Source: https://ir.finjan.com/all-sec-filings/xbrl_doc_only/7977
Timestamp: 2019-08-19 22:53:05
Document Index: 27640523

Matched Legal Cases: ['§285', '§ 285', '§ 285', '§ 285', '§ 285', '§ 285', '§ 285', '§ 285', 'art-1', '§ 285', '§ 285', '§ 285', '§ 285', '§ 325']

Finjan, Inc. v. FireEye, Inc., Case No. 4:13-cv-03133-SBA (N.D. Cal)
Finjan filed a patent infringement lawsuit against FireEye, Inc. (“FireEye”) in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on July 8, 2013, asserting that FireEye was directly and indirectly infringing certain claims of Finjan’s U.S. Patent Nos. 6,804,780; 7,058,822; 7,647,633; 7,975,305; 8,079,086; 8,225,408; and 6,154,844 through the manufacture, use, importation, sale, and/or offer for sale of its products and services, including but not limited to FireEye’s Threat Protection Platform, including the FireEye Malware Protection System, the FireEye Dynamic Threat Intelligence, and the FireEye Central Management System. On January 12, 2018, the parties stipulated that all claims in the case be dismissed with prejudice pursuant to a confidential patent license and settlement agreement executed December 29, 2017.
Finjan filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Blue Coat Systems, Inc., (“Blue Coat I”) in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on August 28, 2013, asserting that Blue Coat was directly and indirectly infringing certain claims of Finjan’s U.S. Patent Nos. 6,154,844; 6,804,780; 6,965,968; 7,058,822; 7,418,731; and 7,647,633 (the “Asserted Patents”) through the manufacture, use, importation, sale, and/or offer for sale of its products and services. This action was before the Honorable Judge Beth Labson Freeman. Trial commenced July 20, 2015. On August 4, 2015, the jury returned a unanimous verdict that each of the Finjan Asserted Patents are valid and enforceable. Further, the jury returned a unanimous verdict that Finjan’s U.S. Patent Nos. 6,154,844; 6,804,780; 6,965,968; and 7,418,731 were literally infringed by Blue Coat, and that U.S. Patent No. 7,647,633 was infringed by Blue Coat under the Doctrine of Equivalents. The jury also awarded Finjan approximately $39.5 million in damages as reasonable royalties for Blue Coat's infringement, and such finding was appealed by Blue Coat to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ("Federal Circuit"). On March 5, 2018, the Court ordered, pursuant to stipulation between the parties following entry into a confidential patent license and settlement agreement, that all claims in the case be dismissed with prejudice.
Finjan filed a second patent infringement lawsuit against Blue Coat Systems LLC (“Blue Coat II”) in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on July 15, 2015, asserting that Blue Coat was directly infringing certain claims of Finjan’s U.S. Patent Nos. 6,154,844; 6,965,968; 7,418,731; 8,079,086; 8,225,408; 8,677,494; 8,566,580; 9,141,786; 9,189,621; and 9,219,755 through the manufacture, use, importation, sale, and/or offer for sale of its products and services. This action was before the Honorable Judge Beth Labson Freeman. A trial was held on October 31, 2017, that resulted in a partial verdict, followed by a retrial on certain issues on January 8, 2018. The Court declared a mistrial following the Federal Circuit’s January 10, 2018 issuance of its decision related to Blue Coat I. The Court ordered, among other things, a second retrial for February 12, 2018, which it later vacated on February 9, 2018. On March 5, 2018, the Court ordered, pursuant to stipulation between the parties following entry into a confidential patent license and settlement agreement, dismissal of all claims with prejudice.
Finjan filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Symantec Corporation (“Symantec”) in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on June 30, 2014, asserting that Symantec was directly and indirectly infringing certain claims of Finjan’s U.S. Patent Nos. 7,756,996; 7,757,289; 7,930,299; 8,015,182; 8,141,154; 6,154,844; 7,613,926; and 8,677,494 through the manufacture, use, importation, sale, and/or offer for sale of certain products and services. This action was before the Honorable Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. On March 5, 2018, the Court ordered, pursuant to stipulation between the parties following entry into a confidential patent license and settlement agreement dated February 28, 2018, that all claims in the case be dismissed with prejudice.
Finjan filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Palo Alto Networks, Inc. (“Palo Alto Networks”) in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on November 4, 2014, asserting that Palo Alto Networks is directly and indirectly infringing certain claims of Finjan’s U.S. Patent Nos. 6,804,780; 6,965,968; 7,058,822; 7,418,731; 7,613,918; 7,613,926; 7,647,633; 8,141,154; 8,225,408; and 8,677,494 (the "Asserted Patents") through the manufacture, use, importation, sale, and/or offer for sale of its products and services, including but not limited to Next-Generation Security Platform, Next-Generation Firewall, Virtualized Firewall, WildFire Subscription, WildFire Platform, URL Filtering Subscription, Threat Prevention Subscription, and Advanced EndPoint Protection. Finjan seeks entry of judgment that Palo Alto Networks has infringed, is infringing, has induced infringement and is inducing infringement of the Asserted Patents, a preliminary and permanent injunction from infringing, or inducing the infringement the Asserted Patents, an accounting of all infringing sales and revenues, damages of no less than a reasonable royalty consistent with proof, and enhanced damages for willful infringement, costs, interest, and reasonable attorneys’ fees under 35 U.S.C. §285. This action is before the Honorable Phyllis J. Hamilton. Palo Alto Networks filed several petitions for IPR's before the PTAB. The PTAB instituted review of certain patents and denied institution on other challenged patents. In particular, the PTAB instituted and subsequently determined that the challenged claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 8,141,154 and 8,225,408 were not unpatentable; upon which Palo Alto Networks appealed to the Federal Circuit. Oral argument before the Federal Circuit regarding the ‘154 and ‘408 Patents was heard June 6, 2018. On September 19, 2018, the Federal Circuit affirmed the PTAB’s holding that Palo Alto Networks failed to demonstrate that the instituted claims of the ‘408 Patent are unpatentable. On November 19, 2018, the Federal Circuit affirmed the PTAB’s holding that Palo Alto Networks failed to demonstrate that the instituted claims of the ‘154 Patent are unpatentable for IPR2015-01979, and vacated the PTAB’s decision in IPR2016-00151 and remanded the proceeding to be consistent with the Supreme Court’s decision in SAS Institute. The PTAB also instituted and subsequently determined that certain of the challenged claims of U.S. Patent No. 8,677,494 were not unpatentable, which is pending before the Federal Circuit. On May 26, 2016, the Court ordered a stay to remain in effect until the PTAB’s final determination of the instituted IPRs and the matter remains stayed pending appeal. There can be no assurance that Finjan will be successful in settling or litigating these claims.
