Replies to post #18610 on Finjan Holdings Inc (FNJN)

[Paullee]

here's there spin, or lack of it
Jury Finds Non-infringement of Claim 10 of Finjan’s ‘494 Patent by Juniper
GlobeNewswire•December 17, 2018
First Trial on One of Several Asserted Patents

EAST PALO ALTO, Calif., Dec. 17, 2018 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- Finjan Holdings, Inc. (FNJN), today announced that its subsidiary Finjan, Inc.’s (“Finjan”) first in a series of trials for infringement of several of its U.S. patents against Juniper Network, Inc. (“Juniper”) resulted in a jury verdict of non-infringement. Specifically, a jury found that Juniper’s SRX Gateway network appliances with SkyATP cloud-based scanning systems did not infringe Claim 10 of ­­­Finjan’s U.S. Patent No. 8,677,494 (“the ‘494 Patent”). No decision has been made on additional asserted claims of the ‘494 Patent.

The matter is before the Honorable William Alsup (Case No. 3:17-cv-05659-WHA) in the Northern District Court of California, San Francisco. Judge Alsup will decide as part of this first trial whether Claim 10 of the ‘494 Patent comprises patent eligible subject matter, an issue that has been previously decided in the affirmative more than once by District Court Judges in the Northern District of California and the Patent Trial and Appeal Board of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. Once all issues and post-trial motions have been decided in this first trial, Finjan will consider its options including whether to appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.

In addition, the remaining asserted patents to be tried but not yet scheduled against Juniper, include Finjan’s U.S. Patent Nos. 6,154,844; 6,804,780; 7,418,731; 7,613,926; 7,647,633; 8,141,154, and 8,677,494. Finjan is seeking, among other things, a jury trial and past damages not less than a reasonable royalty, and any other relief as the Court deems proper for these patents.

Finjan has pending infringement lawsuits and appeals against Palo Alto Networks; ESET and its affiliates; Cisco Systems, Inc.; SonicWall, Inc.; Bitdefender and its affiliates; Zscaler, Inc.; Check Point and its affiliates; Rapid7, Inc., Fortinet, Inc. and Qualys, Inc. relating to, collectively, more than 20 patents in the Finjan portfolio. 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.

[Paullee]

Calif. Federal Jury Finds Glitches In Finjan Malware Patent Suit
Share us on: By Mike LaSusa

Law360 (December 17, 2018, 6:38 PM EST) -- Cybersecurity company Finjan Inc. lost a bid to prove malware detection products sold by competitor Juniper Networks Inc. had infringed Finjan’s patent when a California federal jury on Friday returned a verdict in Juniper’s favor.

After just under two hours of deliberation, the jury informed the court that it found Juniper did not infringe Finjan’s U.S. patent number 8,677,494, titled "Malicious Mobile Code Runtime Monitoring System and Methods," which protects a type of software that scans downloadable computer files for malware.

The dispute in this case came down to the definition of a “database” as the term is used in claim 10 of the patent-in-suit.

“The court and the parties agree that all limitations of claim 10 are met except the parties disagree whether the ‘database’ limitation is met,” U.S. District Judge William Alsup wrote in instructions to the jury. “You must decide whether the database limitation is met as that term is used in the claim.”

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.

Responding to Friday’s verdict, Finjan said in a news release that Judge Alsup will rule on whether claim 10 of the '494 patent is eligible for protection in light of the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2014 decision in Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International , which said that abstract ideas implemented using a computer are not patent-eligible. But in a telephone interview with Law360, an attorney for Juniper expressed uncertainty about whether the judge would rule on that issue, given that the jury had found there was no infringement.

Finjan's news release also noted that it is also suing Juniper and several other companies for alleged infringement of other claims of the ‘494 patent as well as other patents.

“No decision has been made on additional asserted claims of the ‘494 patent,” the statement said. “Once all issues and post-trial motions have been decided in this first trial, Finjan will consider its options including whether to appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.”

While the trial predictably featured numerous complex matters involving computer science, the issue of extraterrestrial life made an unexpected appearance last week during jury selection, when Judge Alsup questioned prospective jurors about their beliefs in aliens, telekinesis and UFOs.

"I have found it very interesting which side knocks off people who know science," Judge Alsup said of patent trials. "It's one of the more interesting points of the trial."

Representatives for Finjan did not immediately respond to requests for comment Monday.

The patent-in-suit is U.S. Patent No. 8,677,494.

Finjan is represented by Paul J. Andre, Lisa Kobialka and James Hannah of Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel LLP.

Juniper is represented by Jonathan S. Kagan, Rebecca Carson, Alan Heinrich, Josh Glucoft, Casey Curran, Sharon Song 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 Dorothy Atkins. Editing by Kelly Duncan.