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.

CISCO SYSTEMS INC.,

Defendant.

Case No. 17-cv-00072-BLF (SVK)

ORDER DENYING FINJAN, INC.'S 

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION 

OF THE COURT'S APRIL 28, 2020 

ORDER ON CISCO'S MOTION TO 

STRIKE

Re: Dkt. No. 623

On April 28, 2020, this Court issued an order granting Defendant Cisco Systems Inc.’s 

motion to strike portions of Plaintiff Finjan, Inc.’s amended expert reports on infringement of 

U.S. Patent No. 7,647,633. Dkt. 582 (the “April 28 Order”). The Court subsequently granted 

Finjan’s motion for leave to file a motion for reconsideration of the April 28 Order. Dkt. 620. 

Now before the Court is Finjan’s motion for reconsideration. Dkt. 623 (redacted version); Dkt. 

626-4 (unredacted version). Cisco opposes. Dkt. 638 (redacted version); Dkt. 637-3 (unredacted 

version). The Court deems this matter suitable for determination without a hearing. Civil L.R. 

7-1(b). For the reasons that follow, Finjan’s motion for reconsideration is DENIED.

I. BACKGROUND

The April 28 Order discusses the relevant factual and procedural background. Following 

issuance of the April 28 Order, Judge Freeman held a pretrial conference on April 30. At the 

pretrial conference, Finjan informed Judge Freeman that it would seek reconsideration of the April 

28 Order on both procedural and substantive grounds. Dkt. 613 at 101:22-102:1. Judge Freeman 

referred the procedural issue—i.e., Finjan’s argument that it “did not have an opportunity to 

oppose Cisco’s post-hearing submission at ECF 558”—to the undersigned. Dkt. 609. 

II. LEGAL STANDARD

Any order that adjudicates fewer than all claims may be revised at any time before the 

entry of a final judgment. Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 54(b). Motions for reconsideration are disfavored 

Jun 11 2020

Case 5:17-cv-00072-BLF Document 662 Filed 06/11/20 Page 1 of 16 Case 5:17-cv-00072-BLF Document 668 Filed 06/17/20 Page 1 of 16
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

and “should not be granted, absent highly unusual circumstances, unless the district court is 

presented with newly discovered evidence, committed clear error, or if there is an intervening 

change in the controlling law.” Marlyn Nutraceuticals, Inc. v. Mucos Pharma GmbH & Co., 571 

F.3d 873, 880 (9th Cir. 2009) (internal citation and quotation marks omitted). In addition, “[a]

motion for reconsideration may not be used to raise arguments or present evidence for the first 

time when they could reasonably have been raised earlier in the litigation.” Id. (internal citation 

and quotation marks omitted).

Under this District’s local rules, a party may not bring a motion for reconsideration without 

first obtaining leave of Court. Civ. L.R. 7-9(a). A motion for reconsideration of an interlocutory 

order may be made on three grounds: (1) a material difference in fact or law exists from that 

which was presented to the Court, which, in the exercise of reasonable diligence, the moving party 

did not know at the time of the order; (2) the emergence of new material facts or a change of law

after issuance of the order; or (3) a manifest failure by the Court to consider material facts or 

dispositive legal arguments that were presented to the Court before it issued the order. Civ. L.R. 

7-9(b). The moving party may not repeat any written or oral argument previously asserted to the

Court. Civ. L.R. 7-9(c).

III. DISCUSSION

Finjan moves for reconsideration of the April 28 Order on the grounds of manifest failure

of the Court to consider material facts or dispositive legal arguments. See Dkt. 626-4 at 1. Finjan 

first argues that the Court should reconsider the April 28 Order because Finjan did not have an 

opportunity to oppose Cisco’s post-hearing submission identifying the paragraphs it wanted struck

from Dr. Medvidovic’s amended reports. Id. at 3-6. Finjan’s second argument is that the Court 

did not consider Finjan’s facts and arguments relating to the replacement language (i.e., “virtual 

environment agent” and “parameters to run the sample file or URL”) for the terms 

 and used in Dr. Medvidovic’s amended reports. Id. at 6-12. 

