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

SAN JOSE DIVISION

FINJAN, INC.,

Plaintiff,

v.

CISCO SYSTEMS INC.,

Defendant.

Case No. 17-cv-00072-BLF 

ORDER RE: SEALING MOTIONS 

RELATED TO THE PARTIES’ 

MOTIONS IN LIMINE AT ECF 530, 

ECF 532, ECF 540, ECF 543, ECF 566, 

ECF 576

Before the Court are administrative motions filed by Plaintiff Finjan, Inc. (“Finjan”) and 

Defendant Cisco Systems, Inc. (“Cisco”) to file under seal portions of their briefs and exhibits in 

connection with the parties’ motions in limine. For the reasons states below, (1) Finjan’s Motion to 

Seal at ECF 530 is GRANTED, (2) Cisco’s Motion to Seal at ECF 532 is GRANTED IN PART and 

DENIED IN PART, (3) Finjan’s Motion to Seal at ECF 540 is GRANTED, (4) Finjan’s Motion to 

Seal at ECF 543 is TERMINATED AS MOOT, (5) Cisco’s Motion to Seal at ECF 566 is 

GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART, and (6) Finjan’s Motion to Seal at ECF 576 is 

GRANTED.

I. LEGAL STANDARD

“Historically, courts have recognized a ‘general right to inspect and copy public records and 

documents, including judicial records and documents.’” Kamakana v. City & Cty. Of Honolulu, 

447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 

& n. 7 (1978)). Accordingly, when considering a sealing request, “a ‘strong presumption in favor 

of access’ is the starting point.” Id. (quoting Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 

1135 (9th Cir. 2003)). Parties seeking to seal judicial records relating to motions that are “more 

than tangentially related to the underlying cause of action” bear the burden of overcoming the 

Case 5:17-cv-00072-BLF Document 581 Filed 04/28/20 Page 1 of 35
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

presumption with “compelling reasons” that outweigh the general history of access and the public 

policies favoring disclosure. Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., 809 F.3d 1092, 1099 (9th Cir. 

2016); Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178–79.

However, “while protecting the public’s interest in access to the courts, we must remain 

mindful of the parties’ right to access those same courts upon terms which will not unduly harm 

their competitive interest.” Apple Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., Ltd., 727 F.3d 1214, 1228–29 (Fed. 

Cir. 2013). Records attached to motions that are “not related, or only tangentially related, to the 

merits of a case” therefore are not subject to the strong presumption of access. Ctr. for Auto Safety, 

809 F.3d at 1099; see also Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179 (“[T]he public has less of a need for access 

to court records attached only to non-dispositive motions because those documents are often 

unrelated, or only tangentially related, to the underlying cause of action.”). Parties moving to seal 

the documents attached to such motions must meet the lower “good cause” standard of Rule 26(c). 

Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179 (internal quotations and citations omitted). This standard requires a 

“particularized showing,” id., that “specific prejudice or harm will result” if the information is 

disclosed. Phillips ex rel. Estates of Byrd v. Gen. Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1210–11 (9th Cir. 

2002); see Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c). “Broad allegations of harm, unsubstantiated by specific examples 

of articulated reasoning” will not suffice. Beckman Indus., Inc. v. Int’l Ins. Co., 966 F.2d 470, 476 

(9th Cir. 1992). A protective order sealing the documents during discovery may reflect the court’s 

previous determination that good cause exists to keep the documents sealed, see Kamakana, 447 

F.3d at 1179–80, but a blanket protective order that allows the parties to designate confidential 

documents does not provide sufficient judicial scrutiny to determine whether each particular 

document should remain sealed. See Civ. L.R. 79-5(d)(1)(A) (“Reference to a stipulation or 

protective order that allows a party to designate certain documents as confidential is not sufficient 

to establish that a document, or portions thereof, are sealable.”).

In addition to making particularized showings of good cause, parties moving to seal 

documents must comply with the procedures established by Civ. L.R. 79-5. Pursuant to Civ. L.R. 

79-5(b), a sealing order is appropriate only upon a request that establishes the document is 

“sealable,” or “privileged or protectable as a trade secret or otherwise entitled to protection under 

Case 5:17-cv-00072-BLF Document 581 Filed 04/28/20 Page 2 of 35
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

the law.” “The request must be narrowly tailored to seek sealing only of sealable material, and must 

conform with Civil L.R. 79-5(d).” Civ. L.R. 79-5(b). In part, Civ. L.R. 79-5(d) requires the 

submitting party to attach a “proposed order that is narrowly tailored to seal only the sealable 

material” which “lists in table format each document or portion thereof that is sought to be sealed,” 

Civ. L.R. 79-5(d)(1)(b), and an “unredacted version of the document” that indicates “by highlighting 

or other clear method, the portions of the document that have been omitted from the redacted 

version.” Civ. L.R. 79-5(d)(1)(d). “Within 4 days of the filing of the Administrative Motion to File 

Under Seal, the Designating Party must file a declaration as required by subsection 79-5(d)(1)(A) 

establishing that all of the designated material is sealable.” Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).

II. DISCUSSION

The Court has reviewed the parties’ sealing motions and the declarations of the designating 

parties submitted in support thereof. The Court’s rulings on the sealing requests are set forth in the 

tables below. Where the designating party has requested sealing, the Court finds that the parties 

have articulated compelling reasons to seal certain portions of the submitted documents and the 

proposed redactions are generally narrowly tailored. 

A. ECF 530, Finjan’s Administrative Motion to File under Seal Finjan’s Motion in 

Limine No. 2 and Exhibits

ECF 

No.

Document to be Sealed: Result Reasoning

530-4 Finjan Inc.’s Motion In 

Limine No. 2 to Preclude 

Derogatory or Misleading 

Characterizations Of Finjan’s 

Business

GRANTED as to 

the highlighted 

portions of 

Finjan Inc.’s 

Motion In 

Limine No. 2 to 

Preclude 

Derogatory or 

Misleading 

Characterizations 

Of Finjan’s 

Business at page 

1, lines 8 and 25-

26; page 2, lines 

17-19 and 21-22

This document reflects testimony 

regarding Finjan’s business and 

licensing practice that Finjan has 

designated “Highly Confidential –

Attorneys’ Eyes Only” under the 

Protective Order. Public disclosure 

of this information would cause harm 

to Finjan. Declaration of K. Nicole 

Williams (“Williams Decl. I”) ¶ 2, 

ECF 530-1.

The highlighted portions of Finjan 

Inc.’s Motion In Limine No. 2 to 

Preclude Derogatory or Misleading 

Characterizations Of Finjan’s 

Case 5:17-cv-00072-BLF Document 581 Filed 04/28/20 Page 3 of 35
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

ECF 

No.

Document to be Sealed: Result Reasoning

Business contain confidential 

business and licensing information 

that is not publically available. These 

portions contain information from

Exhibits 3-5. Finjan treats this 

business and licensing information as 

highly confidential within its 

business and makes substantial 

efforts not to disclose information to 

the public. Such information could 

be used by Finjan’s competitors, as it 

reveals Finjan business strategies. 

Williams Decl. I ¶ 3.

533-1 Exhibit 3 to the Omnibus 

Declaration of Megan A. 

Chacon in Support of Finjan 

Inc.’s Motions In Limine

(“Chacon Decl.”)

Excerpts of the transcript of 

the deposition of Philip 

Hartstein

GRANTED as to 

the entire 

document. 

This document reflects testimony 

regarding Finjan’s business and 

licensing practice that Finjan has 

designated “Highly Confidential –

Attorneys’ Eyes Only” under the 

Protective Order. Public disclosure 

of this information would cause harm 

to Finjan. Williams Decl. I ¶ 2.

Exhibit 3 to the Omnibus Declaration 

of Megan A. Chacon in Support of 

Finjan’s Motions In Limine

(“Chacon Decl.”) contains 

confidential business and licensing 

information that is not publically 

available. Finjan treats this business 

and licensing information as highly 

confidential within its business and 

makes substantial efforts not to 

disclose information to the public. 

Such information could be used by 

Finjan’s competitors, as it reveals 

Finjan business strategies. Williams 

Decl. I ¶ 4.

533-2 Exhibit 4 to the Chacon Decl.

Excerpts of the transcript of 

the deposition of Daniel 

Chinn

GRANTED as to 

the entire 

document.

This document reflects testimony 

regarding Finjan’s internal business 

practices and relationship with 

subsidiaries that Finjan has 

designated “Highly Confidential –

Attorneys’ Eyes Only” under the 

Protective Order. Public disclosure 

of this information would cause harm 

Case 5:17-cv-00072-BLF Document 581 Filed 04/28/20 Page 4 of 35
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

ECF 

No.

Document to be Sealed: Result Reasoning

to Finjan. Williams Decl. I ¶ 2.

Exhibit 4 to the Chacon Declaration 

contains confidential business 

information that is not publically 

available, including information 

regarding other entities related to 

Finjan and merger with such entities. 

