| LITIGATION, CLAIMS AND ASSESSMENTS | LITIGATION, CLAIMS AND ASSESSMENTS A. United States District Court Actions Finjan, Inc. v. FireEye, Inc., 4:13-cv-03133SBA, (N.D. Cal): Finjan filed a patent infringement lawsuit against FireEye, Inc. in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on July 8, 2013, asserting that FireEye, Inc. is directly and indirectly infringing certain claims of Finjan’s U.S. Patent Nos. 6,804,780, 7,058,822, 7,647,633, 7,975,305, 8,079,086, and 8,225,408, through the manufacture, use, importation, sale, and/or offer for sale of its products and services, including but not limited to FireEye’s Threat Protection Platform, including the FireEye Malware Protection System, the FireEye Dynamic Threat Intelligence, and the FireEye Central Management System. Finjan amended its Complaint on August 16, 2013, to add U.S. Patent No. 6,154,844 to the list of asserted patents. The principal parties in this proceeding are Finjan, Inc. and FireEye, Inc. Finjan seeks entry of judgment that FireEye, Inc. has infringed, is infringing, and has induced infringement of the above-listed patents, a preliminary and permanent injunction from infringing, or inducing the infringement of the above-listed patents, an accounting of all infringing sales and revenues, damages of no less than a reasonable royalty and consistent with proof, enhanced damages, and enhanced damages for willful infringement, costs, interest, and reasonable attorneys’ fees under 35 U.S.C. §285. FireEye, Inc. answered Finjan's Amended Complaint on September 3, 2013, by denying Finjan's allegations of infringement and counterclaiming that the asserted patents are invalid under 35 U.S.C. §§ 101, 102, 103 and/or 112. Both parties have demanded a jury trial. On June 2, 2014, the Honorable Saundra Brown Armstrong entered an Order Granting Motion to Stay Pending Reexamination of U.S. Patent Nos. 7,058,822 (“the ‘822 Patent”) and 7,647,633 (“the ‘633 Patent”). Accordingly, this action is off calendar until the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO") completes its administrative reexamination proceedings. On May 31, 2016, pursuant to the Court’s Order Granting Motion to Stay Pending Reexamination, the parties filed a joint status report regarding the status of reexamination proceedings of the ‘822 and ‘633 Patents. There can be no assurance that Finjan will be successful in settling or litigating these claims. Finjan, Inc. v. Blue Coat Systems, Inc., Case 5:13-cv-03999-BLF, (N.D. Cal.): Finjan filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Blue Coat Systems, Inc., in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on August 28, 2013, asserting that Blue Coat is directly and indirectly infringing certain claims of Finjan’s U.S. Patent Nos. 6,154,844, 6,804,780, 6,965,968, 7,058,822, 7,418,731, and 7,647,333 patents. The principal parties in this proceeding are Finjan and Blue Coat. This action is before the Honorable Judge Beth Labson Freeman. The Court held a claim construction, or Markman Hearing, for this matter on August 22, 2014. The Court entered its Markman Order entitled “Order Construing Claims in U.S. Patent Nos. 6,154,844, 7,058,822, 7,418,731, and 7,647,633, on October 20, 2014, which is available on PACER (www.pacer.gov), as Docket No. 118. Trial for this action took place from July 20, 2015 through August 4, 2015. On August 4, 2015, the jury returned a unanimous verdict that each of the Finjan asserted patents are valid and enforceable. Further, the jury returned a unanimous verdict that Finjan’s U.S. Patent Nos. 6,154,844, 6,804,780, 6,965,968, and 7,418,731 were literally infringed by Blue Coat, and that U.S. Patent No. 7,647,633 was infringed by Blue Coat under the Doctrine of Equivalents. Upon the findings of infringement, the jury also awarded Finjan approximately $39.5 million in damages as reasonable royalties for Blue Coat's infringement. On September 9, 2015, the Court held a bench trial on non-jury legal issues, and issued findings of fact and conclusions of law on November 20, 2015. On November 20, 2015, the Court entered Judgment