. filed the instant suit against Defendant Zscaler, Inc., alleging patent 

infringement. (Compl., Dkt. No. 1.) On March 21, 2019, the parties filed a discovery letter 

concerning Defendant's third set of interrogatories. (Discovery Letter, Dkt. No. 117.) Having 

reviewed the letter and the relevant legal authorities, the Court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES 

IN PART the relief sought.

I. LEGAL STANDARD

The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure broadly interpret relevancy, such that each party has 

the right to the discovery of "any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party's claim or 

defense and proportional to the needs of the case[.]" Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). Discovery need not 

be admissible to be discoverable. Id. The court, however, "must limit the frequency or extent of 

discovery otherwise allowed" if "(i) the discovery sought is unreasonably cumulative or 

duplicative, or can be obtained from some other source that is more convenient, less burdensome, 

or less expensive; (ii) the party seeking discovery has had ample opportunity to obtain the 

information by discovery in the action; or (iii) the proposed discovery is outside the scope 

permitted by Rule 26(b)(1)." Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(C). Furthermore, "[t]he court may, for good 

cause, issue an order to protect a party or person from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or 

Case 3:17-cv-06946-JST Document 126 Filed 04/09/19 Page 1 of 6
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

undue burden or expense," including by precluding discovery, by conditioning disclosure or 

discovery on specified terms, by preventing inquiry into certain matters, or by limiting the scope 

of discovery to certain matters. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c)(1). "Rule 26(c) confers broad discretion on 

the trial court to decide when a protective order is appropriate and what degree of protection is 

required." Seattle Times Co. v. Rhinehart, 467 U.S. 20, 36 (1984).

II. DISCUSSION

A. Interrogatory No. 12

Defendant's Interrogatory No. 12 states:

Separately for each claim of the Finjan Patents-in-Suit, describe in 

detail the conception and reduction to practice of the claim, 

including an identification of the date of first conception, the date of 

first reduction to practice, the basis for your contention, if any, of 

diligence in reducing the invention to practice, and an identification 

of every person involved in the conception and/or reduction to 

practice of the claimed invention, their role in the conception and/or 

reduction to practice of that invention, and all documents that can 

corroborate or contradict such conception, reduction to practice, and 

diligence.

(Discovery Letter at 1.)

First, the parties dispute whether Plaintiff adequately identified the date of conception for 

the '633 patent by providing a range, rather than a specific date. (Discovery Letter at 1.) 

Specifically, in response to Interrogatory No. 12, Plaintiff asserted that "the date of conception . . . 

began January 29, 1997, and continued through May 17, 2000." (Discovery Letter, Exh. A at 11.)

The Court finds that a range of over three years is not an adequate response. In general, 

courts in this district have held that the Patent Local Rules "require[] a patent holder to assert a 

specific date of conception, not a date range." Harvatek Corp. v. Cree, Inc., Case No. 14-cv-5353-

WHA, 2015 WL 4396379, at *2 (N.D. Cal. July 17, 2015); Blue Spike, LLC v. Adobe Sys., Inc., 

Case No. 14-cv-1647-YGR (JSC), 2015 WL 335842, at *7 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 26, 2015) ("This rule 

requires a patentee to assert a particular date--not a start date, end date, or date range."). Courts 

have applied this requirement to interrogatory responses in patent cases. E.g., OpenTV, Inc. v. 

Apple Inc., Case No. 15-cv-2008-EJD (NC), 2016 WL 3196643, at *2 (N.D. Cal. June 9, 2016) 

(striking conception dates in interrogatory responses where the patentee failed to identify a 

Case 3:17-cv-06946-JST Document 126 Filed 04/09/19 Page 2 of 6
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

specific conception date). In Harvatek, the district court explained that an uncertain conception 

date was prejudicial because it prevented the defendant from "focus[ing] its discovery efforts on a 

specific conception date." Harvatek Corp., 2015 WL 4396379, at *2. Thus, the "failure to 

identify a specific conception date has allowed [the plaintiff] to reverse the order of the procedure 

contemplated by our Patent Local Rules, giving it a preview of [the defendant's] invalidity 

contentions before offering a concrete conception date." Id. Moreover, the purpose of the Patent 

Local Rules was "to require patent holders to crystallize their theories of the case early in the 

litigation, which heads off the possibility of abuse in the form of theories contrived to get behind 

later disclosed prior art." Id. at *3 (internal quotation omitted). By failing to state a specific date 

of conception, the plaintiff had "brought about the 'shifting sands' that our Patent Local Rules were 

designed to prevent." Id.

Plaintiff points to two cases where the district court permitted the patentee to identify a 

date or dates of conception or reduction to practice. See Boston Scientific Corp. v. Micrus Corp., 

Case No. 04-4072-JW (RS), 2007 WL 174475, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 22, 2007) (allowing the 

patentee to identify "the approximate date or dates of actual reduction to practice it intends to 

assert"); West v. Ultimate Metals Co., Case No. 13-cv-3651-WHO (MEJ), 2014 WL 466795, at 

*2 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 3, 2014) ("If West believes in good faith that he is unable to state a specific 

date or dates, he shall state with clarity the approximate date or dates of conception he intends to 

claim in this action."). Neither case, however, permitted a range of dates, let alone a three-year 

range. Accordingly, Plaintiff is ordered to file an amended response, which identifies a specific 

date or dates of conception that Plaintiff intends to assert.