Finjan treats this business 

information as highly confidential 

within its business and makes 

substantial efforts not to disclose 

information to the public. Such 

information could be used by 

Finjan’s competitors, as it reveals 

Finjan business strategies and 

processes. Williams Decl. I ¶ 5.

533-3 Exhibit 5 to the Chacon Decl.

Excerpts of the transcript of 

the deposition of Michael 

Noonan

GRANTED as to 

the entire 

document.

This document reflects testimony 

regarding Finjan’s business and 

licensing practice that Finjan has 

designated “Highly Confidential –

Attorneys’ Eyes Only” under the 

Protective Order. Public disclosure 

of this information would cause harm 

to Finjan. Williams Decl. I ¶ 2.

Exhibit 5 to the Chacon Declaration 

contains confidential business and 

licensing information that is not 

publically available, including 

information regarding Finjan’s 

revenue stream and information 

regarding subsidiaries of Finjan. 

Finjan treats this business and 

licensing information as highly 

confidential within its business and 

makes substantial efforts not to 

disclose information to the public. 

Such information could be used by 

Finjan’s competitors, as it reveals 

Finjan business strategies. Williams 

Decl. I ¶ 6. 

Case 5:17-cv-00072-BLF Document 581 Filed 04/28/20 Page 5 of 35
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

B. ECF 532, Cisco’s Administrative Motion to File Under Seal Re Defendant Cisco 

Systems, Inc.’s Motions in Limine

ECF No. Document to be Sealed: Result Reasoning

532-4 Defendant Cisco Systems, 

Inc.’s Motion In Limine No. 1 

To Exclude Phil Hartstein’s 

Testimony Regarding Finjan’s 

Corporate History As Hearsay

GRANTED

as to 

highlighted 

portions at: 

3:11-12; 

4:22- 27; 

5:1-2

The highlighted portions of this 

document are direct quotes from or 

reference the one or more exhibits that 

Cisco is filing under seal which were 

designated by Finjan as or “HIGHLY 

CONFIDENTIAL-ATTORNEYS’ 

EYES ONLY” pursuant to the terms 

of the Stipulated Protective Order for 

reasons discussed below. Declaration 

of Nicole Grigg (“Grigg Decl. I”) ¶ 2, 

ECF 532-1.

The highlighted portions of this 

document reflect testimony regarding 

Finjan’s history and business practices 

that Finjan has designated “Highly 

Confidential – Attorneys’ Eyes Only” 

under the Protective Order (ECF No. 

97). Public disclosure of this 

information would cause harm to 

Finjan. Declaration of Megan Chacon 

(“Chacon Decl. I”) ¶¶ 2-4, ECF 552.

532-6 Defendant Cisco Systems, 

Inc.’s Motion in Limine No. 3 

Re Prejudicial Litigation 

Settlement Amounts

GRANTED 

as to 

highlighted 

portions at: 

1:3, 1:4, 1:7-

1:8, 2:8, 

2:10-2:11, 

2:17-2:18, 

2:19, 2:21, 

2:22, 2:23, 

2:26-2:27, 

3:3- 3:5, 3:6-

3:8, 3:19, 

3:20-3:21, 

3:24-3:25, 

4:1, 4:2, 4:3, 

4:9, 4:10-

4:12, 4:14-

4:15, 4:16-

4:17, 4:18

The highlighted portions of this 

document are direct quotes from or 

reference the one or more exhibits that 

Cisco is filing under seal which were 

designated by Finjan as or “HIGHLY 

CONFIDENTIAL-ATTORNEYS’ 

EYES ONLY” pursuant to the terms 

of the Stipulated Protective Order for 

reasons discussed below. Grigg Decl. 

I ¶ 2.

The highlighted portions of this 

document reflect information 

regarding Finjan licensing and 

settlement agreements that Finjan has 

designated “Highly Confidential –

Attorneys’ Eyes Only” under the 

Protective Order (ECF No. 97). Public 

disclosure of this information would 

cause harm to Finjan. Chacon Decl. I 

Case 5:17-cv-00072-BLF Document 581 Filed 04/28/20 Page 6 of 35
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

ECF No. Document to be Sealed: Result Reasoning

¶¶ 2-4.

532-8 Defendant Cisco Systems, 

Inc.’s Motion in Limine No. 4 

Re Evidence and Arguments 

Pertaining to Certain ‘633 

Patent Infringement Theories

DENIED The highlighted portions of this 

document are direct quotes from or 

reference the one or more exhibits that 

Cisco is filing under seal which were 

designated by Finjan “HIGHLY 

CONFIDENTIALATTORNEYS’ 

EYES ONLY – SOURCE CODE” 

pursuant to the terms of the Stipulated 

Protective Order for reasons discussed 

below. Grigg Decl. I ¶ 2.

The designating party, Finjan, has not 

requested that this document be 

sealed. See generally, Chacon Decl. I.

532-10 Defendant Cisco Systems, 

Inc.’s Motion in Limine No. 5 

to Exclude Evidence That 

Improperly Skews the 

Damages Horizon

DENIED as 

MOOT.

Cisco’s Motion In Limine No. 5 is 

stricken per ECF 548.

532-11 Deposition excerpts from the 

February 25, 2019 deposition 

transcript of Philip Hartstein

Exhibit 1

GRANTED 

as to the 

entire 

document.

This transcript was designated in its 

entirety by Finjan as “HIGHLY 

CONFIDENTIAL-ATTORNEYS’ 

EYES ONLY” under the terms of the 

Protective Order. Specifically, this 

document contains deposition 

testimony related to Finjan’s 

confidential business information. 

Grigg Decl. I ¶ 2.

This document reflects testimony 

regarding Finjan’s history and 

business practices that Finjan has 

designated “Highly Confidential –

Attorneys’ Eyes Only” under the 

Protective Order (ECF No. 97). Public 

disclosure of this information would 

cause harm to Finjan. Chacon Decl. I 

¶¶ 2-4.

532-12 Deposition excerpts from the 

deposition transcript of 

Shlomo Touboul, taken 

August 6, 2019

GRANTED 

as to the 

entire 

document.

This transcript was designated in its 

entirety by Finjan as “HIGHLY 

CONFIDENTIAL-ATTORNEYS’ 

EYES ONLY” under the terms of the 

Protective Order. Specifically, this 

Case 5:17-cv-00072-BLF Document 581 Filed 04/28/20 Page 7 of 35
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

ECF No. Document to be Sealed: Result Reasoning

Exhibit 5 document contains deposition 

testimony related to Finjan’s 

confidential business information. 

Grigg Decl. I ¶ 2.

This document reflects testimony 

regarding Finjan’s history and 

business practices that Finjan has 

designated “Highly Confidential –

Attorneys’ Eyes Only” under the 

Protective Order (ECF No. 97). Public 

disclosure of this information would 

cause harm to Finjan. Chacon Decl. I 

¶¶ 2-4.

532-13 Deposition excerpts from the 

deposition transcript of Asher 

Polani taken August 5, 2019

Exhibit 6

GRANTED 

as to the 

entire 

document.

This transcript was designated in its 

entirety by Finjan as “HIGHLY 

CONFIDENTIAL-ATTORNEYS’ 

EYES ONLY” under the terms of the 

Protective Order. Specifically, this 

document contains deposition 

testimony related to Finjan’s 

confidential business information.

Grigg Decl. I ¶ 2.

This document reflects testimony 

regarding Finjan’s history and 

business practices that Finjan has 

designated “Highly Confidential –

Attorneys’ Eyes Only” under the 

Protective Order (ECF No. 97). Public 

disclosure of this information would 

cause harm to Finjan. Chacon Decl. I 

¶¶ 2-4.

532-14 FINJAN-CISCO 300625-

300660 (excerpts from the 

April 7, 2015 deposition 

transcript of John Vigouroux

from the matter of Finjan, Inc. 

v. Blue Coat Systems, Inc., 

No. 13- cv-03999)

Exhibit 7

GRANTED 

as to the 

entire 

document.

This document was designated in its 

entirety by Finjan as “HIGHLY 

CONFIDENTIAL-ATTORNEYS’ 

EYES ONLY” under the terms of the 

Protective Order. Specifically, this 

document contains deposition 

testimony related to Finjan’s 

confidential business information. 

Grigg Decl. I ¶ 2.

This document reflects testimony 

regarding Finjan’s history and 

Case 5:17-cv-00072-BLF Document 581 Filed 04/28/20 Page 8 of 35
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

ECF No. Document to be Sealed: Result Reasoning

business practices that Finjan has 

designated “Highly Confidential –

Attorneys’ Eyes Only” under the 

Protective Order (ECF No. 97). Public 

disclosure of this information would 

cause harm to Finjan. Chacon Decl. I 

¶¶ 2-4.

532-15 Excerpts from July 11, 2019 

Expert Report Of Dr. Anne 

Layne-Farrar

Exhibit 9

GRANTED 

as to the 

entire 

document.

This document was designated in its 

entirety by Finjan as “HIGHLY 

CONFIDENTIAL-ATTORNEYS’ 

EYES ONLY” pursuant to the terms 

of the Stipulated Protective Order. 

