Replies to post #18715 on Finjan Holdings Inc (FNJN)

[Paullee]

Yeah, I saw them this AM,

two, four, would be surprised to see more

[Paullee]

Guess it is all over except for the lawyers

[Paullee]

Finjan Faces $8.7M Fee Bid For 'BS' Juniper Patent War
By Andrew Karpan

Law360 (December 2, 2020, 11:02 PM EST) -- Finjan and its lawyers at Kramer Levin could face blowback for their litigation style to the tune of $8.65 million in attorney fees if Judge William Alsup, who said the case evoked "all the BS that goes on" in patent lawsuits, ultimately accepts Juniper Network's claims that the three-year patent war was based on an exceptionally weak case.

On Monday, Juniper Networks asked U.S. District Judge Alsup to grant it legal fees totaling $8.65 million for its expenses litigating against the nine patent claims that Finjan Inc. had lodged against Juniper in 2017. In a one-page ruling on Wednesday and without comment, Judge Alsup sent the fee claims to the court of U.S. Magistrate Judge Nathanael Cousins for a first look.

The fee claims come less than two months after the Federal Circuit affirmed Juniper's win before a jury against the only patent claim that had survived to trial in a one-line order.

In Juniper's telling on Monday, Finjan had threatened "a multi-headed hydra of lawsuit[s]" if Juniper didn't agree to license an array of Finjan's alleged inventions. These were patents on technologies for storing and downloading security data and were allegedly owned by the Palo Alto, California-based patent licensing company.

But Juniper didn't think that its technology used those inventions at all. Finjan then said it would hit Juniper with a world of legal expenses in which its "best-case scenario would be to spend millions upon millions of dollars defeating each of Finjan's meritless claims."

Now, Juniper wants those millions from Finjan.

The tone of Monday's filing seemed at times incredulous about Finjan's legal strategy during the trial, which was handled by the New York firm Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel LLP.

"It is difficult to conceive of a weaker case," Juniper said about the suit, as it landed at the company's door. Following a few early summary judgment wins in 2018, Juniper said there was no reason for Finjan not to simply give up.

"A reasonable party would have either cut its losses or accepted that it would need to adjust its expectations about the appropriate damages. Not Finjan," Juniper said in its filing.

The filing comes as Judge Alsup has yet to rule on Juniper's earlier allegations that lawyers on the case at Kramer Levin ought to be sanctioned for lying in Judge Alsup's court and pushing "overreaching" theories, particularly about damages. On Monday, Juniper again urged Judge Alsup to finally rule on those sanctions.

In the midst of that trial, Judge Alsup shook his head and remarked that he was convinced one side in the case must be lying to his face. He said that the case was, in his mind, indicative of "all the BS that goes on" in patent litigation.

Juniper said on Monday that the liars were Finjan and its legal team.

Monday's motion drew particular attention to an effort by Finjan, as the case was about to head to trial, to claim $142 million in damages after Juniper provided evidence in discovery that, at most, Juniper would owe less than $1.8 million if the jury found its products infringed on the remaining patent in the case, U.S. Patent No. 8,677,494.

Judge Alsup had rejected Finjan there, too, Juniper's filing recollected. Reviewing Finjan's new theory of damages, he called the numbers "eyepopping" and ultimately "preposterous."

"A reasonable party would have — once again — cut its losses or accepted that it would need to adjust its expectations regarding damages. But, once again, not Finjan," the filing went on.

Finjan instead pushed the case onward on its remaining patent claim and it went before a jury in late 2018.

The trial has had its odd moments. Interrogating the jurors, Judge Alsup had asked about their belief in aliens and forms of telekinesis. Finjan had rejected two jurors who expressed a dim view so-called patent trolls, a pejorative term for nonpracticing entities that make a business of suing for patent infringement. In another filing, Juniper would note that the company is, elsewhere, suing some 20 other companies for patent infringement.

Nonetheless, the jury had found no infringement. The saga, however, only came to an end this October after a Federal Circuit panel responded with skepticism to Finjan's appeal of an earlier ruling that Finjan didn't properly notify Juniper about its alleged infringement, a finding of Judge Alsup's court.

Juniper tallies the $8.65 million that it is demanding from Finjan from the costs it sustained litigating the particularly "meritless claims" before both a jury and then having to defend that verdict in the Federal Circuit.

These fees do not, however, include what Juniper spent defending the patents before inter partes reviews at the instigation of the suit, the company notes.

"Indeed, courts have approved fee awards far larger than the amount sought by Juniper for patent cases litigated through trial," Juniper said.

Representatives for the parties did not respond to a request for comment on Wednesday.

The patents-in-suit are U.S. Patent Nos. 8,141,154; 6,804,780; and 8,677,494.

Finjan was represented by Paul J. Andre and Yuridia Caire of Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel LLP and Francis Joseph Albert, Juanita R. Brooks, Robert Printon Courtney and Oliver James Richards of Fish & Richardson P.C.