Finjan filed a patent infringement lawsuit against ESET, LLC and ESET SPOL S.R.O. (collectively "ESET") in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California (Case No. 3:16-cv-03731-JD (N.D. Cal.)) on July 1, 2016, asserting that ESET infringes Finjan’s U.S. Patent Nos. 6,154,844; 6,804,780; 7,975,305; 8,079,086; 9189,621; and 9,219,755 (the "Asserted Patents") through the manufacture, use, importation, sale, and/or offer for sale of its products and services, including but not limited to, ESET ThreatSense, ESET Advanced Heuristic, ESET DNA Signature, Host-based Intrusion Prevention System (HIPS), and ESET LiveGrid technologies including ESET’S Home Protection, Small Office, and Business product lines and ESET Services. Finjan seeks entry of judgment that ESET has infringed and is infringing the Asserted Patents, a preliminary and permanent injunction from the infringement of the same patents, an accounting of all infringing sales and revenues, damages of no less than a reasonable royalty consistent with proof, and enhanced damages for willful infringement, costs, interest, and reasonable attorneys’ fees under 35 U.S.C. § 285. The case was transferred to the Southern District of California on January 30, 2017. ESET filed a Complaint for Declaratory Judgment against Finjan in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California on July 1, 2016, asserting that there is an actual controversy between the parties to declare that ESET does not infringe any claim of U.S. Patent No. 7,975,305 (“the ‘305 Patent”). ESET sought an entry of judgment that it has not infringed any claim of the ‘305 Patent, an injunction against Finjan from asserting any of the claims in the ‘305 Patent against ESET or any of its customers or suppliers, and a finding that the case is exceptional and an award of fees and costs under 35 U.S.C. § 285. This action is before the Honorable Cathy Ann Bencivengo. Details on procedures prior to February 2018 are disclosed in Note 8 of our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2017. On February 20, 2018, ESET filed a Motion to Stay Pending Inter Partes Review, which Finjan opposed. On May 7, 2018, the Court granted ESET’s Motion to Stay with regard to the ‘305 Patent only. The Court’s Scheduling Order was amended on October 4, 2018, January 4, 2019 and February 25, 2019, such that the following dates are now in effect: close of expert discovery is March 15, 2019; opening dispositive and Daubert motions are due April 23, 2019, with oppositions due on May 14, 2019, replies due on May 28, 2019, and hearings on dispositive and Daubert motions are to be determined; the final pretrial conference is scheduled for September 13, 2019; and the trial is to commence October 29, 2019. There can be no assurance that Finjan will be successful in settling or litigating these claims.
Finjan filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Cisco Systems, Inc. (“Cisco”) in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on January 6, 2017, asserting that Cisco infringes certain claims of Finjan’s U.S. Patent Nos. 6,154,844; 6,804,780; 7,647,633; 8,141,154; and 8,677,494 (the "Asserted Patents") through the manufacture, use, importation, sale, and/or offer for sale of its products and services, including but not limited to, Cisco’s Advanced Malware Protection, Cisco Collective Security Intelligence, Cisco Outbreak Filters, Talos Security Intelligence and Research Group, and AMP Threat Grid technologies, including Cisco AMP for Endpoints, Cisco AMP for Networks (also referred to by Cisco as “NGIPS”), Cisco AMP for ASA with FirePOWER Services, Cisco AMP Private Cloud Virtual Appliance, Cisco AMP for CWS, ESA, or WSA, Cisco AMP for Meraki MX, Cisco AMP Threat Grid. Finjan seeks entry of judgment that Cisco has infringed and is infringing the Asserted Patents, a preliminary and permanent injunction from infringing the Asserted Patents, an accounting of all infringing sales and revenues, damages of no less than a reasonable royalty consistent with proof, and enhanced damages for willful infringement, costs, interest, and reasonable attorneys’ fees under 35 U.S.C. § 285. This action is before the Honorable Beth Labson Freeman. Details on procedures prior to March 2018 are disclosed in Note 8 of our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2017. On August 16, 2017, the Court issued a scheduling order that set opening summary judgment briefs for September 12, 2019, with oppositions due on October 3, 2019, replies due on October 17, 2019, and a hearing for the motions for summary judgment on October 31, 2019, a final pretrial conference for April 23, 2020, and trial to commence on June 1, 2020. On April 2, 2018, Finjan filed a Motion to Strike Cisco’s Affirmative Defenses of prosecution laches, ensnarement doctrine, and inequitable conduct, to which a hearing was held on August 30, 2018. On June 7, 2018, the Court held a claim construction tutorial, and on June 15, 2018, the Court held a claim construction hearing. An Order Construing Claims in U.S. Patent No's 6,154,844; 6,804,780; 7,647,633; 8,141,154; and 8,677,494 was issued on July 23, 2018. The Court held a case management conference on August 30, 2018 and confirmed the jury trial to commence on June 1, 2020. On September 13, 2018, the Court granted Finjan’s Motion to Strike Cisco’s Affirmative Defenses of prosecution laches and ensnarement doctrine, and a portion of Cisco’s inequitable conduct defense, with leave to amend. On October 4, 2018, Cisco filed its Second Amended Answer and Affirmative Defenses. On February 5, 2019, the Court issued an Order Construing Additional Claims in U.S. Patent Nos. 6,154,844; 6,804,780; and 7,647,633. There can be no assurance that Finjan will be successful in settling or litigating these claims.