Before the Court discusses Finjan’s specific arguments, it must address a recurring theme 

in the motion for reconsideration. Woven throughout Finjan’s motion are suggestions that it did 

not realize until Cisco filed its reply brief on the motion to strike, or even later, that Cisco was 

Case 5:17-cv-00072-BLF Document 662 Filed 06/11/20 Page 2 of 16 Case 5:17-cv-00072-BLF Document 668 Filed 06/17/20 Page 2 of 16
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

seeking to strike replacement language for the terms and 

 in Dr. Medvidovic’s amended reports. Examples of Finjan’s statements of professed 

surprise include the following:

• “This motion is necessary because of Cisco’s shifting complaints regarding 

Finjan’s infringement contentions for the ‘mobile protection code’ limitation 

(‘MPC’)” of the ’633 Patent. Id. at 2.

• “[A]t every turn, Cisco has changed its tune as to what is supposedly missing from 

Finjan’s contentions.” Id.

• “In its reply and at the hearing, Cisco crystallized a completely new argument that 

focused on the second issue. Instead of a lack of notice of the codenames 

themselves and ) as it had done in its 

Opening Brief, Cisco focused on lack of notice of the replacement language 

(‘virtual employment agent’ and ‘parameters to run the sample file or URL’) in 

Dr. Medvidovic’s expert report, arguing for the first time that this replacement 

language failed to provide notice of the functionality corresponding to the 

codenames.” Id. at 3 (emphasis in original; citations omitted).

• “[F]or the first time during rebuttal argument, Cisco identified some paragraphs in 

Finjan’s expert reports that Cisco believed exceeded the scope of Finjan’s 

infringement contentions. Cisco added more than a hundred paragraphs to that 

identification in a post-hearing submission.” Id. (emphasis in original; citation 

omitted).

• “Cisco shifted focus in its reply from arguing that Finjan failed to disclose any 

sandbox-only theories to arguing that Finjan never mapped a virtual environment 

agent to the functionality corresponding to Id. at 7.

• “Finjan understands the issue to now be whether the replacement language from 

Finjan’s infringement contentions (in this case, ‘parameters to run the sample file 

or URL’) provides sufficient notice of the and 

functionalities.” Id. at 11.

Case 5:17-cv-00072-BLF Document 662 Filed 06/11/20 Page 3 of 16 Case 5:17-cv-00072-BLF Document 668 Filed 06/17/20 Page 3 of 16
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

Finjan’s efforts to depict the object of Cisco’s motion to strike as unclear ring hollow. 

Finjan is well-aware of the procedural and substantive events that led up to Cisco’s motion. As 

discussed in the April 28 Order, a series of disputes spanning multiple years over Finjan’s 

infringement contentions and expert reports culminated in an explanation by Judge Freeman 

during the summary judgment hearing that she had “allowed the reports to be modified to replace 

[code names] with the terminology used in the infringement contentions” and that Finjan would 

“have to ask Judge van Keulen to allow a substitution from something from the contentions to go 

to the jury in place of all the arguments about Dkt. 582 at 4-5 (citing Dkt. 419 

(transcript of summary judgment hearing) at 47:12-15, 120:6-11)). Cisco’s motion to strike 

prominently identified one of the issues to be decided as “[w]hether assertions in ‘Amended 

Expert Report of Nenad Medvidovic, Ph. D Regarding Infringement ... of Patent No. 7,647,633’ 

asserting and as ‘Mobile Protection Code’ exceed the 

scope of the Operative Contentions.” 1 Dkt. 491-3 at i; see also id. at 1 (“The issue before this 

Court relates to the 3 remaining components that Finjan accuses as MPC, and whether Finjan 

made such allegations in the Operative Contentions.”); id. at 10 (“Even if Finjan could show its 

Operative Contentions accused something already present in the sandbox, it did not accuse (using 

this or any other terminology) any of the following: (i) (ii) or (iii) 

). Finjan acknowledged and addressed this argument in its opposition to the motion to

strike, albeit in a cursory fashion, asserting that “Cisco arguments regarding the phrases 

 and are moot issues because Finjan has served 

amended expert reports that use language that track the operative infringement contentions,” 

namely “parameters to run the sample file or URL” as a substitute for and 

and “virtual environment agent” as a substitute for the term Dkt. 507-4 at 10. 

