Case No. 5:17-cv-00072-BLF

FINJAN’S OPPOSITION TO CISCO’S MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 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

Juanita R. Brooks (CA SBN 75934) brooks@fr.com 

Roger A. Denning (CA SBN 228998) denning@fr.com 

Frank J. Albert (CA SBN 247741) albert@fr.com 

Megan A. Chacon (CA SBN 304912) chacon@fr.com 

K. Nicole Williams (CA SBN 291900) nwilliams@fr.com

Oliver J. Richards (CA SBN 310972) ojr@fr.com

Jared A. Smith (CA SBN 306576) jasmith@fr.com

FISH & RICHARDSON P.C.

12860 El Camino Real, Suite 400

San Diego, CA 92130

Telephone: (858) 678-5070 / Fax: (858) 678-5099

Aamir Kazi (Approved Pro Hac Vice) kazi@fr.com 

Alana C. Mannige (CA SBN 313341) mannige@fr.com 

FISH & RICHARDSON P.C. 

1180 Peachtree Street NE, 21st Floor 

Atlanta, GA 30309 

Telephone: (404) 892-5005 / Fax: (404) 892-5002 

Attorneys for Plaintiff 

FINJAN, INC. 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, SAN JOSE DIVISION 

FINJAN, INC., a Delaware Corporation, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

CISCO SYSTEMS, INC., a California 

Corporation, 

Defendant. 

Case No. 5:17-cv-00072-BLF 

PLAINTIFF FINJAN, INC.’S 

OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT CISCO 

SYSTEMS, INC.’S MOTION IN LIMINE

NO. 4 RE EVIDENCE AND ARGUMENTS 

PERTAINING TO CERTAIN ’633 

PATENT INFRINGEMENT THEORIES 

Hon. Beth Labson Freeman 

Ctrm: 3, 5th Floor 

REDACTED VERSION OF DOCUMENT 

SOUGHT TO BE SEALED

Case 5:17-cv-00072-BLF Document 700 Filed 08/18/20 Page 1 of 8
Case 5:17-cv-00072-BLF Document 700 Filed 08/18/20 Page 2 of 8
Case 5:17-cv-00072-BLF Document 700 Filed 08/18/20 Page 3 of 8
Case 5:17-cv-00072-BLF Document 700 Filed 08/18/20 Page 4 of 8
Case 5:17-cv-00072-BLF Document 700 Filed 08/18/20 Page 5 of 8
5 Case No. 5:17-cv-00072-BLF

FINJAN’S OPPOSITION TO CISCO’S MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 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

Medvidovic’s report, Finjan’s literal and DOE theories are not coextensive. Cisco’s argument 

appears premised upon this statement: “Finjan represented to the Court that no theories existed in 

its expert report asserting infringement based on the transmission of something to the sandbox.” 

Mot. at 4. This statement is false. In its summary judgment opposition, Finjan clarified only that 

its literal infringement theory did not accuse RESTful APIs as MPC. See Dkt. No. 400-4 at 13 

(“Cisco argues that APIs cannot be executable code and thus, cannot be MPCs. While Finjan 

disagrees with Cisco’s arguments regarding APIs, it is irrelevant because Finjan has not identified 

RESTful APIs as MPC.”). Finjan said nothing about its DOE infringement theories. As to literal 

infringement, Finjan’s statement was limited to RESTful APIs as MPC—not all transmissionbased theories. Finjan did not otherwise limit its DOE infringement allegations to the same seven 

components accused as literally infringing. Id. at 4. Presumably, Cisco is referring to Finjan’s 

summary judgment opposition, but that opposition only purported to identify the seven potential 

components that literally satisfied the MPC limitation. Dkt. No. 400-4 at 14-19. The Court 

should disregard the rest of Cisco’s argument that relies on these faulty premises. 

Third, Cisco cannot attack the sufficiency of Finjan’s DOE theories through a motion in 

limine. To be clear, Cisco admits that (1) Finjan’s operative contentions include a DOE theory 

related to the MPC element for each of the accused products, and (2) Finjan’s expert applies that 

same theory in his report. See Mot. at 5. While Cisco goes on to criticize the sufficiency of both 

disclosures, any disagreement over the sufficiency of Finjan’s DOE disclosures is not the proper 

subject of this motion. “A motion in limine is [] not the proper vehicle for a party to ask the Court 

to weigh the sufficiency of the evidence in support of a particular claim or defense.” Digital Reg 

of Texas, LLC v. Adobe Sys., Inc., No. C 12-1971-CW, 2014 WL 4090550, at *6 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 

19, 2014); see also Pavo Sols. LLC v. Kingston Tech. Co., Inc., No. 8:14-cv-01352-JLS-KES, 

2020 WL 1049911, at *1 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 18, 2020) (opining that motions in limine do not have the 

same “crucial procedural safeguards” as motions for summary judgement). 

III. CONCLUSION 

For the reasons stated, Finjan respectfully requests that the Court deny Cisco’s Motion in 

Limine No. 4. 

Case 5:17-cv-00072-BLF Document 700 Filed 08/18/20 Page 6 of 8
6 Case No. 5:17-cv-00072-BLF

FINJAN’S OPPOSITION TO CISCO’S MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 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

Dated: August 18, 2020 Respectfully Submitted, 

By: /s/ Aamir Kazi 

Juanita R. Brooks (CA SBN 75934) brooks@fr.com 

Roger A. Denning (CA SBN 228998) 

denning@fr.com 

Frank J. Albert (CA SBN 247741) albert@fr.com 

Megan A. Chacon (CA SBN 304912) 

chacon@fr.com 

K. Nicole Williams (CA SBN 291900) 

nwilliams@fr.com 

Oliver J. Richards (CA SBN 310972) ojr@fr.com 

Jared A. Smith (CA SBN 306576) jasmith@fr.com 

FISH & RICHARDSON P.C. 

12390 El Camino Real, Suite 100 

San Diego, CA 92130 

Phone: (858) 678-5070 / Fax: (858) 678-5099 

Aamir Kazi (Approved Pro Hac Vice) kazi@fr.com 

Alana C. Mannige (CA SBN 313341) 

mannige@fr.com 

FISH & RICHARDSON P.C. 

1180 Peachtree Street NE, 21st Floor 

Atlanta, GA 30309 

Phone: (404) 892-5005 / Fax: (404) 892-5002 

Attorneys for Plaintiff FINJAN, INC. 

Case 5:17-cv-00072-BLF Document 700 Filed 08/18/20 Page 7 of 8
7 Case No. 5:17-cv-00072-BLF

FINJAN’S OPPOSITION TO CISCO’S MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 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

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

The undersigned hereby certifies that a true and correct copy of the above and foregoing 

document has been served on August 18, 2020 to all counsel of record who are deemed to have 

consented to electronic service via the Court’s CM/ECF system. Any other counsel of record will 

be served by electronic mail and regular mail. 

/s/Aamir Kazi

Aamir Kazi 

kazi@fr.com

Case 5:17-cv-00072-BLF Document 700 Filed 08/18/20 Page 8 of 8