Grigg Decl. I ¶ 2.

Portions of this document contain 

confidential financial information 

relating to the pricing and costs of the 

accused Cisco products and technical 

information related to the structure, 

function and operation of the accused 

Cisco products and Finjan’s expert’s 

analysis thereof. Grigg Decl. I ¶¶ 2-4.

This document reflects Finjan 

business and licensing practices that 

Finjan has designated “Highly 

Confidential – Attorneys’ Eyes Only” 

under the Protective Order (ECF No. 

97). Public disclosure of this 

information would cause harm to 

Finjan. Chacon Decl. I ¶¶ 2-4.

532-16 Excerpts from the March 15, 

2019 deposition transcript of 

Julie Mar-Spinola

Exhibit 11

GRANTED 

as to the 

entire 

document.

This document was designated in its 

entirety by Finjan as “HIGHLY 

CONFIDENTIAL-ATTORNEYS’ 

EYES ONLY” under the terms of the 

Protective Order. Specifically, this 

document contains deposition 

testimony related to Finjan’s 

confidential business information. 

Grigg Decl. I ¶ 2.

This document reflects testimony 

regarding Finjan’s business and 

licensing practices that Finjan has 

designated “Highly Confidential –

Case 5:17-cv-00072-BLF Document 581 Filed 04/28/20 Page 9 of 35
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

ECF No. Document to be Sealed: Result Reasoning

Attorneys’ Eyes Only” under the 

Protective Order (ECF No. 97). Public 

disclosure of this information would 

cause harm to Finjan. Chacon Decl. I 

¶¶ 2-4.

532-17 Excerpts from the April 18, 

2019 deposition transcript of 

Hilton Romanski

Exhibit 13

GRANTED 

as to the 

entire 

document.

This document was designated in its 

entirety by Finjan as “HIGHLY 

CONFIDENTIAL-ATTORNEYS’ 

EYES ONLY” under the terms of the 

Protective Order. Specifically, this 

document contains deposition 

testimony related to Finjan’s 

confidential business information. 

Grigg Decl. I ¶ 2.

This document reflects testimony 

regarding Finjan business and 

licensing information that Finjan has 

designated “Highly Confidential –

Attorneys’ Eyes Only” under the 

Protective Order (ECF No. 97). Public 

disclosure of this information would 

cause harm to Finjan. Chacon Decl. I 

¶¶ 2-4.

532-18 Excerpts from the Second 

Amended Expert Report of 

Michael Mitzenmacher, Ph.D. 

Regarding Infringement by 

Cisco Systems, Inc. of Patent 

Nos. 6,804,780 and 8,141,154

Exhibit 14

GRANTED 

as to the 

entire 

document.

This document was designated in its 

entirety by Finjan as “HIGHLY 

CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS’ 

EYES ONLYSOURCE CODE” 

pursuant to the terms of the Stipulated 

Protective Order. Grigg Decl. I ¶ 2.

Specifically, this document contains 

confidential technical information 

related to the structure, function and 

operation of the accused Cisco 

products and Finjan’s expert’s 

analysis thereof. Grigg Decl. I ¶¶ 2-4.

532-19 Excerpts from the Second 

Amended Expert Report of 

Eric Cole, Ph.D. Regarding 

Infringement by Cisco 

Systems, Inc. of Patent Nos. 

6,154,844 and 8,677,494.

Exhibit 15

GRANTED 

as to the 

entire 

document.

This document was designated in its 

entirety by Finjan as “HIGHLY 

CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS’ 

EYES ONLYSOURCE CODE” 

pursuant to the terms of the Stipulated 

Protective Order. Grigg Decl. I ¶ 2.

Specifically, this document contains 

Case 5:17-cv-00072-BLF Document 581 Filed 04/28/20 Page 10 of 35
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

ECF No. Document to be Sealed: Result Reasoning

confidential technical information 

related to the structure, function and 

operation of the accused Cisco 

products and Finjan’s expert’s 

analysis thereof. Grigg Decl. I ¶¶ 2-4.

532-20 Excerpts from the Second 

Amended Expert Report of 

Nenad Medvidovic, Ph.D. 

Regarding Infringement by 

Cisco Systems, Inc. of Patent 

No. 7,647,633.

Exhibit 16

GRANTED 

as to the 

entire 

document.

This document was designated in its 

entirety by Finjan as “HIGHLY 

CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS’ 

EYES ONLYSOURCE CODE” 

pursuant to the terms of the Stipulated 

Protective Order. Grigg Decl. I ¶ 2.

Specifically, this document contains 

confidential technical information 

related to the structure, function and 

operation of the accused Cisco 

products and Finjan’s expert’s 

analysis thereof. Grigg Decl. I ¶¶ 2-4.

532-21 Excerpts from the August 29, 

2019 Errata, Expert Report of 

Dr. Anne LayneFarrar, Exhibit 

5

Exhibit 17

GRANTED 

as to the 

entire 

document.

This document was designated in its 

entirety by Finjan as “HIGHLY 

CONFIDENTIAL-ATTORNEYS’ 

EYES ONLY” pursuant to the terms 

of the Stipulated Protective Order. 

Grigg Decl. I ¶ 2.

Portions of this document contain 

confidential financial information 

relating to the pricing and costs of the 

accused Cisco products and technical 

information related to the structure, 

function and operation of the accused 

Cisco products and Finjan’s expert’s 

analysis thereof. Grigg Decl. I ¶¶ 2-4.

532-22 Excerpts from the deposition 

transcript of Anne LayneFarrar, taken September 11, 

2019

Exhibit 18

GRANTED 

as to the 

entire 

document.

This document was designated in its 

entirety by Cisco as “HIGHLY 

CONFIDENTIAL-ATTORNEYS’ 

EYES ONLY” pursuant to the terms 

of the Stipulated Protective Order. 

Grigg Decl. I ¶ 2.

Portions of this document contain 

confidential financial information 

relating to the pricing and costs of the 

accused Cisco products and technical 

information related to the structure, 

Case 5:17-cv-00072-BLF Document 581 Filed 04/28/20 Page 11 of 35
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

ECF No. Document to be Sealed: Result Reasoning

function and operation of the accused 

Cisco products and Finjan’s expert’s 

analysis thereof. Grigg Decl. I ¶¶ 2-4.

532-23 Excerpts from the Amended 

Expert Report of Nenad 

Medvidovic, Ph.D., Regarding 

Infringement by Cisco 

Systems, Inc. of Patent No. 

7,647,633

Exhibit 19

GRANTED 

as to the 

entire 

document.

This document was designated in its 

entirety by Finjan as “HIGHLY 

CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS’ 

EYES ONLYSOURCE CODE” 

pursuant to the terms of the Stipulated 

Protective Order. Grigg Decl. I ¶ 2.

Specifically, this document contains 

confidential technical information 

related to the structure, function and 

operation of the accused Cisco 

products and Finjan’s expert’s 

analysis thereof. Grigg Decl. I ¶¶ 2-4.

532-24 Excerpts from the deposition 

transcript of Daniel Chin, 

taken April 10, 2019

Exhibits 21

GRANTED 

as to the 

entire 

document.

This document was designated in its 

entirety by Finjan as “HIGHLY 

CONFIDENTIAL-ATTORNEYS’ 

EYES ONLY” under the terms of the 

Protective Order. Specifically, this 

document contains deposition 

testimony related to Finjan’s 

confidential business information. 

Grigg Decl. I ¶ 2.

This document reflects testimony 

regarding Finjan’s history and 

business practices that Finjan has 

designated “Highly Confidential –

Attorneys’ Eyes Only” under the 

Protective Order (ECF No. 97). Public 

disclosure of this information would 

cause harm to Finjan. Chacon Decl. I 

¶¶ 2-4.

C. ECF 540, Finjan’s Administrative Motion to File under Seal Finjan’s Motion in 

Limine No. 4 and Exhibits

ECF No. Document to be Sealed: Result Reasoning

540-22 Finjan Inc.’s Motion In Limine

No. 4 to Preclude Reliance on 

GRANTED 

as to the 

The highlighted portions of this 

document reflect information that 

Case 5:17-cv-00072-BLF Document 581 Filed 04/28/20 Page 12 of 35
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

ECF No. Document to be Sealed: Result Reasoning

Undisclosed Non-Infringement 

Theories and Exhibits

highlighted 

portions at 

page 1, lines 

8-9, 17-20, 

22, 24-25; 

page 3, lines 

1, 9-13, 27; 

page 4, lines 

2-4, 6, 13-14

Cisco has designated as Highly 

Confidential – Attorneys’ Eyes Only 

under the Protective Order. 

Declaration of K Nicole Williams 

(“Williams Decl. II”) ¶ 2, ECF 540-1.

The highlighted and redacted portions 

of Plaintiff Finjan, Inc.’s Motion In 

Limine No. 4 to Preclude Reliance on 

Undisclosed Non-Infringement 

Theories contain information 

designated as “Highly Confidential –

Attorneys’ Eyes Only” by Cisco under 

the Protective Order in this case, and 

from which confidential information 

regarding Cisco’s accused products 

could be potentially discerned. 