Against the backdrop of this procedural history, Finjan cannot credibly argue that it was 

surprised that it was required in response to Cisco’s motion to strike to show support in the 

Operative Contentions for the substitute language for and 

1 As used in the April 28 Order and this order, “Operative Contentions” refers to Finjan’s 

infringement contentions dated November 30, 2017. See Dkt. 582 at 1.

Case 5:17-cv-00072-BLF Document 662 Filed 06/11/20 Page 4 of 16 Case 5:17-cv-00072-BLF Document 668 Filed 06/17/20 Page 4 of 16
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

 

The Court will next consider each of Finjan’s arguments for reconsideration of the April 

28 Order.

A. Cisco’s post-hearing submission

As explained more fully in the April 28 Order, at the April 21, 2020 hearing on Cisco’s 

motion to strike, the Court requested that following the hearing, Cisco submit a document 

“identify[ing] by paragraph number, which paragraph you view the substitutions are problematic.” 

Dkt. 560 (April 21 hearing transcript) at 66:1-6; Dkt. 582 at 5. Cisco filed the requested document 

on April 22, 2020. Dkt. 558. The Court issued the April 28 Order six days later.

1. Finjan’s lack of opportunity to respond to Cisco’s post-hearing 

submission

Finjan now argues that it “was never invited to submit a response” to Cisco’s post-hearing 

submission and that, as a result, the Court did not consider facts and arguments showing that the 

struck language had support in Finjan’s infringement contentions. Dkt. 626-4 at 4; see also id. at 

1, 3-6. Finjan is correct in that it was not invited to respond to Cisco’s submission. Because the 

Court requested that Cisco submit a list of paragraph numbers containing substitutions for the 

disputed terms and that list was to come from Finjan’s own red-lined reports of Finjan’s own 

expert, Dr. Medvidovic, there was no need for a responsive submission from Finjan. 

Finjan’s procedural complaints about Cisco’s post-hearing submission are also without 

merit. As Cisco points out, although the submission lists more than 100 paragraphs, it was the 

culmination of an extensive history, in which Finjan participated, and which tracks through the 

“thousands of pages of Finjan’s two amended reports and focuses the Court on the amendments to 

paragraphs that originally contained the 3 components” still at issue. Dkt. 637-3 at 6. The number 

of paragraphs on Cisco’s list simply reflected Finjan’s substitution of terms throughout the 

supplemental expert reports. 

Of course, if Cisco had misrepresented the paragraphs containing the replacement language 

to be stricken, Finjan could have asked the Court for an opportunity to correct the list submitted by 

Case 5:17-cv-00072-BLF Document 662 Filed 06/11/20 Page 5 of 16 Case 5:17-cv-00072-BLF Document 668 Filed 06/17/20 Page 5 of 16
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

Cisco.2 But that is clearly not Finjan’s complaint. Even at this late date, Finjan has not identified 

any substantive arguments it could have made in response to Cisco’s post-hearing submission that 

would have been pertinent to the questions being considered by the Court. The post-hearing 

submission simply identifies, without argument, paragraphs in Dr. Medvidovic’s amended reports 

where Finjan substituted new language for the terms and 

 Finjan has not demonstrated that the list provided by Cisco was inaccurate or 

otherwise objectionable.

2. Finjan’s complaints as to the paragraphs identified in Cisco’s posthearing submission

a. Paragraphs identified in Cisco’s submission that reflect 

replacement of with “virtual environment 

agent” 

Finjan argues that “Cisco’s complaints do not stand up substantively” because the 

paragraphs identified by Cisco in connection with replacement language for —

i.e., paragraphs 632, 656, 657, and 690 of Dr. Medvidovic’s March 2020 supplemental report, 

which the Court referred to in the April 28 Order as the “600-series paragraphs” (see Dkt. 582 at 

10)—have support in the deposition of Cisco engineer Dean De Beer. Dkt. 626-4 at 4-5. Finjan 

argues that it could not have included this testimony in its infringement contentions, which were 

served before Mr. De Beer was deposed, but that it “did disclose the underlying theory as best it 

could without discovery.” Id. at 4. Cisco responds that these arguments are a “subterfuge” to 

reargue the motion to strike and to introduce new evidence Finjan could have presented earlier. 

