Finjan LLC v. Palo Alto Networks, Inc.
- Richard Seeborg
- 3:14-cv-04908
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Finjan v. Palo Alto Networks, Judge Hamilton denied Finjan’s motion to strike and dismiss and rejected the proposed stipulation pending clarification.
Finjan LLC and Palo Alto Networks, Inc. The motion to strike and dismiss was denied, and both parties must revise the proposed stipulation before the court will consider it in its current procedural posture.
What happened
Finjan LLC asked the court to strike some of Palo Alto Networks, Inc.’s affirmative defenses and dismiss some of its counterclaims. The parties also submitted a proposed agreement concerning dismissal of three patents in the case.
The court denied Finjan’s motion in its entirety, concluding that the issues raised were better addressed through a later request for summary judgment rather than a motion under Rule 12. The court also found that the proposed agreement did not clearly address all counterclaims related to the ’494 patent and included provisions that did not need court approval.
Judge Hamilton denied the stipulation in its current form and directed the parties to file a revised version. The revision must clarify the ’494-related counterclaims, remove the tolling language, and state that Finjan would have to file a new lawsuit if the ’780 patent’s invalidity judgment were reversed or vacated.
The detailed version
- Finjan LLC v. Palo Alto Networks, Inc. · No. 3:14-cv-04908
- Richard Seeborg
- June 23, 2021
Background
Finjan LLC filed a motion asking the court to strike certain affirmative defenses and dismiss certain counterclaims asserted by Palo Alto Networks, Inc. The court also considered the parties’ joint stipulation concerning dismissal of three patents-in-suit: the ’780, ’926, and ’494 patents.
The stipulation referred to an opinion finding the ’780 patent invalid because of an indefinite claim term. Finjan had agreed to dismiss the three patents that used the same term. But although the stipulation listed counterclaim counts 1, 2, 5, 6, 13, and 14 for dismissal, it did not clearly address counterclaim count 15 or the part of count 17 related to the ’494 patent.
Motion to Strike and Dismiss
The court denied Finjan’s motion to strike and dismiss in its entirety. It found persuasive decisions from other judges stating that the issues raised by Finjan concerned the weight of the evidence and were more appropriate for a motion for summary judgment than for a Rule 12 motion. The court vacated the hearing scheduled for June 24, 2021.
Stipulation
The court denied the proposed stipulation in its current form and requested clarification. It questioned why counterclaims related to the ’494 patent remained in the case when the complaint concerning that patent had been dismissed. The court also stated that the parties could agree to tolling on their own without court involvement.
The court further required the stipulation to make clear that Finjan would need to file a new action if the ’780 patent’s invalidity judgment were reversed or vacated on appeal; Finjan could not revive the present action after dismissal and closure of the case. The parties were directed to file a revised stipulation that clarifies all ’494-related counterclaims, removes the tolling language, and includes that requirement.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.