Finjan Holdings Inc (FNJN)

[lbcb123]

Here is the full 25 page ruling. There is no charge for it:

http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/16-2520.Opinion.1-8-2018.1.PDF

I read it a little more closely the second time and there is no guarantee Finjan gets ANYTHING from the '844 patent. "We therefore remand to the district court to determine whether Finjan has waived the right to establish reasonable royalty damages under a new theory" as the exact quote from the appellate court.

(“[T]here must be a
basis in fact to associate the royalty rates used in prior
licenses to the particular hypothetical negotiation at issue
in the case.”). In short, the $8-per-user fee appears to
have been plucked from thin air and, as such, cannot be
the basis for a reasonable royalty calculation.
While it is clear that Finjan failed to present a damages
case that can support the jury’s verdict, reversal of
JMOL could result in a situation in which Finjan receives
no compensation for Blue Coat’s infringement of the ’844
patent. Ordinarily, “the district court must award damages
in an amount no less than a reasonable royalty” when
infringement is found, Dow Chem. Co. v. Mee Indus., Inc.,
341 F.3d 1370, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2003); see Riles v. Shell
Expl. & Prod. Co., 298 F.3d 1302, 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2002),
unless the patent holder has waived the right to damages
based on alternate theories, Promega Corp. v. Life Tech.
Corp., No. 2013-1011, slip op. at 15 (Fed. Cir. 2017). We
therefore remand to the district court to determine
whether Finjan has waived the right to establish reasonable
royalty damages under a new theory and whether to
order a new trial on damages.