Finjan filed a patent infringement lawsuit against ESET SPOL. S.R.O., a Slovak Republic Corporation, and ESET Deutschland GmbH (collectively “ESET”) in the Düsseldorf District Court of Germany on July 1, 2016, asserting that ESET infringes Finjan’s European Patent No. 0 965 094 B1 (“the ‘094 Patent”), through the offering and/or delivering to customers in the Federal Republic of Germany software covered by the ‘094 Patent, including but not limited to ESET’s ThreatSense, ESET Advanced Heuristic, ESET DNA Signature, ESET LiveGrid technologies, including ESET’s Home Users, Small Office, and Business product lines and ESET services. Finjan seeks a judgment sentencing ESET to a fine for each violation of patent infringement or, alternatively imprisonment of ESET directors, cease and desist orders for offering or delivering infringing software, providing Finjan with profit information for offering or delivering infringing software, and damages, which Finjan has suffered or shall suffer as a result of ESET offering or delivering infringing software since November 1, 2008. The infringement hearing was held on October 5, 2017. On November 24, 2016, ESET filed a nullity action. Finjan responded to the nullity action contesting the nullity action completely and requesting the Court to reject the action and impose the cost of the proceedings to the claimant. The nullity order is pending.
Finjan filed a third patent infringement lawsuit against Blue Coat Systems, Inc., which was its first patent infringement suit against Blue Coat’s subsidiary Blue Coat Systems GmbH (collectively "Blue Coat"), located in Munich Germany in the Dusseldorf District Court of Germany on October 14, 2016. Finjan asserted that Blue Coat infringed Finjan’s European Patent No. 0 965 094 B1 (“the ‘094 Patent”) through the offering and/or delivering to customers in the Federal Republic of Germany software covered by the ‘094 Patent. Blue Coat filed a nullity (invalidity) action in Munich, Germany. On March 2, 2018, the parties entered into a confidential settlement agreement. On March 6, 2018, Blue Coat withdrew their nullity action in Germany.
Finjan filed a patent infringement lawsuit against SonicWall, Inc. (“SonicWall”) in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on August 4, 2017, asserting that SonicWall is directly and indirectly infringing certain claims of Finjan’s U.S. Patent Nos. 6,154,844; 7,058,822; 6,804,780; 7,613,926; 7,647,633; 8,141,154; 8,677,494; 7,975,305; 8,225,408; and 6,965,968 (the "Asserted Patents") through the manufacture, use, sale, importation, and/or offer for sale of its products and services, including but not limited to, Appliance Products utilizing Capture ATP and/or Gateway Security Services and Email Security Products utilizing Capture ATP and/or Gateway Security Services. Finjan seeks entry of judgment that SonicWall has infringed and is infringing the Asserted Patents, a preliminary and permanent injunction from infringing the Asserted Patents, an accounting of all infringing sales and revenues, damages of no less than a reasonable royalty consistent with proof, and enhanced damages for willful infringement, costs, interest, and reasonable attorneys’ fees under 35 U.S.C. § 285. This action is before the Honorable Beth Labson Freeman. On October 13, 2017, SonicWall filed a Motion to Dismiss Finjan’s Complaint for Failure to State a Claim for Willful Infringement. On May 16, 2018, the Court denied Sonicwall’s Motion to Dismiss. On May 30, 2018, SonicWall filed its Answer to Complaint. On June 20, 2018, Finjan filed a Motion to Strike SonicWall’s Seventh Affirmative Defense of inequitable conduct. Defendant’s opposition was filed on July 5, 2018, and Finjan’s reply was filed on July 12, 2018. Finjan’s Motion to Strike was heard on December 6, 2018. On September 11, 2018, the Court amended its scheduling order pursuant to the parties’ stipulation such that the claim construction hearing was held on March 1, 2019. Pursuant to the Court’s December 14, 2017 Case Management Order, a final pretrial conference is set for March 18, 2021, and a jury trial to commence on May 3, 2021. On November 2, 2018, the Court granted the parties’ stipulation to withdraw Finjan’s Motion to Strike and grant SonicWall leave to amend its answer. On November 9, 2018, SonicWall filed its Amended Answer and Affirmative Defenses. There can be no assurance that Finjan will be successful in settling or litigating these claims.
