Case No. 5:17-cv-00072-BLF

FINJAN’S OPPOSITION TO CISCO’S MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

FISH & RICHARDSON P.C.

12390 El Camino Real, Suite 100

San Diego, CA 92130

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

Aamir Kazi (Approved 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

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 

REDACTED VERSION OF DOCUMENT 

SOUGHT TO BE FILED UNDER SEAL 

Date: April 30, 2020

Time: 1:30 P.M.

Place: 3, 5th Floor

Before: Hon. Beth L. Freeman 

Case 5:17-cv-00072-BLF Document 563 Filed 04/23/20 Page 1 of 8
1 Case No. 5:17-cv-00072-BLF

FINJAN’S OPPOSITION TO CISCO’S MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 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

I. INTRODUCTION

Cisco’s Motion in Limine No. 4 suffers from two insurmountable flaws. First, Cisco does 

not identify the specific evidence relating to literal infringement that it seeks to exclude. Cisco

broadly requests the Court exclude “any argument or evidence regarding [infringement of] the ’633 

Patent,” but only “to the extent” that Magistrate Judge van Keulen grants Cisco’s pending Motion 

to Strike. Dkt. No. 537 (“Cisco’s Mot.”) at 3. The scope of Cisco’s request is thus uncertain, 

because Cisco’s motion is still pending, and overstated, because Magistrate Judge van Keulen was 

not asked to exclude “any argument or evidence” regarding infringement of the ’633 Patent. For

this reason alone, Cisco’s indeterminate motion should be denied. M.H. v. County of Alameda, Case 

No. 11-cv-02868-JST, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 445, at *28-29 (Jan. 2, 2015 N.D. Cal) (“Defendants 

offer no examples from which the Court could fashion a ruling.”)

Second, Cisco refers to Dr. Medvidovic’s opinions on the doctrine of equivalents (“DOE”)

for claim limitation 14(d) as “short” and “generic,” and on that basis, seeks to exclude them. See

Cisco Mot. at 3:13-15. But Cisco’s motion points to only a handful of paragraphs in Dr.

Medvidovic’s report and ignores the evidence and analysis Dr. Medvidovic cites elsewhere in his 

report attributed to that same specific limitation. 

Accordingly, the Court should deny Cisco’s motion.1 

II. THE COURT SHOULD DENY CISCO’S MOTION

A. The Scope of Cisco’s Motion Is Contingent on Magistrate Judge van Keulen’s 

Order, and Thus, Too Speculative for a Motion in Limine

Cisco states “this motion in limine is the proper mechanism to enforce Judge van Keulen’s 

forthcoming ruling on Cisco’s ’633 Motion, to the extent that motion is granted.” Cisco’s Mot. at

 

1 Although not relevant to the merits of Cisco’s motion, Finjan disagrees with Cisco’s recitation of 

the procedural posture. The Court ordered Finjan to prepare amended reports, which Finjan has 

done: “Finjan’s experts are directed to redraft their reports to remove the disallowed terminology 

and Talos-only allegations, and to ensure that their opinions track the disclosures in Finjan’s 

operative infringement contentions.” Dkt. No. 397 at 13:24-27. Finjan has complied with the 

Court’s order. 

Case 5:17-cv-00072-BLF Document 563 Filed 04/23/20 Page 2 of 8
2 Case No. 5:17-cv-00072-BLF

FINJAN’S OPPOSITION TO CISCO’S MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 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

3 (emphasis added); id. at 4 (same). Cisco offers no reason for precluding Finjan from presenting 

these theories other than that they are subject to a pending Motion to Strike. Magistrate Judge van 

Keulen has not issued a ruling or even a tentative ruling on that motion. 

At the hearing, Magistrate Judge van Keulen questioned the scope of the relief Cisco 

requested. For example, the Court began the hearing asking Cisco:

AND -- SO WHAT WOULD BE THE LANGUAGE IN THE REPORT THAT YOU 

WOULD HAVE ME STRIKE? I'M A LITTLE -- NOT ENTIRELY CLEAR WHAT 

THE OBJECTIVE IS.

I OBVIOUSLY -- IN YOUR PAPERS, YOU WANT A THEORY TO BE STRICKEN.