in favor of Finjan. On January 29, 2016, the Court taxed costs against Blue Coat. A hearing for the parties’ post-trial motions was held on April 28, 2016. On July 18, 2016, the Court issued an order upholding the jury’s verdict of infringement, validity, and damages, and denying Blue Coat’s motion to amend the Court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law, denying Blue Coat’s motion for judgment as a matter of law, granting Blue Coat’s motion to amend the judgment to show infringement under the doctrine of equivalents is moot for the ‘844, ‘968, and ‘780 patents, denying Blue Coat’s motion for a new trial, denying Finjan’s motion for enhanced damages, granting Finjan’s motion for pre-and post-judgment interest, and denying Finjan’s motion for attorneys’ fees. Finjan has not received any revenue from Blue Coat with respect to this lawsuit. There can be no assurance that Finjan will be successful in collecting the full amount of the jury award. Finjan, Inc. v. Proofpoint, and Armorize Technologies, Inc., Case 3:13-cv-05808-HSG (N.D. Cal.): Finjan filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Proofpoint, Inc. and its wholly-owned subsidiary, Armorize Technologies, Inc., in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on December 16, 2013, asserting that Proofpoint and Armorize collectively and separately are directly and indirectly infringing one or more claims of Finjan’s U.S. Patent Nos. 6,154,844, 7,058,822, 7,613,918, 7,647,633, 7,975,305, 8,079,086, 8,141,154, and 8,225,408, through the manufacture, use, importation, sale, and/or offer for sale of its products and services, including but not limited to Proofpoint Enterprise Protection, Proofpoint’s Malvertising Protection, Proofpoint’s SafeImpressions, Proofpoint’s Targeted Attack Protection, Proofpoint Essentials, Proofpoint Protection Server, Proofpoint Messaging Security Gateway, HackAlert Anti-Malware, Codesecure, SmartWAF, Safelmpressions, and Malvertising Protection. The principal parties in this proceeding are Finjan, Proofpoint, and Armorize. Finjan seeks entry of judgment that Proofpoint and Armorize have infringed and are infringing the above-listed patents, a judgment that they have induced infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,154,844, 7,058,822, 7,613,918, 7,647,633, 7,975,305, 8,079,086, and 8,225,408, a preliminary and permanent injunction from infringing, or inducing the infringement of the same patents, an accounting of all infringing sales and revenues, damages of no less than a reasonable royalty and consistent with proof, enhanced damages, and costs, interest, and reasonable attorneys’ fees under 35 U.S.C. §285. This matter is assigned to the Honorable Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr., United States District Judge. A claim construction or Markman Hearing was heard on June 24, 2015, and the Court issued a Claim Construction Order on December 3, 2015. On April 12, 2016, the Court granted-in-part and denied-in-part each party’s motion for summary judgment, denying the parties’ motions for summary judgment of infringement and non-infringement for the ‘844, ‘822, ‘633, ‘408, and ‘086 Patents, and finding non-infringement of the ‘154 and ‘918 Patents. The Court also granted Finjan’s motion for summary judgment that Defendants did not have sufficient evidence that the ‘918 Patent was invalid, and denied all other motions for summary judgment that were filed by the parties with respect to validity. The Court also granted Defendants’ motion for summary judgment as to the priority date of the ‘822 patent, and denied all other motions for summary judgment regarding priority or invention date. A trial date was set for June 13, 2016. On June 7, 2016, pursuant to the parties’ Confidential Patent License, Settlement and Release Agreement, the Court dismissed the action with prejudice. On June 3, 2016, Finjan entered into a Patent License, Settlement and Release Agreement with Proofpoint, Inc. and Amorize Technologies. See "NOTE 4 - License, Settlement and Release Agreement" Finjan, Inc. v. Sophos Inc., Case 3:14-cv-01197-WHO (N.D. Cal.): Finjan filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Sophos Inc. in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on March 14, 2014, asserting that Sophos is directly and indirectly infringing certain claims of Finjan’s U.S. Patent Nos. 6,154,844, 6,804,780, 7,613,918, 7,613,926, 7,757,289, and 8,141,154. Finjan amended the Complaint on April 8, 2014, to add U.S. Patent Nos. 8,677,494 and 8,566,580 to the list of asserted patents. Finjan asserts infringement against Sophos through the manufacture, use, importation, sale, and/or offer for sale of its products and services, including but not limited to End User Protection Suites, Endpoint Antivirus, Endpoint Antivirus - Cloud, Sophos Cloud, Unified Threat Management, Next-Gen Firewall, Secure Web Gateway, Secure Email Gateway, Web Application Firewall, Network Storage Antivirus, Virtualization Security, SharePoint Security, Secure VPN, Secure Wi-Fi and Server Security. The principal parties in this proceeding are Finjan and Sophos. This action is before the Honorable William H. Orrick. Finjan seeks entry of judgment that Sophos has infringed and is infringing the above-listed patents, a judgment that Sophos has induced infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,804,780, 7,613,918, 7,613,926, 7,757,289, 6,154,844, and 8,667,494, a judgment that Sophos has contributorily infringed U.S. Patent No. 8,566,580, a preliminary and permanent injunction from infringing, inducing, or contributorily infringing the same patents, an accounting of all infringing sales and revenues, damages of no less than a reasonable royalty and consistent with proof, enhanced damages, costs, interest, and reasonable attorneys’ fees under 35 U.S.C. §285. Sophos filed its Answer to Finjan’s First Amended Complaint on May 9, 2014. Both parties demanded a jury trial. Sophos filed its Amended Answer to the Complaint on May 30, 2014. Mediation pursuant to the Court's ADR Program occurred on January 13, 2015 and it has not yet resulted in resolution between the parties. Further, a Technology Tutorial took place in this matter on February 9, 2015. A claim construction or Markman Hearing occurred on February 13, 2015. The Court entered its Markman Order entitled “Claim Construction Order” on March 2, 2015, which is available on PACER (www.pacer.gov), as Docket No. 73. On April 9, 2015, Finjan filed a Second Amended Complaint that included a certificate of correction for the ‘154 Patent. On November 17, 2015, Finjan filed a Third Amended Complaint to add claims of Sophos’s willful infringement. Sophos filed an Answer to Finjan’s Third Amended Complaint on December 4, 2015. On May 24, 2016, the Court issued an order on the parties’ motions to strike, motions for summary judgment, and discovery matters. In its Order, the Court granted Sophos’ motion for summary judgment of non-infringement for the ‘289 and ‘918 Patents, denied the remainder of Sophos’ motion for summary judgment, denied Finjan’s motion for summary judgment of infringement for the ‘926 and ‘494 Patents, granted Finjan’s motion for summary judgment that certain prior art references were not publicly accessible, granted Finjan’s motion to strike in part to exclude certain prior art, granted Sophos’s motion to strike in part to exclude portions of Finjan’s expert reports on infringement, and deferred ruling on Finjan’s motion for summary judgment of validity for the ‘154, ‘494, ‘780, ‘844, and ‘926 patents after reviewing supplemental filings to be submitted with the parties’ pre-trial filings. The Court also precluded Sophos from relying on documents that were produced after the close of fact discovery. Currently, a mandatory settlement conference was held on July 25, 2016 with no settlement, a pretrial conference is scheduled for August 8, 2016, and a trial date is scheduled for September 6, 2016. There can be no assurance that Finjan will be successful in settling or litigating these claims. Finjan, Inc. v. Symantec Corporation., Case 3:14-cv-02998-HSG (N.D. Cal.): Finjan filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Symantec