Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Finjan, Inc. v. Juniper Network, Inc.

United States District Court, N.D. California

July 23, 2019

FINJAN, INC., Plaintiff,
v.
JUNIPER NETWORKS, INC., Defendant.

          ORDER RE SHOW CAUSE ORDER

          WILLIAM ALSUP UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

         An order denying plaintiff Finjan, Inc.'s motion for summary judgment of infringement of Claim 1 of United States Patent No. 8, 141, 154 (“the '154 patent”) further ordered the parties to show cause as to why the Court should not enter judgment of noninfringement in favor of defendant Juniper Networks, Inc. (Dkt. No. 459 at 12).

         As background, the '154 patent is directed toward a system and method “for protecting a client computer from dynamically generated malicious content” and statically generated conventional viruses ('154 patent, Abstract). The basic set up of the '154 patent's purported invention involves “[t]hree major components”: (1) gateway computer, (2) client computer, and (3) security computer (id. at 8:45-46). A preferred embodiment describes a gateway computer that intercepts content being sent to the client computer for processing (id. at 8:48-51). The gateway computer modifies the content by replacing the call to the original function with a corresponding call to a substitute function, which operates to send the input of the original function to a security computer for inspection (id. at 5:10-12). The gateway computer then transmits “the modified content” to the client computer, which processes the modified content (id. at 5:14-16). When the substitute function is invoked, the client computer transmits the input to the security computer for inspection (id. at 5:16-18). The security computer then inspects the input and transmits “an indicator of whether it is safe for the client computer to invoke the original function with the input” (id. at 5:20-22). The client computer invokes the original function “only if the indicator . . . indicates that such invocation is safe” (id. at 5:22-25).

         Claim 1 of the '154 patent reads as follows ('154 patent at 17:32-44 (emphasis added)):

         1. A system for protecting a computer from dynamically generated malicious content, comprising:

a content processor (i) for processing content received over a network, the content including a call to a first function, and the call including an input, and (ii) for invoking a second function with the input, only if a security computer indicates that such invocation is safe;
a transmitter for transmitting the input to the security computer for inspection, when the first function is invoked; and
receiver for receiving an indicator from the security computer whether it is safe to invoke the second function with the input.

         In construing the term “content processor, ” the prior order denying Finjan's summary judgment motion found that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood the “content processor” in Claim 1 to process modified content (Dkt. No. 459 at 7). This was based in part on the fact that the specification itself described the “present invention” as “operat[ing] by replacing original function calls with substitute function calls within the content, at a gateway computer, prior to the content being received at the client computer” (id. at 7 (citing '154 patent at 4:55-60) (emphasis added)). In light of the foregoing construction, that order found that on the then-current record, the accused products did not infringe and accordingly denied Finjan's motion (id. at 11).

         In response to the order to show cause, Finjan marshals additional evidence and asserts that the three accused products - SRX Series Gateways, Sky Advanced Threat Prevention, and Advanced Threat Prevention Appliance - infringe under the foregoing construction. Specifically, Finjan argues that each of those three products process “modified content, ” including: (1) content modified for malicious URL redirection; (2) content modified by encryption; and (3) content modified by buffering and building.

         Juniper counters that Finjan improperly attempts to “redefin[e] the meaning of ‘modified content' to include ‘original content' ” (Dkt. No. 479 at 1). This order agrees. As explained in the order denying Finjan's motion for summary judgment, the “content processor” processes content that includes (Dkt. No. 459 at 7):

“first function” [that] clearly involves the “substitute function, ” which sends the content's input to the security computer for inspection once invoked. According to the specification, the substitute function exists only after the original content is modified at the gateway computer (see, e.g., '154 patent at 9:13-28). Accordingly, the claimed “content” necessarily refers to modified content.

         Here, Finjan offers theories of infringement that purportedly involve a “content processor” that processes “modified content.” But Finjan's proffered forms of “modified content” do not fit within the scope of the claim language. True, the aforementioned forms of content may have been modified in some way at some time. But as Juniper points out, none of Finjan's new theories involves original content modified with a substitute function (which function sends the content to the security computer when invoked) at the gateway computer, as required by the '154 patent.

         First, Finjan argues that the three accused products process modified content because “[h]ackers often compromise a web site and manipulate the content hosted on the web server before it is delivered to the user” and that the accused products “process this modified content in order to protect the user from hackers” (Dkt. No. 474 at 1). But this ultimately amounts to the original content initially received by the claimed system. The ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.