Finjan LLC v. Palo Alto Networks, Inc.

Background

Palo Alto Networks moved to strike Finjan’s infringement contentions under Patent Local Rule 3-1. That rule requires infringement contentions to identify specifically where and how each limitation of each asserted claim is found in each accused instrumentality. Palo Alto argued that Finjan’s contentions lacked sufficient detail, did not provide pinpoint citations to source code, and made conclusory allegations under the doctrine of equivalents.

The court focused on an example involving claim language requiring a “first function” and a “second function.” Finjan’s contentions used those terms but did not clearly identify the functions in the accused products. Finjan argued that Palo Alto’s discovery production had prevented it from providing more detail and represented that it intended to supplement its contentions after reviewing additional source code and related information.

Motion to Strike

The court granted in part and denied in part Palo Alto’s motion to strike. It granted the motion to the extent Palo Alto argued that Finjan’s contentions did not adequately identify where and how the claim limitations—including the “first function” and “second function”—could be found in the accused products.

Rather than strike the contentions with prejudice, the court gave Finjan 30 days to serve amended infringement contentions. The amended contentions could not add products, technologies, or claims, and could not expand the scope of Finjan’s infringement theories. The court noted that Finjan had implicitly acknowledged that at least some portions of its contentions were unclear and had indicated an intention to amend them.

The court denied the motion to the extent it was based on the absence of pinpoint citations to source code. It concluded that pinpoint citations are not an inherent requirement of Patent Local Rule 3-1. The court also denied the motion to the extent it challenged Finjan’s doctrine-of-equivalents allegations. Palo Alto had cited only one example, and the court found that example was not the type of blanket or boilerplate reservation of rights rejected in other cases.

The court also rejected Finjan’s argument that the length of its contentions—more than 2,000 pages—showed that they contained enough detail. The court said the substantive content, rather than the number of pages, was the relevant issue and directed the parties to streamline future filings.

Motions to Seal

The parties filed three motions to seal portions of briefs and exhibits. The court denied all three motions. It explained that although confidential source code may generally be sealable, the parties sought to seal high-level descriptions of source code, including folder names, file paths, general organizational information, and the term “SML files.” The court found the supporting explanations to be vague and speculative. The parties were given seven days from the order’s date to refile unredacted versions of the opposition and reply briefs on the public docket.

The court vacated the hearing scheduled for July 22, 2021.

Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton signed the order.