Dkt. 637-3 at 6. 

Cisco pointed specifically to paragraph 632 at the hearing on Cisco’s motion to strike, and 

the Court addressed the 600-series paragraphs in its April 28 Order. See, e.g., Dkt. 560 at 53-55; 

2 The Court does not agree with Cisco that at the April 21 hearing Finjan’s attorney expressly 

waived an opportunity for Finjan to respond to Cisco’s post-hearing submission. See Dkt. 637-3 

at 5. However, Cisco filed its post-hearing submission on April 22, and Finjan had reviewed the 

submission no later than the following day, when it filed an opposition to Cisco’s motion in limine

number 4 that discussed the substance of the post-hearing submission. Dkt. 576-8 at 3 (citing Dkt. 

558-1). The Court issued its order on April 28, thus leaving Finjan ample time to have requested 

an opportunity to respond. 

Case 5:17-cv-00072-BLF Document 662 Filed 06/11/20 Page 6 of 16 Case 5:17-cv-00072-BLF Document 668 Filed 06/17/20 Page 6 of 16
7

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

Dkt. 582 at 10-11. Finjan has not shown that its present argument concerning these paragraphs 

could not have been made earlier, or that the Court failed to consider the facts and arguments 

concerning these paragraphs. In any event, Finjan’s current argument regarding paragraph 656, 

which Cisco’s post-hearing submission identified as a “representative” example of the 

 substitution, exposes the circular flaw in Finjan’s position. Dr. Medvidovic’s March 

2020 report, as red-lined by Finjan and set forth below, purports to reference Mr. De Beer’s 

deposition testimony concerning a “virtual environment agent” that, for example “is attached to 

every running virtual machine at that point in time” and “allows us to monitor interactions with 

the ”: 

Dkt. 507-10 at ¶ 656. 

However, Mr. De Beer’s cited deposition testimony on this point refers to a

 not a “virtual environment agent”:

Case 5:17-cv-00072-BLF Document 662 Filed 06/11/20 Page 7 of 16 Case 5:17-cv-00072-BLF Document 668 Filed 06/17/20 Page 7 of 16
8

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

Dkt. 400-18 at 72:10-23 (excerpts of deposition testimony of Dean De Beer) (emphasis added).

3

 

Finjan injecting the term “virtual environment agent” into Mr. De Beer’s testimony 

concerning a does not address the issue in Cisco’s motion to strike, which was

whether Finjan’s infringement contentions disclose the functionality Finjan now seeks to associate 

with the “virtual environment agent.” Even setting aside the issue of whether Finjan can properly 

use Mr. De Beer’s deposition testimony to bolster the Operative Contentions, Mr. De Beer’s 

testimony regarding the function of the does not establish that Finjan disclosed in 

its contentions that the virtual environment agent had the same functionality. Put another way, 

Finjan’s red-lining the Medvidovic report to replace Mr. De Beer’s with the 

words “virtual environment agent” does not enhance the disclosures in the Operative Contentions.

b. Paragraphs identified in Cisco’s submission that support other 

infringement theories 

Finjan also argues that many of the paragraphs identified in Cisco’s post-hearing 

submission are supported in the Operative Contentions for reasons other than supporting Finjan’s 

sandbox-only theory, such as various “transmission-based theories.” Dkt. 626-4 at 5. Cisco 

responds that “no such ‘transmission-based theories’ survived summary judgment.” Dkt. 637-3 at 

7. Finjan asserts that it “believes that if the Court had considered the argument, it would not have 

struck the language” but rather “would have determined that the proper remedy, if any ... would 

be a limiting instruction at trial.” Dkt. 626-4 at 5. Of course, Finjan could have made this 

argument in opposition to Cisco’s motion to strike but failed to do so. In any event, in the April 

28 Order, the Court did not decide the status of Finjan’s “sandbox-only” or “transmission-based” 

theories. The narrow issue decided was whether the functionality associated with Finjan’s 

replacement language for and was disclosed in 

Finjan’s Operative Contentions. Finjan has not demonstrated that the Court should reconsider its 

conclusion that this functionality was not disclosed.

