Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Isn't Fish a better firm
And it begins:
The following transaction was entered by Kobialka, Lisa on 4/14/2020 at 4:42 PM and filed on 4/14/2020
Case Name: Finjan, Inc. v. Cisco Systems Inc.
Case Number: 5:17-cv-00072-BLF
Filer: Finjan, Inc.
Document Number: 519
Docket Text:
MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney Plaintiff Finjan, Inc.'s Unopposed Motion to Withdraw and Substitute Counsel filed by Finjan, Inc.. Responses due by 4/28/2020. Replies due by 5/5/2020. (Attachments: # (1) Proposed Order)(Kobialka, Lisa) (Filed on 4/14/2020)
The first Kramer Levin attorney has withdrawn. I expect to see the rest follow.
2017-11-06 Anticipated expiration
Another old and expired patent with limited potential in older cases. Their time to monetize has come and gone. That is why their market cap was less than cash on hand last month when it hit 78 cents.
Two more Fish & Richardson attorneys filed today to join the Finjan v. Cisco case in addition to 7 from yesterday for 9 total. One from Southern California office and one from Atlanta office.
Still curious if they fired Kramer Levin this late in the case.
They were still under a buck last week so I'm not chasing this, but still watching. I would have unloaded at twice last month's low. Just can't see them creating any shareholder value with remaining patents and cases. Still think they only exist to pay salaries, but good luck to all. Hope it works for you.
Finjan Prevails Against Unified Patents Inc., PTAB Cites Five Reasons for Denying Institution of IPR
Download as PDF
April 14, 2020
EAST PALO ALTO, Calif., April 14, 2020 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- Finjan Holdings, Inc. (NASDAQ: FNJN), a cybersecurity company, and its subsidiary Finjan, Inc. (Finjan), announce that under 35 U.S.C. §314 the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office's Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) issued a Decision Denying Institution of Inter Partes Review (IPR) of U.S. Patent No. 8,079,086 (the '086 Patent) on April 13, 2020.
Unified Patents Inc.'s (Unified) petition for IPR is the seventh unsuccessful challenge to the '086 Patent (four IPRs and three Reexamination Requests) concerning substantially the same claims and prior art. Here, in Unified Patents Inc. v. Finjan, Inc., IPR2019-01611, Paper 18, dated April 13, 2020, the PTAB considered the "extensive history of the prior IPRs" and "the potential for abuse of the review process by repeated attacks on patents" as bearing strongly on its decision to deny institution. The PTAB concluded that "five of the seven General Plastic factors weigh in favor of exercising [its] decision to deny institution of the proceeding, and no factor weighs against doing so." Paper 18 at 20. One of those five factors that weighed heavily in favor of denying institution was that Unified was unfairly able to study Finjan's previous arguments and the PTAB's institution decisions. Paper 18 at 13.
"We appreciate the PTAB's attention to the record of past challenges to the '086 Patent and its conclusions. This is a particularly satisfying victory for Finjan because Unified is notorious for helping entities violate even quality patents such as Finjan's '086 Patent," said Julie Mar-Spinola, Finjan's Chief IP Officer and VP of Legal Operations. "Except for preserving its membership revenues, Unified exists solely for accused infringers such as Rapid7, Cisco, and Palo Alto Networks to leverage this entity and gain multiple attempts to delay meritorious patent claims and to invalidate our patents. While Unified markets itself as going after "bad patents," Finjan's patents have proven time and again to be useful, valuable, and durable. There was no legitimate purpose behind Unified's petition other than a lackluster attempt to shield its members from liability, skirt established rules of the IPR process, and to harass Finjan. Finjan had also requested the PTAB deny Unified's petition for failure to identify other beneficiaries as real parties in interest. Still, the PTAB decided 'not [to] reach this dispute' without explanation."
Finjan has asserted '086 Patent in litigation against ESET, Check Point, Rapid 7, and Fortinet. Finjan also has pending patent infringement lawsuits against Palo Alto Networks, Cisco, SonicWall, Juniper, and Qualys relating to, collectively, more than 20 patents in the Finjan portfolio. The court dockets for the other cases are publicly available on the Public Access to Court Electronic Records (PACER) website, www.pacer.gov, which is operated by the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts.
7 attorneys for the firm Fish & Richardson just filed notices of appearance in Finjan v. Cisco. They wouldn't change firms this late so that tells me they may have settled the case. FNJN up 10% today on 247,590 shares.
I caught the obscure reference when they settled with Symantec and I may have spotted something relevant here. Will be interesting to see.
PTAB Upholds Finjan Cybersecurity Patent In Juniper IP Row
By Britain Eakin
Law360 (April 9, 2020, 6:45 PM EDT) -- The Patent Trial and Appeal Board has upheld a Finjan anti-malware patent after determining that Juniper Networks failed to show the three claims it challenged were invalid as obvious in light of an earlier patent and printed publication.
The board devoted a good chunk of Tuesday's decision to discussing the patent's priority date, ultimately shooting down Israeli software maker Finjan Inc.'s bid to escape one of the prior art references. Finjan had argued that there were three priority applications that predate its patent's Dec. 22, 1997, filing date, which also means they predate an earlier patent Juniper Networks Inc. cited as prior art, and so the prior art can't be used to invalidate its patent.
But the board said the claims in Finjan's patent were not supported in the written descriptions of those applications, so it can't have an earlier priority date. The board said its reasoning was supported by its 2013 decision in Polaris Wireless v. TruePosition , which held that a patent is not entitled to a presumption of an earlier priority date when the written descriptions in the earlier applications aren't the same as the patent in question.
But even if there was written description support in the earlier applications, the board said it agreed with Juniper that Finjan didn't comply with a part of the Patent Act that requires a patent to explicitly state its relationship to priority applications. The board said Finjan's patent didn't meet that requirement, and that it mischaracterized its failed attempt to get a certificate of correction from the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.
"Despite patent owner's assertion that the office denied the request because 'no correction was necessary' ... we agree with petitioner that the office instead denied the request because it was an improper attempt to perfect a claim of priority that was not found in the original application," the decision said.
As such, the board determined that the earlier patent, which was issued in Dec. 1, 1997, was prior art for the purposes of challenging the patent. Ultimately the priority date issue didn't hurt Finjan, with the board determining that the earlier patent doesn't identify suspicious code in the same way Finjan's claimed invention does.
The board further said that combining the earlier patent with another printed publication prior art reference wouldn't cure the deficiencies it identified.
Although Finjan prevailed at the PTAB, it didn't fare so well in the California district court case where it asserted the patent, along with several others, against Juniper in 2017. The parties moved to voluntarily dismiss what was left of the underlying suit in August after Juniper secured favorable outcomes in the case.
U.S. District Judge William Alsup had ordered a "shoot out" in the case, a tactic he's become known for where he instructs parties to choose one claim they think they can win on and move for summary judgment. According to court records, Finjan lost its first bid for summary judgment, after which that claim went to trial, with the jury determining in December 2018 that Juniper didn't infringe.
Juniper won summary judgment on the claim it selected and then prevailed again when Finjan moved for summary judgment on a third claim.
Nonetheless, Finjan welcomed the PTAB's ruling in a statement, touting the patent's survivability in the face of nine challenges in different forums. Finjan's Chief Intellectual Property Officer Julie Mar-Spinola said repeated validations of the patent, which has drawn more than $350 million in licensing revenue for the company, "should cement its durability and enormous value in the cybersecurity industry."
"And yet, accused infringers continue to delay liability not based on the merits but rather by gaming the patent system and laws with serial, non-meritorious challenges," she said.
Mar-Spinola went on to say the decision would bolster other cases in which Finjan has asserted the patent, including a suit against rival ESET. Last month, the court in that case declared a mistrial in light of the COVID-19 pandemic, saying it would contact the parties for further scheduling once the national emergency is over.
Counsel for the parties declined to comment on Tuesday's decision.
The patent-in-suit is U.S. Patent No. 6,154,844.
Judges Zhenyu Yang, Charles J. Boudreau and Sheila F. McShane sat on the panel for the PTAB.
Juniper is represented by Michael R. Fleming, Jonathan S. Kagan and Rebecca Carson of Irell & Manella LLP.
Finjan is represented by James Hannah, Shankar Nair, Jeffrey Price and Michael Lee of Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel LLP.
The case is Juniper Networks Inc. v. Finjan Inc. case number IPR2019-00026, at the U.S. Patent Trial and Appeal Board.
--Additional reporting by Jack Queen and Cara Bayless. Editing by Adam LoBelia.
always appreciate your insites
The '844 patent is expired. Kind of misleading for them to talk about the past licensing revenues and not include the patent is expired. Of course there is still the possibility of limited damages in current cases, but their two big money-makers the '844 and the (forget the number '9XX) are both expired. There are probably no more new cases or licenses forthcoming. Just some nuisance payments.
They never transitioned to anything other than patent troll even though at one time they had the money to do so. Finjan exists to pay salaries and there will never be any shareholder value created. Their patents are either expired or past their prime and they will fade away now. Still interested in seeing how Cisco plays out. I have been following fairly closely and Cisco is stomping all over them and making this a very expensive litigation.
Finjan Prevails at the PTAB, Final Written Decision Issued Against Juniper Networks IPR Petition
GlobeNewswire GlobeNewswire•April 8, 2020
Finjan’s ‘844 Patent Survives 9th Unsuccessful Challenge
EAST PALO ALTO, Calif., April 08, 2020 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- Finjan Holdings, Inc. (FNJN), a cybersecurity company, and its subsidiary Finjan, Inc. (Finjan) announce that the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s (USPTO) Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) issued a Final Written Decision finding Finjan’s U.S. Patent No. 6,154,844 (the ‘844 Patent) patentable over prior art. The present IPR was petitioned by Juniper Networks and was the 9th unsuccessful challenge overall to Finjan’s ‘844 Patent.
The ‘844 Patent has survived numerous challenges by multiple accused infringers in inter partes review proceedings before the PTAB, Reexamination at the USPTO, various District Courts, and appeals to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Here, in Juniper Networks, Inc. v. Finjan, Inc., No. IPR2019-00026, Paper 46, dated April 7, 2020, the PTAB’s Final Written Decision concluded that Juniper failed to show that Claims 1, 15, and 41 of the ‘844 Patent are unpatentable over cited prior art.
