Case 3:18-cv-02621-WHO Document 263 Filed 03/13/20 Page 1 of 23
`
`
`PAUL ANDRE (State Bar No. 196585)
`pandre@kramerlevin.com
`LISA KOBIALKA (State Bar No. 191404)
`lkobialka@kramerlevin.com
`JAMES HANNAH (State Bar No. 237978)
`jhannah@kramerlevin.com
`KRISTOPHER KASTENS (State Bar No. 254797)
`kkastens@kramerlevin.com
`AUSTIN MANES (State Bar No. 284065)
`amanes@kramerlevin.com
`KRAMER LEVIN NAFTALIS & FRANKEL LLP
`990 Marsh Road
`Menlo Park, CA 94025
`Telephone: (650) 752-1700
`Facsimile: (650) 752-1800
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff
`FINJAN, INC.
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
`
`FINJAN, INC., a Delaware Corporation,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`
`CHECK POINT SOFTWARE
`TECHNOLOGIES, INC., a Delaware
`Corporation; CHECK POINT SOFTWARE
`TECHNOLOGIES LTD., an Israeli Limited
`Company,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`Case No.: 3:18-cv-02621-WHO
`
`PLAINTIFF FINJAN, INC.’S NOTICE OF
`MOTION AND MOTION TO CERTIFY THE
`COURT’S JANUARY 17, 2020, ORDER
`(DKT. 247) FOR INTERLOCUTORY
`APPEAL, TO STAY, AND TO PERMIT
`LIMITED DISCOVERY; MEMORANDUM
`OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
`
`April 22, 2020
`Date:
`2:00 p.m.
`Time:
`Location: Courtroom 2, 17th Floor
`Judge:
`Hon. William H. Orrick
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`FINJAN’S MOTION TO CERTIFY THE ORDER
`ENTERED AT DKT. 247 FOR INTERLOCUTORY APPEAL
`
` CASE NO.: 3:18-cv-02621-WHO
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-02621-WHO Document 263 Filed 03/13/20 Page 2 of 23
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................2
`
`SUMMARY OF THE FACTS .....................................................................................................4
`
`III.
`
`ARGUMENT ................................................................................................................................7
`
`A.
`
`The Court Should Certify the Order for Interlocutory Appeal .........................................7
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`a)
`
`b)
`
`The Order Raises a Controlling Question of Law ................................................7
`
`Substantial Grounds for a Difference of Opinion Exist ........................................8
`
`The Court required Source Code Pin-Cites for All Elements .........................8
`
`Other Courts Do Not Require Source Code Pin-Cites for All Elements ......10
`
`3.
`
`An Interlocutory Appeal Will Materially Advance this Case .............................13
`
`The Court Should Stay this Case Pending Interlocutory Appeal ....................................14
`
`The Court Should Permit Finjan to Take Limited Discovery Into
`Check Point’s Use of Source Code While the Case is Otherwise Stayed ......................15
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`IV.
`
`CONCLUSION ...........................................................................................................................17
`
`
`
`
`
`
`i
`FINJAN’S MOTION TO CERTIFY THE ORDER
`ENTERED AT DKT. 247 FOR INTERLOCUTORY APPEAL
`
` CASE NO.: 3:18-cv-02621-WHO
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-02621-WHO Document 263 Filed 03/13/20 Page 3 of 23
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`
`Page(s)
`
`Federal Cases
`
`Ahrenholz v. Bd. of Trustees of Univ. of Illinois,
`219 F.3d 674 (7th Cir. 2000) ..............................................................................................................8
`
`Banneck v. Fed. Nat’l Mortg. Ass'n,
`No. 17-CV-04657-WHO, 2018 WL 5603632 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 29, 2018)...................................13, 14
`
`Baron Servs., Inc. v. Media Weather Innovations LLC,
`717 F.3d 907 (Fed. Cir. 2013).....................................................................................................16, 17
`
`In re Cement Antitrust Litig.,
`673 F.2d 1020 (9th Cir. 1982) ........................................................................................................7, 8
`
`Couch v. Telescope Inc.,
`611 F.3d 629 (9th Cir. 2010) ..............................................................................................................8
`
`Finjan v. Proofpoint,
`No. 13-cv-05808-HSG, 2015 WL 9023166 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 16, 2015) ...............................10, 11, 12
`
`Finjan, Inc. v. Sophos, Inc.,
`No. 3:14-cv-01197-WHO, Dkt. 103 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 24, 2015) ..................................................3, 10
`
`Finjan, Inc. v. Zscaler, Inc.,
`Case No. 17-cv-06946-JST, Dkt. 58 (N.D. Cal. June 26, 2018).................................................10, 11
`