3 All four paragraphs from which the Court struck replacement language for 

similarly replace with “virtual environment agent” in passages from Mr. De 

Beer’s deposition testimony. See Dkt. 507-10 at ¶¶ 632, 656, 657, 690.

Case 5:17-cv-00072-BLF Document 662 Filed 06/11/20 Page 8 of 16 Case 5:17-cv-00072-BLF Document 668 Filed 06/17/20 Page 8 of 16
9

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

3. Finjan’s request for clarification of the April 28 Order

Finjan argues that if the Court decides to maintain its ruling, it should clarify whether it has 

struck only the replacement language for and struck 

sentences containing the replacement language; or struck the entire paragraphs containing the 

replacement language. Id. at 5-6. Cisco argues that the Court need not clarify its April 28 Order 

because the order is clear that what was struck is the replacement language for 

and in the enumerated paragraphs. Dkt. 637-3 at 8.

The April 28 Order clearly states that the Court “STRIKES the replacement language” for 

the terms and in the enumerated paragraphs. Dkt. 582 

at 12, 13-16 (emphasis in original). What effect the striking of the replacement language from 

these paragraphs has on Finjan’s infringement theories is an issue for Judge Freeman to decide.

B. Fact and arguments relating to replacement language

1. “Virtual environment agent”

Finjan argues that the Court failed to consider facts and arguments concerning “virtual 

environment agent,” which is Finjan’s replacement language for Dkt. 626-4 at 

6-9. In support of this argument, Finjan cites (1) evidence and arguments that Finjan cited in its 

opposition to Cisco’s motion to strike, (2) evidence and arguments that Finjan discussed at the 

hearing on the motion to strike, and (3) new evidence and arguments submitted with Finjan’s 

motion to reconsider. Id. The Court now addresses each category of evidence and arguments 

identified by Finjan. 

a. Evidence and arguments in Finjan’s opposition to motion to 

strike

Finjan argues that “it presented evidence that its contentions identified virtual employment 

agent functionality residing at the sandbox.” Id. at 6. Finjan asserts that its opposition to the 

motion to strike “shows that the very second sentence in Finjan’s infringement contentions for the 

MPC limitation discloses that the virtual environment agent executes at the sandbox (i.e., the

virtual environment)” which “should have given Cisco notice that the virtual environment agent 

could reside in the sandbox.” Id. at 6 (citing Dkt. 507-4 at 2; Dkt. 491-5 (Operative Contentions) 

Case 5:17-cv-00072-BLF Document 662 Filed 06/11/20 Page 9 of 16 Case 5:17-cv-00072-BLF Document 668 Filed 06/17/20 Page 9 of 16
10

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

at 35). This argument misses the point. In its April 28 Order, the Court explained that “Finjan has 

presented no evidence that the ‘virtual environment agent’ described in the Operative Contentions 

is in any way related to the functionality now described as a ‘virtual environment agent’ in the 

March 2020 Report and previously described as a in the July 2-19 and December 

2019 Reports.” Dkt. 582 at 11-12 (emphasis added). The Court further explained that Finjan has 

“fatally cited no evidence in the Operative Contentions or elsewhere in support of” the assertion 

that this functionality “clearly map[s] to a virtual environment agent residing in a sandbox.” Id.

(citations omitted) (emphasis added). The Court concluded that “Finjan has failed to identify any 

language in the Operative Contentions that links the functionality associated with the term 

 in the earlier reports of Dr. Medvidovic with the now-substituted term ‘virtual 

environment agent.’” Id. at 15 (emphasis added). In seeking reconsideration, Finjan has not 

shown that the Court failed to consider the facts and evidence presented by Finjan on this point.

b. Evidence and arguments presented by Finjan at hearing on 

motion to strike

In its motion for reconsideration, Finjan cites evidence it referred to for the first time at the 

hearing on the motion to strike that allegedly shows “that Cisco’s own engineers understood a 

virtual environment agent to be equivalent in functionality to the residing at the 

sandbox”:

Declaration of Watchinski Declaration of Brozefsky 

Dkt. 626-4 at 8 (citing 377-23 (Declaration of Watchinski), 377-9 (Declaration of Brozefsky)); see 

Case 5:17-cv-00072-BLF Document 662 Filed 06/11/20 Page 10 of 16 Case 5:17-cv-00072-BLF Document 668 Filed 06/17/20 Page 10 of 16
11

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

also Dkt. 560 at 41-43. 