“The repeated validations of the ‘844’s patentability by the various forums should cement its durability and enormous value in the cybersecurity industry,” said Julie Mar-Spinola Finjan’s Chief IP Officer and VP of Legal Ops. “The ‘844 Patent is the subject of 25 patent licenses, contributing to over $350 million in licensing revenues for Finjan. And yet, accused infringers continue to delay liability not based on the merits but rather by gaming the patent system and laws with serial, non-meritorious challenges. Finjan nevertheless welcomes the PTAB’s decision, which will bolster our litigations where the ‘844 Patent is asserted, namely, against Cisco Systems, ESET, SonicWall, Check Point, Fortinet, and Qualys.”
Finjan also has pending infringement lawsuits against Palo Alto Networks, Inc. and Rapid7, Inc. and Rapid7 LLC relating to, collectively, more than 20 patents in the Finjan portfolio. The court dockets for the foregoing cases are publicly available on the Public Access to Court Electronic Records (PACER) website, www.pacer.gov, which is operated by the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts.
Currently I see nothing good in this companies business model of one time payments that you have to litigate to get with no recurring revenues but many recurring expenses.
That's a good thing, right?
Oh well. Worth a try:
Notice of Electronic Filing
The following transaction was entered on 2/3/2020 at 1:56 PM PST and filed on 2/3/2020
Case Name: Finjan, Inc. v. Cisco Systems Inc.
Case Number: 5:17-cv-00072-BLF
Filer:
Document Number: 416
Docket Text:
ORDER DENYING FINJAN, INC.'S MOTION [380] FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF THE VALIDITY OF U.S. PATENT NOS. 8,677,494 AND 6,154,844; AND 7,647,633. Signed by Judge Beth Labson Freeman on 2/3/2020. (blflc3S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/3/2020)
I haven't peeked here for awhile. I saw $2.75 in premarket and told another ex-Finjan follower I was going to short at $2.50 when regular markets opened. Was a dud open and never got the chance.
I remember when they announced that all remaining cases were worth at least $10M and the very next day announced one for I think it was $6M if not less. They are down to collecting tiny nuisance amounts. Their big money patents expired and nobody wants to license the rest.
Cisco is their last hurrah and I have been following that case and don't think they are going to come out too well.
Hope you get out of it what you want with all of the time invested here. Best wishes and hope you have a great 2020. You may see more of me leading up to Cisco trial.
Yep thanks per the 8K $3.8M.
Thank You, Paullee
You do great work.
EAST PALO ALTO, Calif., Jan. 24, 2020 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- Finjan Holdings, Inc. (NASDAQ:FNJN) a cybersecurity company, announced that on January 23, 2020 its subsidiaries Finjan, Inc., Finjan Blue and Finjan Mobile (collectively “Finjan”) each entered into a patent license and settlement agreement with BitDefender ("the Agreements”). The Agreements resolved the parties' disputes, grants BitDefender a fully paid up license to each of Finjan's patent portfolios, mutual covenants not to sue and mutual releases, among other terms which are confidential.
anyone still out here?
another small win on the road to victory
https://www.scribd.com/document/440290383/Juniper-Networks-vs-Finjan-IPR2019-01403-Institution-Denial
Finjan Wants Fed. Circ. To Reverse Cisco Cybersecurity IP Win
By Tiffany Hu
Law360 (November 26, 2019, 2:48 PM EST) -- Cybersecurity firm Finjan is asking the Federal Circuit to overturn a Patent Trial and Appeal Board decision invalidating parts of its malware detection patent challenged by Cisco, notably arguing that the board was inconsistent in its analysis of “similarly situated claims.”
In an opening brief filed Friday, Finjan sought to flip the PTAB’s May decision finding all but one of the disputed claims in its patent invalid over a combination of prior art. The board had upheld the validity of a single claim based on its interpretation that the term “executable code” requires that the code not be modified, ruling that Cisco's prior art disclosed modification of the code.
But the PTAB should have interpreted the invalidated claims the same way, Finjan said, adding that the parties had already agreed in district court litigation that the term “mobile protection code” as recited in those claims also requires that the code not be modified.
“Because the claims should be construed the same way for both invalidity and infringement, and affirming the board’s decision would lead to inconsistent outcomes for similarly situated claims, the board should reverse the board’s finding that [the invalidated claims] are unpatentable,” Finjan wrote in its brief.
Cisco in late 2017 requested inter partes review of the patent-at-issue, which covers “a system and a method for protecting network-connectable devices from undesirable downloadable operations,” according to filings.
In June 2018, the PTAB agreed to review the patent after finding a “reasonable likelihood” that Cisco could show that at least one of the challenged claims was unpatentable.
The patent is among several involved in an ongoing patent lawsuit Finjan lodged in California federal court over Cisco’s cybersecurity software products, citing Cisco’s failure to enter a licensing agreement despite knowledge of Finjan’s patent portfolio.
Finjan contended the companies had a longstanding relationship dating back to the 2000s. Cisco invested in Finjan and they worked together on cybersecurity projects, but the relationship began to sour in 2013 when Cisco acquired a company called Sourcefire Inc., and incorporated its technology into its own products, the complaint said.
Finjan said it spent about two years attempting to negotiate a licensing agreement with Cisco for patents that cover the technology acquired in the Sourcefire deal. But Cisco continued to sell the accused products — products that contain its Advanced Malware Protection, among others — without regarding Finjan’s IP rights, according to the complaint.
Cisco responded to the lawsuit with a counterclaim alleging Finjan committed a breach of contract by using information from a nondisclosure agreement to support its willfulness claims. Finjan then filed a first amended complaint that altered its willfulness allegations, and Cisco followed up with a motion to dismiss claiming Finjan failed to state a claim for willful infringement.
The district judge in November 2017 granted Cisco’s dismissal bid by finding there wasn’t evidence of willful infringement, but gave Finjan leave to amend its allegations.
Months after the PTAB’s May ruling, both sides agreed in October to withdraw certain infringement allegations with regard to the patent-at-issue, keeping Cisco’s assertion that one claim in the patent is invalid for lack of written description, according to filings.
Counsel for both parties did not immediately respond to requests for comment Tuesday.
The patent-at-issue is U.S. Patent No. 7,647,633.
Finjan is represented by Paul J. Andre, James Hannah and Jeffrey Price of Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel LLP.
Cisco is represented by Patrick D. McPherson and Patrick C. Muldoon of Duane Morris LLP.
The case is Finjan Inc. v. Cisco Systems Inc., case number 19-2074, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
--Additional reporting by Daniel Siegal. Editing by Abbie Sarfo.
News: $FNJN Finjan and Mimecast Enter into Confidential Agreements to Achieve Global Patent Peace Between the Companies
EAST PALO ALTO, Calif., Oct. 03, 2019 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- Finjan Holdings, Inc. (NASDAQ:FNJN), a cybersecurity company, announced that on September 30, 2019 its subsidiaries Finjan, Inc., Finjan Mobile, Inc., and Finjan Blue, Inc. each entered into a patent license agreement with Mimecast L...
In case you are interested FNJN - Finjan and Mimecast Enter into Confidential Agreements to Achieve Global Patent Peace Between the Companies
Upcoming FNJN Road Show
Tuesday, September 3rd at 1 pm - 2 pm in the San Francisco Financial District with Cybersecurity firm Finjan (Nasdaq: FNJN).
Can this guy Hartstein really be making 2 Million a year for this piss pour showing? The CFO took off. He knows whats coming. This knucklehead needs to be shown the door without a parachute.
Yeah, but this is not really unexpected, look what Apple has done to VHC just for trying to take a bite, what 8- 10 yrs ago
Cisco has been making this case very expensive by fighting them on every technicality they can
It wasn't anything earth-shattering. Cisco has been making this case very expensive by fighting them on every technicality they can. They are in the 300s for record events.
Finjan screwed up from the very beginning by using confidential information excluded by a NDA and had to change the initial filing. This whole case has reached the absurd. Even the discovery process has been strained with each side fighting the other and requiring many rulings.
can you repeat that in English
ORDER DENYING REMAINDER OF [292] PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM NONDISPOSITIVE PRETRIAL ORDER OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE. Signed by Judge Beth Labson Freeman on 7/17/2019. (blflc3S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/17/2019)
I still get updates from the court on Cisco case. I told you a long time ago they would rue the day they tangled with Cisco. This has been a very expensive litigation and Cisco is thwarting their efforts over and over.
News: $FNJN Federal Circuit Affirms PTAB's Finding of Patentability of Claims 10, 11, and 15 of Finjan's '494 Patent
EAST PALO ALTO, Calif., July 03, 2019 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- Finjan Holdings, Inc. (NASDAQ: FNJN), and its subsidiary, Finjan, Inc. (“Finjan”), announced that the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) issued an Opinion on July 2, 2019, regarding Finjan...
In case you are interested Federal Circuit Affirms PTAB's Finding of Patentability of Claims 10, 11, and 15 of Finjan's '494 Patent
But won enough to keep the patent and cases alive
FNJN loses it's appeal with Palo Alto
http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/17-2543.Opinion.7-2-2019.pdf
Alsup Rejects Finjan Bid For New Trial In Malware Patent Case
By Mike LaSusa
Law360 (May 23, 2019, 6:54 PM EDT) -- U.S. District Judge William Alsup on Wednesday turned down a request by cybersecurity firm Finjan to set aside a December jury verdict that found its competitor Juniper Networks did not infringe its patents.
Weeks after lambasting "obstinate" attorneys and decrying "B.S." in the patent case, Judge Alsup swept aside Finjan’s bid for a new trial. Finjan had alleged Juniper withheld incriminating evidence until two months after trial, but Judge Alsup laid the blame at Finjan’s feet.
“As the case moves along, counsel have a responsibility to stay on top of the status of discovery and to bring stubborn problems to the court’s attention,” the judge said. “Counsel should not postpone that chore until after the verdict and then scour the discovery record for shortfalls by the other side.”