`Hilgraeve Corp. v. McAfee Associates, Inc.,
`224 F.3d 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2000).........................................................................................................16
`
`Hunt v. Cromartie,
`526 U.S. 541 (1999) ..........................................................................................................................16
`
`Landis v. North Am. Co.,
`299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936) ..................................................................................................................14
`
`Lexar Media, Inc. v. Fuji Photo Film USA, Inc.,
`No. C03-00355 MJJ, 2007 WL 677166 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 1, 2007) ...................................................16
`
`Network Appliance, Inc. v. Bluearc Corp.,
`No. C 03-5665 MHP, 2005 WL 1513099 (N.D. Cal. June 27, 2005),
`aff'd, 205 F. App’x 835 (Fed. Cir. 2006) ..........................................................................................15
`
`Network Caching Tech. LLC v. Novell Inc.,
`No. C-01-2079-VRW, 2002 WL 32126128 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 13, 2002) ...........................................11
`
`i
`FINJAN’S MOTION TO CERTIFY THE ORDER
`ENTERED AT DKT. 247 FOR INTERLOCUTORY APPEAL
`
` CASE NO.: 3:18-cv-02621-WHO
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-02621-WHO Document 263 Filed 03/13/20 Page 4 of 23
`
`
`Network Caching Tech., LLC v. Novell, Inc.,
`No. C-01-2079 VRW, 2003 WL21699799 (N.D. Cal. March 21, 2003) ...........................................3
`
`O2 Micro Int'l Ltd. v. Monolithic Power Sys., Inc.,
`467 F.3d 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2006).......................................................................................................7, 8
`
`Reese v. BP Exploration (Alaska) Inc.,
`643 F.3d 681 (9th Cir. 2011) ............................................................................................................13
`
`Renesas Tech. Corp. v. Nanya Tech. Corp.,
`No. C03-05709JF(HRL), 2005 WL2000926 (N.D. Cal. Aug 18, 2005) ............................................3
`
`Shurance v. Planning Control Int’l, Inc.,
`839 F.2d 1347 (9th Cir. 1988) ............................................................................................................8
`
`Thomas Swan & Co. v. Finisar Corp.,
`No. 2:13-CV-178-JRG, 2014 WL 12599221 (E.D. Tex. Apr. 16, 2014) ...................................12, 13
`
`Vasudevan Software, Inc. v. Int'l Bus. Machines Corp.,
`No. C09-05897 RS HRL, 2011 WL 940263 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 18, 2011)...........................................10
`
`Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc.,
`200 F.3d 795 (Fed. Cir. 1999)...........................................................................................................16
`
`Wi-Lan Inc. v. Sharp Elecs. Corp.,
`1:15-cv-00379-LPS (Jan. 26, 2018 D. Del.) .....................................................................................12
`
`In re Wilson,
`No. BR 13-11374 AJ, 2014 WL 122074 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 10, 2014) ...................................................8
`
`Zyme Solutions, Inc. v. InfoNow Corp.,
`No. C 13–04082 WHA, 2013 WL 6699997 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 19, 2013) ...........................................14
`
`Federal Statutes
`
`28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) ..........................................................................................................................1, 7, 8
`
`Rules
`
`Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 37 ................................................................................................16
`
`Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 56 ................................................................................................16
`
`Patent Local Rule 3-1...................................................................................................................... passim
`
`Patent Local Rule 3-4........................................................................................................................2, 6, 9
`
`ii
`FINJAN’S MOTION TO CERTIFY THE ORDER
`ENTERED AT DKT. 247 FOR INTERLOCUTORY APPEAL
`
` CASE NO.: 3:18-cv-02621-WHO
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-02621-WHO Document 263 Filed 03/13/20 Page 5 of 23
`
`
`Other
`
`The History, Content, Application and Influence of the Northern District of California’s
`Patent Local Rules, Santa Clara High Technology Law Journal, Vol. 25, Issue 4,
`Article 8 (James Ware, Brian Davy 2009) ................................................................................4, 6, 12
