8k
Item 8.01. Other Events.
On September 13, 2018, Finjan Holdings, Inc. (the “Company”) and its wholly-owned subsidiary, Finjan, Inc. (“Finjan”), announced that Finjan will try to a jury one of its claims of infringement against Juniper Network, Inc. (“Juniper”). The matter is before the Honorable William Alsup (Case No. 3:17-cv-05659-WHA) in the Northern District Court of California, San Francisco.
The Court ordered a jury trial limited to four issues raised in Finjan’s Motion: (1) whether the Accused Products meet the database limitation of Claim 10; (2) Juniper’s Section 101 invalidity defense; (3) Juniper’s Section 287 defense on damages; and (4) the extent of Finjan’s damages resulting from Juniper’s infringement. The jury trial is scheduled for December 10, 2018 (Docket No. 193).
On June 7, 2018, Finjan filed a Motion for Summary Judgment of Infringement of Claim 10 of U.S. Patent No. 8,677,494 (the “’494 Patent”) (“Finjan’s Motion”) by Juniper’s SRX Gateway network appliances and Sky ATP cloud-based scanning systems (the “Accused Products”). At issue was whether the Accused Products embodied all the claim limitations of Claim 10 of the ‘494 Patent, namely, a receiver, a scanner, a list of suspicious computer operations, a database manager, and a database. Juniper opposed Finjan’s Motion on three grounds: (1) non-infringement; (2) invalidity based on unpatentable subject matter and indefiniteness; and (3) Finjan’s failure to mark (i.e., notice of infringement).
On August 31, 2018, the Court entered its order on Finjan’s Motion titled, “Order Granting in Part Early Motion for Summary Judgment on ‘494 Patent” (Docket No. 189), as follows:
On the issue of infringement, the Court found that there was no dispute of material facts that the Accused Products met the list of suspicious computer operations, scanner, and database manager limitations. The Court, however, determined that factual disputes exist on whether the Accused Products comprised a database. The parties did not dispute the existence of a receiver. On the issue of invalidity, the Court rejected Juniper’s “indefiniteness” contention, and reserved for trial on whether Claim 10 of the ‘494 Patent comprises patent eligible subject matter. Lastly, on the issue of notice and damages under Section 287 (Marking) requirements, the Court deferred the issue for a jury to decide.
A copy of the press release is attached hereto as Exhibit 99.1 and is incorporated herein by reference.
The information in this current report on Form 8-K and the exhibit attached hereto shall not be deemed “filed” for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”) or otherwise subject to the liabilities of that section, nor shall it be deemed incorporated by reference in any filing under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Exchange Act, regardless of any general incorporation language in such filing.
Item 9.01. Financial Statements and Exhibits
(d)
Exhibits.
Exhibit No.
Description
99.1
"The Investors's Chief Problem--and even his worst enemy--is likely to be himself"
---Benjamin Graham