Additionally, Judge Alsup held off ruling on Juniper's motion seeking sanctions against Finjan for the company’s alleged pursuit of unsupported damages theories in bad faith. The case is headed for another trial in October, the judge said, noting that there would likely be further back-and-forth between the two companies.
“We have a long way to go before this case is over and each side is regularly accusing each other of misconduct,” he said. “As such, the court will defer ruling on this motion until the end of trial so that both sides’ alleged wrongs can be viewed in light of each other.”
In a separate order on Wednesday, Judge Alsup largely denied motions by both companies to seal portions of the filings supporting the motions mentioned above. Citing a “strong presumption in favor of access” to court records, he allowed the sealing of only one exhibit based on a request by Finjan.
Furthermore, Judge Alsup on Thursday issued an order regarding the run-up to the upcoming trial in which he laid out what he called a “rule of thumb” system for determining whether the case qualifies as “exceptional,” meaning the losing party must pay its opponent’s attorney fees,
“Finjan shall state the amount claimed, patent by patent, and Juniper shall state the amount it concedes would be due as damages in the event liability is established, patent by patent,” the judge explained. “If after trial and after all Rule 50 motions, Finjan recovers less than half of its claimed amount and recovers less than twice the amount of Juniper’s conceded amount, then the court may presume that the maintenance of the infringement action on that patent qualifies as ‘extraordinary.’”
Conversely, the judge said, if “Finjan recovers more than half of its claimed damages and more than twice the conceded amount, then the court may presume that Juniper must pay attorney’s fees associated with that patent.”
Judge Alsup has previously used novel methods for dealing with patent cases. For instance, he has been known for implementing “shoot outs” where each side offers only one claim that illustrates whether he should toss the case.
Finjan sued Juniper for patent infringement in 2017, and in December 2018, a California federal jury found Juniper didn't infringe Finjan's malware detection patent.
The main dispute at the December trial was how to define the word "database," as the term is used in one of the claims of the patent-in-suit. Juniper had argued its allegedly infringing products had an "interface," but no "database" as the court and the parties had agreed to define it. The jury ruled in Juniper's favor, and that ruling was backed by Judge Alsup.
The trial in October is intended to settle remaining issues in the patent dispute. In the Thursday order, Judge Alsup told counsel they would get a set amount of time to argue in favor of their best points and against the other side's weakest points.
He also hinted that he wanted an expeditious resolution to the case.
“Do not try to enlarge the motion practice. Do not try to change the trial date,” he warned the litigants.
Neither side responded on Thursday to requests for comment.
The patents-in-suit are U.S. Patent Nos. 8,677,494 and 6,804,780.
Finjan is represented by Paul J. Andre, Lisa Kobialka, James Hannah and Kristopher Kastens of Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel LLP.
Juniper is represented by Jonathan S. Kagan, Rebecca Carson, Alan Heinrich, Josh Glucoft, Ingrid M. H. Petersen and Kevin Wang of Irell & Manella LLP.
The case is Finjan Inc. v. Juniper Network Inc., case number 3:17-cv-05659, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.
--Additional reporting by Ryan Davis, Hannah Albarazi, Dani Kass and Cara Bayles. Editing by Orlando Lorenzo
News: $FNJN On Federal Circuit Remand, the PTAB Rules Palo Alto Networks Failed to Prove Finjan's '154 Patent Unpatentable
EAST PALO ALTO, Calif., May 23, 2019 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- Finjan Holdings, Inc. (NASDAQ: FNJN), and its subsidiary, Finjan, Inc. (“Finjan”), reported that the United States Patent and Trademark Office’s Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) entered a Final...
Find out more https://marketwirenews.com/news-releases/on-federal-circuit-remand-the-ptab-rules-palo-alto-networks-failed-to-prove-finjan-s-154-patent-unpatentable-8235126.html
Finjan Holdings, Inc. (FNJN), a Palo-Alto-based cybersecurity company, has pending patent infringement lawsuits against Palo Alto Networks, ESET and its affiliates, Cisco Systems, Sonicwall, Bitdefender and its affiliates, Juniper Networks, Check Point, Rapid7 and its affiliates, Fortinet and Qualys relating to, collectively, more than 20 patents in the Finjan portfolio. Finjan this week offered a First Quarter 2019 Shareholder Update and filed its 10-Q.
"Judge Alsup denied the request, saying instead that he wouldn't mind explaining to the jury himself that Finjan is too busy suing so many other companies around the country that it couldn't make it to the trial. "
This is great! I like this Judge. Still hold a small amount of this shady company.
Alsup Rips 'Obstinate' Attys, Patent 'BS' In Finjan-Juniper War
By Hannah Albarazi
Law360 (May 9, 2019, 8:21 PM EDT) -- U.S. District Judge William Alsup threw up his hands Thursday at cybersecurity firms Finjan and Juniper Networks as they continued battling it out following December's "showdown" trial over malware detection technology, calling their attorneys "obstinate" and saying he's tired of "all the BS that goes on" in patent litigation.
Judge Alsup, saying he's eager to stop hearing patent cases altogether, told Juniper and Finjan to prepare for another showdown trial in October to settle remaining issues in their patent dispute, telling counsel they would get a to-be-determined set amount of time to argue in favor of their best points and against the other side's weakest points.
Judge Alsup's innovative showdown trials are designed to save time, a precious resource in the Northern District of California, a court with the country's 13th-highest caseload.
Then the case "will be over, O-V-E-R, and it will be the Federal Circuit's problem," Judge Alsup said at the hearing, which left him shaking his head and saying he felt that one side must be lying to him.
The judge said he's looking forward to being "eligible to stop taking these patent cases."
Finjan's counsel asked for the October trial to be pushed back due to a scheduling conflict, but Judge Alsup denied the request, saying instead that he wouldn't mind explaining to the jury himself that Finjan is too busy suing so many other companies around the country that it couldn't make it to the trial.
Finjan's counsel didn't continue to press the issue.
Finjan sued Juniper for patent infringement in 2017, and in December 2018, a California federal jury found Juniper didn't infringe Finjan's malware detection patent.
The main dispute at the December trial was how to define the word "database," as the term is used in claim 10 of the patent-in-suit. Juniper had argued its allegedly infringing products had an "interface," but no "database" as the court and the parties had agreed to define it. The jury ruled in Juniper's favor, and that ruling was backed by Judge Alsup.
But Finjan moved in March to set aside the verdict, saying Juniper had only recently provided documents that allegedly showed its Sky ATP program did in fact use a database as defined in the patent. Juniper had 10 months before trial to produce the documents, and the discovery search terms should have found them, the motion said.
Also in March, Juniper asked for sanctions against Finjan, accusing the company of lying, failing to support its own case and pushing "overreaching" theories, particularly about damages.
Just ahead of Thursday's hearing, Judge Alsup granted Juniper's motion for summary judgment that its firewalls do not infringe a Finjan patent and denied Finjan's motion for summary judgment that Juniper infringes another patent.
At the hearing, Judge Alsup heard both sides' arguments regarding Finjan's motion to set aside the December verdict.
Juniper said it didn't withhold evidence, but that Finjan wanted information about a database used by the Swiss malware analysis company Joe Sandbox, a third-party service that Juniper uses. Juniper told the judge that Joe Sandbox's source code is a "black box" to it and that Finjan could have reached out to the service directly or subpoenaed the company, but instead "they sat on their hands."
Judge Alsup then heard arguments regarding Juniper's motion to sanction Finjan for allegedly wasting its resources and driving up its costs. Finjan said there's nothing in its behavior that could be characterized as bad faith conduct or willful abuse of the judicial process.
Judge Alsup didn't issue orders on those motions Thursday.
The patents-in-suit are U.S. Patent Nos. 8,677,494 and 6,804,780.
Finjan is represented by Paul J. Andre, Lisa Kobialka, James Hannah and Kristopher Kastens of Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel LLP.
Juniper is represented by Jonathan S. Kagan, Rebecca Carson, Alan Heinrich, Josh Glucoft and Kevin Wang of Irell & Manella LLP.
The case is Finjan Inc. v. Juniper Network Inc., case number 3:17-cv-05659, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.
--Additional reporting by Dani Kass and Mike LaSusa. Editing by Breda Lund.
Finjan Reports PTAB Denies Institution on Three Juniper Challenges
Download as PDF
May 07, 2019
EAST PALO ALTO, Calif., May 07, 2019 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- Finjan Holdings, Inc. (NASDAQ: FNJN), and its subsidiary, Finjan, Inc. (“Finjan”), reports on recent decisions by the United States Patent and Trademark Office’s (“USPTO”) Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB” or “the Board”), concerning Juniper’s multiple petitions for inter partes review (“IPR”) of certain claims relating to Finjan’s U.S. Patent Nos. 6,154,844 (“the ‘844 Patent”); 7,613,926 (“the ‘926 Patent”); 7,647,633 (“the ‘633 Patent”); and 8,141,154 (“the ‘154 Patent”).
Most recently on May 1, 2019, the PTAB denied institution of Juniper’s petition for IPR institution of claims 15 and 22 of the ‘926 Patent (Case IPR2019-00073), finding that “the information presented … and the accompanying evidence does not establish a reasonable likelihood that [Juniper] would prevail in showing the unpatentability of either of claims 15 and 22 of the ‘926 patent….” The PTAB noted that Sophos, Symantec, and Palo Alto Networks had previously filed petitions challenging certain claims of the ‘926 Patent, and the Board “denied each of those petitions.”
On April 29, 2019, the PTAB also denied institution of Juniper’s petition for inter partes review of claims 1, 8, 14, and 19 of the ‘633 Patent (Case IPR2019-00060) on essentially three grounds. First, the PTAB found that Juniper failed to establish a reasonable likelihood of prevailing that the claims are unpatentable as obvious over prior art. Second, the PTAB agreed with Finjan that the Board should deny the petition under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) under General Plastics Industrial Co., Ltd. v. Canon Kabushiki Kaisha, Case IPR2016-01357 (PTAB Sept. 6, 2017), as even though Juniper had not filed a previous petition for IPR on this patent, 35 U.S.C. §325(d), gives the Board discretion to deny the Petition as appropriate because Juniper argued “the same or substantially the same prior art or arguments previously presented to the Office”. Lastly, the PTAB denied institution under the U.S. Supreme Court’s SAS Ins., Inc. v. Iancu, 138 S. Ct 1348, 1359-1360, stating that “our only options are to institute an inter partes review as to all grounds and all challenged claims, or to deny institution.” In finding that one of three of Juniper’s grounds for challenging the unpatentability of the ‘633 Patent to “be without merit,” the PTAB determined that denial of the petition was appropriate.
