Case No. 5:17-cv-00072-BLF (SVK)

FINJAN, INC.’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tucker N. Terhufen (CA SBN 311038) terhufen@fr.com

FISH & RICHARDSON P.C.

12390 El Camino Real, Suite 100

San Diego, CA 92130

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

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

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

FISH & RICHARDSON P.C.

1180 Peachtree Street NE, 21st Floor

Atlanta, GA 30309

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

Attorneys for Plaintiff

FINJAN, INC.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, SAN JOSE DIVISION

FINJAN, INC., a Delaware Corporation,

Plaintiff,

v.

CISCO SYSTEMS, INC., a California 

Corporation, 

Defendant.

Case No. 5:17-cv-00072-BLF (SVK) 

FINJAN, INC.’S NOTICE OF 

MOTION AND MOTION FOR LEAVE TO 

FILE MOTION FOR 

RECONSIDERATION OF THE COURT’S 

ORDER ON CISCO’S MOTION TO 

STRIKE PORTIONS OF FINJAN’S 

AMENDED EXPERT REPORTS (DKT. 

NO. 582) 

REDACTED VERSION OF DOCUMENT 

SOUGHT TO BE SEALED 

Hon. Susan van Keulen 

Ctrm: 6, 4th Floor 

Case 5:17-cv-00072-BLF Document 617 Filed 05/12/20 Page 1 of 18
1 Case No. 5:17-cv-00072-BLF (SVK)

FINJAN INC.’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

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

NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that Plaintiff Finjan, Inc. (“Finjan”) hereby moves for leave to 

file a Motion for Reconsideration of the Court’s Order on Cisco’s Motion to Strike Portions of 

Finjan’s Amended Expert Reports (Dkt. No. 582). 

Statement of Relief Requested: By and through this motion, Finjan seeks leave to file a 

Motion for Reconsideration of the Court’s Order on Cisco’s Motion to Strike Portions of Finjan’s 

Amended Expert Reports (Dkt. No. 582). This motion is supported by the following 

Memorandum of Points and Authorities and all supporting documents attached hereto. 

Case 5:17-cv-00072-BLF Document 617 Filed 05/12/20 Page 2 of 18
Case 5:17-cv-00072-BLF Document 617 Filed 05/12/20 Page 3 of 18
ii Case No. 5:17-cv-00072-BLF (SVK)

FINJAN INC.’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

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

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Page(s)

Cases

Apple Inc. v. Samsung Elecs.

Co., No. 5:12-CV-0630-LHK-PSG, 2014 WL 12917334 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 9, 

2014) ..........................................................................................................................................11

MLC Intellectual Prop., LLC v. Micron Tech., Inc.,

No. 14-CV-03657-SI, 2019 WL 1865921 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 25, 2019) .......................................11

Mobile Telecommunications Techs., LLC v. Blackberry Corp.,

No. 3:12-CV-1652-M, 2016 WL 2907735 (N.D. Tex. May 17, 2016) .....................................11

Rembrandt Wireless Techs., LP v. Samsung Elecs. Co.,

No. 2:13CV213-JRG-RSP, 2015 WL 1848524 (E.D. Tex. Jan. 23, 2015) .................................4

Case 5:17-cv-00072-BLF Document 617 Filed 05/12/20 Page 4 of 18
1 Case No. 5:17-cv-00072-BLF (SVK)

FINJAN INC.’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

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

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES

I. INTRODUCTION

Finjan respectfully requests that the Court grant Finjan leave to move for reconsideration

of the Court’s ruling on Cisco’s Motion to Strike Portions of Finjan’s Amended Expert Reports

(Dkt. No. 582). Finjan did not have an opportunity to address Cisco’s post-hearing submission 

(which identified for the first time paragraphs Cisco wanted struck from Dr. Medvidovic’s 

amended reports), and Finjan believes that this resulted in the Court not considering facts and 

arguments showing that the struck language had support in Finjan’s infringement contentions. 

Finjan also believes that the Court did not consider key evidence and arguments showing that the 

concepts of a “virtual environment agent” and “parameters to run the sample file or URL” as they 

appear in Dr. Medvidovic’s amended reports were appropriately disclosed in Finjan’s 

infringement contentions.

II. STATEMENT OF ISSUES TO BE DECIDED

1) Whether the Court should grant Finjan leave to file a Motion for Reconsideration of the 

Court’s Order on Cisco’s Motion to Strike Portions of Finjan’s Amended Expert Reports (Dkt. 

No. 582). 

III. LEGAL STANDARD

Leave to file a Motion for Reconsideration may be granted when a party shows (i) 

reasonable diligence in bringing the motion and (ii) “[a] manifest failure by the Court to consider 

material facts or dispositive legal arguments which were presented to the Court before such 

interlocutory order.” Civil L.R. 7-9. Additionally, in Judge Freeman’s May 1, 2020 Order, Judge 

Freeman stated that:

“The undersigned held a Final Pretrial Conference on April 30, 2020. In that 

Conference, counsel for Finjan indicated that Finjan intends to appeal from the SVK 

Order to this Court on two grounds: (1) a procedural issue – because Finjan did not 

have an opportunity to oppose Cisco’s post-hearing submission at ECF 558 and (2) 

Judge van Keulen’s substantive ruling. The Court construes the procedural dispute 

as a request to file a motion for reconsideration of the SVK Order. Accordingly, 

the Court REFERS the procedural dispute to Judge van Keulen to decide whether a 

motion for reconsideration is appropriate.”

