US District Court Adopts Finjan’s Claim Constructions Over Cisco’s

- February 14th, 2019

Finjan Holdings (NASDAQ:FNJN) on Thursday announced a US District Court Judge in a court order has adopted and ordered claim constructions in Finjan’s favor over Cisco’s proposed claim constructions. As quoted in the press release: In an Order, dated February 5, 2019 and titled “Order Construing Additional Claims in U.S. Patent Nos. 6,154,844; 6,804,780; 7,647,633,” … Continued

Finjan Holdings (NASDAQ:FNJN) on Thursday announced a US District Court Judge in a court order has adopted and ordered claim constructions in Finjan’s favor over Cisco’s proposed claim constructions.

As quoted in the press release:

In an Order, dated February 5, 2019 and titled “Order Construing Additional Claims in U.S. Patent Nos. 6,154,844; 6,804,780; 7,647,633,” (“Order”), the Honorable Judge Beth Labson Freeman of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (Case No. 17-cv-00072) adopted and ordered claim constructions entirely in Finjan’s favor over Cisco’s proposed claim constructions. Cisco sought the Court’s construction on one additional claim element for the ‘844 Patent, one for the ‘780 Patent, and two additional claim elements for the ‘633 Patent, after the Court previously ruled on 10 other disputed claim elements on July 23, 2018.

“We believe this win signifies that it will be more difficult for Cisco to avoid liability under Finjan’s battle-hardened patents,” said Julie Mar-Spinola, Finjan’s CIPO. “As the Court stated throughout the Order, the four terms were previously construed either by itself or other courts and Cisco’s arguments to change those prior constructions were insufficient or unpersuasive.”

Separately, the Court had entered an earlier July 23, 2018 Order construing 10 claim elements, four of which were on the ‘844 Patent, one on the ‘780 Patent, three on the ‘633 Patent, and one each on U.S. Patent Nos. 8,677,494 and 8,141,154, the latter two of which were not part of the February 5th Order. Of the 10 claim elements disputed, the Court adopted Finjan’s interpretation on six, split one between Finjan and Cisco, construed two on its own, and adopted Cisco’s interpretation on one claim element.

  • The ‘844 Patent is also asserted against: ESET, SonicWall, Juniper, CheckPoint, Fortinet, and Qualys
  • The ‘780 Patent is also asserted against Palo Alto Networks, ESET, SonicWall, Bitdefender, Juniper, and Zscaler
  • The ‘633 Patent is also asserted against Palo Alto Networks, SonicWall, Juniper, Zscaler, CheckPoint, and Fortinet
  • The ‘494 Patent is also asserted against Palo Alto Networks, SonicWall, Bitdefender, Juniper, Zscaler, CheckPoint, Rapid7, Fortinet, and Qualys
  • The ‘154 Patent is also asserted against Palo Alto Networks, SonicWall, Bitdefender, Juniper, CheckPoint, Rapid7, and Qualys.

The court dockets for the foregoing cases are publicly available on the Public Access to Court Electronic Records (PACER) website, www.pacer.gov, which is operated by the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts.

Click here for the full text release.

 

Tags

Tags:

Leave a Reply