On April 9, 2019, regarding IPR 2019-00026 in which Juniper petitioned for IPR of claims 1, 15, and 41 on the ‘844 Patent, the PTAB did institute review and determined based on the parties’ preliminary arguments that Juniper had demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in showing the unpatentability of such claims. The PTAB, however, emphasized that “this Decision is not a final determination on [] the patentability of any challenged claims … and, thus, leaves undecided any remaining fact issues necessary to determine whether sufficient evidence supports [Juniper’s] contentions by a preponderance of the evidence in the final written decision.”
Lastly, as reported in a separate press release on April 1, 2019, the PTAB also denied Juniper’s petition for IPR (IPR2019-00031) of claim 1 of the ‘154 Patent.
“We are gratified with both the PTAB’s denials of Juniper’s challenges to our ‘926, ‘633, and ‘154 Patents, as well as the stated bases for deciding the denials,” said Julie Mar-Spinola, Finjan’s CIPO. “In citing the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals, the PTAB stated in its ‘844 Decision (IPR 2019-00026), ‘there is a significant difference between a petitioner’s burden to establish a ‘reasonable likelihood of success’ at institution, and actually proving invalidity by a preponderance of the evidence at trial’. Thus, Finjan will forge ahead in defending the validity and enforceability of our ‘844 Patent. 2019 continues to be a year of positive momentum for Finjan, which again speaks to the merits of our infringement claims against our various accused infringers in the cybersecurity space, as well as to the incredible value of our patents,” concluded Julie Mar-Spinola.
The current status of IPR proceeding are listed below. There are no more cases pending pre-institution.
· ‘633 Patent – Final Written Decision – PTAB’s Deadline is June 5.
· ‘494 Patent - Federal Circuit Opinion - No deadline
· ‘154 Patent - Final Written Decision - No deadline (on remand)
And pending cases with activity still underway:
· ‘844 Patent – Patent Owner Response due July 9.
· ‘305 Patent – ESET Federal Circuit Appeal. ESET’s opening brief due date is TBD.
· ‘305 Patent – Reexam Federal Circuit Appeal. Oral Argument date is TBD.
The court dockets for the foregoing cases are publicly available on the Public Access to Court Electronic Records (PACER) website, www.pacer.gov, which is operated by the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts.
might net enough to cover one quarter burn rate with Operating Cash
Flow of 25.6M
new (petty) settlement
On May 1, 2019 , Finjan Holdings, Inc. (the “Company”), and its wholly-owned subsidiary, Finjan, Inc. (“Finjan”), announced that Finjan and Zscaler, Inc. (“Zscaler”) have entered into a Confidential Patent License and Settlement Agreement (the “License and Settlement Agreement”) effective as of April 30, 2019 (“Effective Date”). Specifically, the parties have resolved and settled all claims between them.
As part of the settlement and pursuant to the License and Settlement Agreement and related agreements, Zscaler and its licensed affiliates (the “Zscaler Parties”) will obtain a license to, among others, the patents of Finjan, Finjan Mobile, Inc., and Finjan Blue, Inc. (collectively with the Company, the “Finjan Parties”) and pay Finjan $7.25 million in cash within five (5) business days of the Effective Date of the License and Settlement Agreement, which payment has been received by Finjan. Further, upon acquisition of Zscaler or acquisitions by Zscaler , additional one-time license fees may be due to Finjan equal to eight percent (8%) of the gross revenues of certain qualifying products and services for the four (4) concluded quarters immediately preceding the acquisition. The License and Settlement Agreement and related agreements also contained mutual covenants not to sue and mutual releases, among other terms. The remaining terms of the License and Settlement Agreement and related agreements are confidential.
PTAB Says Juniper Patent Challenge Would Be 'Inefficient'
By Matthew Bultman
Law360 (April 30, 2019, 5:13 PM EDT) -- With Cisco’s challenge to a Finjan patent on cybersecurity technology in its final stages, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board on Monday said starting a new review of the patent based on a request from Juniper Networks would be an “inefficient” use of resources.
The PTAB denied a petition that Juniper filed in October seeking inter partes review of the patent. Juniper’s challenge came amid an ongoing infringement dispute between the Sunnyvale, California, cybersecurity company and Finjan, a licensing company.
Juniper had three arguments why various claims in the patent were obvious. According to the PTAB, one simply wasn’t convincing, and the other two were based primarily on an old patent application — the same application Cisco used in its challenge.
“Notwithstanding some differences in the prior art combined with [the application], we are persuaded that instituting trial here would be an inefficient use of board resources and would result in substantial overlap and duplication of issues, arguments, and evidence,” the board wrote.
The PTAB has increasingly been taking a hard look at petitions that follow an earlier challenge to the same patent, even if different companies file them. Earlier this month, two U.S. senators urged the board to do even more to limit “serial attacks” to patents.
An attorney for Finjan declined to comment on the board’s decision. Counsel for Juniper could not immediately be reached.
Finjan owns a portfolio of patents related to cybersecurity technology. And it has not been shy about enforcing them. This particular patent has been involved in close to a dozen cases, according to PTAB filings.
Juniper brought its PTAB challenge almost 10 months after Cisco petitioned the board for inter partes review. The PTAB is expected to issue a final decision on the validity of the challenged claims in Cisco’s case by early June.
Acknowledging it wasn’t first in line to challenge the patent, Juniper argued the board should nonetheless institute review because it had some new evidence the PTAB had never before considered. Juniper also noted that it challenged a claim not at issue in the Cisco review.
Ruling Monday, the PTAB emphasized IPRs have become an “all-or-nothing affair” since the U.S. Supreme Court barred partial institutions in SAS Institute v. Iancu . The board said Juniper was well aware of this when it filed a petition in which two of its three arguments had some overlap with another case.
“Furthermore, we note that at the time of filing this petition, significant activity in the [Cisco] case has informed the petition here, evidenced by petitioner’s attempts to bolster the weaknesses identified in the [Cisco] case with additional arguments and prior art,” the board wrote.
Also, were review to begin, the PTAB said it would have to reconcile arguments and evidence across multiple trials. And delaying the Cisco case to “eliminate potential inconsistencies” wasn’t an option, the board said, given the requirement there be a final decision within one year of instituting review.
“Accordingly, it would not be prudent to institute yet another trial on the [patent] with [the old patent application] featuring so prominently,” the board wrote.
Cisco and Juniper aren’t the first companies to take aim at this patent at the PTAB. The board in 2016 upheld certain claims challenged by Palo Alto Networks and Blue Coat Systems, finding the companies had not shown the claims were invalid.
The patent at issue is U.S. Patent No. 7,647,633.
Juniper is represented by Michael Fleming and Joshua Glucoft of Irell & Manella LLP.
Finjan is represented by James Hannah, Jeffrey Price and Michael Lee of Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel LLP.
The case is Juniper Networks Inc. v. Finjan Inc., case number IPR2019-00060, at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board.
--Editing by Alyssa Miller.
InvinciBull Joins Leading VPNS as Part of The Center for Democracy & Technology’s Signals of Trust
Download as PDF
April 25, 2019
The Safety and Privacy of InvinciBull’s Customers is our Top Concern
EAST PALO ALTO, Calif., April 25, 2019 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- Finjan Holdings, Inc. (NASDAQ: FNJN), a pioneer in cybersecurity, today announced that its subsidiary, Finjan Mobile, Inc. and its enhanced VPN, InvinciBull, joined a select group of leading VPN providers to demonstrate how it protects its users’ privacy through Signals of Trust as codified by the Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT).
“We are honored to be included in the CDT’s Signals of Trust,” commented June Bower, Head of Marketing for InvinciBull. “We take user privacy seriously and do not collect or save user data. Additionally, our affiliation with Finjan provides us with military grade security and our “always protected” feature means users don’t need to remember to turn their VPN on.’
Late last year, the CDT launched an initiative aimed at helping consumers better understand VPNs and assess their trustworthiness. The privacy advocacy group developed a series of questions and recommendations for VPN providers that, when addressed completely, serve as a guideline to assess whether the VPN can be trusted with a user’s personal browsing information and web traffic. The framework was developed in consultation with leading VPN providers, which proactively answered the CDT’s questions to provide greater transparency about their data protection practices. InvinciBull addressed all of the CDT questions and recommendations in its “Signals of Trust.”
Additionally, Finjan’s cyber security expert, Greg Falco, PhD, was featured in the March 2019 Issue of Hospitality Technology on why hotels should offer cyber security protection (VPNs) as a loyalty perk. where he stated that by 2020 there will be an estimated 483 billion domestic business trips in the US which raises concern about corporate cyber security. According to a recent survey of CIOs, 81% said their company had experienced a Wi-Fi related security break in the last year. Specifically, looking at hotels and unsecure Wi-Fi networks, he recommends that Hotel loyalty programs should engage directly with VPN offerings so that a VPN is automatically deployed once the user is logged into the network. “Free Wi-Fi has become a standard for loyalty program members- now it’s time to take the next step and offer them secure Wi-Fi,” concludes Greg Falco, PhD.
InvinciBull’s mission to protect devices from malicious content on the internet is aligned with Finjan Holding over 20-year history as a cybersecurity innovator. The company believes that individuals deserve access to innovative tools and technology that protect their online activity and secure their privacy.
The InvinciBull App is available for download on InvinciBull.io and is available on the iOS and Android platforms in the iTunes and Google Play stores. The Basic VPN Plan is free, which allows users to connect to the nearest location and use of up to 1GB of VPN data per month.
About Finjan Holdings, Inc.
Established 20 years ago, Finjan Holdings, Inc. is a globally recognized leader in cybersecurity. Finjan Inc.'s inventions are embedded within a strong portfolio of patents focusing on software and hardware technologies capable of proactively detecting previously unknown and emerging threats on a real-time, behavior-based basis. Finjan continues to grow through investments in innovation, strategic acquisitions, and partnerships promoting economic advancement and job creation. For more information, please visit www.finjan.com.