Williams Decl. II ¶ 3 (appears to be 

incorrectly numbered as a second ¶ 1).

The highlighted portions of this 

document reflect confidential 

information relating to Cisco’s 

products that Cisco has designated as 

“HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL, 

ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY” or 

“HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL, 

ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY –

SOURCE CODE” under the 

Protective Order, including 

confidential details relating to the 

design and operation of Cisco 

products, including its source code, 

which, if publicly disclosed, could 

result in competitive harm to Cisco. 

Declaration of Nicole Grigg (“Grigg 

Decl. II) ¶¶ 2-4, ECF 553.

540-4 Exhibit 7 to the Omnibus 

Declaration of Megan A. 

Chacon in Support of Finjan 

Inc.’s Motions In Limine Nos. 

1- 5

Excerpts of the 08-14-2019 

Rebuttal Expert Report of Dr. 

Patrick McDaniel

GRANTED 

as to the 

entire 

document.

This document reflects information 

that Cisco has designated as Highly 

Confidential – Attorneys’ Eyes Only 

under the Protective Order. Williams 

Dec. II ¶ 2.

Exhibit 7 to the Omnibus Declaration 

of Megan A. Chacon in Support of 

Finjan Inc.’s Motions In Limine Nos. 

Case 5:17-cv-00072-BLF Document 581 Filed 04/28/20 Page 13 of 35
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

ECF No. Document to be Sealed: Result Reasoning

1-5 (“Chacon Decl.”) contains 

information that Cisco has marked 

“Highly Confidential – Attorneys’ 

Eyes Only” pursuant to the Protective

Order in this litigation, and from 

which confidential information 

regarding Cisco’s accused products 

could be potentially discerned. 

Williams Dec. II ¶ 4 (appears to be 

incorrectly numbered as a second ¶ 2).

This document reflects confidential 

information relating to Cisco’s 

products that Cisco has designated as 

“HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL, 

ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY –

SOURCE CODE” under the 

Protective Order, including 

confidential details relating to the 

design and operation of Cisco 

products, including its source code, 

which, if publicly disclosed, could 

result in competitive harm to Cisco. 

Grigg Decl. II ¶¶ 2-4.

540-6 Exhibit 8 to the Omnibus 

Declaration of Megan A. 

Chacon in Support of Finjan 

Inc.’s Motions In Limine Nos. 

1- 5

Excerpts of the 08-14-2019 

Rebuttal Expert Report of Dr. 

Kevin Almeroth

GRANTED 

as to the 

entire 

document.

This document reflects information 

that Cisco has designated as Highly 

Confidential – Attorneys’ Eyes Only 

under the Protective Order. Williams 

Dec. II ¶ 2.

Exhibit 8 to the Chacon Decl. contains 

information that Cisco has marked 

“Highly Confidential – Attorneys’ 

Eyes Only” pursuant to the Protective 

Order in this litigation, and from 

which confidential information 

regarding Cisco’s accused products 

could be potentially discerned. 

Williams Dec. II ¶ 5 (appears to be 

incorrectly numbered as ¶ 3).

This document reflects confidential 

information relating to Cisco’s 

products that Cisco has designated as 

“HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL, 

ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY –

Case 5:17-cv-00072-BLF Document 581 Filed 04/28/20 Page 14 of 35
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

ECF No. Document to be Sealed: Result Reasoning

SOURCE CODE” under the 

Protective Order, including 

confidential details relating to the 

design and operation of Cisco 

products, including its source code, 

which, if publicly disclosed, could 

result in competitive harm to Cisco. 

Grigg Decl. II ¶¶ 2-4.

540-8 Exhibit 9 to the Omnibus 

Declaration of Megan A. 

Chacon in Support of Finjan 

Inc.’s Motions In Limine Nos. 

1- 5

Excerpts of the 08-14-2019 

Rebuttal Expert Report of Dr. 

Atul Prakash

GRANTED 

as to the 

entire 

document.

This document reflects information 

that Cisco has designated as Highly 

Confidential – Attorneys’ Eyes Only 

under the Protective Order. Williams 

Dec. II ¶ 2.

Exhibit 9 to the Chacon Decl. contains 

information that Cisco has marked 

“Highly Confidential – Attorneys’ 

Eyes Only” pursuant to the Protective 

Order in this litigation, and from 

which confidential information 

regarding Cisco’s accused products 

could be potentially discerned. 

Williams Dec. II ¶ 6 (appears to be 

incorrectly numbered as ¶ 4).

This document reflects confidential 

information relating to Cisco’s 

products that Cisco has designated as 

“HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL, 

ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY –

SOURCE CODE” under the 

Protective Order, including 

confidential details relating to the 

design and operation of Cisco 

products, including its source code, 

which, if publicly disclosed, could 

result in competitive harm to Cisco. 

Grigg Decl. II ¶¶ 2-4.

540-10 Exhibit 10 to the Omnibus 

Declaration of Megan A. 

Chacon in Support of Finjan 

Inc.’s Motions In Limine Nos. 

1- 5

Excerpts of Cisco’s 04-18-

GRANTED 

as to the 

entire 

document.

This document reflects information 

that Cisco has designated as Highly 

Confidential – Attorneys’ Eyes Only 

under the Protective Order. Williams 

Dec. II ¶ 2.

Exhibit 10 to the Chacon Decl. 

Case 5:17-cv-00072-BLF Document 581 Filed 04/28/20 Page 15 of 35
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

ECF No. Document to be Sealed: Result Reasoning

2019 Third Supplemental 

Response to Finjan’s 2nd Set 

of Interrogatories (No. 6)

contains information that Cisco has 

marked “Highly Confidential –

Attorneys’ Eyes Only” pursuant to the 

Protective Order in this litigation, and 

from which confidential information

regarding Cisco’s accused products 

could be potentially discerned. 

Williams Dec. II ¶ 7 (appears to be 

incorrectly numbered as ¶ 5).

This document reflects confidential 

information relating to Cisco’s 

products that Cisco has designated as 

“HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL, 

ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY” under 

the Protective Order, including 

confidential details relating to the 

design and operation of Cisco 

products, which, if publicly disclosed, 

could result in competitive harm to 

Cisco. Grigg Decl. II ¶¶ 2-4.

540-12 Exhibit 11 to the Omnibus 

Declaration of Megan A. 

Chacon in Support of Finjan 

Inc.’s Motions In Limine Nos. 

1- 5

Appendix B7 to Finjan’s 10-

31- 2017 Supplemental 

Infringement Contentions

GRANTED 

as to the 

entire 

document.

This document reflects information 

that Cisco has designated as Highly 

Confidential – Attorneys’ Eyes Only 

under the Protective Order. Williams 

Dec. II ¶ 2.

Exhibits 11-15 to the “Chacon Decl. 

contain excerpts from documents that 

Cisco has marked “Highly 

Confidential – Attorneys’ Eyes Only” 

pursuant to the Protective Order in this 

litigation. These excerpts contain 

information regarding the working of 

the accused products, and from which 

confidential information regarding 

Cisco’s accused products could be 

potentially discerned. Williams Dec. 

II ¶ 8 (appears to be incorrectly 

numbered as ¶ 6).

This document reflects confidential 

information relating to Cisco’s 

products that Cisco has designated as 

“HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL, 

ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY” under 

Case 5:17-cv-00072-BLF Document 581 Filed 04/28/20 Page 16 of 35
17

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

ECF No. Document to be Sealed: Result Reasoning

the Protective Order, including 

confidential details relating to the 

design and operation of Cisco 

products, which, if publicly disclosed, 

could result in competitive harm to 

Cisco. Grigg Decl. II ¶¶ 2-4.

540-14 Exhibit 12 to the Omnibus 

Declaration of Megan A. 

Chacon in Support of Finjan 

Inc.’s Motions In Limine Nos. 

1- 5

Appendix B3 to Finjan’s 10-

31- 2017 Supplemental 

Infringement Contentions

GRANTED 

as to the 

entire 

document.

This document reflects information 

that Cisco has designated as Highly 

Confidential – Attorneys’ Eyes Only 

under the Protective Order. Williams 

Dec. II ¶ 2.

Exhibits 11-15 to the “Chacon Decl. 

contain excerpts from documents that 

Cisco has marked “Highly 

Confidential – Attorneys’ Eyes Only” 

pursuant to the Protective Order in this 

litigation. These excerpts contain 

information regarding the working of 

the accused products, and from which 

confidential information regarding 

Cisco’s accused products could be 

potentially discerned. Williams Dec. 

II ¶ 8 (appears to be incorrectly 

numbered as ¶ 6).

This document reflects confidential 

information relating to Cisco’s 

products that Cisco has designated as 

“HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL, 

ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY” under 

the Protective Order, including 

confidential details relating to the 

design and operation of Cisco 

products, which, if publicly disclosed, 

could result in competitive harm to 

Cisco. Grigg Decl. II ¶¶ 2-4.

540-16 Exhibit 13 to the Omnibus 

Declaration of Megan A. 

