Finjan Provides Litigation Update in Proofpoint Case; Claim Construction Order and Significiant Motions

PALO ALTO, CA--(Marketwired - Dec 7, 2015) - Finjan Holdings, Inc. (NASDAQ: FNJN), a cybersecurity licensing company, today announced a number of litigation updates in the Finjan, Inc. v. Proofpoint, Inc., Case No. 3:13-cv-05808-HSG, that was filed on December 16, 2013, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. The Court entered two substantive Orders the first week of December, both favorable to Finjan.

On December 3, 2015, the Honorable Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. entered his Order construing disputed claim terms in six of the eight asserted patents: U.S. Patent Nos. 6,154,844 ("the '844 Patent"); 7,058,822 ("the '822 Patent"); 7,647,633 ("the '633 Patent"); 7,975,305 ("the '305 Patent"); 8,141,154 ("the '154 Patent"); and 8,224,408 ("the '408 Patent"), which cover cloud, endpoint, web and messaging security, and networking and perimeter defense technologies. There were no disputed claim terms from the other two asserted patents: U.S. Patent Nos. 7,613,918 and 8,079,086. The Court's Claim Construction Order is available on PACER as Document No. 267.

The parties had agreed that only seven claim terms (or claim elements) from the '844, '822, '633, '305, '154, and '408 Patents required the Court's construction. Of these seven terms, the Court adopted five of Finjan's constructions, one of Proofpoint's constructions, and construed one on its own. All of these constructions support or strengthen the merits of Finjan's infringement claims against Proofpoint.

"Judge Gilliam's Claim Construction Order clarified and bolstered our patent claims against Proofpoint allowing us to proceed on our previously filed Motion for Summary Judgment of Infringement of the '844 and '086 Patents without modification," said Julie Mar-Spinola, Chief IP Officer and VP, Legal for Finjan Holdings. "This is our third Claim Construction Order in as many disputes (i.e., against Blue Coat Systems, Inc. and Sophos, Inc.) finding substantially and critically in Finjan's favor," continued Ms. Mar-Spinola.

In addition, on December 4, the Court entered an additional Order Granting In Part and Denying In Part [Finjan's] Motion to Strike Invalidity Contentions, available on PACER as Document No. 271. The Court struck 16 invalidity theories from Proofpoint's contentions on the basis that they impermissibly included alleged prior art references not previously identified in its preliminary election.

According to Ms. Mar-Spinola, "The Court gutted much of Proofpoint's invalidity defense and has not only further streamlined the issues in our dispute, but has held the parties to obeying the local rules of the Court; Finjan is comfortable with that."