Finjan, Juniper Each Cry Foul After Malware Detection IP Trial
By Dani Kass
Law360 (April 1, 2019, 6:29 PM EDT) -- Nearly four months after a California federal jury found that Juniper Networks Inc. didn't infringe Finjan Inc.'s malware detection patent, the two cybersecurity firms have accused each other of misconduct.
Juniper on Thursday asked for sanctions against Finjan, accusing the company of lying, failing to support its own case and pushing "overreaching" theories, particularly about damages. Then on Friday, Finjan asked for the verdict to be set aside, saying Juniper withheld incriminating evidence until two months after trial.
The big dispute at the December trial was how to define the word "database," as the term is used in claim 10 of the patent-in-suit. Juniper had argued its allegedly infringing products had an "interface," but no "database" as the court and the parties had agreed to define it. The jury ruled in Juniper's favor, and that ruling was backed by U.S. District Judge William Alsup.
But in February, Juniper provided documents that allegedly showed its Sky ATP program did in fact use a database as defined in the patent, Finjan said Friday. This information involves malware analysis company Joe Sandbox, but much of the related information was redacted in the motion. Juniper had 10 months before trial to produce those documents, and the discovery search terms should have turned it up, the motion said.
"While Juniper's representation that it did not have any technical documents or information regarding the operations of Joe Sandbox seemed strange, Finjan had no choice but to rely upon such representations," Finjan said. "Indeed, Finjan could not move to compel documents that Juniper repeatedly stated it did not have."
Juniper's motion for sanctions has many prongs, but much of it revolves around Finjan's conduct at one of Judge Alsup's showdowns. The judge ordered Juniper to select Finjan's weakest claim and Finjan its own strongest claim to head to an early summary judgment and, if needed, an expedited trial, with the possibility of sanctions or an injunction for the losing party.
The claim Finjan picked was infringement of a patent that had expired eight months before it sued, Juniper said Thursday. While Finjan could still have been eligible for pre-suit damages, it had to prove certain things, which it failed to do, the motion said.
For example, Juniper said it had no notice of infringement, as companies that licensed the patent from Finjan didn't mark their products with the patent number. Then, when Finjan executive John Garland called Juniper to provide notice of infringement, he didn't actually mention the allegedly infringing product, Sky ATP, and only admitted to the omission after Juniper brought out a recording of the call, the motion said.
"According to Finjan, if Mr. Garland thought about Sky ATP in his mind when speaking with [Juniper] by phone, the call was sufficient to provide actual notice to Juniper that its Sky ATP product was being accused of infringement," the motion said. "But this is nonsense; there is no legal or logical support for Finjan's 'telepathic notice' theory."
Finjan had also argued during the litigation that the licensees didn't use the patent. But Juniper said that's directly contrary to positions the company has taken elsewhere, including when suing some 20 companies for patent infringement, defending the patent at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board eight times and accepting millions of dollars in licensing payments. At the patent office, Finjan had used the sales of its licensees as proof of commercial success, according to the motion.
The patent owner had then offered a few different types of damages theories, all of which were unacceptable, Juniper said. For example, it requested $70 million in "reasonable royalties" but only made $1.8 million off Sky ATP during the alleged infringement period, Juniper said.
Finjan then offered a few different amounts it would have sought during a licensing agreement, including a flat $20 million, an $8 per use rate and a 32 cents per scan rate, none of which would have held up, Juniper said.
During the showdown, Juniper had moved for summary judgment that three of its products didn't infringe yet another Finjan patent. Finjan's response defended its own argument on only two of these products. It shouldn't have brought that third claim if it couldn't defend it, Juniper said.
"Finjan's decision to advance this meritless theory was unreasonable and warrants sanctions," the motion said.
Juniper asked the court for sanctions to compensate it for wasting resources on "improper infringement, validity and damages positions." While it didn't list a specific monetary amount, the company said it would be willing to provide the court with a proposal.
Counsel for both companies didn't respond to requests for comment Monday.
The patents-in-suit are U.S. Patent Nos. 8,677,494 and 6,804,780.
Finjan is represented by Paul J. Andre, Lisa Kobialka, James Hannah and Kristopher Kastens of Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel LLP.
Juniper is represented by Jonathan S. Kagan, Rebecca Carson, Alan Heinrich, Josh Glucoft and Kevin Wang of Irell & Manella LLP.
The case is Finjan Inc. v. Juniper Network Inc., case number 3:17-cv-05659, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.
--Additional reporting by Mike LaSusa. Editing by Marygrace Murphy.
Tick tock
Finjan Receives Another Positive Claim Construction Orders, This Time Against Sonicwall
GlobeNewswire•March 28, 2019
Court Adopts Seven of Finjan’s Claim Terms, Sonicwall Gets One Term and the Final Two Terms are Split
East Palo Alto, Calif., March 28, 2019 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- Finjan Holdings, Inc. (FNJN), and its subsidiary Finjan, Inc. ("Finjan"), announced that the Honorable Judge Beth Labson Freeman of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (Case No. 17-cv-04467-BLF, Dkt. No. 132) adopted and ordered claim constructions on six of Finjan’s ten Patents asserted against Sonicwall, namely, U.S. Patent Nos. 6,154,844; 6,965,968; 7,058,822; 7,613,926; 7,647,633; and 8,225,408.
Specifically, the Court construed a total of ten claim terms: two from the ‘633 Patent (one of which was also in the ‘822 Patent), three from the ‘844 Patent, one from the ‘926 Patent, two from the ‘408 Patent, and two from the ‘968 Patent. The Court adopted Finjan’s proposed constructions, on the following Patents: claims 1, 8, and 14 of the ‘633; claims 1 and 9 of the ‘822; claim 43 of the ‘844; claim 22 of the ‘926; and claims 1 and 13 of the ‘968. The Court split the construction of claims between the parties, adopting elements from both Finjan’s and Sonicwall’s definitions, for claims 1, 9, and 22 of the ‘408 Patent and a portion of claim 43 of the ‘844 Patent. The Court adopted one of Sonicwall’s constructions on claim 9 of the ‘408 Patent.
“It appears that the claim constructions of our asserted patents have reached a tipping point such that the courts are giving deference to its own prior constructions and to those of other courts in the district. Given the fact that prior claim constructions have largely adopted Finjan’s interpretations, we believe the consistency of the courts’ constructions bodes well for us,” said Julie Mar-Spinola, Finjan’s CIPO. “2019 is demonstrating to be a year of continuing momentum with a number of positive outcomes from the district courts and the USPTO’s PTAB, which speak to the merits of our upcoming cases.”
The ‘633 Patent is also asserted against Palo Alto Networks, Cisco, Juniper, Zscaler, Check Point, and Fortinet
The ‘822 Patent is also asserted against Palo Alto Networks and Fortinet
The ‘844 Patent is also asserted against Cisco, ESET, Juniper, Check Point, Fortinet, and Qualys
The ‘926 Patent is also asserted against Palo Alto Networks and Juniper
The ‘408 Patent is also asserted against Palo Alto Networks, Juniper, Rapid7, Fortinet, and Qualys
The ‘968 Patent is also asserted against Palo Alto Networks, Check Point, Fortinet, and Qualys
The ‘494 Patent is also asserted against Palo Alto Networks, Bitdefender, Cisco, Juniper, Zscaler, Check Point, Rapid7, Fortinet, and Qualys
The ‘780 Patent is also asserted against Palo Alto Networks, ESET, Bitdefender, Cisco, Juniper, and Zscaler
The ‘154 Patent is also asserted against Palo Alto Networks, Bitdefender, Cisco, Juniper, Check Point, Rapid7, and Qualys
The court dockets for the foregoing cases are publicly available on the Public Access to Court Electronic Records (PACER) website, www.pacer.gov, which is operated by the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts.
Loses 8 million with almost no rev. Where is the dwindling cash going? Paying for ivy league prep courses for the CEOs kids?
Finjan Can't Beat Jury Verdict In Malware Detection IP Suit
By Tiffany Hu
Law360 (March 12, 2019, 2:43 PM EDT) -- Cybersecurity firm Finjan Inc. on Monday lost a bid to overturn a California federal jury’s verdict that rival Juniper Networks Inc.'s malware detection products did not infringe on its patent, with the federal judge finding the verdict was backed by evidence.
U.S. District Judge William Alsup refused to grant Finjan’s bid to overturn the December verdict in favor of Juniper, rejecting Finjan’s arguments that its rival failed to rebut the “overwhelming evidence” that its products infringed a key claim in Finjan’s patent, which protects a type of software that scans downloadable computer files for malware.
Notably, the judge said the jury was free to rely on Juniper’s expert testimony over Finjan’s that Juniper’s malware detection products did not have a “database” as the term is used in claim 10 of the patent at issue, and to find that Juniper did not infringe on the patent.
“At bottom, drawing all reasonable inferences in favor of Juniper (the nonmoving party), this order finds that there exists substantial evidence supporting the jury’s verdict of noninfringement,” the order reads. “Accordingly, Finjan’s renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law is denied.”
The judge also turned down Finjan’s motion for a new trial, finding that its contentions that Juniper had purportedly engaged in improper conduct at trial or withheld important information regarding the revenues of its products to be unpersuasive reasons to grant one.
“Finjan fails to show how an issue related to damages could serve grounds for a new trial based on a verdict finding noninfringement,” Judge Alsup wrote. “The issue of damages is therefore moot. As such, Finjan has failed to show some miscarriage of justice such that it is entitled to a new trial.”
Juniper had also requested for judgment as a matter of law on whether Finjan had properly notified Juniper of its patent before it expired, as the jury did not make any finding on this issue, but the judge found the motion premature and held back on ruling on the notice issue.
The dispute in this case came down to the definition of a “database” as the term is used in claim 10 of Finjan’s patent. Juniper had argued that its allegedly infringing products had an “interface,” but no “database,” as the court and the parties had agreed to define it. The company also argued in court filings that its products didn’t use a “database schema,” as the agreed construction had defined it.