Juniper was represented by Rebecca Carson, Dennis Joseph Courtney, Alexis Paschedag Federico, Alan J. Heinrich, Jonathan Kagan and Ingrid Marie Haslund Petersen 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 Hannah Albarazi, Dani Kass, Dorothy Atkins and Britain Eakin. Editing by Peter Rozovsky.

[Paullee]

Finjan Fights $8.7M Fee Bid For 'BS' Juniper Patent War
By Dave Simpson

Law360 (December 15, 2020, 11:03 PM EST) -- Finjan urged a California federal judge not to force it to pay Juniper Networks' $8.65 million legal bill for its expenses defending a case that Judge William Alsup said evoked "all the BS that goes on" in patent lawsuits, arguing that the case was "far from frivolous" and pursued in good faith.

Finjan Inc. said Monday that while it lost the jury trial in the patent infringement suit, it did win "a number of battles along the way," including beating Juniper Networks' motions to invalidate its patents and getting to trial on one of its patents.

"Contrary to Juniper's contention, this case was resolved on entirely unexceptional grounds, and though Juniper ended up prevailing in the end, Finjan vigorously pursued claims it reasonably and in good faith believed were meritorious," Finjan said. "Nothing about this case calls for fee shifting."

Last month, Juniper Networks asked U.S. District Judge Alsup to grant it legal fees for its expenses litigating against the nine patent claims that Finjan had lodged against Juniper in 2017.

The fee claims came less than two months after the Federal Circuit affirmed Juniper's win before a jury against the only patent claim that had survived to trial in a one-line order.

In Juniper's telling on Monday, Finjan had threatened "a multi-headed hydra of lawsuit[s]" if Juniper didn't agree to license an array of Finjan's alleged inventions. These were patents on technologies for storing and downloading security data and were allegedly owned by the Palo Alto, California-based patent licensing company.

But Juniper didn't think that its technology used those inventions at all. Finjan then said it would hit Juniper with a world of legal expenses in which its "best-case scenario would be to spend millions upon millions of dollars defeating each of Finjan's meritless claims."

Now, Juniper wants those millions from Finjan.

Juniper drew particular attention to an effort by Finjan, as the case was about to head to trial, to claim $142 million in damages after Juniper provided evidence in discovery that, at most, Juniper would owe less than $1.8 million if the jury found its products infringed on the remaining patent in the case, U.S. Patent No. 8,677,494.

Judge Alsup had rejected Finjan there, too, Juniper's filing recollected. Reviewing Finjan's new theory of damages, he called the numbers "eyepopping" and ultimately "preposterous."

Finjan responded Monday that the court's disagreement with the damages doesn't make the position frivolous.

"Finjan reasonably relied on an expert damages model approved by past Federal Circuit law and aligning with a reasonable interpretation that the infringing act was Juniper's sale of its product — not the consumers' post-sale use," it said.

The trial has had its odd moments. Interrogating the jurors, Judge Alsup had asked about their belief in aliens and forms of telekinesis. Finjan had rejected two jurors who expressed a dim view of so-called patent trolls, a pejorative term for nonpracticing entities that make a business of suing for patent infringement. In another filing, Juniper would note that the company is, elsewhere, suing some 20 other companies for patent infringement.

Nonetheless, the jury had found no infringement. The saga, however, only came to an end this October after a Federal Circuit panel responded with skepticism to Finjan's appeal of an earlier ruling that Finjan didn't properly notify Juniper about its alleged infringement, a finding of Judge Alsup's court.

Among other things, Juniper played up, in its bid for fees, its trial win.

Finjan shot back Monday that the court granted summary judgment in its favor that Juniper's products infringed all but one element of the claim at issue in the '494 patent — whether the products had a database.

"Juniper also ignores that Finjan presented evidence (including documents from Juniper's marketing materials and Juniper's own engineers) confirming that Juniper's product uses a database," Finjan said Monday. "While Juniper ended up prevailing with the jury, this evidence at a minimum shows Finjan's case was far from frivolous."

The tone of Juniper's November filing seemed at times incredulous about Finjan's legal strategy during the trial, which was handled by its former counsel, the New York firm Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel LLP.

"It is difficult to conceive of a weaker case," Juniper said about the suit, as it landed at the company's door. Following a few early summary judgment wins in 2018, Juniper said there was no reason for Finjan not to simply give up.

Judge Alsup has yet to rule on Juniper's earlier allegations that lawyers on the case at Kramer Levin ought to be sanctioned for lying in Judge Alsup's court and pushing "overreaching" theories, particularly about damages. Last month, Juniper again urged Judge Alsup to finally rule on those sanctions.

In the midst of that trial, Judge Alsup shook his head and remarked that he was convinced one side in the case must be lying to his face. He said that the case was, in his mind, indicative of "all the BS that goes on" in patent litigation.

Juniper said last month that the liars were Finjan and its legal team.