Finjan filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Bitdefender Inc. and Bitdefender S.R.L. (“Bitdefender”) in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on August 16, 2017, asserting that Bitdefender is directly and indirectly infringing certain claims of Finjan’s U.S. Patent Nos. 6,804,780; 7,930,299; 8,141,154; and 8,677,494 (the "Asserted Patents") through the manufacture, use, sale, importation, and/or offer for sale of its products and services, including but not limited to, Total Security, Family Pack, Internet Security, Antivirus Plus, Security for XP and Vista, Antivirus for Mac, Mobile Security, GravityZone Enterprise Security, GravityZone Elite Security, GravityZone Advanced Business Security, GravityZone Business Security, Hypervisor Introspection, Security for AWS, Cloud Security for MSP, GravityZone for xSP, and BOX. Finjan seeks entry of judgment that Bitdefender has infringed and is infringing the Asserted Patents, a preliminary and permanent injunction from infringing the Asserted Patents, an accounting of all infringing sales and revenues, damages of no less than a reasonable royalty consistent with proof, and enhanced damages for willful infringement, costs, interest, and reasonable attorneys’ fees under 35 U.S.C. § 285. This action is before the Honorable Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. On December 13, 2017, Finjan filed a Motion to Strike Bitdefender’s Answer, Counterclaims, and Affirmative Defenses, for which a hearing was held on March 8, 2018. On December 21, 2017, Bitdefender filed a Motion to Dismiss, Or In the Alternative, to Quash the Return of Summons. Finjan filed its opposition on January 4, 2018. On January 11, 2018, the parties submitted a proposed order stipulating to Bitdefender withdrawing its Motion to Dismiss as moot, which the Court entered into on January 12, 2018. On April 17, 2018, the Court granted in part and denied in part Finjan’s Motion to Strike affirmative defenses. Specifically, the Court granted Finjan’s motion to strike defenses of prosecution laches, waiver, estoppel, unclean hands, and denied the motion to strike the affirmative defenses of inequitable conduct and prosecution history estoppel. On February 5, 2018, Bitdefender filed a Motion to Stay, which it withdrew by stipulation with Finjan on May 8, 2018. On April 5, 2018, the parties filed a Joint Claim Construction statement. Bitdefender filed its First Amended Answer and Counterclaims on May 8, 2018, and Finjan filed its Answer to Counterclaim on May 22, 2018. A claim construction hearing was held on June 6, 2018. A Claim Construction Order issued on February 14, 2019 and a further case management conference is currently set for March 12, 2019. There can be no assurance that Finjan will be successful in settling or litigating these claims.
Finjan filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Juniper Networks, Inc. (“Juniper”) in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on September 29, 2017, asserting that Juniper is directly and indirectly infringing certain claims of Finjan’s U.S. Patent Nos. 6,154,844; 6,804,780; 7,647,633; 7,613,926; 8,141,154; 8,677,494; 7,975,305; and 8,225,408 (the “Asserted Patents”) through the manufacture, use, sale, importation, and/or offer for sale of its products and services, including but not limited to, SRX Gateways, SRX Gateways using Sky ATP, and Contrail. Finjan seeks entry of judgment that Juniper has infringed and is infringing the Asserted Patents, has and is inducing infringement, a preliminary and permanent injunction from infringing the Asserted Patents, an accounting of all infringing sales and revenues, damages of no less than a reasonable royalty consistent with proof, and enhanced damages for willful infringement, costs, interest, and reasonable attorneys’ fees under 35 U.S.C. § 285. This action is before the Honorable William H. Alsup. On February 23, 2018, the Court set the following dates: (1) on June 7, 2018, the parties to file early motions for summary judgment, for the one asserted claim each have selected as its compelling case for noninfringement or invalidity, with oppositions due June 28, 2018, and replies due July 12, 2018; and on July 26, 2018, a hearing for the summary judgment motions; (2) the last day for dispositive motions (other than the early motions for summary judgment) is April 11, 2019; (3) a pretrial conference on June 5, 2019; and (4) jury trial on July 8, 2019. On February 28, 2018, Juniper filed its Answer and Counterclaims against Finjan. On March 21, 2018, Finjan filed its Answer to Juniper’s Counterclaim. On May 31, 2018, Finjan filed a Motion for Leave to File a Second Amended Complaint to assert U.S. Patent No. 7,418,731 (“the ‘731 Patent”); after considering the parties’ briefs and oral argument, the Court granted Finjan’s Motion to File a Second Amended Complaint on July 19, 2018. The parties filed their respective opening summary judgment briefs for one asserted claim on June 7, 2018, their oppositions on June 28, 2018, and replies on July 12, 2018. Finjan moved for summary judgment of infringement on the ‘494 Patent, and Juniper moved on summary judgment of invalidity, non-infringement, and limited damages of the ‘780 Patent. A hearing on the parties’ summary judgment motions was held on July 26, 2018. Finjan also moved to dismiss Juniper’s counterclaims and strike its affirmative defenses on June 15, 2018. On July 27, 2018, Finjan filed its Second Amended Complaint to assert the ‘731 Patent. On August 9, 2018, the Court granted Juniper’s Motion for Summary Judgment of Non-infringement of the ‘780 Patent. On August 21, 2018, the parties filed a response to the Court’s August 20, 2018, order requesting supplemental briefing for summary judgment of the ‘494 Patent. On August 24, 2018, the Court granted in part Finjan’s Motion for Summary Judgment of the ‘494 Patent. On August 31, 2018, the Court converted Finjan’s motion to dismiss to a judgment on the pleadings and dismissed Juniper’s claims of prosecution laches, inequitable conduct for the ‘154 and ‘494 Patents, and ensnarement doctrine, and ordered that Juniper may seek leave to amend, and denied Finjan’s motion to dismiss unclean hands. On September 21, 2018, Juniper filed a Motion for Leave to File an Amended Answer (“Motion for Leave”). Finjan filed its Opposition to the Motion for Leave on October 5, 2018, and Juniper’s Reply re the Motion for Leave was filed on October 12, 2018. On October 29, 2018, the Court granted Juniper leave to amend its complaint with regard to inequitable conduct of the ‘494 and ‘154 Patents and denied leave to amend with regard to Juniper’s claims of prosecution laches. Juniper filed its First Amended Answer on November 5, 2018. On November 6, 2018, the Court ordered a second round of early motions for summary judgment on one asserted claim for each party, with opening motions for summary judgment filed on February 14, 2019, oppositions to be filed by March 14, 2019, and replies by April 4, 2019, with a hearing on May 2, 2019. The Court also vacated the pretrial and trial dates set for June 5, 2019, and July 8, 2019, in light of the briefing schedule for the second round of early summary judgment. A final pretrial conference for trial on the ‘494 Patent was held on December 4, 2018, and a jury trial commenced on December 10, 2018. On December 14, 2018, the jury found no infringement of Claim 10 of the ‘494 Patent. On January 10, 2019, the parties filed Motions for Judgment as a Matter of Law, Oppositions on January 24, 2019, and Replies on January 31, 2019. A trial for Juniper’s equitable defenses, counterclaims, and Section 101 defense is set for July 29, 2019. There can be no assurance that Finjan will be successful in settling or litigating these claims.