In December, after just under two hours of deliberation, the jury informed the court that it found Juniper did not infringe Finjan’s patent, leading to the rivaling companies’ motions.
The patent-in-suit is U.S. Patent No. 8,677,494.
Counsel for the parties did not immediately respond to requests for comment Tuesday.
Finjan is represented by Paul J. Andre, Lisa Kobialka, James Hannah and Kristopher Kastens of Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel LLP.
Juniper is represented by Jonathan S. Kagan, Rebecca Carson, Alan Heinrich, Josh Glucoft and Kevin Wang of Irell & Manella LLP.
The case is Finjan Inc. v. Juniper Network Inc., case number 3:17-cv-05659, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.
--Additional reporting by Mike LaSusa. Editing by John Campbell.
Two good PR`s and the street does not care. It will be interesting when they are able to actually release some numbers going forward. On sidelines watching for now. GLTY
Delaware Court Clears Path for Finjan to Establish Additional Royalties Owed by Trustwave
GlobeNewswire•February 19, 2019
Trustwave’s Motion to Dismiss Breach of Contract Case Initiated by Finjan is Denied
EAST PALO ALTO, Calif., Feb. 19, 2019 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- Finjan Holdings, Inc. (FNJN), and its subsidiary Finjan, Inc. ("Finjan"), filed a complaint against its licensee, Trustwave Holdings, Inc. (“Trustwave”) in the Superior Court of the State of Delaware for Breach of Contract (Case No. N18C-04-006) on April 4, 2018. Finjan entered into an Amended and Restated Patent License Agreement (“Agreement”) with Trustwave on March 6, 2012. On February 11, 2019, after considering Trustwave’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint, the Honorable William C. Carpenter, Jr. of the Superior Court of the State of Delaware denied the motion, ruling that Finjan’s breach of contract suit may proceed.
As with the majority of Finjan’s Agreements and Licenses, certain provisions are included which essentially serve as pricing protections. Under this particular Agreement, in the event that Trustwave was acquired, certain royalties would be due on certain products. Finjan alleges that Trustwave breached the parties’ Agreement by failing to pay royalties believed owed as a result of Trustwave’s acquisition by Singapore Telecommunications Ltd. (“Singtel”) on or about September 2015.
“We have long enjoyed our relationship with Trustwave and place great value on the fact that they are a licensee of Finjan, Inc.’s patents. While we wish to maintain this relationship, it became apparent after extensive negotiations that it was necessary to file suit to enforce the terms of our Patent License Agreement that contemplated additional royalty payments upon certain qualified acquisition events, such as Singtel acquiring Trustwave,” said Julie Mar-Spinola, CIPO of Finjan. “Such provisions are common in our Patent License Agreements not only to help protect the value of Finjan’s patent portfolio but also serve to protect the value to our stakeholders.”
I was pleasantly surprised by them achieving a million downloads on their cyber security software side .
I think they will make acquisitions of communities to grow this side .
It did take them a long time to get to this point but they are here and hopefully they can grow this fast now this year
FNJN finally announces old news
US District Court Adopts Finjan’s Claim Constructions Over Cisco’s
GlobeNewswire•February 14, 2019
Three Patents, Four Disputed Claim Terms, 100% Win for Finjan, Inc.
EAST PALO ALTO, Calif., Feb. 14, 2019 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- Finjan Holdings, Inc. (FNJN), and its subsidiary Finjan, Inc. ("Finjan"), announced that in an Order, dated February 5, 2019 and titled “Order Construing Additional Claims in U.S. Patent Nos. 6,154,844; 6,804,780; 7,647,633,” (“Order”), the Honorable Judge Beth Labson Freeman of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (Case No. 17-cv-00072) adopted and ordered claim constructions entirely in Finjan’s favor over Cisco’s proposed claim constructions. Cisco sought the Court’s construction on one additional claim element for the ‘844 Patent, one for the ‘780 Patent, and two additional claim elements for the ‘633 Patent, after the Court previously ruled on 10 other disputed claim elements on July 23, 2018.
“We believe this win signifies that it will be more difficult for Cisco to avoid liability under Finjan’s battle-hardened patents,” said Julie Mar-Spinola, Finjan’s CIPO. “As the Court stated throughout the Order, the four terms were previously construed either by itself or other courts and Cisco’s arguments to change those prior constructions were insufficient or unpersuasive.”
Separately, the Court had entered an earlier July 23, 2018 Order construing 10 claim elements, four of which were on the ‘844 Patent, one on the ‘780 Patent, three on the ‘633 Patent, and one each on U.S. Patent Nos. 8,677,494 and 8,141,154, the latter two of which were not part of the February 5th Order. Of the 10 claim elements disputed, the Court adopted Finjan’s interpretation on six, split one between Finjan and Cisco, construed two on its own, and adopted Cisco’s interpretation on one claim element.
The ‘844 Patent is also asserted against: ESET, SonicWall, Juniper, CheckPoint, Fortinet, and Qualys
The ‘780 Patent is also asserted against Palo Alto Networks, ESET, SonicWall, Bitdefender, Juniper, and Zscaler
The ‘633 Patent is also asserted against Palo Alto Networks, SonicWall, Juniper, Zscaler, CheckPoint, and Fortinet
The ‘494 Patent is also asserted against Palo Alto Networks, SonicWall, Bitdefender, Juniper, Zscaler, CheckPoint, Rapid7, Fortinet, and Qualys
The ‘154 Patent is also asserted against Palo Alto Networks, SonicWall, Bitdefender, Juniper, CheckPoint, Rapid7, and Qualys.
The court dockets for the foregoing cases are publicly available on the Public Access to Court Electronic Records (PACER) website, www.pacer.gov, which is operated by the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts.
By Lisa Thompson
NASDAQ:FNJN
Finjan (FNJN) settled its long running litigation with Symantec and its subsidiary Blue Coat for $65 million to be paid within the next 20 calendar days. Also part of the agreement is for Symantec to pay another $45 million to Finjan for licensing for any other company it might buy in the next four years that is on an extensive list of names agreed upon by the two. Once the $65 million has been received, Finjan will retire the rest of the preferred outstanding, part of which was already paid down in Q4 2017.
We have adjusted earnings estimates based on this settlement and tentatively expecting $82.5 million in revenues for 2018, of which $65 million is booked in Q1 2018. EPS for the year could be $1.17 versus an expected $0.44 in 2017. The company has not yet reported it Q4 2017 quarter.
Q4 2017
We expect the company to report Q4 revenues of $25 million: resulting from the $17.5 million settlement with Sophos, ending a dispute amicably with Avast, and a license with Veracode. It also has prepaid revenues that were due in 2018 from Proofpoint ($3.3 million) and Sophos ($1.25 million.) The company also booked its first revenues from the patents bought from IBM and called Finjan Blue. It received $2 million from an unknown licensor, which paid back the cost of the patents.
Finjan settled with FireEye for a net $12.5 in cash that was paid in Q4 2017. FireEye agreed to pay Finjan $17.5 million in license fees comprised of $12.5 million in cash which was paid on December 29, 2017, and $5.0 million which will be offset by $5 million in license fees from Finjan to FireEye under the FireEye cross license agreement. With this payment, Finjan redeemed about 31% of the Series A-1 preferred shares or $4.7 million of the $15.3 million Series A-1 Preferred Stock financing in January. From December 16, 2017 to March 16, 2018 Finjan is able to redeem this stock at 1.3 times the original purchase price. It will now pay off the remaining $13 million of preferred outstanding with the proceeds from Symantec.
Q4 2017 and Q1 2018 have been very successful for Finjan. If we take the cash at the end of December 2017 of $41 million and add the $65 million about to be received, we reach $106 million total cash. From that amount the company needed to pay a quarter of operating expenses, and will pay off the preferred which should cost approximately $20 million. It could have $66 million left or $2.38 per share in cash and no debt. A market value of $86 million then equates to a current enterprise value of $20 million. Based on $82.5 million in sales in 2018, and the 2.0 times industry average sales multiple the stock should be worth $231 million or $8.33 per share if we add $66 million in cash to the enterprise value to get market value.
Followers
|
215
|
Posters
|
|
Posts (Today)
|
0
|
Posts (Total)
|
18730
|
Created
|
10/16/07
|
Type
|
Free
|
Moderators |
Established more than 20 years ago, Finjan is a globally recognized leader in cybersecurity. Our inventions are embedded within a strong portfolio of patents focusing on software and hardware technologies capable of proactively detecting previously unknown and emerging threats on a real-time, behavior-based basis. We continue to grow through investments in innovation, strategic acquisitions, and partnerships promoting economic advancement and job creation.
Our commitment to innovation in the security space continues through our investments, which have culminated in the continued success of our licensing business through our subsidiaries Finjan, Inc. Finjan Mobile and Finjan Blue. To build upon our licensing program we have successfully launched a number of subsidiaries which include our consulting services business, CybeRisk, development of mobile applications through Finjan Mobile and incubation of up-and-coming technology startups pioneering a new generation of security technologies through our investment in Jerusalem Venture Partners (JVP) Fund VII's Cyber Labs, having invested alongside other technology companies.
In 1995, Shlomo Touboul, our founder and lead inventor on a number of our patents, became intrigued with the Java programming language, which was being developed by Sun Microsystems. While the commercial success of Java was unknown at the time, it quickly became one of the most widely used software technologies to deliver content and information over the internet. Shlomo recognized that this program would require a new type of security to protect it from hackers.
President and Chief Executive Officer
Phil Hartstein is President and Chief Executive Officer of Finjan Holdings, Inc. and oversees the direction and management of current assets and future investments as well as working with the company’s executive management team to execute the shareholders vision as a public technology company.
Mr. Hartstein has worked in a number of technology and intellectual property related roles for over a decade. He started with a boutique IP law firm, worked in an in-house IP function for a VC funded startup, spent time in IP consulting and IP brokerage firms, and prior to joining Finjan spent four years with two groups focused on bringing both private and public market capital, expertise, and credibility in licensing and enforcing patent rights on behalf of owners.