Case 5:17-cv-00072-BLF Document 617 Filed 05/12/20 Page 5 of 18
Case 5:17-cv-00072-BLF Document 617 Filed 05/12/20 Page 6 of 18
Case 5:17-cv-00072-BLF Document 617 Filed 05/12/20 Page 7 of 18
Case 5:17-cv-00072-BLF Document 617 Filed 05/12/20 Page 8 of 18
Case 5:17-cv-00072-BLF Document 617 Filed 05/12/20 Page 9 of 18
Case 5:17-cv-00072-BLF Document 617 Filed 05/12/20 Page 10 of 18
Case 5:17-cv-00072-BLF Document 617 Filed 05/12/20 Page 11 of 18
Case 5:17-cv-00072-BLF Document 617 Filed 05/12/20 Page 12 of 18
Case 5:17-cv-00072-BLF Document 617 Filed 05/12/20 Page 13 of 18
Case 5:17-cv-00072-BLF Document 617 Filed 05/12/20 Page 14 of 18
Case 5:17-cv-00072-BLF Document 617 Filed 05/12/20 Page 15 of 18
12 Case No. 5:17-cv-00072-BLF (SVK)

FINJAN INC.’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

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

could have included in its infringement contentions based on information that was available to 

Finjan. 

3. Cisco’s Prior Motion to Strike Is Not Relevant

This Court’s Order found that Finjan’s replacement language corresponds to theories that 

Finjan was previously denied permission to add to its infringement contentions. In a motion to 

strike an expert report, the inquiry requires a comparison of the theories included in Finjan’s 

expert reports, and a determination as to whether those theories were properly disclosed in 

Finjan’s infringement contentions. See e.g., MLC Intellectual Prop., LLC v. Micron Tech., Inc., 

No. 14-CV-03657-SI, 2019 WL 1865921, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 25, 2019); Apple Inc. v. Samsung 

Elecs. Co., No. 5:12-CV-0630-LHK-PSG, 2014 WL 12917334, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 9, 2014);

Mobile Telecommunications Techs., LLC v. Blackberry Corp., No. 3:12-CV-1652-M, 2016 WL 

2907735, at *1-2 (N.D. Tex. May 17, 2016). Although the Court granted Cisco’s prior motion to 

strike, the outcome of that motion has no bearing on this inquiry. 

Finjan understands this Court’s finding here to represent this Court’s sua sponte analysis 

because Finjan was unable to find any corresponding argument in Cisco’s briefing. Dkt. No. 582 

at 12-13. This Court’s reasoning for conducting this sua sponte analysis appears to have been 

drawn from Judge Freeman’s Order on Motions Re Expert Reports (Dkt. No. 397). See Dkt. No. 

582 at 8. If this Court views this issue as dispositive, Finjan respectfully requests that the parties 

have an opportunity to brief the issue. 

D. Finjan Has Been Reasonably Diligent In Bringing This Motion

This Court’s Order on Cisco’s Motion to Strike Portions of Finjan’s Amended Expert 

Reports (Dkt. No. 582) issued on April 28, 2020, although due to the Order being under seal, the 

parties did not have access to the Order until April 29, 2020. Judge Freeman held the Pre-Trial 

Conference for this case the following day, on April 30th, at which time Finjan informed Judge 

Freeman of its intent to raise certain issues that are the subject of this motion. See Dkt. No. 613 at

103:17-104:6. On May 1, 2020, Judge Freeman issued an Order construing Finjan’s request as 

one to file a Motion for Reconsideration, and directing that the matter be referred to this Court. 

Case 5:17-cv-00072-BLF Document 617 Filed 05/12/20 Page 16 of 18
13 Case No. 5:17-cv-00072-BLF (SVK)

FINJAN INC.’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

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

See Dkt. No. 609. Finjan has exercised reasonable diligence by filing this motion within two 

weeks after this Court’s Order issued, and eleven days after Judge Freeman’s Order issued.

VI. CONCLUSION

For at least the foregoing reasons, Finjan respectfully requests that its Motion for Leave to 

File a Motion for Reconsideration be granted. Additionally, if the Court finds the issue outlined 

supra in Section V.C.3 to be dispositive, then Finjan respectfully requests that the parties have an 

opportunity to brief the issue of whether Finjan’s replacement language corresponds to theories 

that Finjan was previously denied permission to add to its infringement contentions (including 

whether this issue should be relevant to the present motion).

Dated: May 12, 2020 Respectfully Submitted,

By: /s/ Aamir A. Kazi

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

Roger A. Denning (CA SBN 228998) 

denning@fr.com

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

Megan A. Chacon (CA SBN 304912) 

chacon@fr.com

K. Nicole Williams (CA SBN 291900) 

nwilliams@fr.com

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

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

Tucker N. Terhufen (CA SBN 311038) 

terhufen@fr.com

FISH & RICHARDSON P.C.

12390 El Camino Real, Suite 100

San Diego, CA 92130

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

Aamir A. Kazi (Admitted Pro Hac Vice) 

kazi@fr.com

Alana C. Mannige (CA SBN 313341) 

mannige@fr.com

FISH & RICHARDSON P.C.

1180 Peachtree Street NE, 21st Floor

Atlanta, GA 30309

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

Attorneys for Plaintiff FINJAN, INC.

Case 5:17-cv-00072-BLF Document 617 Filed 05/12/20 Page 17 of 18
14 Case No. 5:17-cv-00072-BLF (SVK)

FINJAN INC.’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

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

document has been served on May 12, 2020 to all counsel of record who are deemed to have 

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

be served by electronic mail and regular mail.

/s/ Aamir A. Kazi

Aamir A. Kazi 

kazi@fr.com

Case 5:17-cv-00072-BLF Document 617 Filed 05/12/20 Page 18 of 18