FINJAN’S MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 5 CASE NO. 5:17-cv-00072-BLF-SVK

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.

12390 El Camino Real, Suite 100

San Diego, CA 92130

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

Aamir Kazi (Admitted 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.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE 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-SVK

PLAINTIFF FINJAN, INC.’S MOTION IN 

LIMINE NO. 5 TO PRECLUDE RELIANCE 

ON UNTIMELY INFORMATION

REGARDING NON-INFRINGING 

ALTERNATIVES

Date: April 30, 2020

Time: 1:30 p.m.

Place: 3, 5th Floor

Before: Honorable Beth L. Freeman

Case 5:17-cv-00072-BLF Document 538 Filed 04/16/20 Page 1 of 6
1

FINJAN’S MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 5 CASE NO. 5:17-cv-00072-BLF-SVK

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

Pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 26 and 37, Finjan, Inc. (“Finjan”) respectfully 

requests the Court to preclude Cisco Systems, Inc. (“Cisco”) from relying at trial on information

regarding purported non-infringing alternatives that was not timely disclosed. Cisco failed to provide 

fulsome and responsive answers during discovery and instead disclosed the existence of such information 

for the first time in its expert reports, even though Finjan served specific discovery requests on Cisco 

regarding this topic. Cisco’s failure to provide this discovery warrants preclusion and is highly 

prejudicial to Finjan because it deprived Finjan of the opportunity to conduct further discovery and rebut 

Cisco’s arguments. 

I. ARGUMENT

Rather than making all non-infringing alternative theories known to Finjan during discovery, 

Cisco ambushed Finjan by disclosing new information and theories for the first time in the rebuttal expert 

report of Dr. Stephen L. Becker (“Becker Reb. Rep.”) regarding damages and the rebuttal expert report 

of Dr. Patrick McDaniel (“McDaniel Reb. Rep.”) regarding non-infringement for U.S. Patent Nos. 

8,677,494 (“the ’494 Patent”) and 6,804,780 (“the ’780 Patent”). Cisco’s belated disclosures are 

inappropriate and warrant preclusion.

Under Rule 26, parties must conduct a reasonable inquiry into the factual basis of their discovery 

responses and are required to “supplement or correct its disclosure or response . . . in a timely manner if 

the party learns that some material respect the disclosure or response is incomplete or incorrect.” FED. R.

CIV. P. 26(e)(1)(A). This District’s Patent Local Rule 3-9 further requires that “each party denying 

infringement shall identify specifically how and why it disagrees with those contentions” and shall 

include “the party’s affirmative position on each issue.” “If a party fails to provide information . . . as 

required by Rule 26(a) or (e), the party is not allowed to use that information . . . on a motion, at a hearing, 

or at a trial, unless the failure was substantially justified or is harmless.” FED. R. CIV. P. 37(c)(1). The 

Court has discretion “to exclude evidence not produced in compliance with a proper discovery request.” 

Woods v. DeAngelo Marine Exhaust, Inc., 692 F.2d 1272, 1279 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (affirming exclusion of 

engineering drawings based on party’s failure to adequately respond to contention interrogatory). Absent 

a showing that the failure was substantially justified or harmless, “[t]he [Rule 37] sanction is automatic 

and mandatory.” Clear-View Techs., Inc. v. Rasnick, No. 13-CV-02744-BLF, 2015 WL 3509384, at *2 

Case 5:17-cv-00072-BLF Document 538 Filed 04/16/20 Page 2 of 6
Case 5:17-cv-00072-BLF Document 538 Filed 04/16/20 Page 3 of 6
Case 5:17-cv-00072-BLF Document 538 Filed 04/16/20 Page 4 of 6
4

FINJAN’S MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 5 CASE NO. 5:17-cv-00072-BLF-SVK

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

II. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, Finjan respectfully requests that the Court preclude Cisco at trial from 

relying on purported non-infringing alternatives disclosed for the first time in the rebuttal expert reports 

of Dr. Becker and Dr. McDaniel. 

Dated: April 16, 2020 Respectfully submitted,

By: /s/ Megan A. Chacon

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 (Admitted Pro Hac Vice) kazi@fr.com

Alana 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 538 Filed 04/16/20 Page 5 of 6
5

FINJAN’S MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 5 CASE NO. 5:17-cv-00072-BLF-SVK

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 April 16, 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/ Megan A. Chacon

Megan A. Chacon

chacon@fr.com

Case 5:17-cv-00072-BLF Document 538 Filed 04/16/20 Page 6 of 6