Mr. Hartstein holds a BS in industrial technology from California Polytechnic, San Luis Obispo. He is an active participant in industry organizations, is regularly invited to speak on a number of patent monetization related topics from third-party litigation financing to capital market trends, and is a named inventor and patent holder with more than two-dozen pending and issued patents across a number of disciplines.
Chief Intellectual Property Officer and VP, Legal Ops
Julie Mar-Spinola is Finjan Holdings, Inc.’s Chief Intellectual Property Officer and Vice President of Legal Operations. Ms. Mar-Spinola oversees the Company’s revenue-based and legal operations, including the Company’s IP and cyber technology innovations, enforcement programs, best practices, public policy initiatives, and mentorships. Ms. Mar-Spinola is also a member of the Board of Directors for product subsidiary, Finjan Mobile, Inc.
Ms. Mar-Spinola has dedicated nearly 30 years of her career in intellectual property law, with emphasis on patents, technology, and policy. She has successfully represented high technology companies of all sizes and business models, including individual inventors, with significant knowledge and experience in all things patents, including litigation, M&A’s, IP portfolio development, acquisition, divestitures, and licensing, as well as preservation and monetization of proprietary technologies and patents. Ms. Mar-Spinola has served as General Counsel or VP of Legal for several Silicon Valley companies, including Kleiner Perkins-backed thin-film solar start-up, Alta Devices, Inc.
Ms. Mar-Spinola is a co-founder of ChIPs Network, Inc. (ChIPs), a global 501(c)(3) non-profit corporation dedicated to advancing women at the confluence of law, technology, and regulatory policy. Now Board Chair Emeritus, she served as ChIPs’ Chair from 2005 to 2016 and is currently the President of Diversity and Inclusion. Since 2011, Ms. Mar-Spinola serves as a court-appointed Mediator specializing in complex patent disputes, for the US District Court for the Northern District of California. In 2014, she joined the High Tech Advisory Board at her Alma Mater, Santa Clara University School of Law. In 2015, Ms. Mar-Spinola was appointed by the then Secretary of Commerce to serve on the prestigious Patent Public Advisory Committees (PPAC), which reviews the policies, goals, performance, budget, and user fees of the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) operations and advises the USPTO Director on these matters. Most recently, Ms. Mar-Spinola was named A Women of Influence 2016 by the Silicon Valley Business Journal, and the 2017 Recipient of Santa Clara University School of Law’s Special Achievement Award. She is a member of the California State Bar and a licensed Patent Attorney.
Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer
Michael D. Noonan is Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer of Finjan Holdings, Inc. He has more than 25 years of corporate finance, corporate governance and investor relations experience with companies listed on Nasdaq and the New York Stock Exchange.
Mr. Noonan served as chief financial officer and a member of the Board of Directors of Sky Petroleum Inc., an international oil and gas exploration company. Previously, he served as a senior director in the finance department responsible for investor relations, human resources, and mergers and acquisitions at Forgent Networks, an IP company that generated over $140 million in licensing revenues.
Mr. Noonan received a BBA in Business Administration and Economics from Simon Fraser University in British Columbia, Canada, an MBA from Athabasca University in Alberta, Canada; and an Executive JD from Concord School of Law in Los Angeles, CA.
Director of Business Development
John Garland is Director of Business Development for Finjan Holdings, Inc. where he helps the company to seek patent monetization and supports the strategic and tactile issues involving intellectual property.
He has 25 years of experience as a Licensing Executive with worldwide transaction experience including patent licensing (inbound and outbound licensing), technology licensing, joint ventures, strategic alliances, spin-offs, technology acquisition, and experience in assisting clients on IP strategy, as well as strategic patent acquisitions and divestitures.
Most recently at Rockstar Consortium he was the lead executive responsible for development and implementation of the licensing program. Prior to his work at Rockstar, Mr. Garland worked at Rembrandt IP in sourcing new patent commercialization opportunities. He’s also held key executive roles at “ThinkFire”, led the Worldwide Licensing efforts for Lucent Technologies and worked in the Intellectual Property division of AT&T.
He received his Bachelor's of Science (BSEE) in Electrical Engineering from Lafayette College and his Masters in Business Administration (MBA) from Lehigh University and attended the Executive Development Program at the Kellogg School of Northwestern University. John is a longstanding member and frequent speaker for LES (Licensing Executives Society) and in 2018 (& since the list’s inception in 2008) was again recognized by IAM as one of The World’s Leading IP Strategists.
Director, Patent Analysis
Atreyee Dhar is the Director of Patent Analysis at Finjan Holdings, Inc. She is responsible for monitoring patent related activities in the relevant cyber security technology space, conducting patent analysis, and actively reinforcing the value of Finjan’s patent portfolio.
Prior to Finjan, Atreyee was a Patent Engineer in the Global Licensing Department of Intellectual Ventures, where she studied patents related to the enterprise software and security markets. Prior to Intellectual Ventures, Atreyee worked at Wipro. Ltd., India as a member of the Technical Staff.
Atreyee holds a Master’s Degree in Software Engineering with emphasis in Enterprise Software Technologies from San Jose State University and a Bachelor of Engineering Degree in Information Technology from the University of Kalyani, India.
Office & Human Resources Manager
Rebecca Galdos is the Office & Human Resources Manager at Finjan Holdings, Inc. She is responsible for all HR related matters and for the coordination of office operations, procedures and resources to facilitate organizational effectiveness and efficiency. Rebecca also provides support to Finjan's Executive team and Board members.
Prior to Finjan, Rebecca worked in several executive support and HR roles in Biotech and Technical Recruiting. In her most recent role, at a biotech company, she supported executives in HR recruiting supporting the company's rapid growth and successfully executed projects for the VP of Business Development. She has over 8 years of experience in HR and Operations and 10 years of experience providing support to company executives.
Controller, Senior Director of Finance.
Sharmila is the Controller, Senior Director of Finance at Finjan Holdings, Inc. Sharmila has over 20 years of progressive experience in providing quality accounting support in diverse business environments both public and private. Proficient in all facets of finance and accounting, including extensive GL reconciliations / financial reporting / consolidations / audit / HR administration and ERP implementation. One of her major strengths is the ability to analyze and learn a business, document business processes and procedures, and support the team.
Prior to Joining Finjan, Sharmila served as Operations Controller at Jawbone (makers of wearable technology – “UP” band), where she managed a successful transition from a simple accounting solution to ERP solution supporting phenomenal growth in her 5 years of tenure.
Sharmila received her Bachelor of Science Degree in Computer Science from South Bank University, London, England.
Director of IT
Jules Panopoulos is Director of IT at Finjan Holdings and responsible for integrating and managing IT operations combining core governance functions to maintain compliance with SOX COSO and Cobit frameworks in order to create effective IT governance programs. Prior to joining Finjan Holdings Inc, Jules consulted for several companies and organizations including; Oxford Property Group, Zegans Law Group, Global Finance, David Stark Production. Before that Jules was VP of IT at Wechsler Ross Partners, a marketing and design firm in the financial industry and also served in the United States Marine Corps.
Senior Advisor
Mr. Touboul founded Finjan Software in 1997 and is named as an inventor on a number of Finjan patents covering behavior-based technologies for identifying and deflecting malicious code from accessing endpoint devices across networks and the internet. Mr. Touboul is recognized internationally as a thought leader in the cyber security space as he has both founded and advised a number of companies in the sector. His current involvement includes CUPP Computing, Yoggie Security Systems, StategySeeker.com, and Finjan where he continues to advise the company about software security market segments.
Director of Investor Relations & Corporate Communications
Vanessa Winter is Director of Investor Relations and Corporate Communications for Finjan Holdings, Inc. She is responsible for both internal and external communication and manages the preparation for key financial and strategic disclosures including quarterly earnings, the annual shareholders meeting, roadshows and other material events.
Ms. Winter brings to Finjan over 10 years of experience as an investor relations consultant. Over the years she has had the opportunity to work on a broad range of technology companies across different industries and stages of development, which has allowed her to help clients to target crucial messages and position them most effectively to the investment community. Prior to her consulting career, she worked on the sell-side as a research analyst, which has enabled a unique perspective on messaging.
Ms. Winter earned a BA in Public Policy from Duke University. She has been, and will continue to be, an active member of NIRI.
Chairman
Mr. Chinn has been a director of the Company since June 2013, has served as a director of the Company’s subsidiary, Finjan, Inc., since 2007 and was the CEO of Finjan, Inc. from 2010 until April 2014. He also served as a director (from 2006) of Finjan Software, Inc., a Delaware corporation and a former parent company of Finjan, Inc. and the chief executive officer (from 2010) of Finjan Software, Inc., until its dissolution in 2013. Since 2011, Mr. Chinn has also been a Partner at Tulchinsky Stern Marciano Cohen Levitski & Co., an Israeli law firm, where he specializes in corporate and transactional matters. Prior to joining Tulchinsky Stern Marciano Cohen Levitski & Co., from 2009 to 2010, Mr. Chinn was the Chief Executive Officer of Seambiotic Ltd., which develops and produces marine microalgae for the food additives sector and as an energy alternative source, and from 2006 to 2010, he was a Partner at Israel Seed IV, L.P., an investment company focusing on Israeli information technology and life sciences companies.
Mr. Benhamou has been a director of the Company since June 2013 and has served as a director of the Company’s subsidiary, Finjan, Inc., since 2006. Mr. Benhamou is also Chairman and CEO of Benhamou Global Ventures, LLC, which he founded in 2003. Benhamou Global Ventures, LLC invests and plays an active role in innovative high tech firms throughout the world. Mr. Benhamou sits or has sat on the boards of directors of numerous public and private companies in the technology industry. Among U.S. public companies, he serves as a director of Cypress Semiconductor Corporation, a semiconductor company (Chairman, since 1993) and SVB Financial Group, a diversified financial services company, bank holding company and financial holding company (since 2005), and has previously served as a director of RealNetworks, Inc., creator of digital media services and software (2003-2012), 3Com Corporation, a public networking solutions provider (Chairman, 1990-2010), Voltaire Ltd., a public grid computing network solutions company (2007-2011), Dasient, a security company that provides malware detection and prevention solutions (2010-2011) and Palm, Inc., a public mobile products provider (Chairman, 1999-2007). Mr. Benhamou also has served in management capacities at various public and private technology companies, including Palm, Inc. (Interim Chief Executive Officer, 2001-2003) and 3Com Corporation (Chief Executive Officer, 1990-2000), and previously founded Bridge Communications, an early networking pioneer, and served as Vice President of Engineering (1981-1987) until its merger with 3Com in 1987. He serves as a member of the board of the Stanford University School of Engineering, as a Vice Chairman of the Board of Governors of Ben Gurion University of the Negev, and serves other educational and philanthropic organizations. Mr. Benhamou holds a Master of Science degree from Stanford University’s School of Engineering, a Diplôme d’Ingénieur and a doctorate from Ecole Nationale Supérieure d’Arts et Métiers, Paris, and several honorary degrees.
