Finjan, Inc. v. Proofpoint, Inc. et al
Filing
444
ORDER DIRECTING FURTHER BRIEFING REGARDING 430 JOINT PRETRIAL STATEMENT. Signed by Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. on 5/16/2016. (ndrS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/16/2016)
1
2
3
4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
6
7
FINJAN, INC.,
Plaintiff,
8
9
10
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
Case No. 13-cv-05808-HSG
v.
PROOFPOINT, INC., et al.,
Defendants.
ORDER DIRECTING FURTHER
BRIEFING REGARDING JOINT
PRETRIAL STATEMENT
Re: Dkt. No. 430
12
13
On May 11, 2016, Plaintiff Finjan, Inc. (“Plaintiff”) and Defendants Proofpoint, Inc. and
14
Armorize Technologies, Inc. (together, “Defendants”) filed their proposed joint pretrial statement
15
and order. Dkt. No. 430 (“JPTS”). Defendants raise two issues in the filing which require further
16
briefing before the final pretrial conference.
17
First, Defendants argue that “Finjan has [not] preserved for trial any infringement
18
allegations based on any claims of the ‘822 patent as to any accused product, and claims 8 and 12
19
of the ‘633 patent as to any accused product.” Id. at 3. Defendants provide no explanation why
20
that is true. For that reason, Defendants are DIRECTED to file a 1-2 page statement with the
21
Court by 5:00 p.m. on May 17, 2016, explaining the factual basis and legal argument supporting
22
this position. Plaintiff may file a 1-2 page response by 5:00 p.m. on May 18th.
23
24
25
26
27
28
Second, Defendants now suggest that there is an unresolved claim construction issue:
“Defendants maintain their position, as set forth in their summary
judgment briefing, that the ‘before a web server makes the
Downloadable available to web clients’ limitation of the ‘844 patent
must mean that the Downloadable has been published to the Internet
by a web server and is thereby accessible to any web client.
Defendants do not believe there is infringement under any
reasonable construction of these terms, and disagree with Plaintiff’s
position in its summary judgment briefing that imports extraneous
limitations into the claim language ‘web clients’ by attempting to
1
2
3
limit the phrase to only an ‘end user.’ Accordingly, a fundamental
dispute exists between the parties as to the meaning of claim terms,
which is not a factual issue for the jury to decide. Defendants
expressly reserve the right to appeal these claim construction issues
arising out of the summary judgment briefing and the Court’s
summary judgment order.”
4
Id. Because Defendants contend there is an unresolved claim construction issue regarding the
5
claim language “web clients” in the ‘844 patent, as set forth above, the parties are DIRECTED to
6
file simultaneous claim construction briefs of no more than 7 pages regarding this issue by 5:00
7
p.m. on May 20, 2016, so that the Court can resolve the issue in advance of trial. Neither party
8
may file a response to the other side’s brief: the matter will be taken under submission once the
9
simultaneous briefs are filed. The Court anticipates that this issue can be resolved without a
10
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
12
hearing; if a hearing will be held, the Court will schedule it after reviewing the parties’ briefs.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: 5/16/2016
13
14
HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR.
United States District Judge
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?