Corporation in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on June 30, 2014, asserting that Symantec is directly and indirectly infringing certain claims of Finjan’s U.S. Patent Nos. 7,756,996, 7,757,289, 7,930,299, 8,015,182, and 8,141,154, through the manufacture, use, importation, sale, and/or offer for sale of certain products and services. Finjan amended the Complaint on September 11, 2014 to add U.S. Patent Nos. 6,154,844, 7,613,926 and 8,677,494 (collectively the "asserted patents"). The accused products and services include Symantec Endpoint Protection, Symantec Endpoint Protection Small Business Edition, Network Access Control, Norton Internet Security, Norton Anti-Virus, Norton 360, Safe-Web Lite, Norton Safe Web, Messaging Gateway, Messaging Gateway for Service Providers, Messaging Gateway Small Business Edition Managed Security Services-Advance Threat Protection, Advanced Threat Protection Solution, Symantec Protection Engine for Cloud Services, Symantec Protection Engine for Network Attached Storage, Symantec Mail Security for Domino, Symantec Mail Security for Microsoft Exchange, Symantec Scan Engine for Windows, Web Security.cloud, Email Security.cloud, AntiVirus/Filtering for Domino, AntiVirus for Linux, Mail Security for SMTP, Scan Engine for Linux/Solaris, AntiVirus for Caching/Messaging/NAS for Linux/Solaris, Protection Engine for Linux/Solaris, AntiVirus for Caching/Messaging/NAS for Windows, Web Gateway and Norton Security. The principal parties in this proceeding are Finjan and Symantec. Finjan seeks entry of judgment that Symantec has infringed and is infringing the asserted patents, has contributorily infringed and is contributorily infringing U.S. Patent No. 8,015,182, and has induced infringement, and/or is inducing infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,154,844, 7,613,926, 7,756,996, 7,757,289, 7,930,299, and 8,677,494, a preliminary and permanent injunction from infringing, contributorily infringing, or inducing the infringement of the same patents, an accounting of all infringing sales and revenues, damages of no less than a reasonable royalty and consistent with proof, enhanced damages, and enhanced damages for willful infringement, costs, interest, and reasonable attorneys’ fees under 35 U.S.C. §285. Symantec answered the Amended Complaint on September 25, 2014, by denying Finjan’s allegations of infringement and counterclaiming that the asserted patents are invalid under 35 U.S.C. §§ 101, 102, 103 and/or 112. Symantec filed an Amended Answer on October 31, 2014, removing its Fourteenth Affirmative Defense of unenforceability. Both parties have demanded a jury trial. This matter is assigned to the Honorable Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr., United States District Judge. A claim construction or Markman Hearing was heard on June 29, 2015. On July 3, 2015, Symantec filed petitions for Inter Partes Review (“IPR”) before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) for all asserted claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 8,015,182, 8,141,154, 7,757,289, 7,930,299, and 7,756,996. On September 10, 2015, Symantec filed a total of 11 IPR petitions for all asserted claims of asserted patents. On August 20, 2015, Symantec filed a motion to stay the case pending completion of these eight IPR petitions. The motion was heard on October 1, 2015 and on October 9, 2015, the Court stayed the case pending the PTAB’s decision on whether to institute IPR of the claims that are the subject of Symantec’s petitions. On January 14, 2016, the PTAB denied institution of six IPRs of five asserted patents. On January 21, 2016, the parties filed a joint status report giving the Court an update regarding the status of the IPR petitions. On February 26, 2016 the PTAB denied institution of an additional two IPRs filed on separate patents, denying a total of eight petitions as of February 26, 2016. On March 11, 2016 the PTAB denied two more IPR's on patents against Symantec, denying a total of 10 petitions to date. On March 18, 2016, the PTAB granted institution on the 11th