Finjan filed a patent infringement lawsuit against ZScaler, Inc. (“ZScaler”) in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on December 5, 2017, asserting that ZScaler is directly and indirectly infringing certain claims of Finjan’s U.S. Patent Nos. 6,804,780; 7,647,633; 8,677,494 and 7,975,305 (the "Asserted Patents") through the manufacture, use, sale, importation, and/or offer for sale of its products and services, including, but not limited to, ZScaler’s Internet Access Bundles (including Professional, Business, and Transformation), Private Access Bundle (including Professional Business, and Enterprise), ZScaler Enforcement Node (“ZEN”), Secure Web Gateway, Cloud Firewall, Cloud Sandbox, and Cloud Architecture products and services. Finjan seeks entry of judgment that ZScaler has and continues to infringe the Asserted Patents, has and continues to induce infringement, a preliminary and permanent injunction from infringing the Asserted Patents, an accounting of all infringing sales and revenues, damages of no less than a reasonable royalty, enhanced damages for willful infringement, costs, interest, and reasonable attorneys’ fees under 35 U.S.C. § 285. This action is before the Honorable Jon S. Tigar. On March 5, 2018, Finjan moved to strike ZScaler’s affirmative defense. ZScaler filed an Amended Answer and Counterclaims on March 29, 2018, and Finjan’s Motion to Strike was terminated as moot. On April 2, 2018, Finjan filed an Answer to ZScaler’s Counterclaim. The Court set a claim construction tutorial for May 14, 2019, and a claim construction hearing for May 28, 2019. There can be no assurance that Finjan will be successful in settling or litigating these claims.
Finjan filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Check Point Software Technologies Inc. and Check Point Software Technologies Ltd. (“Check Point”) in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on May 3, 2018, asserting that Check Point is directly and indirectly infringing certain claims of Finjan’s U.S. Patent Nos. 6,154,844; 6,965,968; 7,418,731; 7,647,633; 8,079,086; 8,141,154; and 8,677,494 (the “Asserted Patents”) through the manufacture, use, sale, importation, and/or offer for sale of its products and services, including, but not limited to, Check Point’s Next Generation Firewall and Security Gateway products, Blade products, CloudGuard products, Endpoint Protection products, Advanced Threat Prevention products, Mobile Security products, ZoneAlarm products, Threat Intelligence products, Security Management and Policy Management products, ThreatCloud Managed Security Service products, Smart-1 Appliance products, products using SandBlast technology, and products utilizing the Gaia Operating System. Finjan seeks entry of judgment that Check Point has infringed, is infringing, has induced infringement and is inducing infringement of the Asserted Patents, a preliminary and permanent injunction from infringing, or inducing the infringement of the Asserted Patents, an accounting of all infringing sales and revenues, damages of no less than a reasonable royalty consistent with proof, and enhanced damages for willful infringement, costs, interest, and reasonable attorneys’ fees under 35 U.S.C. § 285. This action is before the Honorable William H. Orrick. On July 16, 2018, Check Point filed its Answer. A case management conference was held on August 14, 2018. On August 15, 2018, the Court issued its Civil Pretrial Order setting a hearing for summary judgment motions on September 30, 2020, a pretrial conference on December 14, 2020, and a jury trial to commence on January 25, 2021. On November 21, 2018, Check Point filed its Amended Answer. On December 5, 2018, Finjan filed a Motion to Strike Check Point’s Affirmative Defenses of lack of standing for the ‘154 Patent, prosecution laches, and inequitable conduct for the ‘154 and ‘494 Patents. On January 25, 2019, the Court granted Finjan’s Motion to Strike Check Point’s Affirmative Defenses of lack of standing and prosecution laches with leave to amend its prosecution laches defense, and denied the Motion to Strike with respect to inequitable conduct. On February 12, 2019, Check Point filed a Motion for Leave to Amend its Answer and Affirmative Defenses to include inequitable conduct defenses for the ‘086, ‘633, and ‘844 Patent, and unenforceability defense based on a terminal disclaimer filed for the ‘086 Patent. Finjan’s Opposition was filed on February 26, 2019, and Check Point’s Reply was filed on March 5, 2019. On February 27, 2019, the Court scheduled a claim construction tutorial for June 14, 2019 and a claim construction hearing for June 21, 2019. There can be no assurance that Finjan will be successful in settling or litigating these claims.