Finjan suggests that this evidence was not in its opposition to the motion to strike because 

“Cisco shifted focus in its reply from arguing that Finjan failed to disclose any sandbox-only 

theories to arguing that Finjan never mapped a virtual environment agent to the functionality 

corresponding to Dkt. 626-4 at 7. As discussed above, however, Finjan’s 

argument that Cisco “shifted focus” in its reply brief is baseless. Accordingly, Finjan has not 

shown why it could not have presented this evidence in its opposition to Cisco’s motion to strike

such that it could have been fully briefed by both parties for the Court. 

Even assuming Finjan’s presentation of this evidence at the hearing was timely, the issue 

before the Court on the motion to strike was whether the Operative Contentions disclosed that a 

“virtual environment agent” had the functionality attributed to that term in the amended 

Medvidovic reports. Finjan argues that the Cisco engineers have used the terms 

and “virtual environment agent” interchangeably and that therefore Finjan’s disclosure of “virtual 

environment agent” must have put “Cisco on notice of the functionality associated with 

 . . . .” Id. at 8-9. However, putting evidence before the Court regarding the alleged 

understanding of Cisco’s engineers, without reference to where the Operative Contentions

described a “virtual environment agent” as having the same functionality as what Finjan formerly 

described as a does not establish that Finjan had disclosed the relevant 

functionality in its Operative Contentions. See Dkt. 582 at 10-12.

Finally, Finjan speculates that “[o]ne reason that the Court may have concluded that Finjan 

failed to present evidence on [the propriety of substituting “virtual environment agent” for 

 is because some of the aforementioned evidence was raised for the first time at the April 

21, 2020 hearing.” Dkt. 626-4 at 9. Not so. The Court’s determination that Finjan had failed to 

show that the Operative Contentions disclosed that a “virtual environment agent” had the 

functionality formerly associated with the term in Dr. Medvidovic’s report was 

based on consideration of all evidence and arguments presented by the parties in the briefing and 

hearing on Cisco’s motion to strike. 

////

Case 5:17-cv-00072-BLF Document 662 Filed 06/11/20 Page 11 of 16 Case 5:17-cv-00072-BLF Document 668 Filed 06/17/20 Page 11 of 16
12

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

c. New evidence and arguments presented in Finjan’s motion for 

reconsideration

In support of its motion for reconsideration, Finjan for the first time submits the report of 

Cisco expert Dr. Atul Prakash and argues that Dr. Prakash refers to a as 

 Id. at 7 (citing Expert Report of Dr. Atul Prakash ¶ 352). The cited paragraph in Dr. 

Prakash’s report includes a statement that 

 Dkt. 626-6 at ¶ 352. 

Finjan also cites paragraph 528 of Dr. Prakash’s report as 

 Dkt. 626-4 at 7. The cited 

paragraph in Dr. Prakash’s report states that 

 Dkt. 626-6 at ¶ 528. Finjan argues that statements on page 5 of the 

Operative Contentions “ascribe the very same functionality” to the “virtual environment agent.”

Dkt. 626-4 at 7 (citing Dkt. 491-5 at 5). That portion of the Operative Contentions states that 

“Cisco AMP for Networks configure a virtual environment agent (e.g., sandboxing) for 

intercepting and monitoring [] suspicious traffic ...” Dkt. 491-5 at 5. Finjan also points to 

statements on Cisco’s website and blog explaining that “sandboxing” relates to analysis of 

malware in a local virtual machine. Dkt. 626-4 at 7-8. Finjan argues that “[t]hus, [it] argued at the 

hearing that the forementioned statements in Finjan’s infringement contentions expressly linking 

‘sandboxing’ functions to a virtual environment agent involved in ‘monitoring’ provided Cisco 

sufficient notice that the component responsible for those functions (the was at 

issue.” Id. at 8 (citing Dkt. 560 at 40:2-18). 

