| LITIGATION, CLAIMS AND ASSESSMENTS | LITIGATION, CLAIMS AND ASSESSMENTS A. United States District Court Actions Finjan, Inc. v. Palo Alto Networks, Inc., Case No. 4:14-cv-04908-PJH (N.D. Cal.) Finjan filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Palo Alto Networks, Inc. (“Palo Alto Networks”) 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 (the "Asserted Patents") 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. Finjan seeks entry of judgment that Palo Alto Networks has infringed, is infringing, has induced infringement and is inducing infringement of the Asserted Patents, a preliminary and permanent injunction from infringing, or inducing the infringement of the Asserted 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. This action is before the Honorable Phyllis J. Hamilton. Palo Alto Networks filed several petitions for IPR's before the PTAB. The PTAB instituted review of certain patents and denied institution on other challenged patents. On May 26, 2016, the Court ordered a stay to remain in effect until the PTAB’s final determination of the instituted IPRs, and the matter remains stayed pending appeal. For particulars of the pending IPR proceedings, see Section B of this Note, “ Inter Partes Review Proceedings,” case numbers IPR 2015-01979, IPR2016-00151, and IPR2016-00159. There can be no assurance that Finjan will be successful in settling or litigating these claims. Finjan, Inc. v. ESET, LLC et al., Case No. 3:17-cv-00183-CAB (S.D. Cal.) Finjan filed a patent infringement lawsuit against ESET, LLC and ESET SPOL S.R.O. (collectively "ESET") in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California (Case No. 3:16-cv-03731-JD (N.D. Cal.)) 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 (the "Asserted Patents") 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 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. The case was transferred to the Southern District of California on January 30, 2017. ESET filed a Complaint for Declaratory Judgment against 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. This action is before the Honorable Cathy Ann Bencivengo. Details on procedures prior to February 2018 are disclosed in Note 8 of our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2017. On February 20, 2018, ESET filed a Motion to Stay Pending Inter Partes Review, which Finjan opposed. On May 7, 2018, the Court granted ESET’s Motion to Stay with regard to the ‘305 Patent only. The Court’s Scheduling Order was amended on October 4, 2018, January 4, 2019, and February 25, 2019, such that the following dates are now in effect: close of expert discovery was March 15, 2019; opening dispositive and Daubert motions were filed on April 23, 2019, with oppositions due on May 14, 2019, replies due on May 28, 2019; the final pretrial conference is scheduled for September 13, 2019; and the trial is to commence on October 29, 2019. There can be no assurance that Finjan will be successful in settling or litigating these claims. Finjan, Inc. v. Cisco Systems, Inc., Case No. 5:17-cv-00072-BLF (N.D. Cal.) Finjan filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Cisco Systems, Inc. (“Cisco”) in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on January 6, 2017, asserting that Cisco infringes certain claims of Finjan’s U.S. Patent Nos. 6,154,844; 6,804,780; 7,647,633; 8,141,154; and 8,677,494 (the "Asserted Patents") through the manufacture, use, importation, sale, and/or offer for sale of its products and services, including but not limited to, Cisco’s Advanced Malware Protection, Cisco Collective Security Intelligence, Cisco Outbreak Filters, Talos Security Intelligence and Research Group, and AMP Threat Grid technologies, including Cisco AMP for Endpoints, Cisco AMP for Networks (also referred to by Cisco as “NGIPS”), Cisco AMP for ASA with FirePOWER Services, Cisco AMP Private Cloud Virtual Appliance, Cisco AMP for CWS, ESA, or WSA, Cisco AMP for Meraki MX, Cisco AMP Threat Grid. Finjan seeks entry of judgment that Cisco has infringed and is infringing the Asserted Patents, a preliminary and permanent injunction from infringing the Asserted 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. This action is before the Honorable Beth Labson Freeman. Details on procedures prior to March 2018 are disclosed in Note 8 of our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2017. On August 16, 2017, the Court issued a scheduling order that set opening summary judgment briefs for September 12, 2019, with oppositions due on October 3, 2019, replies due on October 17, 2019, and a hearing for the motions for summary judgment on October 31, 2019, a final pretrial conference for April 23, 2020, and trial