`
`iii
`FINJAN’S MOTION TO CERTIFY THE ORDER
`ENTERED AT DKT. 247 FOR INTERLOCUTORY APPEAL
`
` CASE NO.: 3:18-cv-02621-WHO
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-02621-WHO Document 263 Filed 03/13/20 Page 6 of 23
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`NOTICE OF MOTION
`TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD:
`NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that on April 22, 2020, at 2:00 p.m., or as soon thereafter as
`counsel may be heard by the Honorable William H. Orrick in Courtroom 2, 17th Floor, located at 450
`Golden Gate Avenue in San Francisco, California 94102, Plaintiff Finjan, Inc. (“Finjan”) will and
`hereby does move the Court under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) for an order (1) certifying for interlocutory
`appeal its January 17, 2020, Order Granting in Part Defendants Check Point Software Technologies
`Inc. and Check Point Software Technologies Ltd.’s (together, “Defendant” or “Check Point”) Motion
`To Strike Second Amended Contentions, entered at Dkt. 247 (the “Order”), (2) staying the proceedings
`pending the resolution of that interlocutory appeal, and (3) permitting Finjan to take limited discovery
`while the appeal is pending.
`Finjan’s motion is based on this Notice of Motion, the following Memorandum of Points and
`Authorities, the Declaration of Austin Manes and exhibits filed herewith, all pleadings and papers on
`file in this action, and any evidence and argument presented to the Court at or before the hearing.
`STATEMENT OF ISSUES
`(1) Whether the Court should certify the Order for interlocutory appeal to the Federal Circuit to
`resolve the following controlling question of law: does Patent Local Rule (“PLR”) 3 require a party
`claiming patent infringement to provide pinpoint source code citations for every element of every
`asserted claim in order to meet its requirement for a chart identifying “where and how each limitation”
`is met, even where there is other, non-source code evidence showing the “where and how” of
`Defendant’s infringement, and the PLR do not contemplate source code production until after the
`infringement contentions are served;
`(2) whether the Court should stay these proceedings, including those assigned to Special Master
`Elizabeth Laporte, pending the resolution of the appeal; and
`(3) whether Finjan should have a reasonable, limited opportunity to test Check Point’s
`representations regarding its use of source code while the proceedings are stayed.
`
`
`
`1
`FINJAN’S MOTION TO CERTIFY THE ORDER
`ENTERED AT DKT. 247 FOR INTERLOCUTORY APPEAL
`
` CASE NO.: 3:18-cv-02621-WHO
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-02621-WHO Document 263 Filed 03/13/20 Page 7 of 23
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`I.
`
`MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
`INTRODUCTION
`Finjan respectfully asks the Court to certify its January 17, 2020, Order for interlocutory appeal
`to the Federal Circuit and to stay the case, including that which has been assigned to Special Master
`Laporte (Dkt. 261), pending resolution of that appeal. Finjan appreciates and fully comprehends the
`Court’s substantial investment of judicial resources to advance this case. In providing its infringement
`contentions, Finjan endeavored in good faith to comply with the Court’s prior order, requiring separate
`charting of each permutation of combination of each version of Check Point’s products: “separating
`out infringement contentions by the underlying instrumentalities . . . would make the litigation process
`more efficient and discovery more streamlined.” Dkt. 192 at 2.
`In addition to making best efforts to comply with the Court’s directives, the substantial volume
`of Finjan’s submission was in large part the culmination of Check Point’s repeated challenges to
`Finjan’s infringement contentions while failing to satisfy its own obligations under PLR 3-4 of timely
`producing “source code, schematics flow charts, artwork, formulas, or other documentation sufficient
`to show the operation of any aspects or elements of an Accused Instrumentality…” along with its
`invalidity contentions. Despite filing a series of motions making exacting demands of Finjan’s
`infringement contentions, Check Point still has not produced all key technical documents and refused
`to make witnesses available for deposition “sufficient to show the operation of any aspects or elements
`of an Accused Instrumentality” as set forth in PLR 3-4. Rather than provide Finjan with the discovery
`it needed to narrow and further specify the infringement issues in the case, Check Point’s delays made
`Finjan’s review of the source code exponentially more challenging, unreasonably expensive, and time
`consuming.