The only piece of this argument that Finjan presented in connection with Cisco’s motion to 

strike was the language on page 5 of the Operative Contentions, which Finjan referred to at the 

hearing on the motion to strike. Dkt. 560 at 40:10-20. That portion of the Operative Contentions 

states that Cisco AMP for Networks meets the recited MPC claim language in Claim 1d of the 

’633 Patent “because Cisco AMP for Networks configure a virtual environment agent (e.g., 

Case 5:17-cv-00072-BLF Document 662 Filed 06/11/20 Page 12 of 16 Case 5:17-cv-00072-BLF Document 668 Filed 06/17/20 Page 12 of 16
13

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

sandboxing) for intercepting and monitoring the suspicious traffic received.” Dkt. 491-5 at 5. But 

that statement in the Operative Contentions by itself cannot carry the weight Finjan places on it 

because it does not establish that a “virtual environment agent” performs all the same functions as 

the originally identified in the struck 600-series paragraphs in the Medvidovic 

report. Moreover, all the evidence Finjan now asks the Court to stitch together in an attempt to 

connect the Medvidovic reports to the Operative Contentions by way of language used by Cisco 

and its engineers and expert should have been presented in opposition to Cisco’s motion to strike. 

Even if the evidence had been timely presented to the Court, Finjan has not explained why the 

differences between the language used in its cited materials and the language struck by the Court

are not significant. Finjan has therefore failed once again to demonstrate how the Operative 

Contentions disclosed the functionality attributed to the “virtual environment agent” in the 

amended Medvidovic reports.

As a result Finjan has not demonstrated a manifest failure by the Court to consider material 

facts or dispositive legal arguments concerning the replacement language for 

nor has Finjan established any other grounds for reconsideration, and therefore the Court DENIES 

Finjan’s request for reconsideration of the portion of the April 28 Order that strikes the 

replacement language for in the paragraphs cited in the April 28 Order. 

2. “Parameters to run the sample file or URL”

Finjan next argues that the Court failed to consider facts and arguments concerning 

“parameters to run the sample file or URL,” the replacement language for and 

 Dkt. 626-4 at 9-12. Finjan acknowledges that the Court provided three reasons for 

granting Cisco’s motion regarding this replacement language: (1) Finjan sought but was 

previously denied permission to add and to its infringement 

contentions; (2) Finjan failed to show how the replacement language in the Operative Contentions 

is linked to the functionality now associated with that language in Dr. Medvidovic’s amended 

reports; and (3) the replacement language was used in the amended reports as a substitute for 

additional terms beyond and thus showing that the replacement 

language does not uniquely describe those items. Id. at 9 (citing Dkt. 582 at 12-13).

Case 5:17-cv-00072-BLF Document 662 Filed 06/11/20 Page 13 of 16 Case 5:17-cv-00072-BLF Document 668 Filed 06/17/20 Page 13 of 16
14

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

Finjan argues that this ruling should be reconsidered for multiple reasons. Finjan first

argues that some of the paragraphs that were struck “concern claims no longer at issue.” Dkt. 626-

4 at 10. This does not establish that the Court’s ruling on the paragraphs that were struck requires 

reconsideration. Finjan also points to Paragraph 4331, one of the “representative” paragraphs 

identified by Cisco, and argues that its infringement contentions “squarely identify [‘parameters to 

run the sample file or URL’] as MPC.” Id. (citing Dkt. 491-5 at 35). This Court already 

addressed that argument, finding that “although similar language appears in [the] Operative 

Contentions ... as with the replacement language for ... Finjan has failed to show 

how that language in the Operative Contentions is linked to the functionality now associated with 

that language in Dr. Medvidovic’s amended reports.” Dkt. 582 at 13 (citing Dkt. 491-5 at 35).

Finjan also argues that it “understands the issue to now be whether the replacement 

language from Finjan’s infringement contentions (in this case, ‘parameters to run the sample file 

or URL’) provides sufficient notice of the and functionalities.” Dkt. 626-4 

at 11. Finjan newly points to statements in Dr. Prakash’s expert report to argue that Cisco 

understood the “parameters” replacement language to refer to Id. at 11-12. 