to commence on June 1, 2020. On April 2, 2018, Finjan filed a Motion to Strike Cisco’s Affirmative Defenses of prosecution laches, ensnarement doctrine, and inequitable conduct, to which a hearing was held on August 30, 2018. On June 7, 2018, the Court held a claim construction tutorial, and on June 15, 2018, the Court held a claim construction hearing. An Order Construing Claims in U.S. Patent Nos. 6,154,844; 6,804,780; 7,647,633; 8,141,154; and 8,677,494 was issued on July 23, 2018. The Court held a case management conference on August 30, 2018 and confirmed the jury trial to commence on June 1, 2020. On September 13, 2018, the Court granted Finjan’s Motion to Strike Cisco’s Affirmative Defenses of prosecution laches and ensnarement doctrine, and a portion of Cisco’s inequitable conduct defense, with leave to amend. On October 4, 2018, Cisco filed its Second Amended Answer and Affirmative Defenses. On February 5, 2019, the Court issued an Order Construing Additional Claims in U.S. Patent Nos. 6,154,844; 6,804,780; and 7,647,633. On March 22, 2019, Cisco filed a Motion to Strike Finjan’s Supplemental Interrogatory Response or, in the Alternative, Leave to Amend its Answer to Assert a Counterclaim for Breach of Contract. On April 15, 2019, Cisco filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the Court’s Order Construing Additional Claims with respect to the ‘633 Patent, and on April 30, 2019, the Court granted Cisco’s Motion for Reconsideration. 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 Nos. 2 Ni 53/16 (EP). 4c O 33/16 (German Litigations) Finjan filed a patent infringement lawsuit against ESET SPOL. S.R.O., a Slovak Republic Corporation, and ESET Deutschland GmbH (collectively “ESET”) in the Düsseldorf District Court of Germany on July 1, 2016, asserting that ESET infringed 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, and damages, which Finjan has suffered or shall suffer as a result of ESET offering or delivering infringing software since November 1, 2008. The infringement hearing was held on October 5, 2017. On November 24, 2016, ESET filed a nullity action with the Federal German Patent Court (the “Court”). The infringement proceedings were stayed pending resolution in the nullity action. Finjan responded to the nullity action contesting the nullity action completely and requesting the Court to reject the action and impose the cost of the proceedings to the claimant. The nullity hearing was held on November 28 and 29, 2018, and on March 22, 2019, the Court issued its decision in German determining the claims at issue to be unpatentable. Finjan filed a notice of appeal of the Court’s determination with the Federal Court of Justice of Germany on April 25, 2019. There can be no assurance that Finjan will be successful in settling or litigating these claims. Finjan, Inc. v. SonicWall, Inc., Case No. 5:17-cv-04467-BLF (N.D. Cal.) Finjan filed a patent infringement lawsuit against SonicWall, Inc. (“SonicWall”) in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on August 4, 2017, asserting that SonicWall is directly and indirectly infringing certain claims of Finjan’s U.S. Patent Nos. 6,154,844; 7,058,822; 6,804,780; 7,613,926; 7,647,633; 8,141,154; 8,677,494; 7,975,305; 8,225,408; and 6,965,968 (the "Asserted Patents") through the manufacture, use, sale, importation, and/or offer for sale of its products and services, including but not limited to, Appliance Products utilizing Capture ATP and/or Gateway Security Services and Email Security Products utilizing Capture ATP and/or Gateway Security Services. Finjan seeks entry of judgment that SonicWall has infringed and is infringing the Asserted Patents, a preliminary and permanent injunction from infringing the Asserted 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. This action is before the Honorable Beth Labson Freeman. On October 13, 2017, SonicWall filed a Motion to Dismiss Finjan’s Complaint for Failure to State a Claim for Willful Infringement. On May 16, 2018, the Court denied Sonicwall’s Motion to Dismiss. On May 30, 2018, SonicWall filed its Answer to Complaint. On June 20, 2018, Finjan filed a Motion to Strike SonicWall’s Seventh Affirmative Defense of inequitable conduct. Defendant’s opposition was filed on July 5, 2018, and Finjan’s reply was filed on July 12, 2018. On November 2, 2018, the Court granted the parties’ stipulation to withdraw Finjan’s Motion to Strike and grant SonicWall leave to amend its answer. On November 9, 2018, SonicWall filed its Amended Answer and Affirmative Defenses. On September 11, 2018, the Court amended its scheduling order pursuant to the parties’ stipulation such that the claim construction hearing was held on March 1, 