FINJAN’S MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 2 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 (Amitted 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 

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 

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND 

AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF 

PLAINTIFF FINJAN, INC.’S MOTION IN 

LIMINE NO. 2 TO PRECLUDE 

DEROGATORY OR MISLEADING 

CHARACTERIZATIONS OF FINJAN’S 

BUSINESS 

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 528 Filed 04/16/20 Page 1 of 6
Case 5:17-cv-00072-BLF Document 528 Filed 04/16/20 Page 2 of 6
Case 5:17-cv-00072-BLF Document 528 Filed 04/16/20 Page 3 of 6
3 

FINJAN’S MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 2 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

B. Cisco’s Intended Mischaracterizations of Finjan’s Business at Trial Will Result in 

Unfair Prejudice, Confusion, and Misleading of the Jury 

Even if there were any probative value of characterizing Finjan as a “patent troll,” “patent 

assertion entity,” “PAE,” “non-practicing entity,” “NPE,” or similar term—which there is not—it would 

be heavily outweighed by the prejudicial effect of that evidence. Federal Rule of Evidence 403 states

that the court may exclude relevant evidence “if its probative value is substantially outweighed by [the] 

danger of . . . unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, [and] misleading the jury. . . .” FED. R. EVID. 403. 

Unfair prejudice warranting preclusion includes an “undue tendency to suggest decision on an improper 

basis, commonly, though not necessarily, an emotional one.” FED. R. EVID. 403 Advisory Committee 

Notes. 

Should Cisco use any pejorative terms like “patent troll,” “patent assertion entity,” or “PAE,” 

“non-practicing entity,” or “NPE” it would unfairly and misleadingly smear Finjan as a patent predator, 

which is likely to evoke a prejudicial emotional response from the jury. Further, such allegations by

Cisco have nothing to do with Finjan’s patent infringement claims or Cisco’s defenses in this case (see 

Section II.A), thus misleading the jury as to any alleged relevance to the issues in dispute. As such, 

courts, including this District, routinely preclude defendants from referring to patent holders by these 

derogatory terms. See, e.g., Finjan, Inc. v. Sophos, Inc., No. 14-cv-01197-WHO, 2016 WL 4560071, at 

*8 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 22, 2016) (granting Finjan’s motion in limine in part to preclude uses of the terms 

“patent assertion entity” and “patent troll”); Finjan, Inc. v. Blue Coat Sys., Inc., No. 13-cv-03999-BLF, 

2015 WL 4129193, at *2 n.1 (N.D. Cal. July 8, 2015) (“Although the Court is aware that other courts 

have permitted use of the term ‘patent assertion entity,’ the Court finds that this term carries negative 

connotations similar to the term ‘patent troll.’”) (internal citation omitted); see also Digital Reg of Texas, 

LLC v. Adobe Sys, Inc., No. C 12-1971 CW, 2014 WL 4090550, at *12 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 19, 2014) 

(“[Defendant] may not use pejorative terms, such as ‘patent troll,’ ‘pirate,’ ‘bounty hunter,’ ‘paper 

patent,’ ‘playing the lawsuit lottery,’ and ‘shell corporation,’ which have negative connotations.”); 

Personalized User Model, L.L.P. v. Google Inc., C.A. No. 09-525-LPS, 2014 WL 807736, at *3 (D. Del. 

Feb. 27, 2014) (excluding “the terms ‘patent troll,’ ‘non-practicing entity,’ and ‘paper patent’ or 

otherwise indicating that [the plaintiff] does not practice the asserted patents at trial.”); HTC Corp. et al. 

Case 5:17-cv-00072-BLF Document 528 Filed 04/16/20 Page 4 of 6
4 

FINJAN’S MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 2 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

v. Tech. Props. Ltd., et al., Case No.: 5:08-cv-00882-PSG, 2013 WL 4782598, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 6, 

2013) (“HTC is precluded from using derogatory characterizations of patent owners including the use of

the term patent troll . . .”). 

Given the prejudicial effect Cisco’s pejorative mischaracterizations would have on the jury, so 

too should this Court preclude their use here. 

III. CONCLUSION 

For the foregoing reasons, Finjan respectfully requests that the Court grant its Motion in Limine

No. 2. 

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 528 Filed 04/16/20 Page 5 of 6
1 

FINJAN’S MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 2 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 528 Filed 04/16/20 Page 6 of 6