Petition by Symantec, relating to the ‘494 Patent (IPR2015-01892). On March 29, 2016, the parties jointly requested the Court lift the stay, and on March 30, 2016, the Court lifted the stay. On April 15, 2016, the parties jointly submitted a proposed schedule to the Court for the remainder of the case. On August 1, 2016 the Court issued a Scheduling Order indicating a timeline to trial but without specifically identifying a trial date. There can be no assurance that Finjan will be successful in settling or litigating these claims. Finjan, Inc. v. Palo Alto Networks, Inc., Case 3:14-cv-04908 EMC (N.D. Cal.): Finjan filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Palo Alto Networks, Inc., in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on November 4, 2014, asserting that Palo Alto Networks is directly and indirectly infringing certain claims of Finjan’s U.S. Patent Nos. 6,804,780, 6,965,968, 7,058,822, 7,418,731, 7,613,918, 7,613,926, 7,647,633, 8,141,154, 8,225,408, and 8,677,494, through the manufacture, use, importation, sale, and/or offer for sale of its products and services, including but not limited to Next-Generation Security Platform, Next-Generation Firewall, Virtualized Firewall, WildFire Subscription, WildFire Platform, URL Filtering Subscription, Threat Prevention Subscription, and Advanced EndPoint Protection. Palo Alto Networks failed to timely respond to the Complaint and Finjan submitted an application for Entry of Default. On Palo Alto Networks’ request, Finjan stipulated to an extension of time for Palo Alto Networks to respond. The principal parties in this proceeding are Finjan and Palo Alto Networks. Finjan seeks entry of judgment that Palo Alto Networks has infringed and is infringing the above-listed patents, and has induced infringement and is inducing infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,804,780, 6,965,968, 7,058,822, 7,418,731, 7613,918, 7,613,926, 7,647,633, 8,141,154, 8,225,408, and 8,677,494, a preliminary and permanent injunction from infringing, or inducing the infringement the same patents, an accounting of all infringing sales and revenues, damages of no less than a reasonable royalty consistent with proof, and enhanced damages for willful infringement, costs, interest, and reasonable attorneys’ fees under 35 U.S.C. §285. Palo Alto Networks filed its Answer and Counterclaims on December 31, 2015, by denying Finjan's allegations of infringement and counterclaiming that the asserted patents are invalid under 35 U.S.C. §§ 101, 102, 103 and/or 112. Both parties have demanded a jury trial. On October 8, 2015, the Honorable Edward M. Chen recused himself from the case and requested the case be reassigned to another judge. Also on October 8, 2015, the case was reassigned to the Honorable Phyllis J. Hamilton in the Oakland division of the District Court for the Northern District of California. On September 25, 2015, Palo Alto Networks filed a petition for IPR before the PTAB of U.S. Patent No. 8,141,154. On September 30, 2015, Palo Alto Networks filed petitions for IPR of U.S. Patent Nos. 7,058,822, 7,418,731, 7,647,633 and 8,225,408. On November 4, 2015, Palo Alto Networks filed a IPR petition of U.S. Patent Nos. 7,613,926. On November 5, 2015, Palo Alto Networks filed IPR petitions of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,965,968 and 8,141,154. On November 6, 2015, Palo Alto Networks filed IPR petitions of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,804,780, 7,613,918, 8,225,408 and 8,667,494. On December 10, 2015, the matter was stayed pending a decision by the PTAB on whether to institute IPR of Finjan's claims of its ten patents asserted against Palo Alto Networks. On March 21, 2016, the PTAB instituted trial on claims 1-8, 10 and 11 of the ‘154 Patent, and on April 20, 2016, the PTAB instituted trial on the same claims from a separate petition. On March 29, 2016, the PTAB instituted trial on the ‘408 Patent, claims 14 and 19 of the ‘633 Patent, and denied institution of trial on all other challenged claims of the ‘633 Patent, and all challenged claims of the ‘822 