`Hamstrung by the lack of pertinent discovery due to Check Point’s relentless gamesmanship,
`Finjan nevertheless provided pinpoint source code citations for almost all claim elements and, for the
`remaining elements, provided substantial non-source code evidence, such as citations to product
`specifications and the limited technical documents Check Point produced demonstrating Check Point’s
`infringement. Finding that Finjan did not provide and sufficiently explain pinpoint source code
`
`2
`FINJAN’S MOTION TO CERTIFY THE ORDER
`ENTERED AT DKT. 247 FOR INTERLOCUTORY APPEAL
`
` CASE NO.: 3:18-cv-02621-WHO
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-02621-WHO Document 263 Filed 03/13/20 Page 8 of 23
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`citations for every element of every claim, the Court struck the majority of Finjan’s claim charts and
`referred the remaining claim charts to be evaluated by the Special Master. Order at 29-37.
`Interlocutory appeal is warranted here because the Order raises a controlling question of law
`over which courts disagree, and an immediate appeal will advance this litigation while preserving
`significant judicial and party resources. The Order applies PLR 3-1 as requiring Finjan to provide
`pinpoint source code citations for every single element of every asserted claim for every accused
`product. See, e.g., id. at 32-34 (listing claim language that it found unsupported by source code). In so
`ruling, the Court found Finjan’s infringement contentions deficient for lack of source code, even
`though Finjan cited to other highly relevant evidence, such as technical documents and product
`literature, that provide the requisite “where and how” of its infringement theories. PLR 3-1(c). Other
`judges in this District interpreting the same rule and judges in other Districts interpreting substantially
`parallel rules have disagreed and concluded that the rules do not require universal source code
`citations, particularly at this pre-deposition stage in discovery. Indeed, this Court’s prior decision in
`Finjan, Inc. v. Sophos, Inc., No. 3:14-cv-01197-WHO, Dkt. 103 at *3 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 24, 2015), finds
`that infringement contentions should not be held to such an exacting standard until the Defendant
`provides the requisite discovery.
`The Sophos holding is applicable here. The PLR have certain limits placed on the level of
`specificity required under Rule 3-1(c) in that the party asserting infringement discloses its contentions
`but need not provide evidence in the claim chart to support its infringement contentions. See The
`History, Content, Application and Influence of the Northern District of California’s Patent Local
`Rules, Santa Clara High Technology Law Journal, Vol. 25, Issue 4, Article 8, at 984-985 (James Ware,
`Brian Davy 2009) (citing Network Caching Tech., LLC v. Novell, Inc., No. C-01-2079 VRW, 2003 WL
`21699799, at *4 (N.D. Cal. March 21, 2003)). Moreover, when accused instrumentalities fall into
`product families, and the instrumentalities within each family are indistinguishable with respect to the
`alleged infringement, the patent owner need not disclose each instrumentality separately. See Renesas
`Tech. Corp. v. Nanya Tech. Corp., No. C03-05709JF(HRL), 2005 WL2000926, at *4-*5 (N.D. Cal.
`Aug 18, 2005). At the contentions stage of patent litigation, the infringement contentions need only to
`
`3
`FINJAN’S MOTION TO CERTIFY THE ORDER
`ENTERED AT DKT. 247 FOR INTERLOCUTORY APPEAL
`
` CASE NO.: 3:18-cv-02621-WHO
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-02621-WHO Document 263 Filed 03/13/20 Page 9 of 23
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`provide adequate notice to the accused infringer of the patent owner’s infringement theories, and not
`evidence of infringement. Id. It cannot be disputed that Check Point was given adequate notice of
`Finjan’s infringement theories.
`Finjan further requests that the Court stay these proceedings (including the Special Master’s
`evaluation of the remaining charts) pending the resolution of the appeal, with the exception of
`permitting Finjan to take limited discovery of Check Point on the issue of its use of source code.