Chacon in Support of Finjan 

Inc.’s Motions In Limine Nos. 

1- 5

Appendix D1 to Finjan’s 10-

31- 2017 Supplemental 

GRANTED 

as to the 

entire 

document.

This document reflects information 

that Cisco has designated as Highly 

Confidential – Attorneys’ Eyes Only 

under the Protective Order. Williams 

Dec. II ¶ 2.

Exhibits 11-15 to the “Chacon Decl. 

contain excerpts from documents that 

Case 5:17-cv-00072-BLF Document 581 Filed 04/28/20 Page 17 of 35
18

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

ECF No. Document to be Sealed: Result Reasoning

Infringement Contentions Cisco has marked “Highly 

Confidential – Attorneys’ Eyes Only” 

pursuant to the Protective Order in this 

litigation. These excerpts contain 

information regarding the working of 

the accused products, and from which 

confidential information regarding 

Cisco’s accused products could be 

potentially discerned. Williams Dec. 

II ¶ 8 (appears to be incorrectly 

numbered as ¶ 6).

This document reflects confidential 

information relating to Cisco’s 

products that Cisco has designated as 

“HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL, 

ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY” under 

the Protective Order, including 

confidential details relating to the 

design and operation of Cisco 

products, which, if publicly disclosed, 

could result in competitive harm to 

Cisco. Grigg Decl. II ¶¶ 2-4.

540-18 Exhibit 14 to the Omnibus 

Declaration of Megan A. 

Chacon in Support of Finjan 

Inc.’s Motions In Limine Nos. 

1- 5

Appendix A4 to Finjan’s 11-

30- 2017 Amended 

Infringement Charts

GRANTED 

as to the 

entire 

document.

This document reflects information 

that Cisco has designated as Highly 

Confidential – Attorneys’ Eyes Only 

under the Protective Order. Williams 

Dec. II ¶ 2.

Exhibits 11-15 to the “Chacon Decl. 

contain excerpts from documents that 

Cisco has marked “Highly 

Confidential – Attorneys’ Eyes Only” 

pursuant to the Protective Order in this 

litigation. These excerpts contain 

information regarding the working of 

the accused products, and from which 

confidential information regarding 

Cisco’s accused products could be 

potentially discerned. Williams Dec. 

II ¶ 8 (appears to be incorrectly 

numbered as ¶ 6).

This document reflects confidential 

information relating to Cisco’s 

products that Cisco has designated as 

Case 5:17-cv-00072-BLF Document 581 Filed 04/28/20 Page 18 of 35
19

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

ECF No. Document to be Sealed: Result Reasoning

“HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL, 

ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY” under 

the Protective Order, including 

confidential details relating to the 

design and operation of Cisco 

products, which, if publicly disclosed, 

could result in competitive harm to 

Cisco. Grigg Decl. II ¶¶ 2-4.

540-20 Exhibit 15 to the Omnibus 

Declaration of Megan A. 

Chacon in Support of Finjan 

Inc.’s Motions In Limine Nos. 

1- 5

Appendix C3 to Finjan’s 11-

30- 2017 Amended 

Infringement Charts

GRANTED 

as to the 

entire 

document.

This document reflects information 

that Cisco has designated as Highly 

Confidential – Attorneys’ Eyes Only 

under the Protective Order. Williams 

Dec. II ¶ 2.

Exhibits 11-15 to the “Chacon Decl. 

contain excerpts from documents that 

Cisco has marked “Highly 

Confidential – Attorneys’ Eyes Only” 

pursuant to the Protective Order in this 

litigation. These excerpts contain 

information regarding the working of 

the accused products, and from which 

confidential information regarding 

Cisco’s accused products could be 

potentially discerned. Williams Dec. 

II ¶ 8 (appears to be incorrectly 

numbered as ¶ 6).

This document reflects confidential 

information relating to Cisco’s 

products that Cisco has designated as 

“HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL, 

ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY” under 

the Protective Order, including 

confidential details relating to the 

design and operation of Cisco 

products, which, if publicly disclosed, 

could result in competitive harm to 

Cisco. Grigg Decl. II ¶¶ 2-4.

D. ECF 543, Finjan’s Administrative Motion to File under Seal Finjan’s Motion in 

Limine No. 5 and Exhibits

This motion relates to Finjan’s Motion in Limine No. 5 and supporting exhibits. Finjan’s 

Case 5:17-cv-00072-BLF Document 581 Filed 04/28/20 Page 19 of 35
20

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

motion Finjan’s Motion in Limine No. 5 is now stricken. See ECF 548. Accordingly, Finjan’s 

Administrative Motion to File under Seal at ECF 543 is TERMINATED AS MOOT.

E. ECF 566, Cisco’s Administrative Motion to File under Seal Response to 

Defendant Cisco Systems, Inc.'s Response to Plaintiff Finjan, Inc.’s Motion in 

Limine Nos. 1-4

ECF No. Document to be Sealed: Result Reasoning

566-4 Cisco’s Response to Finjan’s 

Motion in Limine No. 1

GRANTED 

as to 

highlighted 

portions at: 

page 1 lines 

10- 12, 21-

26; page 2 

lines 7, 9-10, 

12-13; page 

3 lines 24-

28; page 4 

lines 1-6

The highlighted portions of this 

document are direct quotes from or 

reference the one or more exhibits that 

were previously filed under seal or 

that Cisco is filing under seal which 

were designated by the parties as 

“CONFIDENTIAL” or “HIGHLY 

CONFIDENTIALATTORNEYS’ 

EYES ONLY” pursuant to the terms 

of the Stipulated Protective Order for 

reasons discussed below. Declaration 

of Nicole Grigg (“Grigg Decl. III”) ¶¶ 

2-4, ECF 566-1.

The highlighted portions of this 

document reflect testimony regarding 

business practices, and settlement 

agreements that Finjan has designated 

“HIGHLY CONFIDENTIALATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY” under 

the Protective Order (ECF No. 97). 

Public disclosure of this information 

would cause harm to Finjan. 

Declaration of Megan Chacon 

(“Chacon Decl. II”) ¶¶ 2-4, ECF 580.

566-6 Cisco’s Response to Finjan’s 

Motion in Limine No. 2

GRANTED 

as to 

highlighted 

portions at: 

page 1 lines 

17- 19; 22-

25, 27; page 

2 lines 10-

11, 17, 24-

25, 28; page 

3 lines 1-2, 4, 

14-15, 19-27; 

The highlighted portions of this 

document are direct quotes from or 

reference the one or more exhibits that 

were previously filed under seal or 

that Cisco is filing under seal which 

were designated by the parties as 

“CONFIDENTIAL” or “HIGHLY 

CONFIDENTIALATTORNEYS’ 

EYES ONLY” pursuant to the terms 

of the Stipulated Protective Order for 

reasons discussed below. Grigg Decl. 

III ¶¶ 2-4.

Case 5:17-cv-00072-BLF Document 581 Filed 04/28/20 Page 20 of 35
21

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

ECF No. Document to be Sealed: Result Reasoning

page 4 lines 

1-2, 4, 7-13, 

16-18

The highlighted portions of this 

document reflect information 

regarding Finjan business practices 

and licensing practices that Finjan has 

designated “HIGHLY 

CONFIDENTIAL-ATTORNEYS’ 

EYES ONLY” under the Protective 

Order (ECF No. 97). Public disclosure 

of this information would cause harm 

to Finjan. Chacon Decl. II ¶¶ 2-4.

566-8 Cisco’s Response to Finjan’s 

Motion in Limine No. 4

GRANTED 

as to 

highlighted 

portions at: 

page 4 lines 

4-6, 15-19

The highlighted portions of this 

document are direct quotes from or 

reference the one or more exhibits that 

were previously filed under seal or 

that Cisco is filing under seal which 

were designated by Finjan as or 

“HIGHLY CONFIDENTIALATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY”

pursuant to the terms of the Stipulated 

Protective Order for reasons discussed 

below. Grigg Decl. III ¶¶ 2-4.

566-9 Exhibit 23

Exhibit 14 entered at the 

August 6, 2019 deposition of 

Shlomo Touboul

GRANTED 

as to the 

entire 

document.

This exhibit was entered in a 

deposition in which the transcript was 

designated in its entirety by Finjan as 

“HIGHLY CONFIDENTIALATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY” under 

the terms of the Protective Order. 

Specifically, this document contains 

Finjan’s confidential business 

information. Grigg Decl. III ¶¶ 2-4.

This document reflects confidential 

information related to Finjan's

intellectual property and 

characterizations thereof that was 

designated "CONFIDENTIAL" by a 

third party under the Protective Order 

(Dkt. No. 97). Public disclosure of this 

information would cause harm to 

Finian. Chacon Decl. II ¶¶ 2-4.

566-10 Exhibit 24

Exhibit 15 entered at the 

August 5, 2019 Deposition of 

GRANTED 

as to the 

entire 

document.