2019. The Court issued an Order Construing Claims in U.S. Patent Nos. 6,154,844; 6,965,968; 7,058,822; 7,613,926; 7,647,633; and 8,225,408 on March 26, 2019. Pursuant to the Court’s December 14, 2017 Case Management Order, a final pretrial conference is set for March 18, 2021, and a jury trial to commence on May 3, 2021. There can be no assurance that Finjan will be successful in settling or litigating these claims. Finjan, Inc. v. Bitdefender Inc., et al., Case No. 4:17-cv-04790-HSG (N.D. Cal.) Finjan filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Bitdefender Inc. and Bitdefender S.R.L. (“Bitdefender”) in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on August 16, 2017, asserting that Bitdefender is directly and indirectly infringing certain claims of Finjan’s U.S. Patent Nos. 6,804,780; 7,930,299; 8,141,154; and 8,677,494 (the "Asserted Patents") through the manufacture, use, sale, importation, and/or offer for sale of its products and services, including but not limited to, Total Security, Family Pack, Internet Security, Antivirus Plus, Security for XP and Vista, Antivirus for Mac, Mobile Security, GravityZone Enterprise Security, GravityZone Elite Security, GravityZone Advanced Business Security, GravityZone Business Security, Hypervisor Introspection, Security for AWS, Cloud Security for MSP, GravityZone for xSP, and BOX. Finjan seeks entry of judgment that Bitdefender has infringed and is infringing the Asserted Patents, a preliminary and permanent injunction from infringing the Asserted 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. This action is before the Honorable Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. Details on procedures prior to December 2018 are disclosed in Note 8 of our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018. A claim construction hearing was held on June 6, 2018. A Claim Construction Order issued on February 14, 2019 and a further case management conference was held on March 12, 2019. Pursuant to the Court’s April 1, 2019 Scheduling Order, dispositive motions will be filed on November 7, 2019, with oppositions on December 5, 2019, replies on December 19, 2019, and the hearing on January 9, 2020. A pretrial conference is set for March 17, 2020, with a jury trial to commence on April 6, 2020. There can be no assurance that Finjan will be successful in settling or litigating these claims. Finjan, Inc. v. Juniper Networks, Inc., Case No. 3:17-cv-05659-WHA (N.D. Cal.) Finjan filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Juniper Networks, Inc. (“Juniper”) in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on September 29, 2017, asserting that Juniper is directly and indirectly infringing certain claims of Finjan’s U.S. Patent Nos. 6,154,844; 6,804,780; 7,647,633; 7,613,926; 8,141,154; 8,677,494; 7,975,305; and 8,225,408 (the “Asserted Patents”) through the manufacture, use, sale, importation, and/or offer for sale of its products and services, including but not limited to, SRX Gateways, SRX Gateways using Sky ATP, and Contrail. Finjan seeks entry of judgment that Juniper has infringed and is infringing the Asserted Patents, has and is inducing infringement, a preliminary and permanent injunction from infringing the Asserted 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. This action is before the Honorable William H. Alsup. Details on procedures prior to March 2018 are disclosed in Note 8 of our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018. On May 31, 2018, Finjan filed a Motion for Leave to File a Second Amended Complaint to assert U.S. Patent No. 7,418,731 (“the ‘731 Patent”); the Court granted Finjan’s Motion to File a Second Amended Complaint on July 19, 2018, and on July 27, 2018, Finjan filed its Second Amended Complaint to assert the ‘731 Patent. Finjan also moved to dismiss Juniper’s counterclaims and strike its affirmative defenses on June 15, 2018. On August 31, 2018, the Court converted Finjan’s motion to dismiss to a judgment on the pleadings and dismissed Juniper’s claims of prosecution laches, inequitable conduct for the ‘154 and ‘494 Patents, and ensnarement doctrine, and ordered that Juniper may seek leave to amend, and denied Finjan’s motion to dismiss unclean hands. On September 21, 2018, Juniper filed a Motion for Leave to File an Amended Answer (“Motion for Leave”). Finjan filed its Opposition to the Motion for Leave on October 5, 2018, and Juniper’s Reply regarding the Motion for Leave was filed on October 12, 2018. On October 29, 2018, the Court granted Juniper leave to amend its complaint with regard to inequitable conduct of the ‘494 and ‘154 Patents and denied leave to amend with regard to Juniper’s claims of prosecution