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.