Mr. Daniel has been a director of the Company since April 2014 and was formerly a Managing Director at the global investment bank Houlihan Lokey, where he was head of Houlihan Lokey’s San Francisco office for 15 of his 25 years with the firm. During this time, he advised boards of directors and independent committees of technology companies on fairness, valuation, and other financial matters in M&A and securities transactions. Mr. Daniel has deep experience with litigation in financial disputes, having testified as a financial expert in more than 25 cases in State, Federal, and Bankruptcy Court. He previously held positions with Moody’s Investors Service and Lehman Brothers. Mr. Daniel holds a Bachelor of Arts in German & Economics and a Master of Science in Finance from the University of Wisconsin, Madison. He is a Chartered Financial Analyst (CFA) and a member of the CFA Institute.
Mr. Greene has been a director of the Company since June 2018. He is also a Partner, Managing Principal, and Portfolio Manager of Halcyon Capital Management LP. He shares primary portfolio management responsibilities for Halcyon’s multi-strategy, credit and long duration recovery vehicles. Mr. Greene will serve on the board of directors of Philadelphia Energy Solutions, the largest refinery on the East Coast. On the non-profit side, he is a trustee of the Maryland Science Center and Franklin & Marshall College. Prior to joining Halcyon, Mr. Greene was a distressed debt analyst for J.P. Morgan Chase, where he began his career in 1999, and where he published research on distressed and high yield securities, made proprietary trading recommendations, and worked with J.P. Morgan Chase's London-based European High Yield Research team. Mr. Greene received his B.A. from Franklin & Marshall College in 1999.
Mr. Kellogg has been a director of the Company since April 2014 and was previously Vice Chairman of the Board of Silicon Valley Bank, the California bank subsidiary and the commercial banking operation of SVB Financial Group, a public company. He was also Head of Strategic Relationships for SVB Financial Group, responsible for overseeing SVB Financial Group’s venture capital, private equity, private banking and premium wine activities. Kellogg joined Silicon Valley Bank in 1986 as Senior Vice President of the Technology Division. Prior to joining Silicon Valley Bank, he was the group manager of Corporate Banking at Bank of the West for five years and started that bank’s technology lending group. He was also with Wells Fargo Bank for 13 years, including four years in the Wells Fargo Special Industries Group, a high-tech lending unit within Wells Fargo Bank. Mr. Kellogg is and has been actively involved in many civic and industry organizations, serving on many of their boards and advisory boards. These include: TechNet, Joint Venture: Silicon Valley Network, Financial Executives International, Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research, The Computer History Museum, California/Israel Chamber of Commerce, Nollenberger Capital Partners, The Tuck Center for Private Equity and Entrepreneurship, Pacific Community Ventures and Grameen Bank. Mr. Kellogg is an emeritus board member of the Technology Museum of Innovation. In 2001, he was named one of Upside Magazine’s “100 People Who Changed Our World.” Mr. Kellogg holds a Bachelor of Science Degree in Business Administration & Finance from San Jose State University.
Mr. Moore served most recently as President and COO of Cisco, a position he held since 2012. He was named Cisco’s first COO in 2011. He joined Cisco in 2001 as the Senior Vice President of the Advanced Services Division ultimately overseeing an $11 billion business. Prior to joining Cisco, Mr. Moore was President and CEO of Netigy, a network consulting business. During his 22-month tenure he led Netigy through significant growth by meaningfully expanding its infrastructure and ultimately creating a global organization. Mr. Moore began his career at Electronic Data Systems (EDS) where he held a number of executive roles during his 26-year career. Among his many contributions, he created and grew the E.solutions global business unit to more than 20,000 employees generating over $2 billion in revenue, labeling it as the company’s fastest growing organization. Additionally, he was a member of the EDS Global Operations Council where he was responsible for multiple business units including manufacturing, retail and distribution customers of Hitachi Data Systems.
Gary currently lectures at The Ohio State Fisher School of Business as an executive in residence. He serves on KLA Tencor’s board as a member of the compensation committee. His past board involvement includes VCE, Smithsonian, Unigraphic Solutions, A.T. Kearney, Japan Systems Limited and Hitachi Data Systems. Mr. Moore’s experience also includes a four-year tour of duty with the U.S. Army.
Alex Rogers has been a director of the Company since June 2013 and has served as a director of the Company’s subsidiary, Finjan, Inc., since 2006. Mr. Rogers also serves as a managing director of HarbourVest (Asia) Limited and HarbourVest Partners LLC, which he joined in 1998. At HarbourVest, he focuses on direct co-investments in growth equity, buyout, and mezzanine transactions in Asia, Europe and emerging markets regions, and has been instrumental in expanding and managing the direct investment team in London, including its direct European senior debt investing activities. He has also been actively involved in HarbourVest’s business development activities, including the public listings of HarbourVest Global Private Equity Limited and HarbourVest Senior Loans Europe Limited. Mr. Rogers transferred to HarbourVest’s Hong Kong subsidiary in 2012. He serves or has recently served as a board member or board observer at M86 Security, MobileAccess Networks (acquired by Corning), MYOB (acquired by Bain Capital), Nero AG, Transmode Systems (TRMO:SS), TynTec, and World-Check (acquired by Thomson Reuters). His previous experience includes two years with McKinsey & Company. Mr. Rogers received a B.A., summa cum laude, in Economics from Duke University and an M.B.A. from Harvard Business School, where he graduated with high distinction and was named a Baker Scholar.
Mr. Southworth has been a director of the Company since April 2014. He is also the Chief Executive Officer at Contact Solutions LLC, a leading provider of cloud-based and mobile customer self-service solutions. He led Contact Solutions’ business transformation, including strategy planning, risk mitigation, executive recruitment and change management. For over two decades, Mr. Southworth has directed companies from the start-up phase through major periods of growth, and has been behind over $100 million in private equity and debt financing. Previously, Mr. Southworth was Senior Vice President of Global Wireless Solutions at Corning. Prior to Corning, he held senior financial roles at a number of technology companies including MobileAccess Networks, Lucent Technologies, and Chromatis. Mr. Southworth holds a Bachelor of Science, Biology, Business concentration, from the University of California at Berkeley. He is a Certified Public Accountant in the State of California.
Finjan Mobile is committed to incorporating Finjan's enterprise-grade technology into products that increase Internet security for our customers using mobile devices. Finjan Mobile listens to customer's feedback, innovates in response to that feedback and new challenges, and looks for both organic and inorganic paths towards future growth.
Finjan Blue, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of Finjan Holdings, has entered into a patent acquisition and development agreement with IBM, and includes pathways for the two companies to consider development efforts in the future. The Agreement, the terms of which are confidential, includes the transfer of select security-related patent assets and provides for the sharing of pertinent institutional knowledge and resources by IBM to Finjan Blue.
CybeRisk provides cybersecurity risk advisory services to customers throughout Europe, North America, and other key global markets from its headquarters in East Palo Alto.
30 ISSUED U.S. PATENTS
U.S. Patent No. Title 6,092,194 System and Method for Protecting a Computer and a Network from Hostile Downloadables 6,154,844 System and Method for Attaching a Downloadable Security Profile to a Downloadable 6,804,780 System and Method for Protecting a Computer and a Network from Hostile Downloadables 6,965,968 Policy-Based Caching 7,058,822 Malicious Mobile Code Runtime Monitoring System and Methods 7,418,731 Method and System for Caching at Secure Gateways 7,613,918 System and Method for Enforcing a Security Context on a Downloadable 7,613,926 Method and System for Protecting a Computer and a Network from Hostile Downloadables 7,647,633 Malicious Mobile Code Runtime Monitoring System and Methods 7,756,996 Embedding Management Data Within HTTP Messages 7,757,289 System and Method for Inspecting Dynamically Generated Executable Code 7,769,991 Automatically Executing an Anti-Virus Application on a Mobile Communication Device 7,930,299 System and Method for Appending Security Information to Search Engine Results 7,975,305 Method and System for Adaptive Rule-Based Content Scanners for Desktop Computers 8,015,182 System and Method for Appending Security Information to Search Engine Results 8,079,086 Malicious Mobile Code Runtime Monitoring System and Methods 8,087,079 Byte-Distribution Analysis of File Security 8,141,154 System and Method for Inspecting Dynamically Generated Executable Code 8,225,408 Method and System for Adaptive Rule-Based Content Scanners 8,474,048 Website Content Regulation 8,566,580 Splitting an SSL Connection Between Gateways 8,677,494 Malicious Mobile Code Runtime Monitoring System and Methods 9,141,786 Malicious Mobile Code Runtime Monitoring System and Methods 9,189,621 Malicious Mobile Code Runtime Monitoring System and Methods 9,219,755 Malicious Mobile Code Runtime Monitoring System and Methods 9,294,493 Computer Security Method and System with Input Parameter Validation 9,444,844 Malicious Mobile Code Runtime Monitoring System and Methods 9,525,680 Splitting an SSL Connection Between Gateways
Enforcement Calendar
https://content.equisolve.net/_a595629b339725778ff5a31d1e47968d/finjan/db/184/5152/pdf/Enforcement+Schedule+110316.pdf
Investor Presentation
https://content.equisolve.net/_a595629b339725778ff5a31d1e47968d/finjan/db/184/5150/pdf/Finjan+Investor+Presentation+0217+-+Website.pdf
Volume | |
Day Range: | |
Bid Price | |
Ask Price | |
Last Trade Time: |