Finjan filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Rapid7, Inc. (“Rapid7”) in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware on October 1, 2018, asserting that Rapid7 is directly and indirectly infringing certain claims of Finjan’s U.S. Patent Nos. 7,975,305; 8,225,408; 7,757,289; 7,613,918; 8,079,086; 8,141,154; and 8,677,494 (the “Asserted Patents”) through the manufacture, use, sale, importation, and/or offer for sale of its products and services, including, but not limited to, Rapid7’s InsightIDR, InsightVM (Nexpose), InsightAppSec, AppSpider, Metaspliot and Komand technologies, including Rapid7 Insight Platform products. Finjan seeks entry of judgment that Check Point has infringed, is infringing, has induced infringement and is inducing infringement of the Asserted Patents, a preliminary and permanent injunction from infringing, or inducing the infringement the Asserted Patents, an accounting of all infringing sales and revenues, damages of no less than a reasonable royalty consistent with proof, and enhanced damages for willful infringement, costs, interest, and reasonable attorneys’ fees under 35 U.S.C. § 285. This action is before the Honorable Maryellen Noreika. Rapid7 filed an Answer on December 5, 2018. On December 26, 2018, Finjan filed a Motion to Strike Rapid7’s Affirmative Defenses of inequitable conduct for the ‘154, ‘494, and ‘086 Patents. Rapid7 filed its Opposition on January 9, 2019, and Finjan filed its Reply on January 16, 2019. On February 13, 2019, the Court issued a Scheduling Order that set a claim construction hearing for October 18, 2019, a pretrial conference for February 8, 2021, and trial for February 22, 2021. There can be no assurance that Finjan will be successful in settling or litigating these claims.
Finjan filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Fortinet, Inc. (“Fortinet”) in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on October 26, 2018, asserting that Fortinet infringes certain claims of Finjan’s U.S. Patent Nos. 6,154,844; 6,965,968; 7,058,822; 7,418,731; 7,647,633; 7,975,305; 8,079,086; 8,225,408; and 8,677,494 (the “Asserted Patents”) through the manufacture, use, sale, importation, and/or offer for sale of its products and services, including, but not limited to, Fortinet’s FortiGate, FortiManager, FortiAnalyzer, FortiSiem, FortiSandbox, FortiMail, FortiWeb, ForitCache, and FortiClient technologies, including Fortinet Security Fabric products. Finjan seeks entry of judgment that Fortinet has infringed, is infringing, has induced infringement and is inducing infringement of the Asserted Patents, a preliminary and permanent injunction from infringing, or inducing the infringement the Asserted Patents, an accounting of all infringing sales and revenues, damages of no less than a reasonable royalty consistent with proof, and enhanced damages for willful infringement, costs, interest, and reasonable attorneys’ fees under 35 U.S.C. § 285. This action is before the Honorable James Donato. On December 17, 2018, the Court ordered Finjan to show cause in writing by December 27, 2018, as to why the case should not be stayed pending resolution of the other actions where overlapping patents are being actively litigated and permitted Fortinet to file a statement of its views by January 2, 2019. Fortinet’s Answer and Counterclaims were filed on December 19, 2018. On December 27, 2018, Finjan filed its Response to Order to Show Cause, opposing a stay, and Fortinet filed its Response requesting a stay on January 2, 2019, and on January 3, 2019, the Court held a hearing regarding the stay. On January 7, 2019, the Court stayed the case until the next status conference, on February 21, 2019. At the February 21, 2019 status conference, and subsequently in its Minute Order dated February 25, 2019, the Court directed the parties to file by February 28, 2019, a joint statement identifying the patents and claims at issue and unique in the case. There can be no assurance that Finjan will be successful in settling or litigating these claims.
Finjan, Inc. v. Qualys Inc., Case No.4:18-cv-07229-YGR (N.D. Cal.)
Finjan filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Qualys Inc. (“Qualys”) in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on November 29, 2018, asserting that Qualys infringes certain claims of Finjan’s U.S. Patent Nos. 6,154,844; 8,677,494; 7,975,305; 8,225,408; 6,965,968; 7,418,731; and 8,141,154 (the “Asserted Patents”) through the manufacture, use, sale, importation, and/or offer for sale of its products and services, including, but not limited to, Qualys’ products and services that utilize Vulnerability Management, Threat Protection, Continuous Monitoring, Indicators of Compromise, Container Security, Web App Firewall, Web App Scanning, and Compliance Monitoring, including Qualys Cloud Platform products. Finjan seeks entry of judgment that Qualys has infringed, is infringing, has induced infringement and is inducing infringement of the Asserted Patents, a preliminary and permanent injunction from infringing, or inducing the infringement the Asserted Patents, an accounting of all infringing sales and revenues, damages of no less than a reasonable royalty consistent with proof, and enhanced damages for willful infringement, costs, interest, and reasonable attorneys’ fees under 35 U.S.C. § 285. This action is before the Honorable Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers. On January 23, 2019, Qualys filed its Answer and Counterclaims. On February 13, 2019, Finjan filed its Answer to Qualys’ Counterclaim. An initial case management conference was held on March 4, 2019. There can be no assurance that Finjan will be successful in settling or litigating these claims.
A third-party request for Ex Parte Reexamination of claims 8-11, 13 of U.S. Patent No. 8,015,182 was filed on September 16, 2016 and assigned Reexamination Control Number 90/013,812. The request for reexamination was granted on October 17, 2016. On December 19, 2016, Finjan filed a Petition to consider pre-institution argument requesting, inter alia, that the Director rescind and/or terminate the reexamination pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 325(d). A decision dismissing Finjan’s petition to vacate the reexamination order was mailed on March 27, 2017. A Petition for Writ of Mandamus was filed with the Court of Appeal for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) requesting review of the Office’s Dismissal. The CAFC denied the petition. A non-final Office Action rejecting claims 8-11 and 13 was issued on April 13, 2017. An Examiner Interview was conducted on May 23, 2017 and a Response to the non-final Office Action was filed on June 13, 2017. A final Office Action was mailed November 9, 2017 and a Response was filed January 8, 2018. An Advisory Action was mailed February 8, 2018 and a Notice of Appeal was filed February 12, 2018. An Appeal Brief was filed on April 12, 2018. An Examiner’s Answer was mailed on May 14, 2018 and a Reply Brief and Request for Oral Hearing were filed on July 11, 2018. Oral arguments were presented before the PTAB on September 12, 2018 and a Decision reversing the Examiner’s rejection of claims 8-11 and 13 was issued on October 1, 2018. A Notice of Intent to Issue Ex Parte Reexamination Certificate confirming the patentability of claims 8-11 and 13 was mailed on January 24, 2019.