Patent and the ‘731 Patent. On May 9, 2016, the PTAB denied institution of trial on the ‘926 Patent, the ‘968 Patent, the ‘780 Patent, and the ‘918 Patent. On May 13, 2016, the PTAB instituted trial on the ‘494 Patent. On May 26, 2016, the Court ordered the stay to remain in effect until the PTAB’s final determination of the instituted IPRs. There can be no assurance that Finjan will be successful in settling or litigating these claims. Finjan, Inc. v. Blue Coat Systems, Inc., Case 5:15-cv-03295-BLF (N.D. Cal.): Finjan filed a second patent infringement lawsuit against Blue Coat Systems, Inc. in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on July 15, 2015, asserting that Blue Coat is directly infringing certain claims of Finjan’s U.S. Patent Nos. 6,154,844, 6,965,968, 7,418,731, 8,079,086, 8,225,408, 8,677,494, and 8,566,580, through the manufacture, use, importation, sale, and/or offer for sale of its products and services, including but not limited to the Web Security Service, WebPulse Cloud Service, ProxySG Appliances and Software, Blue Coat Systems SV2800 and SV3800, Malware Analysis Appliances and Software, Security Analytics Platform, Content Analysis System, and Mail Threat Defense, S400-10 and S400-20. Finjan seeks entry of judgment that Blue Coat has infringed and is infringing the above-listed patents, a preliminary and permanent injunction from the infringement of the same patents, an accounting of all infringing sales and revenues, damages of no less than a reasonable royalty consistent with proof, and enhanced damages for willful infringement, costs, interest, and reasonable attorneys’ fees under 35 U.S.C. §285. Blue Coat filed its Answer to the Complaint with Jury Demand and Counterclaim with Jury Demand against Finjan on September 8, 2015. On September 29, 2015, Finjan filed its Answer to Blue Coat’s Counterclaim. This second Blue Coat action is also assigned to the Honorable Beth Labson Freeman. On December 15, 2015, Blue Coat filed a Motion to Stay the case pending final resolution of Case 5:13-cv-03999-BLF, and Motions for Joinder of several Petitions for IPR on five of seven asserted patents, and Ex Parte Reexamination requests for two asserted patents, filed previously by other defendants. A Case Management Conference (CMC) was held on December 17, 2015. A claim construction tutorial is scheduled for December 2, 2016, and a claim construction hearing is scheduled for December 9, 2016. A pretrial conference is scheduled for October 5, 2017, and trial is scheduled for October 30, 2017. On March 1, 2016 Finjan filed an amended Complaint to add existing Finjan patent 9,141,786 and two newly issued Finjan patents 9,189,621 (issued November 17, 2015) and 9,219,755 (issued December 22, 2015). On March 18, 2016, Blue Coat filed its Answer to the Amended Complaint and Counterclaims with Jury Demand. On April 8, 2016, Finjan filed its Answer to Blue Coat’s Counterclaims. On April 28, 2016, the Court held a hearing on Blue Coat’s motion to stay. On June 10, 2016, Finjan notified the Court on the status of the IPR and ex parte reexamination proceedings for the asserted patents. On June 27, 2016, Finjan filed an Amended Answer to Blue Coat’s counterclaims, adding an affirmative defense of collateral estoppel. On June 27, 2016, Blue Coat filed an Amended Answer to Finjan’s Amended Complaint. On July 11, 2016, Finjan filed a motion to strike certain affirmative defenses in Blue Coat’s Amended Answer, and a reply to Blue Coat’s counterclaims. On July 26, 2016 the Court denied Blue Coat's motion to stay the second case pending proceedings before the USPTO and the PTAB. On July 28, 2016 Finjan filed a motion for preliminary injunction against Blue Coat. The preliminary injunction would prohibit Blue Coat from making, using, offering to sell or selling within the U.S. or import into the U.S. the Dynamic Real-Time Rating component of Blue Coat’s WebPulse product. A court date has been reserved so this matter may be heard by the Honorable Beth Labson Freeman on November 10, 2016. There can be no assurance that Finjan will be successful in