WHAT DO YOU WANT ME TO STRIKE FROM THE REPORT? HELP ME TO 

UNDERSTAND.

Dkt. No. 560 (April 21, 2020 Hearing Tr.) at 11:17-22. And she ended the hearing expressing those 

same concerns: 

I REMAIN CONCERNED OF, KIND OF COMING BACK FULL CIRCLE 

WHERE I STARTED WHICH IS, IT'S NOT CLEAR TO ME WHAT CISCO IS 

ASKING ME TO [STRIKE].

Id. at 65:20-22 (emphasis added). 

It is not possible to predict what portions, if any, of Dr. Medvidovic’s report will be stricken.

Once there is a ruling, the parties can work with the Court to limit Dr. Medvidovic’s testimony

accordingly. But Cisco’s requested relief is too speculative now. The proper solution is to “draw

appropriate lines on the basis of objections made during trial” with respect to specific arguments or 

evidence. In re Bard IVC Filters Product Liability Litig., 16-cv-00474-PHX-DGC 2018 WL 

934795, at *2 (D. Ariz. Feb. 15, 2018). The Court should not grant Cisco’s blanket motion in limine

in a vacuum.

B. Cisco Overstates the Consequence of Its Motion to Strike

An additional reason to deny Cisco’s Motion in Limine No. 4 is that the sweeping request 

Cisco seeks here does not match the request it seeks from Magistrate Judge van Keulen. Cisco 

Case 5:17-cv-00072-BLF Document 563 Filed 04/23/20 Page 3 of 8
Case 5:17-cv-00072-BLF Document 563 Filed 04/23/20 Page 4 of 8
Case 5:17-cv-00072-BLF Document 563 Filed 04/23/20 Page 5 of 8
5 Case No. 5:17-cv-00072-BLF

FINJAN’S OPPOSITION TO CISCO’S MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 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

report and follow just after his opinions on literal infringement. See id. at § XIV.D.4.a (including 

both literal infringement and DOE analysis of element 14(d) for Cisco Treat Grid). 

Other than labeling these paragraphs as “short” and “generic,” Cisco provides no analysis of 

them at all, much less of the preceding paragraphs describing the operation of the Cisco product. 

Cisco’s motion fails to carry its burden for that reason alone. See Barry v. Shell Oil Co., No. 2:15-

cv-004-JWS, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 87536, at *3 (D. Alaska May 22, 2018) at *3 (“A party making 

a motion in limine has the burden of showing that specific evidence is inadmissible.”). And to the 

extent Cisco disagrees with Dr. Medvidovic’s analysis and conclusions, Cisco’s complaints go only 

to the merits of Dr. Medvidovic’s DOE opinions, not whether they were sufficiently disclosed. 

Thus, Dr. Medvidovic’s DOE opinions should be allowed to be presented to the jury. See Nobelbiz, 

Inc. v. Glob. Connect, L.L.C., No. 6:12-CV-244, 2015 WL 11072170, at *3 (E.D. Tex. Sept. 2, 2015) 

(denying motion in limine seeking to preclude alleged insufficiently detailed expert testimony 

regarding infringement under doctrine of equivalents, and stating “[t]he Court will revisit the issue 

of doctrine of equivalents once all the evidence is presented and prior to instructing the jury”). 

III. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, Finjan respectfully requests that the Court deny Cisco’s Motion 

in Limine No. 4 to exclude evidence and arguments pertaining to certain ’633 Patent infringement 

theories.

 

Case 5:17-cv-00072-BLF Document 563 Filed 04/23/20 Page 6 of 8
6 Case No. 5:17-cv-00072-BLF

FINJAN’S OPPOSITION TO CISCO’S MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 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

Dated: April 23, 2020 Respectfully Submitted,

By: /s/ Aamir 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

FISH & RICHARDSON P.C.

12390 El Camino Real, Suite 100

San Diego, CA 92130

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

Aamir Kazi (Approved 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 563 Filed 04/23/20 Page 7 of 8
7 Case No. 5:17-cv-00072-BLF

FINJAN’S OPPOSITION TO CISCO’S MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 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

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

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

document has been served on April 23, 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 Kazi

Aamir Kazi

kazi@fr.com

Case 5:17-cv-00072-BLF Document 563 Filed 04/23/20 Page 8 of 8