A third-party request for Ex Parte Reexamination of claims 1, 2, 5 and 13 of U.S. Patent No. 7,975,305 was filed on December 11, 2015 by Proofpoint, Inc. and assigned Reexamination Control Number 90/013,660. The request for reexamination was granted on January 19, 2016 and a non-final Office Action was mailed on April 12, 2016. A Response to the non-final Office Action was filed on June 13, 2016. A Final Action was mailed on August 24, 2016 with a Response due October 24, 2016. A Response to the Final Action was filed on October 24, 2016 and a second interview with the Patent Office was conducted. The Patent Office issued an Advisory Action maintaining the rejections. A Notice of Appeal was filed on November 11, 2016 and an Appeal Brief was filed on January 23, 2017. An Examiner’s Answer was mailed on March 29, 2017. Finjan’s Reply Brief and Request for Oral Hearing were filed on May 30, 2017. Oral Hearing was held December 12, 2017. On July 2, 2018 the Patent Trial and Appeal Board affirmed the Examiner in a 2-1 decision. A Notice of Appeal to the Federal Circuit was filed on September 4, 2018 (Case No. 18-2354). On December 21, 2018, Finjan filed its opening brief and on February 13, 2019, the appellee filed its responsive brief; and on March 20, 2019, Finjan will file its reply brief. There can be no assurance that Finjan will be successful in rebutting the patentability challenge before the USPTO.
On September 25, 2015 and November 5, 2015, Palo Alto Networks Inc. filed two (2) separate Petitions for IPR of U.S. Patent No. 8,141,154 (IPR2015-01979; IPR2016-00151) and a Motion for Joinder to Symantec’s Petition for IPR (IPR2015-01547). Finjan filed a POPR to the first Petition in IPR2015-01979 on December 29, 2015 and the PTAB granted institution of IPR proceedings on March 21, 2016. On April 5, 2016, Finjan filed a Partial Request for Rehearing, and on April 19, 2016, the PTAB denied Finjan’s Partial Request for Rehearing. On July 12, 2016, Finjan submitted a Patent Owner Response to the Petition. With respect to IPR2016-00151, Finjan filed a POPR on February 17, 2016, and on April 20, 2016, the PTAB instituted trial on claims 1-8, 10, and 11, denied institution on the remaining claims and denied Palo Alto Network’s Motion for Joinder. On May 4, 2016, Finjan filed a Partial Request for Rehearing, and on June 2, 2016, the PTAB denied Finjan’s Request for Rehearing. On June 16, 2016, the parties filed a Joint Notice to amend the Scheduling Order. On August 31, 2016, Finjan filed its Patent Owner Response to Palo Alto Network’s Petition. An oral hearing was held for IPR2016-00151 on January 24, 2017 and on March 15, 2017, the PTAB issued a Final Written Decision maintaining the validity of all instituted claims. An oral hearing was held for IPR2015-01979 on December 15, 2016 and on March 15, 2017, the PTAB issued a Final Written Decision maintaining the validity of all instituted claims. On April 14, 2017, Palo Alto Networks filed a Request for Rehearing. On May 19, 2017, the PTAB denied Palo Alto Networks’ Request for Rehearing. Palo Alto Networks and Symantec Corp. filed Notice of Appeals for IPR2016-00151, IPR2015-01979, IPR2016-00919, and IPR2016-01071 to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on July 19, 2017 (Case Nos. 17-2315 and 17-2314). On July 24, 2017, the Federal Circuit consolidated the two appeals. On October 30, 2017, Palo Alto Networks and Symantec Corp. filed their Opening Appellant Brief. Finjan’s Responsive Brief was filed on December 20, 2017. Palo Alto Networks and Symantec Corp.’s Reply Brief was filed on January 25, 2018. On March 8, 2018, Symantec filed a Motion to Withdraw from appeal numbers 17-2314 and 17- 2315. On March 13, 2018, the Federal Circuit granted Symantec’s Motion to Withdraw. Oral argument was heard on June 6, 2018. On November 19, 2018, the Federal Circuit vacated the PTAB’s decision in IPR2016-00151 and remanded the proceeding to be consistent with the Supreme Court’s decision in SAS Institute. On January 23, 2019, the PTAB modified its institution decision to include review of dependent claims 9 and 12. Petitioner’s Institution Response Brief is to be filed by February 13, 2019, Patent Owner’s Response is to be filed by March 6, 2019, Petitioner’s Reply is to be filed by March 13, 2019, and Patent Owner’s Sur-reply is to be filed by March 20, 2019. Oral argument is scheduled for March 26, 2019.
On September 30, 2015 and November 6, 2015, Palo Alto Networks Inc. filed two (2) separate Petitions for IPR of U.S. Patent No. 8,225,408 (IPR2015-02001; IPR2016-00157). Finjan filed POPRs to the Petitions on January 6, 2016, and February 17, 2016, respectively. On March 29, 2016, the PTAB granted institution of the IPR proceedings and consolidated the two. On April 12, 2016, Finjan filed Requests for Rehearing and on May 16, 2016, the PTAB denied Finjan’s Requests for Rehearing. On June 27, 2016, the parties filed a Joint Notice to Amend the Scheduling Order. On August 9, 2016, Finjan filed its Patent Owner Response to Palo Alto Network’s Petitions. An oral hearing was held on January 5, 2017, and on March 17, 2017, the PTAB issued a Final Written Decision maintaining the validity of all instituted claims. Palo Alto Networks and Blue Coat Systems LLC filed a Notice of Appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on May 22, 2017 (Case No. 17-2059). Palo Alto Networks and Blue Coat filed their Opening Appellant Brief on September 15, 2017. Finjan filed its Response Brief on November 27, 2017, and Palo Alto Networks and Blue Coat filed their Reply Brief on January 11, 2018. On March 7, 2018, Blue Coat filed a Motion to Withdraw from the appeal. On March 13, 2018, the Federal Circuit granted Blue Coat’s Motion to Withdraw. Oral argument was heard on June 6, 2018. On September 19, 2018, the Federal Circuit upheld the PTAB’s decision.
