Here is the proposed order. The whole filing with the attached exhibits in support was around 700 pages. The appellate court made many of Symantec's arguments moot. Finjan has a good shot with this.
Plaintiff Finjan, Inc.’s (“Finjan”) Motion for Summary Judgment of Infringement and Validity
was brought before this Court. Upon consideration of Finjan’s Motion for Summary Judgment, the
Declaration of Kristopher Kastens filed in support of the motion and exhibits attached thereto, the
arguments of counsel at the hearing, and the case file in this action, the Court finds there to be good
cause to grant Finjan’s Motion for Summary Judgment.
Therefore, Finjan’s Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED, as follows:
1) Symantec Corp. (“Symantec”) is collaterally estopped from alleging that U.S. Patent No.
8,677,494 (the “’494 Patent”) and U.S. Patent No. 6,154,844 (the “’844 Patent”) are
unenforceable or invalid under 35 U.S.C. §§ 101, 102, 103, and 112;
2) Symantec is estopped under 35 U.S.C. § 315 (e)(2) from alleging U.S. Publication No.
2007/0113282 (“Ross Reference”) anticipates U.S. Patent No. 8,141,154 (the “’154 Patent”);
3) None of Symantec’s asserted prior art references (i.e., NAV-IEG, Swimmer, Islam,
Nachenberg, NAV 4.0, and ThunderBYTE references) anticipate or render obvious Claims 1,
7, 11, 15, 16, and 43 for the ‘844 Patent; the Swimmer, NAV 4.0, and Islam references do not
render obvious Claims 15, 22, 25, and 27 of U.S. Patent No. 7,613,926 (the “’926 Patent); the
NAV 4.0, ThunderBYTE, Nachenberg, and Islam references do not anticipate or render
obvious Claims 10, 14, and 15 of the ‘494 Patent; the Ship, Golan, and Sirer references do not
anticipate or render obvious Claims 1, 3, and 4 of U.S. Patent No. 8,141,154 (the “‘154
Patent”); the Ship, Golan, Sirer, and AppletTrap references do not anticipate or render obvious
Claims 22 and 41 of the U.S. Patent No. 7,757,289 (the “‘289 Patent”); none of Symantec’s
asserted prior art references (i.e., Dixon and Rowan references) anticipate or render obvious
Claims 13 and 18 for the U.S. Patent No. 7,930,299 (the “‘299 Patent”); none of Symantec’s
asserted prior art references (i.e., Dixon and Rowan references) anticipate or render obvious
Claims 8 and 13 for the U.S. Patent No. 8,015,182 (the “‘182 Patent”); none of Symantec’s
asserted prior art references (i.e., Bavadekar and Greaves references) anticipate or render
obvious Claims 1 and 3 for the U.S. Patent No. 7,756,996 (the “‘996 Patent”);
4) Symantec’s asserted “Islam Reference” does not anticipate or render obvious the asserted
claims of the ‘844 Patent and the ’926 Patent;
5) Symantec’s Sirer Reference does not anticipate or render obvious the asserted claims of the
154 Patent;
6) WO 98/21683 (the “Touboul Reference”) is not prior art to the ‘494 or ‘926 Patents;
7) Symantec has no defense pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1498; and
8) Symantec’s ATP Email, ATP Network, and ATP Endpoint products infringe Claim 10 of the
‘494 Patent.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