This exhibit was entered in a 

deposition in which the transcript was 

designated in its entirety by Finjan as 

“HIGHLY CONFIDENTIALCase 5:17-cv-00072-BLF Document 581 Filed 04/28/20 Page 21 of 35
22

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

ECF No. Document to be Sealed: Result Reasoning

Asher Polani ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY” under 

the terms of the Protective Order. 

Specifically, this document contains 

Finjan’s confidential business 

information. Grigg Decl. III ¶¶ 2-4.

This document reflects testimony 

regarding Finjan's history and business 

practices that Finjan has designated 

"HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL -

ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY" under 

the Protective Order (ECF No. 97). 

Public disclosure of this information 

would cause harm to Finjan. Chacon 

Decl. II ¶¶ 2-4.

566-11 Exhibit 25

Excerpts from the July 11, 

2019 Expert Report of Dr. 

Anne LayneFarrar

GRANTED 

as to the 

entire 

document.

This document was designated in its 

entirety by Finjan as “HIGHLY 

CONFIDENTIAL-ATTORNEYS’ 

EYES ONLY” pursuant to the terms 

of the Stipulated Protective Order. 

Portions of this document contains 

Finjan’s confidential business 

information. Grigg Decl. III ¶¶ 2-4.

This document reflects information 

regarding Finjan's licensing practices 

and settlement agreements that Finjan 

has designated "HIGHLY 

CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS' 

EYES ONLY" under the Protective 

Order (ECF No. 97). Public disclosure 

of this info1mation would cause harm 

to Finjan. Chacon Decl. II ¶¶ 2-4.

566-12 Exhibit 26

Excerpts from the August 14, 

2019 Expert Report of Dr. 

Stephen L. Becker

GRANTED 

as to the 

entire 

document.

This document was designated in its 

entirety by Cisco as “HIGHLY 

CONFIDENTIAL-ATTORNEYS’ 

EYES ONLY” pursuant to the terms 

of the Stipulated Protective Order. 

Portions of this document contain 

Finjan’s confidential business 

information. Grigg Decl. III ¶¶ 2-4.

This document reflects information 

regarding Finjan's licensing and 

business practices, including 

Case 5:17-cv-00072-BLF Document 581 Filed 04/28/20 Page 22 of 35
23

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

ECF No. Document to be Sealed: Result Reasoning

information about settlement 

agreements, that Finjan has designated 

"HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL -

ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY" under 

the Protective Order (ECF No. 97). 

Public disclosure of this information 

would cause harm to Finjan. Chacon 

Decl. II ¶¶ 2-4.

566-13 Exhibit 30

Finjan’s Non-Competition and 

Non-Solicitation Agreement 

(FINJAN-CISCO 016859)

GRANTED 

as to the 

entire 

document.

This document was designated by 

Finjan as “HIGHLY 

CONFIDENTIAL-ATTORNEYS’ 

EYES ONLY” under the terms of the 

Protective Order. Specifically, this 

document contains Finjan’s 

confidential business information. 

Grigg Decl. III ¶¶ 2-4.

This document reflects a confidential 

non-compete and confidentiality 

agreement with a licensee that Finjan 

has designated "HIGHLY 

CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS' 

EYES ONLY" under the Protective 

Order (ECF No. 97). Public disclosure 

of this information would cause harm 

to Finian. Chacon Decl. II ¶¶ 2-4.

566-14 Exhibit 31

CISCOFINJANYS_00004952.001 

(March 17, 2010 Email 

Exchange Regarding Finjan)

GRANTED 

as to the 

entire 

document.

This document was designated by 

Cisco as “CONFIDENTIAL” under 

the terms of the Protective Order. 

Specifically, this document contains 

Finjan’s confidential business 

information. Grigg Decl. III ¶¶ 2-4.

This document reflects confidential 

information related to Finjan’s 

business practices and characterization 

thereof that was designated “HIGHLY 

CONFIDENTIAL-ATTORNEYS’ 

EYES ONLY” by a third party under 

the Protective Order Dkt. No. 97). 

Public disclosure of this information 

would cause harm to Finjan. Chacon 

Decl. II ¶¶ 2-4.

566-15 Exhibit 32 GRANTED 

as to the 

This document was designated by 

Finjan as “HIGHLY 

Case 5:17-cv-00072-BLF Document 581 Filed 04/28/20 Page 23 of 35
24

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

ECF No. Document to be Sealed: Result Reasoning

CISCOFINJANYS_00005244.0001 

(March 5, 2014 Email 

Exchange Regarding Finjan)

entire 

document.

CONFIDENTIAL-ATTORNEYS’ 

EYES ONLY” under the terms of the 

Protective Order. Specifically, this 

document contains Finjan’s 

confidential business information. 

Grigg Decl. III ¶¶ 2-4. Chacon Decl. II 

¶¶ 2-4.

This document reflects confidential 

information related to Finjan’s 

business practices and characterization 

thereof that was designated “HIGHLY 

CONFIDENTIAL-ATTORNEYS’ 

EYES ONLY” by a third party under 

the Protective Order Dkt. No. 97). 

Public disclosure of this information 

would cause harm to Finjan. Chacon 

Decl. II ¶¶ 2-4.

566-16 Exhibit 33

Exhibit 6 entered at the 

February 1, 2019 deposition of 

Yoav Samet.

GRANTED 

as to the 

entire 

document.

This exhibit was entered in a 

deposition in which the transcript was 

designated in its entirety by Cisco as 

“HIGHLY CONFIDENTIALATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY” under 

the terms of the Protective Order. 

Specifically, this document contains 

Finjan’s confidential business 

information. Grigg Decl. III ¶¶ 2-4.

This document reflects confidential 

information related to Finjan’s

intellectual property and 

characterization thereof that was 

designated “CONFIDENTIAL” by a 

third party under the Protective Order 

(Dkt. No. 97). Public disclosure of this 

information would cause harm to 

Finjan. Chacon Decl. II ¶¶ 2-4.

566-17 Exhibit 34

Exhibits 4-7 entered at the 

August 5, 2019 Deposition of 

Asher Polani

GRANTED 

as to the 

entire 

document.

These exhibits were entered in a 

deposition in which the transcript was 

designated in its entirety by Finjan as 

“HIGHLY CONFIDENTIALATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY” under 

the terms of the Protective Order. 

Specifically, these documents contain 

Finjan’s confidential business 

Case 5:17-cv-00072-BLF Document 581 Filed 04/28/20 Page 24 of 35
25

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

ECF No. Document to be Sealed: Result Reasoning

information. Grigg Decl. III ¶¶ 2-4.

This document reflects a compilation 

of multiple documents regarding 

Finjan’s business and intellectual 

property assessments, and Finjan's 

confidential product information, that 

either Finjan or third parties have 

designated "CONFIDENTIAL" or 

"HIGHLY

CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS' 

EYES ONLY" under the Protective 

Order (ECF No. 97). Public disclosure 

of this information would cause harm 

to Finian. Chacon Decl. II ¶¶ 2-4.

566-18 Exhibit 35

Excerpts from the transcript of 

the April 10, 2019 deposition 

of Daniel Chinn

GRANTED 

as to the 

entire 

document.

This document was designated in its 

entirety by Finjan as “HIGHLY 

CONFIDENTIAL-ATTORNEYS’ 

EYES ONLY” under the terms of the 

Protective Order. Specifically, this 

document contains deposition 

testimony related to Finjan’s 

confidential business information. 

Grigg Decl. III ¶¶ 2-4.

This document reflects testimony 

regarding Finjan’s history and 

business practices, as well as licensing 

transactions and agreements, that 

Finjan has designated "HIGHLY 

CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS' 

EYES ONLY" under the Protective 

Order (ECF No. 97). Public disclosure 

of this information would cause harm 

to Finjan. Chacon Decl. II ¶¶ 2-4.

566-19 Exhibit 36

Excerpts from transcript of the 

March 15, 2019 deposition of 

Julie Mar Spinola

GRANTED 

as to the 

entire 

document.

This document was designated in its 

entirety by Finjan as “HIGHLY 

CONFIDENTIAL-ATTORNEYS’ 

EYES ONLY” under the terms of the 

Protective Order. Specifically, this 

document contains deposition 

testimony related to Finjan’s 

confidential business information. 

Grigg Decl. III ¶¶ 2-4.

Case 5:17-cv-00072-BLF Document 581 Filed 04/28/20 Page 25 of 35
26

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

ECF No. Document to be Sealed: Result Reasoning

This document reflects testimony 

regarding Finjan's history and business 

practices, as well as licensing 

transactions and agreements, that 

Finjan has designated "HIGHLY 

CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS' 

EYES ONLY" under the Protective 

Order (ECF No. 97). Public disclosure 

of this information would cause harm 

to Finjan. Chacon Decl. II ¶¶ 2-4.

566-20 Exhibit 37

Excerpts from the transcript of 

the February 25, 2019 

deposition of Phillip Harstein

GRANTED 

as to the 

entire 

document.