laches. Juniper filed its First Amended Answer on November 5, 2018. The parties completed a first round of briefing of early summary judgment motions in June and July of 2018, and on August 9, 2018, the Court granted Juniper’s Motion for Summary Judgment of Non-infringement of the ‘780 Patent. On August 21, 2018, the parties filed a response to the Court’s August 20, 2018 Order requesting supplemental briefing for summary judgment of the ‘494 Patent. On August 24, 2018, the Court granted in part Finjan’s Motion for Summary Judgment of the ‘494 Patent. A final pretrial conference for trial on the ‘494 Patent was held on December 4, 2018, and a jury trial commenced on December 10, 2018. On December 14, 2018, the jury found no infringement of Claim 10 of the ‘494 Patent. On January 10, 2019, the parties filed Motions for Judgment as a Matter of Law (“JMOL”), Oppositions on January 24, 2019, and Replies on January 31, 2019. On March 11, 2019, the Court denied Finjan’s motion for JMOL, and held Juniper’s motion for JMOL in abeyance. A trial for Juniper’s equitable defenses, counterclaims, and Section 101 defense is set for July 29, 2019. On March 28, 2019, Juniper filed a Motion for Sanctions, and on March 29, 2019, Finjan filed a Rule 60(b) Motion for Relief from Judgment. Hearings on these motions are scheduled for May 9, 2019. On November 6, 2018, the Court ordered a second round of early motions for summary judgment on one asserted claim for each party, with opening motions for summary judgment filed on February 14, 2019, oppositions filed on March 14, 2019, and replies filed on April 4, 2019, with a hearing on May 2, 2019. Finjan moved for summary judgment of infringement of the ‘154 Patent, and Juniper moved for summary judgment of non-infringement of Claim 9 of the ‘780 Patent. The Court has not scheduled a date for summary judgment and trial on the remaining patents. There can be no assurance that Finjan will be successful in settling or litigating these claims. Finjan, Inc. v. ZScaler, Inc., Case No. 3:17-cv-06946-JST (N.D. Cal.) Finjan filed a patent infringement lawsuit against ZScaler, Inc. (“ZScaler”) in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on December 5, 2017, asserting that ZScaler is directly and indirectly infringing certain claims of Finjan’s U.S. Patent Nos. 6,804,780; 7,647,633; 8,677,494; and 7,975,305 (the "Asserted Patents") through the manufacture, use, sale, importation, and/or offer for sale of its products and services, including, but not limited to, ZScaler’s Internet Access Bundles (including Professional, Business, and Transformation), Private Access Bundle (including Professional Business, and Enterprise), ZScaler Enforcement Node (“ZEN”), Secure Web Gateway, Cloud Firewall, Cloud Sandbox, and Cloud Architecture products and services. Finjan seeks entry of judgment that ZScaler has and continues to infringe the Asserted Patents, has and continues to induce infringement, a preliminary and permanent injunction from infringing the Asserted Patents, an accounting of all infringing sales and revenues, damages of no less than a reasonable royalty, enhanced damages for willful infringement, costs, interest, and reasonable attorneys’ fees under 35 U.S.C. § 285. This action is before the Honorable Jon S. Tigar. On March 5, 2018, Finjan moved to strike ZScaler’s affirmative defense. ZScaler filed an Amended Answer and Counterclaims on March 29, 2018, and Finjan’s Motion to Strike was terminated as moot. On April 2, 2018, Finjan filed an Answer to ZScaler’s Counterclaim. On March 21, 2019, Zscaler filed a Motion to Stay the case, Finjan filed its Opposition on April 4, 2019, and Zscaler filed its Reply on April 11, 2019. The Court set a claim construction tutorial for May 14, 2019, and a claim construction hearing for May 28, 2019. A summary judgment hearing was scheduled for November 18, 2019. On May 1, 2019, the parties filed a Joint Stipulation of Dismissal with Prejudice pursuant to a confidential settlement agreement between the parties. Finjan, Inc. v. Trustwave Holdings, Inc., C.A. No. N18C-04-006 WCC-CCLD (Del. Super. Ct.) Finjan filed a breach of contract lawsuit against Trustwave Holdings, Inc. (“Trustwave”) in the Superior Court of Delaware on April 4, 2018, asserting that Trustwave breached a patent licensing agreement with Finjan by failing to pay owed royalties, failing to comply with audit procedures as provided by that licensing agreement, and for failing to pay for that audit. Finjan seeks entry of judgment that Trustwave be ordered to pay damages due to the breach of the agreement and the cost of the audit, including interest, and that Finjan be awarded attorneys’ fees. This action is before the Honorable