Finjan's Monday filing makes little mention of its former counsel but did ask that the firm be involved if the court does opt to award attorneys' fees.

"Even if the court were inclined to award any attorney fees, pursuant to the court's order of October 22, 2020 retaining jurisdiction over Kramer Levin for the purpose of sanctions motions, Finjan respectfully submits that further discussions concerning potential fee-shifting or sanctions require participation from Kramer Levin," it said.

The patents-in-suit are U.S. Patent Nos. 8,141,154; 6,804,780; and 8,677,494.

Finjan was represented by Francis Joseph Albert, Juanita R. Brooks, Robert Printon Courtney and Oliver James Richards of Fish & Richardson P.C.

Juniper was represented by Rebecca Carson, Dennis Joseph Courtney, Alexis Paschedag Federico, Alan J. Heinrich, Jonathan Kagan and Ingrid Marie Haslund Petersen 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.

[Paullee]

Finjan Beats Investor Suit Over $44M Fortress Deal, For Now
By Sarah Jarvis

Law360 (April 14, 2021, 7:33 PM EDT) -- Cybersecurity company Finjan Holdings has beaten shareholders' proposed securities class action, but a California federal judge left room for the investors to amend their claims that the company made misrepresentations about its $44 million acquisition deal last year.

U.S. District Judge Edward M. Chen said in his order on Tuesday that lead plaintiff Robert Grier didn't include in his November amended complaint any allegations as to why Finjan and its leaders would endorse as true certain financial projections that allegedly undervalued the company if management actually believed the projections were false.

"The FAC does not contain any allegations suggesting that defendants would secure unique benefits not afforded to shareholders if the tender offer were to go through," Judge Chen said. "Nor are there any other allegations suggesting that defendants' interests regarding the tender offer were not aligned with those of the shareholders."

Judge Chen called the complaint's lack of motive "highly problematic" in light of a recent Ninth Circuit opinion in Prodanova v. H.C. Wainwright & Co. LLC, which found that if a complaint "fails to plead a plausible motive for the allegedly fraudulent action, the plaintiff will face a substantial hurdle in establishing scienter," according to Tuesday's order.

Grier and the proposed class had filed suit against Finjan, its president and CEO Philip Hartstein and former members of its board of directors, relating to an announced deal in which Fortress Investment Group LLC agreed to buy Finjan's outstanding shares for $1.55 each in a tender offer. The transaction closed in July, according to an announcement from Finjan.

Judge Chen said Finjan's board issued a recommendation statement that was supported by a fairness opinion prepared by financial adviser Atlas Technology Group LLC. The shareholders had alleged that only one of three analyses in the fairness opinion supported the fairness of the merger consideration of $1.55 per share, but that analysis was allegedly flawed because it was based on false or misleading information from Finjan management.

The shareholders alleged that the "multiyear projections" used in the analysis undervalued Finjan. Those projections, based on information Finjan gave to Atlas in May, indicated Finjan was expected to earn about $160 million in revenue across its three business lines over five years. But Finjan said in an investor presentation in December 2019 that it expected to generate $200 million to $400 million in licensing and enforcement revenue alone for the 2019-2022 period, according to the order.

Grier said that with $200 million in revenue, Finjan stock would have been worth about $4.36 per share, and with $400 million, it would have been worth about $15.50 per share. He also argued that "optimism aside," the state of Finjan at that time justified more than $1.55 per share, according to the order.

Finjan argued that the recommendation statement and fairness opinion were accurate, because there was volatility and a downward trend in revenues in the months leading up to the deal, adding that operating expenses were high and the coronavirus pandemic created uncertainty, a delay in revenue and an increase in expenses.

Finjan also indicated the company's cash balances had decreased from $65 million in June 2018 to the $27 million they had projected for June 2020, according to the order.

Judge Chen said he can't overlook the shareholders' failure to allege a plausible motive, because there are not "compelling and particularized facts alleged in support of the claim of fraudulent intent." He added there was concrete market evidence that the merger consideration was reasonable, noting that around the same time of Fortress' offer, another party had made an offer of $1.50 per share.

But Judge Chen gave Grier leave to amend his Securities Exchange Act claim, saying the shareholder argued at a court hearing that Finjan managers would have wanted to carry out the merger because the company would become private and they would have had more secure employment.

"This motive, however, has not been alleged in the operative pleading and therefore the court gives it no consideration at this juncture," Judge Chen said.

Counsel for the parties did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

Grier and the proposed class are represented by Juan E. Monteverde, David E. Bower, Miles D. Schreiner and John Baylet of Monteverde & Associates PC.

Finjan is represented by James L. Jacobs and Valerie M. Wagner of GCA Law Partners LLP.

The case is In re: Finjan Holdings Inc. Securities Litigation, case number 3:20-cv-04289, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.

--Additional reporting by McCord Pagan. Editing by Nicole Bleier.