Replies to post #18632 on Finjan Holdings Inc (FNJN)

[Paullee]

FNJN finally announces old news
US District Court Adopts Finjan’s Claim Constructions Over Cisco’s
GlobeNewswire•February 14, 2019
Three Patents, Four Disputed Claim Terms, 100% Win for Finjan, Inc.

EAST PALO ALTO, Calif., Feb. 14, 2019 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- Finjan Holdings, Inc. (FNJN), and its subsidiary Finjan, Inc. ("Finjan"), announced that in an Order, dated February 5, 2019 and titled “Order Construing Additional Claims in U.S. Patent Nos. 6,154,844; 6,804,780; 7,647,633,” (“Order”), the Honorable Judge Beth Labson Freeman of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (Case No. 17-cv-00072) adopted and ordered claim constructions entirely in Finjan’s favor over Cisco’s proposed claim constructions. Cisco sought the Court’s construction on one additional claim element for the ‘844 Patent, one for the ‘780 Patent, and two additional claim elements for the ‘633 Patent, after the Court previously ruled on 10 other disputed claim elements on July 23, 2018.

“We believe this win signifies that it will be more difficult for Cisco to avoid liability under Finjan’s battle-hardened patents,” said Julie Mar-Spinola, Finjan’s CIPO. “As the Court stated throughout the Order, the four terms were previously construed either by itself or other courts and Cisco’s arguments to change those prior constructions were insufficient or unpersuasive.”

Separately, the Court had entered an earlier July 23, 2018 Order construing 10 claim elements, four of which were on the ‘844 Patent, one on the ‘780 Patent, three on the ‘633 Patent, and one each on U.S. Patent Nos. 8,677,494 and 8,141,154, the latter two of which were not part of the February 5th Order. Of the 10 claim elements disputed, the Court adopted Finjan’s interpretation on six, split one between Finjan and Cisco, construed two on its own, and adopted Cisco’s interpretation on one claim element.

The ‘844 Patent is also asserted against: ESET, SonicWall, Juniper, CheckPoint, Fortinet, and Qualys
The ‘780 Patent is also asserted against Palo Alto Networks, ESET, SonicWall, Bitdefender, Juniper, and Zscaler
The ‘633 Patent is also asserted against Palo Alto Networks, SonicWall, Juniper, Zscaler, CheckPoint, and Fortinet
The ‘494 Patent is also asserted against Palo Alto Networks, SonicWall, Bitdefender, Juniper, Zscaler, CheckPoint, Rapid7, Fortinet, and Qualys
The ‘154 Patent is also asserted against Palo Alto Networks, SonicWall, Bitdefender, Juniper, CheckPoint, 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.

[Paullee]

Delaware Court Clears Path for Finjan to Establish Additional Royalties Owed by Trustwave
GlobeNewswire•February 19, 2019
Trustwave’s Motion to Dismiss Breach of Contract Case Initiated by Finjan is Denied

EAST PALO ALTO, Calif., Feb. 19, 2019 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- Finjan Holdings, Inc. (FNJN), and its subsidiary Finjan, Inc. ("Finjan"), filed a complaint against its licensee, Trustwave Holdings, Inc. (“Trustwave”) in the Superior Court of the State of Delaware for Breach of Contract (Case No. N18C-04-006) on April 4, 2018. Finjan entered into an Amended and Restated Patent License Agreement (“Agreement”) with Trustwave on March 6, 2012. On February 11, 2019, after considering Trustwave’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint, the Honorable William C. Carpenter, Jr. of the Superior Court of the State of Delaware denied the motion, ruling that Finjan’s breach of contract suit may proceed.

As with the majority of Finjan’s Agreements and Licenses, certain provisions are included which essentially serve as pricing protections. Under this particular Agreement, in the event that Trustwave was acquired, certain royalties would be due on certain products. Finjan alleges that Trustwave breached the parties’ Agreement by failing to pay royalties believed owed as a result of Trustwave’s acquisition by Singapore Telecommunications Ltd. (“Singtel”) on or about September 2015.

“We have long enjoyed our relationship with Trustwave and place great value on the fact that they are a licensee of Finjan, Inc.’s patents. While we wish to maintain this relationship, it became apparent after extensive negotiations that it was necessary to file suit to enforce the terms of our Patent License Agreement that contemplated additional royalty payments upon certain qualified acquisition events, such as Singtel acquiring Trustwave,” said Julie Mar-Spinola, CIPO of Finjan. “Such provisions are common in our Patent License Agreements not only to help protect the value of Finjan’s patent portfolio but also serve to protect the value to our stakeholders.”