William C. Carpenter, Jr. Trustwave moved to dismiss the Complaint on June 8, 2018, and filed its opening brief on June 29, 2018. Finjan opposed the Motion to Dismiss on July 30, 2018, and Trustwave filed its Reply on August 13, 2018. A hearing on the Motion to Dismiss was heard on November 19, 2018. On February 11, 2019, Judge Carpenter issued an Order denying Trustwave’s Motion to Dismiss and permitting Finjan’s Breach of Contract suit to proceed. A schedule has not yet been set in the case. There can be no assurance that Finjan will be successful in settling or litigating these claims. Finjan, Inc. v. Check Point et al., Case No. 3:18-cv-02621-WHO (N.D. Cal.) Finjan filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Check Point Software Technologies Inc. and Check Point Software Technologies Ltd. (“Check Point”) in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on May 3, 2018, asserting that Check Point is directly and indirectly infringing certain claims of Finjan’s U.S. Patent Nos. 6,154,844; 6,965,968; 7,418,731; 7,647,633; 8,079,086; 8,141,154; and 8,677,494 (the “Asserted Patents”) through the manufacture, use, sale, importation, and/or offer for sale of its products and services, including, but not limited to, Check Point’s Next Generation Firewall and Security Gateway products, Blade products, CloudGuard products, Endpoint Protection products, Advanced Threat Prevention products, Mobile Security products, ZoneAlarm products, Threat Intelligence products, Security Management and Policy Management products, ThreatCloud Managed Security Service products, Smart-1 Appliance products, products using SandBlast technology, and products utilizing the Gaia Operating System. Finjan seeks entry of judgment that Check Point has infringed, is infringing, has induced infringement and is inducing infringement of the Asserted Patents, a preliminary and permanent injunction from infringing, or inducing the infringement of the Asserted 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. This action is before the Honorable William H. Orrick. On July 16, 2018, Check Point filed its Answer. A case management conference was held on August 14, 2018. On August 15, 2018, the Court issued its Civil Pretrial Order setting a hearing for summary judgment motions on September 30, 2020, a pretrial conference on December 14, 2020, and a jury trial to commence on January 25, 2021. On November 21, 2018, Check Point filed its Amended Answer. On December 5, 2018, Finjan filed a Motion to Strike Check Point’s Affirmative Defenses of lack of standing for the ‘154 Patent, prosecution laches, and inequitable conduct for the ‘154 and ‘494 Patents. On January 25, 2019, the Court granted Finjan’s Motion to Strike Check Point’s Affirmative Defenses of lack of standing and prosecution laches with leave to amend its prosecution laches defense and denied the Motion to Strike with respect to inequitable conduct. On February 12, 2019, Check Point filed a Motion for Leave to Amend its Answer and Affirmative Defenses to include inequitable conduct defenses for the ‘086, ‘633, and ‘844 Patent, and unenforceability defense based on a terminal disclaimer filed for the ‘086 Patent. Finjan’s Opposition was filed on February 26, 2019, and Check Point’s Reply was filed on March 5, 2019. On April 2, 2019, the Court issued an Order granting Check Point’s Motion for Leave to Amend its Answer and Affirmative Defenses, and on April 3, 2019, Check Point filed its Second Amended Answer and Affirmative Defenses. On April 24, 2019, the Court scheduled a claim construction hearing for August 19, 2019. There can be no assurance that Finjan will be successful in settling or litigating these claims. Finjan, Inc. v. Rapid7, Inc. et al. , Case No. 1:18-cv-01519-MN (D. Del) Finjan filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Rapid7, Inc. (“Rapid7”) in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware on October 1, 2018, asserting that Rapid7 is directly and indirectly infringing certain claims of Finjan’s U.S. Patent Nos. 7,757,289; 7,613,918; 7,975,305; 8,079,086; 8,141,154; 8,225,408; and 8,677,494 (the “Asserted Patents”) through the manufacture, use, sale, importation, and/or offer for sale of its products and services, including, but not limited to, Rapid7’s InsightIDR, InsightVM (Nexpose), InsightAppSec, AppSpider, Metaspliot and Komand technologies, including Rapid7 Insight Platform products. Finjan seeks entry of judgment that Rapid7 has infringed, is infringing, has induced infringement and is inducing infringement of the Asserted Patents, a preliminary and permanent injunction from infringing, or inducing the infringement of the Asserted 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. This