settling or litigating these claims. Finjan, Inc. v ESET, LLC et al., Case 3:16-cv-03731-JD (N.D. Cal.): Finjan filed a patent infringement lawsuit against ESET, LLC and ESET SPOL S.R.O. (“ESET”) in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on July 1, 2016, asserting that ESET infringes Finjan’s U.S. Patent Nos. 6,154,844, 6,804,780, 7,975,305, 8,079,086, 9,189,621, and 9,219,755, through the manufacture, use, importation, sale, and/or offer for sale of its products and services, including but not limited to, ESET ThreatSense, ESET Advanced Heuristic, ESET DNA Signature, Host-based Intrusion Prevention System (HIPS), and ESET LiveGrid technologies including ESET’S Home Protection, Small Office, and Business product lines and ESET Services. Finjan seeks entry of a judgment that ESET has infringed and is infringing the asserted patents, a preliminary and permanent injunction from the infringement of the same patents, an accounting of all infringing sales and revenues, damages of no less than a reasonable royalty consistent with proof, and enhanced damages for willful infringement, costs, interest, and reasonable attorneys’ fees under 35 U.S.C. § 285. An initial case management conference has been scheduled for September 29, 2016. ESET has not yet filed an Answer to the Complaint. There can be no assurance that Finjan will be successful in settling or litigating these claims. Finjan, Inc. v. ESET SPOL S.R.O.. et al., Docket No. 4c O 33/16 (Düsseldorf District Court) Finjan filed a patent infringement lawsuit against ESET SPOL. S.R.O., a Slovak Republic Corporation, and ESET Deutschland GmbH (“ESET”) in the Düsseldorf District Court of Germany on July 1, 2016, asserting that ESET infringes Finjan’s European Patent No. 0 965 094 B1 (“the ‘094 Patent”), through the offering and/or delivering to customers in the Federal Republic of Germany software covered by the ‘094 Patent, including but not limited to ESET’s ThreatSense, ESET Advanced Heuristic, ESET DNA Signature, ESET LiveGrid technologies, including ESET’s Home Users, Small Office, and Business product lines and ESET services. Finjan seeks a judgment sentencing ESET to a fine for each violation of patent infringement or, alternatively imprisonment of ESET directors, cease and desist orders for offering or delivering infringing software, providing Finjan with profit information for offering or delivering infringing software, damages, which Finjan has suffered or shall suffer as a result of ESET offering or delivering infringing software since November 1, 2008. The Düsseldorf District Court is in the process of effective service to ESET SPOL. S.R.O. in Slovakia. ESET has yet to inform the court whether it will respond to Finjan’s complaint. There can be no assurance that Finjan will be successful in settling or litigating these claims. ESET, LLC v. Finjan, Inc., Case No. 16-cv-01704 (S.D. Cal.) ESET, LLC (“ESET”) filed a Complaint for Declaratory Judgment against Finjan, Inc. (“Finjan”) in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California on July 1, 2016, asserting that there is an actual controversy between the parties to declare that ESET does not infringe any claim of U.S. Patent No. 7,975,305 (“the ‘305 Patent”). ESET sought an entry of judgment that it has not infringed any claim of the ’305 Patent, an injunction against Finjan from asserting any of the claims in the ‘305 Patent against ESET or any of its customers or suppliers, and a finding that the case is exceptional and an award of fees and costs under 35 U.S.C. § 285. On July 11, 2016, ESET filed an Amended Complaint for Declaratory Judgment, asserting that there is an actual controversy between the parties to declare that ESET does not infringe any claim of the U.S. Patent Nos. 6,154,844 (“the ‘844 Patent”), 6,804,780 (“the ‘780 Patent”), 7,975,305 (“the ‘305 Patent”), 8,079,086 (“the ‘086 Patent”), 9,189,621 (“the ‘621 Patent”), and 9,219,755 (“the ‘755 Patent”). ESET seeks an entry of judgment that it has not infringed any claim of the ‘844, ‘780, ’305, ‘086, ‘621, and ‘755 Patents, an injunction against Finjan from