Finjan, LLC v. Qualys Inc.

Filing 204

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS RENEWED MOTION TO STRIKE by Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers; granting #194 Motion to Strike ; denying #197 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal. The hearing scheduled for Jun 8, 2021 is VACATED. (fs, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/3/2021)

Case 4:18-cv-07229-YGR Document 204 Filed 06/03/21 Page 1 of 2

1
2
3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

5
6

FINJAN LLC,
Plaintiff,

7

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S
RENEWED MOTION TO STRIKE

vs.

8
9

CASE NO. 4:18-cv-07229-YGR

QUALYS INC.,

Re: Dkt. No. 194, 197

Defendant.

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

Before the Court is Defendant Qualys Inc. renewed motion to strike portions of Dr. Nenad

13

Medvidovic’s expert report proffered on behalf of Plaintiff Finjan LLC. (Dkt. No. 194 (“Mot.”).)1

14

Qualys seeks to strike Dr. Medvidovic’s theory that the accused products “receiv[e] an incoming

15

stream of program code,” as required by the asserted U.S. Patent No. 8,225,408 (“’408 Patent”),

16

because the theory was not disclosed in Finjan’s infringement contentions. The Court previously

17

denied the motion on this ground, without prejudice to renewal, for lack of clear explanation. (See

18

Dkt. No. 188 (“Order”) at 7 & n.5.) Qualys now clarifies as follows:

19

Finjan accuses vulnerability management features in Qualys’ Cloud Platform. (Dkt. No.

20

194-2 (“Medvidovic Report”) ¶¶ 87-90.) In its infringement contentions, Finjan stated that the

21

accused products “receiv[e] . . . an incoming stream of program code” when a node in the cloud

22

computing environment “receives content based on a client device requesting the content from a

23

source computer, such as the Internet.” (Dkt. No. 158-6 (“Contentions”) at 2.) In his report, Dr.

24

Medvidovic states that the accused products do the same when “collect[ing] data from various

25

endpoints in the network” by “initiating a network transaction, and receiving a response to that

26
27
28

1

The Court finds the motion appropriate for resolution without oral argument and the
matter is deemed submitted. See Civ. L. R. 7-1(b). The hearing scheduled for Jun 8, 2021 is
VACATED.

Case 4:18-cv-07229-YGR Document 204 Filed 06/03/21 Page 2 of 2

1

transaction.” (Medvidovic Report ¶¶ 184-96.) In other words, Finjan shifted its theory from a

2

middleman scanner that passively monitors ongoing traffic to a proactive scanner that initiates

3

transactions to detect vulnerabilities.

4

This is a new theory, and the Court GRANTS the renewed motion to strike. See Looksmart

5

Group, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., 386 F. Supp. 3d 1222, 1227 (N.D. Cal. 2019). Although all data

6

on a network is presumably involved in some client-server interactions, Qualys was entitled to

7

know Finjan’s precise theory for how the products receive code.2 Finjan’s main argument in

8

response—that the claims do not require client requests—misses the mark: the claims may not

9

require them, but the contentions suggest that’s how the products perform the limitation. As such,

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

paragraphs 184-96 of the Medvidovic report, which advance this new theory, are struck.3
This Order terminates docket numbers 194 and 197.

12
13
14

IT IS SO ORDERED.

15
16

Dated: June 3, 2021
YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2

Both parties submit extrinsic evidence about the accused products’ operation. The Court
does not consider it here and makes no factual determination on that issue. This Order is based
solely on a fair reading of the contentions compared to the expert report.
3

The related motion to seal (Dkt. No. 197) is DENIED as the party designating the material
as confidential does not seek to seal. (See Dkt. No. 199.)
2