This transcript was designated in its 

entirety by Finjan as “HIGHLY 

CONFIDENTIAL-ATTORNEYS’ 

EYES ONLY” under the terms of the 

Protective Order. Specifically, this 

document contains deposition 

testimony related to Finjan’s 

confidential business information. 

Grigg Decl. III ¶¶ 2-4.

This document reflects testimony 

regarding Finjan's histo1y and 

business practices, as well as licensing 

transactions and agreements, that 

Finjan has designated "HIGHLY 

CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS' 

EYES ONLY" under the Protective 

Order (ECF No. 97). Public disclosure 

of this information would cause harm 

to Finjan. Chacon Decl. II ¶¶ 2-4.

566-21 Exhibit 38

Exhibit 68 entered at the 

February 25, 2019 deposition 

of Phillip Hartstein

DENIED This exhibit was entered in a 

deposition in which the transcript was 

designated in its entirety by Finjan as 

“HIGHLY CONFIDENTIALATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY” under 

the terms of the Protective Order. 

Specifically, this document contains 

Finjan’s confidential business 

information. Grigg Decl. III ¶¶ 2-4.

The designating party, Finjan, does 

not seek to seal this document. See 

generally, Chacon Decl. II. 

566-22 Exhibit 40 GRANTED 

as to the 

This document was designated in its 

entirety by Finjan as “HIGHLY 

Case 5:17-cv-00072-BLF Document 581 Filed 04/28/20 Page 26 of 35
27

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

ECF No. Document to be Sealed: Result Reasoning

Appendix D-2 to Finjan’s 

Infringement Contentions

entire 

document.

CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS’ 

EYES ONLY” pursuant to the terms 

of the Stipulated Protective Order. 

Specifically, this document contains 

confidential technical information 

related to the structure, function and 

operation of the accused Cisco 

products and Finjan’s analysis thereof. 

Grigg Decl. III ¶¶ 2-4.

F. ECF 576, Finjan’s Administrative Motion to File under Seal Finjan’s Oppositions 

to Motions in Limine and Exhibits

ECF No. Document to be Sealed: Result Reasoning

576-4 Plaintiff Finjan Inc.’s 

Corrected Opposition to 

Defendant Cisco Systems, 

Inc.’s Motion In Limine No.1 

to Exclude Phil Hartstein’s 

Testimony Regarding Finjan’s 

Corporate History as Hearsay

GRANTED 

as to the 

highlighted 

portions at 

4:3-4, 4:6-7

This document reflects testimony 

regarding Finjan’s business practices 

and transactions that Finjan has 

designated “HIGHLY 

CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS’ 

EYES ONLY” under the Protective 

Order (Dkt. No. 97). Public disclosure 

of this information would cause harm 

to Finjan. Declaration of Megan 

Chacon (“Chacon Decl. III”) ¶ 2, ECF 

576-1.

The highlighted portions of Plaintiff 

Finjan Inc.’s Corrected Opposition to 

Defendant Cisco Systems, Inc.’s 

Motion In Limine No.1 to Exclude 

Phil Hartstein’s Testimony Regarding 

Finjan’s Corporate History as Hearsay 

reflect testimony regarding Finjan’s 

business practices and transactions. 

Finjan treats this confidential business 

practice and transactions information 

as highly confidential within its 

business and makes substantial efforts 

not to disclose such information to the 

public. Such information could be 

used by Finjan’s competitors, as it 

reveals information related to Finjan’s 

business practices and dealings. 

Case 5:17-cv-00072-BLF Document 581 Filed 04/28/20 Page 27 of 35
28

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

ECF No. Document to be Sealed: Result Reasoning

Chacon Decl. III ¶ 3. 

576-6 Plaintiff Finjan Inc.’s 

Corrected Opposition to 

Defendant Cisco Systems, 

Inc.’s Motion In Limine No. 3 

RE Prejudicial Litigation 

Settlement

GRANTED 

as to the 

highlighted 

portions at 

Caption:20-

21, 1:26-28, 

2:1-2, 2:17, 

2:20-24, 

2:28, 3:10, 

3:15, 3:18-

19, 3:28, 

4:25-26, 5:1, 

5:4, 5:10, 

5:18, 5:22

This document reflects testimony 

regarding Finjan’s licensing practices 

and settlement agreements that Finjan 

has designated “HIGHLY 

CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS’ 

EYES ONLY” under the Protective 

Order. Public disclosure of this 

information would cause harm to 

Finjan. Chacon Decl. III ¶ 2.

The highlighted portions of Plaintiff 

Finjan Inc.’s Corrected Opposition to 

Defendant Cisco Systems, Inc.’s 

Motion In Limine No. 3 RE 

Prejudicial Litigation Settlement 

Amounts reflect testimony regarding 

Finjan’s licensing practices and 

settlement agreements. Finjan treats 

this confidential business and financial 

information as highly confidential 

within its business and makes 

substantial efforts not to disclose such 

information to the public. The 

licensing information also reflects 

confidential third party information. 

Such information could be used by 

Finjan’s competitors, as it reveals 

information relevant to Finjan’s 

licensing practices and finances. 

Chacon Decl. III ¶ 4.

576-8 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

GRANTED 

as to the 

highlighted 

portions at 

3:4-5, 3:8, 

3:13, 3:21, 

3:27-28, 4:7-

14, 4:16-22

This document reflects information 

Cisco has designated “HIGHLY 

CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS’ 

EYES ONLY” under the Protective 

Order. Chacon Decl. III ¶ 2.

The highlighted portions of 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 contain 

information designated as “HIGHLY 

CONFIDENTIALATTORNEYS’ 

Case 5:17-cv-00072-BLF Document 581 Filed 04/28/20 Page 28 of 35
29

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

ECF No. Document to be Sealed: Result Reasoning

EYES ONLY” by Cisco under the 

Protective Order in this case, and from 

which confidential information 

regarding Cisco’s accused products 

could be potentially discerned. 

Chacon Decl. III ¶ 5.

The highlighted portions of this 

document reflect confidential 

information relating to Cisco’s 

products that Cisco has designated as 

“HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL, 

ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY” under 

the Protective Order, including 

confidential details relating to the 

design and operation of Cisco 

products, including its source code, 

which, if publicly disclosed, could 

result in competitive harm to Cisco. 

Declaration of Nicole Grigg (“Grigg 

Decl. IV”) ¶¶ 2-4, ECF 579.

576-10 Exhibit B to Omnibus 

Declaration of Megan A. 

Chacon in Support of Plaintiff 

Finjan Inc.’s Opposition to 

Defendant’s Motions in 

Limine Nos. 1- 4 (“Chacon 

Decl.”)

Excerpts of Deposition 

Transcript of Phillip Hartstein 

dated February 25, 2019

GRANTED 

as to the 

highlighted 

portions of 

pages 56-57, 

124- 125, 

193-194, 

350- 351

This document contains testimony 

regarding Finjan’s business practices 

and transactions, including provisions 

regarding commercial agreements, 

that Finjan has designated “HIGHLY 

CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS’ 

EYES ONLY” under the Protective 

Order. Public disclosure of this 

information would cause harm to 

Finjan. Chacon Decl. III ¶ 2.

The highlighted portions of Exhibit B 

to the Chacon Decl. contains 

confidential business practices and 

transactions, including provisions 

regarding commercial agreements, 

that is not publicly available, 

including information about 

transactions, including provisions 

regarding commercial agreements. 

Finjan treats this information as highly 

confidential within its business and 

makes substantial efforts not to 

disclose such information to the 

Case 5:17-cv-00072-BLF Document 581 Filed 04/28/20 Page 29 of 35
30

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

ECF No. Document to be Sealed: Result Reasoning

public. Such information could be 

used by Finjan’s competitors, as it 

reveals information related to Finjan’s 

business practices and dealings. 

Chacon Decl. III ¶ 6.

576-12 Exhibit E to Omnibus 

Declaration of Megan A. 

Chacon in Support of Plaintiff 

Finjan Inc.’s Opposition to 

Defendant’s Motions in 

Limine Nos. 1- 4

Excerpt of Exhibit 73 to the 

March 20, 2020 Deposition of 

John Garland

GRANTED 

as to the 

entire 

document.

This document contains information 

regarding Finjan’s prior Finjan patent 

challenges for compromise offers and 

negotiation purposes, that Finjan has 

designated “HIGHLY 

CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS’ 

EYES ONLY-SUBJECT TO FRE 

408” under the Protective Order. 

Public disclosure of this information 

would cause harm to Finjan. Chacon 

Decl. III ¶ 2.

Exhibit E to the Chacon Decl. 

contains information designated 

regarding Finjan’s prior patent 

challenges for compromise offers and 

negotiation purposes, designated 

“HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL –

ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY –

SUBJECT TO FRE 408” that is not 

publicly available. Finjan treats this 

business practice information as 

highly confidential within its business 

and makes substantial efforts not to 

disclose such information to the 

public. Such information could be 

used by Finjan’s competitors, as it 

reveals information related to Finjan’s 

business practices. Chacon Decl. III ¶ 

7.

576-14 Exhibit F to Omnibus 

Declaration of Megan A. 