On November 6, 2015, Palo Alto Networks Inc. filed a Petition for IPR of U.S. Patent No. 8,677,494 (IPR 2016-00159). Finjan filed a POPR to the Petition on February 17, 2016. On May 13, 2016, the PTAB granted institution of IPR. On May 27, 2016, Finjan filed a Request for Rehearing, and on June 23, 2016 the PTAB denied Finjan’s Request for Rehearing. On June 27, 2016, the parties filed a Joint Notice to Amend the Scheduling Order. On August 12, 2016, Finjan filed its Patent Owner Response to Palo Alto Network’s Petition. An oral hearing was held on February 16, 2017. On April 11, 2017, the PTAB issued a Final Written Decision stating that claims 3 - 5 and 10 - 15 have not been shown to be unpatentable, and that claims 1, 2, and 6 have been shown to be unpatentable. Finjan filed a Request for Rehearing on May 11, 2017, and on July 17, 2017, the PTAB denied Finjan's request. Palo Alto Networks and Blue Coat Systems LLC filed a Notice of Appeal for IPR2016-00159 and IPR2016-01174 to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on September 14, 2017, and on September 28, 2017, Finjan filed its Notice of Appeal (Case No. 17-2543). The Federal Circuit consolidated the appeal with Case No. 17-2034. Palo Alto Networks and Blue Coat Systems filed their Opening Appellant Brief on December 29, 2017. Finjan filed its Cross-Appellant Principal and Response Brief on February 7, 2018. On March 8, 2018, Symantec and Blue Coat filed a Motion to Withdraw from appeal numbers 17-2543 and 17-2623. On March 13, 2018, the Federal Circuit granted Symantec and Blue Coat’s Motion to Withdraw and deconsolidated the appeal. On April 12, 2018, the Patent Office intervened in the appeal. Palo Alto Networks filed its Reply Brief on April 18, 2018. The Patent Office’s Reply Brief was filed on May 22, 2018, and Finjan’s Reply Brief was filed on June 5, 2018. Oral argument was heard on December 6, 2018.
On April 27, 2016, Blue Coat Systems, Inc. filed two (2) separate Petitions for IPR of U.S. Patent No. 8,225,408 (IPR2016-00955; IPR2016-00956), and Motion for Joinder to Palo Alto Networks, Inc.’s Petitions for IPR (IPR2015-02001 and IPR2016-00157). On August 30, 2016, the PTAB granted Blue Coat Systems, Inc.’s Motions for Joinder. On March 17, 2017, the PTAB issued a Final Written Decision maintaining the validity of all instituted claims in IPR2015-02001 and IPR2016-00157. Palo Alto Networks and Blue Coat Systems LLC filed a Notice of Appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on May 22, 2017 (Case No. 17-2059). Palo Alto Networks and Blue Coat filed their Opening Appellant Brief on September 15, 2017. Finjan filed its Response Brief on November 27, 2017, and Palo Alto Networks and Blue Coat filed their Reply Brief on January 11, 2018. On March 7, 2018, Blue Coat filed a Motion to Withdraw from the appeal. On March 13, 2018, the Federal Circuit granted Blue Coat’s Motion to Withdraw. Oral argument was heard on June 6, 2018. On September 19, 2018, the Federal Circuit upheld the PTAB’s decision.
On July 4, 2017, ESET, LLC and ESET SPOL S.R.O. filed a Petition for IPR of U.S. Patent No. 7,975,305 (IPR2017-01738). Finjan filed its POPR on November 3, 2017. On January 31, 2018, the PTAB instituted IPR on claims 1-25. Finjan’s Patent Owner Response was filed on August 21, 2018 and Petitioner’s Reply was filed on November 5, 2018. Oral argument was heard on December 3, 2018. On January 24, 2019, the PTAB issued a Final Written Decision maintaining the validity of all instituted claims.
On December 22, 2017, Cisco Systems, Inc. filed a Petition for IPR of U.S. Patent No. 7,647,633 (IPR2018-00391). Finjan’s POPR was filed on March 28, 2018. On June 5, 2018, the PTAB instituted IPR on claims 1, 4, 8, and 11-14. Finjan’s Patent Owner Response was filed on September 10, 2018, and Petitioner’s Reply was filed on December 10, 2018, and Finjan’s Sur-Reply was filed on January 30, 2019. Oral argument is scheduled for March 6, 2019.
On October 2, 2018, Juniper Networks, Inc. filed a Petition for IPR of U.S. Patent No. 6,154,844 (IPR2019-00026). Finjan’s POPR was filed on January 11, 2019.
On October 3, 2018, Juniper Networks, Inc. filed a Petition for IPR of U.S. Patent No. 8,141,154 (IPR2019-00031). Finjan’s POPR was filed on January 11, 2019.
On October 10, 2018, Juniper Networks, Inc. filed a Petition for IPR of U.S. Patent No. 7,647,633 (IPR2019-00060). Finjan’s POPR was filed on February 7, 2019.
On October 11, 2018, Juniper Networks, Inc. filed a Petition for IPR of U.S. Patent No. 7,613,926 (IPR2019-00073). Finjan’s POPR was filed on February 7, 2019.