Second, Defendant asserts that Plaintiff has not adequately identified who the inventors of 

the '494 patent are for the relevant claims because Plaintiff's response includes "a generic 

statement that all four named inventors 'were involved with, and may have knowledge related to 

the conception and reduction to practice of claims of the '494 Patent.'" (Discovery Letter at 2.) 

The Court disagrees. While Plaintiff's response does generally identify these four individuals, its 

response goes on to state that Mr. Shlomo Touboul submitted a declaration stating that '494 patent 

Claims 10 and 14 -- the claims asserted in this case -- were his sole invention. (See Discovery 

Case 3:17-cv-06946-JST Document 126 Filed 04/09/19 Page 3 of 6
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

Letter, Exh. A at 12.) This is sufficient to make clear that Mr. Touboul is the only inventor of 

Claims 10 and 14.

B. Interrogatory No. 13

Defendant's Interrogatory No. 13 states:

For each and every license, settlement agreement or other agreement 

granting rights to the Patents-in-Suit or Related Patents (alone or as 

part of a portfolio) Finjan has entered into, describe in detail on a 

license-by-license basis (and, where available, patent-by-patent 

basis) the actual or effective royalty base (i.e., the revenue earned 

for licensed or released products) covered by or subject to that 

agreement, including by providing a chart that includes the columns 

(1) parties to the license, (2) licensed patents, (3) actual or effective 

royalty base for each patent, where available, (4) total actual or 

effective royalty base for the agreement, (5) how the royalty base 

was determined, (6) for each licensed patent or group of patents, the 

incremental value contributed by the patented invention to the 

royalty base, (7) license structure (e.g., whether the license was a 

lump sum payment or a running royalty), and (8) the portion of 

payments made in satisfaction of the agreement that was or cab [sic] 

be attributed to any particular patent or group of patents.

(Discovery Letter at 2-3.) It appears Defendant is no longer requesting the chart. Rather, the 

primary dispute is whether Plaintiff has provided the "actual or effective royalty base," and 

adequately identified the documents from which Defendant can identify the royalty-related 

information requested by parts (3), (4), (5), (6), and (8). (Id. at 3.)

Plaintiff responds that the royalty base is not a constant number because negotiations 

change. (Discovery Letter at 3.) It is unclear, however, how this prevents Plaintiff from stating

the actual or effective royalty base of the licenses it entered into; the fact that a number may 

change during negotiations does not affect Plaintiff's ability to identify the actual or effective 

royalty base that the parties ultimately agreed to. Accordingly, Plaintiff is ordered to file an 

amended response which identifies the actual or effective royalty base as requested.

Further, as to the identification of documents, Plaintiff contends that it has identified 9,805 

pages relating to its 27 licenses. (Discovery Letter at 4.) Defendant, however, explains that many 

of these pages "include documents having no apparent connection to the subject matter of this 

interrogatory, such as pages of redacted infringement contentions." (Id. at 3.) This is not 

adequate. Plaintiff shall narrowly identify the pages, so that it is specifically tailored to 

Case 3:17-cv-06946-JST Document 126 Filed 04/09/19 Page 4 of 6
5

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

Defendant's request. 

C. Interrogatory No. 14

Finally, Interrogatory No. 14 states:

If You contend that, during the prosecution of any of the Patents-inSuit, Finjan did not intentionally delay in petitioning the USPTO for 

a delayed claim of priority, describe in detail the basis for that 

contention by a full description of all facts (including documents 

and persons with knowledge) and reasons supporting such 

contention, including without limitation, a full explanation for the 

timing of Finjan's petition, an identification of all individuals 

involved in the decision to petition the USPTO, and an identification 

of the reason, if any, Finjan contends it could not or did not need to 

file the petition sooner.

(Discovery Letter at 4-5.)

First, Defendant contends that Plaintiff failed to provide an explanation for the timing of 

Plaintiff's petition as to the '494 patent, as well as a reason for why Plaintiff could not or did not 

need to file the petition sooner. The Court agrees. In its response, Plaintiff states that it filed a 

petition correcting the priority claim of the '494 patent in October 2012, which stated that the 

delay was "unintentional." (Discovery Letter, Exh. A at 18.) Plaintiff further explains that this 

petition was filed to perfect its priority claim chain related to a parent patent. (Id. at 18-19.) This 

response, however, does not explain why there was a delay in the priority claim to begin with. 

Plaintiff must provide a supplemental response that explains why it believes the delay was 

unintentional.

Second, Defendant states that Plaintiff provides no response as to the '633 patent. 

(Discovery Letter at 5.) Plaintiff does not dispute this, and states that it will provide a 

supplemental response that includes a statement that Plaintiff filed a certificate of correction to the 

'633 patent to correct a typographical error in its priority chain. (Id.) To the extent there is any 

claim of unintentional delay, however, Plaintiff must also explain the reasons and circumstances 

for the delay.

III. CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated above, the Court ORDERS that:

1. Plaintiff identify a date or date(s) of conception for the '633 patent in response to 

Case 3:17-cv-06946-JST Document 126 Filed 04/09/19 Page 5 of 6
6

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

Interrogatory No. 12;

2. Plaintiff identify the actual or effective royalty base, as well as a narrowed set of 

documents responsive to Interrogatory No. 13;

3. Plaintiff explain why they did not believe any delay was unintentional as to the '494 

patent and the '633 patent.

The Court finds that Plaintiff has sufficiently identified the inventor of the '494 patent 

claims 10 and 14.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 9, 2019

__________________________________

KANDIS A. WESTMORE

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:17-cv-06946-JST Document 126 Filed 04/09/19 Page 6 of 6