Chacon in Support of Plaintiff 

Finjan Inc.’s Opposition to 

Defendant’s Motions in 

Limine Nos. 1- 4

Excerpts of the August 14, 

2019 Rebuttal Expert Report 

of Dr. Patrick McDaniel 

GRANTED 

as to the 

entire 

document.

This document reflects information 

that Cisco has designated as 

“HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL 

ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLYSOURCE CODE” under the 

Protective Order. Chacon Decl. III ¶ 2.

Exhibit F to the Chacon Decl. contains 

information that Cisco has marked 

“HIGHLY CONFIDENTIALCase 5:17-cv-00072-BLF Document 581 Filed 04/28/20 Page 30 of 35
31

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

ECF No. Document to be Sealed: Result Reasoning

Regarding Non-Infringement 

of U.S. Patent Nos. 8,677,494 

and 6,804,780

ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLYSOURCE CODE” pursuant to the 

Protective Order in the litigation, and 

from which confidential information 

regarding Cisco’s accused products 

could be potentially discerned. 

Chacon Decl. III ¶ 8.

This document reflects confidential 

information relating to Cisco’s 

products that Cisco has designated as 

“HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL, 

ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY –

SOURCE CODE” under the 

Protective Order, including 

confidential details relating to the 

design and operation of Cisco 

products, including its source code, 

which, if publicly disclosed, could 

result in competitive harm to Cisco. 

Grigg Decl. IV ¶¶ 2-4.

576-16 Exhibit G to Omnibus 

Declaration of Megan A. 

Chacon in Support of Plaintiff 

Finjan Inc.’s Opposition to 

Defendant’s Motions in 

Limine Nos. 1- 4

Excerpts of the July 11, 2019 

Opening Expert Report of Dr. 

Layne-Farrar

GRANTED 

as to the 

entire 

document.

This document reflects information 

regarding Finjan’s licensing practices 

and settlement agreements that Finjan 

has designated “HIGHLY 

CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS’ 

EYES ONLY” under the Protective 

Order. Public disclosure of this 

information would cause harm to 

Finjan. Further, this document may 

reflect information that Cisco has 

designated as “HIGHLY 

CONFIDENTIALATTORNEYS’ 

EYES ONLY” under the Protective 

Order, and from which confidential 

information regarding Cisco’s accused 

products could be potentially 

discerned. Chacon Decl. III ¶ 2.

Exhibit G to the Chacon Decl. reflect 

information regarding Finjan’s 

licensing practices and settlement 

agreements. Finjan treats this 

confidential business and financial 

information as highly confidential 

within its business and makes 

Case 5:17-cv-00072-BLF Document 581 Filed 04/28/20 Page 31 of 35
32

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

ECF No. Document to be Sealed: Result Reasoning

substantial efforts not to disclose such 

information to the public. The 

licensing information also reflects 

confidential third party information. 

Such information could be used by 

Finjan’s competitors, as it reveals 

information relevant to Finjan’s 

licensing practices and finances. 

Further, this document may reflect 

information that Cisco has designated 

as “HIGHLY CONFIDENTIALATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY” under 

the Protective Order, and from which 

confidential information regarding 

Cisco’s accused products could be 

potentially discerned. Chacon Decl. III 

¶ 9.

This document reflects confidential 

information relating to Cisco’s 

products that Cisco has designated as 

“HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL, 

ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY –

SOURCE CODE” under the 

Protective Order, including 

confidential details relating to the 

design and operation of Cisco 

products, including its source code, 

which, if publicly disclosed, could 

result in competitive harm to Cisco. 

Grigg Decl. IV ¶¶ 2-4.

576-18 Exhibit J to Omnibus 

Declaration of Megan A. 

Chacon in Support of Plaintiff 

Finjan Inc.’s Opposition to 

Defendant’s Motions in 

Limine Nos. 1- 4

Excerpts of the August 14, 

2019 Rebuttal Expert Report 

of Dr. Harry Bims

GRANTED 

as to the 

highlighted 

portions at 

pages 39, 46-

47, 49

This document reflects information 

regarding Finjan’s licensing practices 

and settlement agreements that Finjan 

has designated “HIGHLY 

CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS’ 

EYES ONLY” under the Protective 

Order. Public disclosure of this 

information would cause harm to 

Finjan. Further, this document may 

reflect or reveal third party 

confidential information subject to an 

issued protective order. Chacon Decl. 

III ¶ 2.

The highlighted portions of Exhibit J 

Case 5:17-cv-00072-BLF Document 581 Filed 04/28/20 Page 32 of 35
33

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

ECF No. Document to be Sealed: Result Reasoning

to the Chacon Decl. reflect 

information regarding Finjan’s

licensing practices and settlement 

agreements. Finjan treats this 

confidential business and financial 

information as highly confidential 

within its business and makes 

substantial efforts not to disclose such 

information to the public. The 

licensing information also reflects 

confidential third party information. 

Such information could be used by 

Finjan’s competitors, as it reveals 

information relevant to Finjan’s 

licensing practices and finances. 

Further, this document may reflect or 

reveal third party confidential 

information subject to an issued 

protective order. Chacon Decl. III ¶ 

10.

576-20 Exhibit L to Omnibus 

Declaration of Megan A. 

Chacon in Support of Plaintiff 

Finjan Inc.’s Opposition to 

Defendant’s Motions in 

Limine Nos. 1- 4

Excerpts of the August 14, 

2019 Rebuttal Expert Report 

of Dr. Stephen L. Becker

GRANTED 

as to the 

highlighted 

portions at 

pages 45, 93, 

117, 121-123

This document reflects information 

regarding Finjan’s licensing and 

business practices, including 

information about settlement 

agreements, that Finjan has designated 

“HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL –

ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY” under 

the Protective Order. Public disclosure 

of this information would cause harm 

to Finjan. Chacon Decl. III ¶ 2.

The highlighted portions of Exhibit L 

to the Chacon Decl. reflect 

information regarding Finjan’s 

licensing and business practices, 

including information about 

settlement agreements. Finjan treats 

this confidential business and financial 

information as highly confidential 

within its business and makes 

substantial efforts not to disclose such 

information to the public. The 

licensing information also reflects 

confidential third party information. 

Such information could be used by 

Finjan’s competitors, as it reveals 

Case 5:17-cv-00072-BLF Document 581 Filed 04/28/20 Page 33 of 35
34

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

ECF No. Document to be Sealed: Result Reasoning

information relevant to Finjan's 

licensing practices and finances. 

Chacon Decl. III ¶ 11.

576-22 Exhibit M to Omnibus 

Declaration of Megan A. 

Chacon in Support of Plaintiff 

Finjan Inc.’s Opposition to 

Defendant’s Motions in 

Limine Nos. 1- 4

Excerpts of the December 13, 

2019 Amended Expert Report 

of Nenad Medvidovic, Ph.D. 

Regarding Infringement of 

Cisco Systems, Inc. of Patent 

No. 7,647,633

GRANTED 

as to the 

entire 

document.

This document reflects information 

Cisco has designated “HIGHLY 

CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS’ 

EYES ONLY – SOURCE CODE” 

under the Protective Order, and from 

which confidential information 

regarding Cisco’s accused products 

could be potentially discerned. 

Chacon Decl. III ¶ 2.

Exhibit M to the Chacon Decl. 

contains information that Cisco has 

marked “HIGHLY CONFIDENTIALATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY –

SOURCE CODE” pursuant to the 

Protective Order in the litigation, and 

from which confidential information 

regarding Cisco’s accused products 

could be potentially discerned. 

Chacon Decl. III ¶ 12.

This document reflects confidential 

information relating to Cisco’s 

products that Cisco has designated as 

“HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL, 

ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY –

SOURCE CODE” under the 

Protective Order, including 

confidential details relating to the 

design and operation of Cisco 

products, including its source code, 

which, if publicly disclosed, could 

result in competitive harm to Cisco. 

Grigg Decl. IV ¶¶ 2-4.

Case 5:17-cv-00072-BLF Document 581 Filed 04/28/20 Page 34 of 35
35

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

III. ORDER

For the foregoing reasons:

(1) Finjan’s Motion to Seal at ECF 530 is GRANTED.

(2) Cisco’s Motion to Seal at ECF 532 is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. 

Cisco shall file an unredacted version of its Motion in Limine No. 4, no later than 7 days 

from the date of this Order.

(3) Finjan’s Motion to Seal at ECF 540 is GRANTED.

(4) Finjan’s Motion to Seal at ECF 543 is TERMINATED AS MOOT.

(5) Cisco’s Motion to Seal at ECF 566 is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. 

Cisco shall file “Exhibit 68 entered at the February 25, 2019 deposition of Phillip 

Hartstein” at ECF 566-21 publicly no later than 7 days from the date of this Order.

(6) Finjan’s Motion to Seal at ECF 576 is GRANTED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 28, 2020

______________________________________

BETH LABSON FREEMAN

United States District Judge

Case 5:17-cv-00072-BLF Document 581 Filed 04/28/20 Page 35 of 35