`Staying the proceedings until the completion of the appeal will materially advance the ultimate
`substantive resolution of this litigation because it will prevent the need for a first round of expert
`discovery and trial on the limited patents and products still in the case and a second round of expert
`discovery and trial on the patents and products that would come back in the case if Finjan prevails on
`its appeal. Moreover, staying this case pending interlocutory appeal will also preserve judicial
`resources.
`Limited discovery is warranted here during the stay. In striking with prejudice many of
`Finjan’s infringement contentions, the Court resolved material factual disputes. Check Point submitted
`multiple declarations from an engineer and its own interrogatory response as purported evidence that
`various products did not use the source code that Finjan cited to prove infringement. Finjan relied on a
`declaration from its own technical expert, who conducted extensive source code review, stating that the
`products did use the cited source code.
`Critically, Finjan never had an opportunity to test Check Point’s self-serving allegations in
`discovery. Check Point three times refused to make its engineer available for deposition and did not
`provide any witnesses or documents to corroborate its interrogatory response. In the Order, the Court
`accepted Check Point’s claims and rejected the analysis of Finjan’s expert. Order at e.g., 10-11.
`Finjan requests a fair opportunity to depose Check Point’s engineers on the issue of which portions of
`source code are used in which products and to have a chance to present such evidence to the Court.
`SUMMARY OF THE FACTS
`II.
`Finjan filed this case on May 3, 2018. Dkt. 1. Early in the case, the Court ordered Check Point
`to provide its source code for inspection and directed Finjan to include source code citations in its
`
`4
`FINJAN’S MOTION TO CERTIFY THE ORDER
`ENTERED AT DKT. 247 FOR INTERLOCUTORY APPEAL
`
` CASE NO.: 3:18-cv-02621-WHO
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-02621-WHO Document 263 Filed 03/13/20 Page 10 of 23
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`infringement contentions. Dkt. 29 at 1-2. Finjan promptly served discovery requests seeking technical
`documents for the accused products to guide its review of and reliance on source code. Dkt. 61-10 at
`9.
`
`Check Point made available an enormous volume of source code but has stalled identifying
`which portions of the source code correspond to which accused products and, ini fact, contended that
`much of the source code it made available does not relate to any accused products. Dkt. 119 at 2-3
`(May 2019 letter brief showing Finjan was ultimately forced to move to compel Check Point to
`identify which source code corresponds to which products); Dkt. 225-15 (Check Point’s supplemental
`response to Interrogatory No. 9 identifying source code that it claims is used by the accused products);
`Dkt. 223-5 at pp. 5-10 (expert declaration showing that Check Point’s supplemental response to
`Interrogatory No. 9 is incorrect and its products actually use voluminous overlapping source code
`modules). Check Point compounded this problem by refusing to produce non-public technical
`documents. Dkt. 89 at 1-2.
`Based on the very limited information available at the time, Finjan served its initial
`infringement contentions on November 2, 2018. Still stonewalling in discovery, Check Point moved to
`strike Finjan’s initial infringement contentions based on Finjan’s grouping of products and source code
`citations. Dkt. 55 at 15-25. Check Point supported this motion with a declaration from its senior
`architect, Mr. Zegman, regarding its source code. Dkt. 55-2. At the hearing on this motion, the Court
`denied Finjan’s request to depose Mr. Zegman. Dkt 85 at 5, 10, 14. The Court ordered Finjan to
`amend its contentions by separating the groups of accused products and by providing more source code
`citations. Dkt. 84 at 1.
`In complete disregard of its obligations under PLR 3-4, Check Point failed to produce
`information and materials sufficient to show the operation of any aspects or elements of the Accused
`Instrumentality by withholding technical discovery. Finjan requested depositions of Check Point’s
`technical employees and engineers, including (again) requesting to depose Mr. Zegman. Dkt. 215; Dkt
`157-1. Check Point refused both requests. Id. On Finjan’s motion to compel, Judge Spero ordered
`Check Point to produce design documents, technical specifications and architectural documents for
`
`5
`FINJAN’S MOTION TO CERTIFY THE ORDER
`ENTERED AT DKT. 247 FOR INTERLOCUTORY APPEAL
`
` CASE NO.: 3:18-cv-02621-WHO
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-02621-WHO Document 263 Filed 03/13/20 Page 11 of 23
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`each of the accused products by May 11, 2019 but did not compel Check Point to provide Mr. Zegman
`for deposition. Dkt. 101 at 2.