action is before the Honorable Maryellen Noreika. Rapid7 filed an Answer on December 5, 2018. On December 26, 2018, Finjan filed a Motion to Strike Rapid7’s Affirmative Defenses of inequitable conduct for the ‘154, ‘494, and ‘086 Patents. Rapid7 filed its Opposition on January 9, 2019, and Finjan filed its Reply on January 16, 2019. On February 13, 2019, the Court issued a Scheduling Order that set a claim construction hearing for October 18, 2019, a pretrial conference for February 8, 2021, and trial for February 22, 2021. On March 20, 2019, the Court scheduled a mediation conference for August 13, 2019, before Chief U.S. Magistrate Judge Mary Pat Thynge. There can be no assurance that Finjan will be successful in settling or litigating these claims. Finjan, Inc. v. Fortinet, Inc., Case No. 3:18-cv-06555-JD (N.D. Cal.) Finjan filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Fortinet, Inc. (“Fortinet”) in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on October 26, 2018, asserting that Fortinet infringes certain claims of Finjan’s U.S. Patent Nos. 6,154,844; 6,965,968; 7,058,822; 7,418,731; 7,647,633; 7,975,305; 8,079,086; 8,225,408; and 8,677,494 (the “Asserted Patents”) through the manufacture, use, sale, importation, and/or offer for sale of its products and services, including, but not limited to, Fortinet’s FortiGate, FortiManager, FortiAnalyzer, FortiSiem, FortiSandbox, FortiMail, FortiWeb, ForitCache, and FortiClient technologies, including Fortinet Security Fabric products. Finjan seeks entry of judgment that Fortinet has infringed, is infringing, has induced infringement and is inducing infringement of the Asserted Patents, a preliminary and permanent injunction from infringing, or inducing the infringement of the Asserted 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. This action is before the Honorable James Donato. On December 17, 2018, the Court ordered Finjan to show cause in writing by December 27, 2018, as to why the case should not be stayed pending resolution of the other actions where overlapping patents are being actively litigated and permitted Fortinet to file a statement of its views by January 2, 2019. Fortinet’s Answer and Counterclaims were filed on December 19, 2018. On December 27, 2018, Finjan filed its Response to Order to Show Cause, opposing a stay, Fortinet filed its Response requesting a stay on January 2, 2019, and on January 3, 2019, the Court held a hearing regarding the stay. On January 7, 2019, the Court temporarily stayed the case until the next status conference, on February 21, 2019. At the February 21, 2019 status conference, and subsequently in its Minute Order dated February 25, 2019, the Court directed the parties to file by February 28, 2019, a joint statement identifying the patents and claims at issue and unique in the case. The Court has yet to decide if it will further stay the case pending resolution of other Finjan actions. On February 26, 2019, Finjan filed its answer to Fortinet’s counterclaims. There can be no assurance that Finjan will be successful in settling or litigating these claims. Finjan, Inc. v. Qualys Inc., Case No. 4:18-cv-07229-YGR (N.D. Cal.) Finjan filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Qualys Inc. (“Qualys”) in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on November 29, 2018, asserting that Qualys infringes certain claims of Finjan’s U.S. Patent Nos. 6,154,844; 8,677,494; 7,975,305; 8,225,408; 6,965,968; 7,418,731; and 8,141,154 (the “Asserted Patents”) through the manufacture, use, sale, importation, and/or offer for sale of its products and services, including, but not limited to, Qualys’ products and services that utilize Vulnerability Management, Threat Protection, Continuous Monitoring, Indicators of Compromise, Container Security, Web App Firewall, Web App Scanning, and Compliance Monitoring, including Qualys Cloud Platform products. Finjan seeks entry of judgment that Qualys has infringed, is infringing, has induced infringement and is inducing infringement of the Asserted Patents, a preliminary and permanent injunction from infringing, or inducing the infringement of the Asserted 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. This action is before the Honorable Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers. On January 23, 2019, Qualys filed its Answer and Counterclaims. On February 13, 2019, Finjan filed its Answer to Qualys’ Counterclaim. On March 6, 2019 Qualys filed its First Amended Answer and Counterclaims, and Finjan filed its Answer to Counterclaims on March 20, 2019. An initial case management conference was held on March 4, 2019. At that conference, the Court ordered Finjan to |
