Court Refuses To Set Aside Verdict In Malware Patent Case

Author:Mr Clyde Shuman
Profession:Pearl Cohen Zedek Latzer Baratz

A U.S. district court judge has denied the motion of Finjan Inc. to set aside a December jury verdict that found its competitor, Juniper Networks Inc., did not infringe Finjan's malware patents. The court held in abeyance a Juniper's motion for sanctions against Finjan.

In Finjan Inc. v. Juniper Network Inc., case number 3:17-cv-05659 (N.D. Cal.), the court had granted Juniper's motion for summary judgment of non-infringement of one of Finjan's patents. A subsequent jury trial found in favor of Juniper on another of Finjan's patents, finding that Juniper's Sky Advanced Threat Prevention product lacked the “database” recited in the asserted claim.

Finjan moved to set aside the verdict and the court's denial of Finjan's JMOL motion. Finjan argued that Juniper “concealed key evidence during discovery that proved that Sky ATP had a 'database' as recited” in the patent claim, and this “concealment” “prevented both the Court and the jury from evaluating this key evidence of how and where Sky ATP satisfies the 'database' element of Claim 10.”

Not to be outdone, Juniper moved for sanctions against Finjan, claiming Finjan pursued unsupported damages theories in bad faith, waffled on the issue of constructive notice in bad faith, claimed actual notice based on false statements, and asserted one patent claim without merit.

Addressing Finjan's motion, the court found that Finjan had not shown by clear and convincing evidence that Juniper's handling of discovery amounted to “misconduct” under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(3). Finjan also had not shown that the newly produced documents could not have been discovered through due diligence under Rule 60(b)(2).

The court also disagreed with Finjan's argument that Juniper falsely represented that it had completed its document production in its entirety. Per the court, “By noting the production relating to the two products separately in its response, Juniper put Finjan on notice that Juniper treated Sky ATP and Joe Security as distinct products. And, as such, Juniper did not necessarily represent that it had completed production as to Joe Security.”

The court further rejected Finjan's claim that it could not have moved to compel production earlier, saying,Had Finjan diligently followed up on these disclosures with more targeted requests, it would have likely led to the production of the...

To continue reading