`Prior to the receipt of Check Point’s technical documents, Finjan served amended infringement
`contentions on April 1, 2019, as ordered by the Court. Dkt. 84 at 1. Check Point moved to strike the
`amended contentions, again relying on a supporting factual declaration from Mr. Zegman regarding the
`source code making various claims that Finjan has, to this day, never had an opportunity to test in
`discovery. Dkts. 125-4 and 125-6. In the underlying briefing and at the hearing on this motion, Finjan
`noted the dispute between the parties over the source code modules that are used in specific accused
`products, which the Court ultimately resolved in favor of Check Point in granting the Order. Dkt. 131-
`4 at 7-8; Dkt. 190 at 14-15. The Court ordered Finjan to amend its contentions again to, inter alia, add
`more source code citations and provide a more fulsome explanation of those citations. Dkt. 192 at 1.
`This burden far exceeds the obligations under PLR 3-1 and is contrary to the original purpose of the
`Northern District’s conception of the PLR, which was to improve management of expensive and
`resource-consuming patent litigation. See, The History, Content, Application and Influence of the
`Northern District of California’s Patent Local Rules, supra, at 984-985 (2009).
`During this time and despite its ever-moving target for Finjan’s infringement contentions,
`Check Point continued to stonewall on discovery. Finjan moved to compel the deposition of Mr.
`Zegman on June 14, 2019. Dkt. 157. The Court denied that request. Dkt. 161. On October 24, 2019,
`Finjan moved to compel depositions of Check Point’s technical employees and engineers. Dkt. 215 at
`1-3. In response, the Court ordered the parties to stipulate to extend the fact discovery deadlines to
`permit such discovery. Dkt. 222.
`As directed by the Court, Finjan served second amended infringement contentions on August
`26, 2019, which are the subject of the Order. Dkt. 213 at 3. Finjan’s best efforts to comply with the
`Court’s directives with only the scant discovery provided by Check Point necessitated voluminous
`contentions. In addition to citing source code for almost every element of every claim, Finjan
`identified documentary evidence proving infringement, such as Check Point’s product specification
`documents. Check Point moved to strike the second amended infringement contentions on October 18,
`
`6
`FINJAN’S MOTION TO CERTIFY THE ORDER
`ENTERED AT DKT. 247 FOR INTERLOCUTORY APPEAL
`
` CASE NO.: 3:18-cv-02621-WHO
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-02621-WHO Document 263 Filed 03/13/20 Page 12 of 23
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`2019, relying yet again on a declaration from Mr. Zegman regarding Check Point’s source code. Dkt.
`212-3; Dkt. 213-3. In opposition, Finjan submitted a declaration from its technical expert disputing
`Mr. Zegman’s declaration, including disputing the products that use the source code modules Finjan
`identified in its contentions. Dkt. 223-5 at ¶¶ 16-22.
`The Court issued the Order on January 17, 2020, striking with prejudice the majority of
`Finjan’s infringement contentions. Dkt 247. In so ruling, the Court found that Finjan has not provided
`sufficient source code citations or explanations of its source code citations for certain elements. Based
`on only a very limited record, the Court implicitly credited Check Point’s engineer over Finjan’s
`technical expert in finding that Finjan had cited source code for certain products that was not actually
`used in those products, and then striking those contentions as unsupported by applicable source code.
`Order at 11-14. The Court referred Finjan’s remaining infringement contentions to the Special Master
`for review under the standards set by the Order. The Court stayed all deadlines in this case pending the
`Special Master’s ruling. Dkt. 259. An initial status conference with the Special Master is set for
`March 11, 2020.
`III. ARGUMENT
`The Court Should Certify the Order for Interlocutory Appeal
`A.
`The Court should certify the Order for interlocutory appeal to the Federal Circuit because it
`involves a “[1] controlling question of law as to which [2] there is substantial ground for difference of
`opinion and… [3] an immediate appeal from the order may materially advance the ultimate termination
`of the litigation.” 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b); In re Cement Antitrust Litig., 673 F.2d 1020, 1026 (9th Cir.
`1982). The Federal Circuit would have jurisdiction over this appeal because it involves patent
`infringement contentions. O2 Micro Int'l Ltd. v. Monolithic Power Sys., Inc., 467 F.3d 1355, 1364
`(Fed. Cir. 2006).
