Finjan Holdings Inc (FNJN)

[Paullee]

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.