However, the issue on Cisco’s motion to strike was always whether Finjan’s Operative 

Contentions disclosed that these “parameters” had the functionality now associated with them in 

Dr. Medvidovic’s amended reports. Finjan’s untimely citations to a general discussion by 

Dr. Prakash does not establish the necessary link between the Medvidovic reports and the 

Operative Contentions.

Finjan also takes issue with the Court’s conclusion that the use of the “parameters” 

language as a replacement for items other than and showed that 

“parameters” language did not uniquely describe and Id. at 11-12. 

Again, Finjan cites new evidence (Dr. Prakash’s report) that could have been cited in opposition to 

Cisco’s motion to strike, and that evidence in any event does not establish that Finjan disclosed the 

relevant functionality in its Operative Contentions. Finjan must do more than show references to 

“parameters” in its Operative Contentions that would “encompass and 

Id. at 12 (emphasis added). It must show that the Operative Contentions disclosed that 

Case 5:17-cv-00072-BLF Document 662 Filed 06/11/20 Page 14 of 16 Case 5:17-cv-00072-BLF Document 668 Filed 06/17/20 Page 14 of 16
15

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

“parameters to run the sample file or URL” had the same functionality now attributed to that term 

in the amended Medvidovic reports. See generally Dkt. 582 (“Finjan must show that it disclosed

[the relevant infringement theory] in its Operative Contentions ... It is not enough for Finjan to 

argue that the contentions did not expressly exclude such a theory.”) (emphasis in original). 

Finjan has failed to make that showing with respect to the replacement language for 

and 

Finally, Finjan takes issue with the Court’s conclusion that the “parameters” replacement 

language corresponds to theories that Finjan was previously denied permission to add to its 

infringement contentions. Id. Tellingly, Finjan does not dispute that it sought but was denied 

permission to add and to its infringement contentions. Instead, Finjan 

argues that the outcome of Cisco’s previous motion to strike infringement contentions “has no 

bearing on” the issues presented in Cisco’s motion to strike portions of Dr. Medvidovic’s amended 

reports. Id. However, this argument again ignores the long history of disputes over the 

infringement contentions and expert reports in this case, which gave rise to clear direction from 

Judge Freeman that “Finjan was, of course, prohibited from including in its expert reports the 

theories it sought but failed to add to its infringement contentions” by the previous contentions 

orders of Judge Freeman and the undersigned. Dkt. 397 at 3. This Court properly took into 

account Finjan’s violation of that directive as one factor supporting its decision to strike the 

replacement language for and 

Accordingly, Finjan has not demonstrated a manifest failure by the Court to consider 

material facts or dispositive legal arguments concerning replacement language for 

and nor has Finjan established any other grounds for reconsideration, and therefore 

the Court DENIES Finjan’s request for reconsideration of the portion of the April 28 Order that 

strikes the replacement language for and in the paragraphs cited in the 

April 28 Order and therefore the Court will not reconsider that portion of its April 28 Order. 

IV. CONCLUSION

Finjan has not demonstrated a “manifest failure by the Court to consider material facts or 

dispositive legal arguments which were presented to the Court before” it issued the April 28 

Case 5:17-cv-00072-BLF Document 662 Filed 06/11/20 Page 15 of 16 Case 5:17-cv-00072-BLF Document 668 Filed 06/17/20 Page 15 of 16
16

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

Order. The Court considered all material facts and legal arguments presented by Finjan. Finjan’s

professed surprise or disagreement with the outcome does not warrant reconsideration of the 

Court’s ruling. Nor has Finjan demonstrated or even argued that there is a “material difference in 

fact or law” or “the emergence of new material facts or a change of law” that would warrant 

reconsideration. Accordingly, the Court DENIES Finjan’s motion for reconsideration of the April 

28 Order.

SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 11, 2020

SUSAN VAN KEULEN

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 5:17-cv-00072-BLF Document 662 Filed 06/11/20 Page 16 of 16 Case 5:17-cv-00072-BLF Document 668 Filed 06/17/20 Page 16 of 16