asserting any of the claims of the ‘844, ‘780, ‘305, ‘086, ‘621, and ‘755 Patents against ESET or any of its customers or suppliers, and a finding that the case is exceptional and an award of fees and costs under 35 U.S.C. § 285. Finjan has not yet filed an Answer to the Complaint. There can be no assurance that Finjan will be successful in settling or litigating these claims. B. Proceedings before the United States Patent & Trademark Office (USPTO) Ex Parte Reexamination Proceedings: As defined by the USPTO, an Ex Parte Reexamination is a “proceeding in which any person may request reexamination of a U.S. Patent based on one or more prior patents or printed publications. A requester who is not the patent owner has limited participation rights in the proceedings.” U.S. Patent No. 8,079,086 (Assignee, Finjan, Inc.): A first third-party request for Ex Parte Reexamination of U.S. Patent No. 8,079,086 was filed on October 7, 2013, on behalf of FireEye, Inc. and assigned Reexamination Control Number 90/013,015. The USPTO denied FireEye’s request on November 19, 2013, and the reexamination proceedings terminated on January 14, 2014. A second third-party request by FireEye, Inc., for Ex Parte Reexamination of U.S. Patent No. 8,079,086 was filed on February 7, 2014, and assigned Reexamination Control Number 90/013,147. The USPTO denied FireEye’s second request on March 27, 2014, and the reexamination proceedings terminated on April 29, 2014. A third third-party request for Ex Parte Reexamination of Claims 17 and 24 of U.S. Patent No. 8,079,086 was filed on December 9, 2015 by Proofpoint, Inc. and assigned Reexamination Control Number 90/013,654. The reexamination request was partially granted on February 2, 2016. Requester’s petitioned the Director to reconsider the partial denial and the petition was granted on March 21, 2016. A response to non-final Office Action is due August 6, 2016. There can be no assurance that Finjan will be successful in rebutting the patentability challenge before the USPTO. U.S. Patent No. 7,975,305 (Assignee, Finjan, Inc.): A third-party request for Ex Parte Reexamination of Claims 1, 2, 5 and 13 of U.S. Patent No. 7,975,305 was filed on December 11, 2015 by Proofpoint, Inc. and assigned Reexamination Control Number 90/013,660. The request for reexamination was granted on January 19, 2016 and a non-final Office Action was mailed on April 12, 2016. A response to non-final Office Action was filed on June 13, 2016. There can be no assurance that Finjan will be successful in rebutting the patentability challenge before the USPTO. U.S. Patent No. 7,647,633 (Assignee, Finjan, Inc.): A third-party request for Ex Parte Reexamination of Claims 1-7 and 28-33 of U.S. Patent No. 7,647,633 was filed on October 7, 2013, on behalf of FireEye, Inc. and assigned Reexamination Control Number 90/013,016. The request for reexamination was granted and a non-final Office Action was mailed November 19, 2013. The non-final Office Action included rejections of Claims 1-7 and 28-33 under various prior art (including previously considered and disclosed prior art) under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and/or 103. An in-person Examiner interview was conducted at the USPTO on February 4, 2014, and a timely response to non-final Office Action was filed on February 19, 2014. The response to non-final Office Action included arguments and a supporting declaration by Finjan showing commercial success, industry praise, and copying by others of products covered by pending claims; a declaration by a technology expert rebutting improper technical interpretations of the prior art and the invention; and additional new claims for consideration. Additionally, a renewed petition to accept an unintentionally delayed priority claim was also submitted and the petition was granted on January 23, 2015. An updated filing receipt reflecting the priority claim was issued. A final Office Action was issued May 22, 2015, and a Notice of Appeal was filed by Finjan on May 22, 2015. Finjan’s appeal brief was filed August 24, 2015, appealing the rejections of Claims 1- |