`The Order Raises a Controlling Question of Law
`1.
`The Order raises a controlling question of law under § 1292(b): whether Patent Local Rule 3-1
`requires pinpoint source code citations for every claim element, particularly prior to the deposition
`phase of fact discovery, or if a Plaintiff may reasonably rely on other evidence of infringement to
`
`7
`FINJAN’S MOTION TO CERTIFY THE ORDER
`ENTERED AT DKT. 247 FOR INTERLOCUTORY APPEAL
`
` CASE NO.: 3:18-cv-02621-WHO
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-02621-WHO Document 263 Filed 03/13/20 Page 13 of 23
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`provide the “where and how” of infringement for certain limitations. This is a controlling question of
`law because it is “one where ‘resolution of the issue on appeal could materially affect the outcome of
`the litigation.” In re Wilson, No. BR 13-11374 AJ, 2014 WL 122074, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 10, 2014)
`(quoting Shurance v. Planning Control Int’l, Inc., 839 F.2d 1347 (9th Cir. 1988)); In re Cement
`Antitrust Litig., 673 F.2d at 1026 (“[A]ll that must be shown in order for a question to be “controlling”
`is that resolution of the issue on appeal could materially affect the outcome of litigation in the district
`court.”). Sister Circuits hold that “a question of the meaning of a statutory or constitutional provision,
`regulation, or common law doctrine” is per se a controlling question of law Ahrenholz v. Bd. of
`Trustees of Univ. of Illinois, 219 F.3d 674, 676 (7th Cir. 2000). This issue satisfies both definitions.
`Resolution of this question of law will materially affect the outcome of this case because
`infringement contentions define the scope of the proceedings in patent infringement actions and, here,
`the Order significantly narrowed the scope of this lawsuit by dropping entire accused products and
`infringement allegations from this case. O2 Micro Int'l Ltd. v. Monolithic Power Sys., Inc., supra, 467
`F.3d 1355 at 1366. The Order will further materially impact the outcome of this action because the
`Special Master will rely on its guidance to decide if Finjan’s remaining infringement contentions pass
`muster or will also be struck with prejudice. Thus, the Order involves a controlling question of law
`under § 1292(b).
`The underlying issue here is especially appropriate for interlocutory appeal because it is a pure
`question of law regarding the interpretation of PLR 3-1. Ahrenholz, 219 F.3d at 676.
`Substantial Grounds for a Difference of Opinion Exist
`2.
`The Court required Source Code Pin-Cites for All Elements
`a)
`There are substantial grounds for a difference of opinion as to the requirements of PLR 3-1(b)
`in a case involving source code because courts “are in dispute on the question and the court of appeals
`has not spoken on the point.” Couch v. Telescope Inc., 611 F.3d 629, 633 (9th Cir. 2010) (citation
`omitted).
`The PLR do not require the Court’s exacting standard of providing source code citations for
`every element of every claim for every combination of every version of every product, that resulted in,
`
`8
`FINJAN’S MOTION TO CERTIFY THE ORDER
`ENTERED AT DKT. 247 FOR INTERLOCUTORY APPEAL
`
` CASE NO.: 3:18-cv-02621-WHO
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-02621-WHO Document 263 Filed 03/13/20 Page 14 of 23
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`admittedly, an unwieldy volume of infringement contentions. Indeed, the PLR recognize that
`infringement contentions are necessarily limited by the information available to the Plaintiff. PLR 3-1
`(requiring that “Each product … shall be identified by name or model number, if known”) (emphasis
`added). Further, PLR 3-4 only requires a defendant to produce source code with its invalidity
`contentions, which are provided after Plaintiff serves infringement contentions. This confirms that
`pinpoint citations to source code are not mandatory at the infringement contention stage. Additionally,
`the PLR mandate that the defendant produce not only source code (as Check Point has done here) but
`also the “specifications, schematics, flow charts, artwork, formulas, or other documentation sufficient
`to show the operation of any aspects or elements of an Accused Instrumentality,” a requirement with
`which Check Point has not complied. PLR 3-4(a).
`Moreover, here, the Order struck various contentions for not sufficiently tying spec