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 its Answer and Counterclaims on December 31, 2015. 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. The parties will file a joint status report within seven (7) days of final determination on the instituted IPRs, including any appeals, informing the Court of the status of the IPR decisions. 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 31, 2017. This action is before the Honorable Cathy Ann Bencivengo. 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. The Court’s prior Scheduling Order set a trial date of October 29, 2019. On July 30, 2019, ESET filed an Ex Parte Motion to Amend the Scheduling Order, due to ESET’s trial counsels’ move to another law firm, and on July 31, 2019, the Court granted ESET’s motion and vacated “all pending deadlines and hearing dates.” On September 24, 2019, the Court issued an Order concerning the parties’ dispositive and Daubert motions, denying some motions, providing tentative rulings on others, and requesting oral argument on the remaining, which the Court heard on September 26, 2019. On October 16, 2019, the Court issued its Order on Motions for Summary Judgment and Motions to Exclude or Strike. On November 11 and 13, 2019 the parties filed motions for reconsideration of the Court’s summary judgment orders. On December 23, 2019 the Court denied Finjan’s Motion for Reconsideration. On December 30, 2019 the Court granted in-part and denied in-part ESET’s Motion for Reconsideration. On January 10, 2020 the Court ordered a Mandatory Settlement Conference be held on February 10, 2020. The settlement conference was held in person before the Honorable Magistrate Judge Bernard G. Skomal and did not result in any resolution between the parties at that time. A pretrial conference and motion in limine hearing was held on February 21, 2020, the Pretrial Order was entered on February 25, 2020, and the jury trial is to commence on March 9, 2020. 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 December 2018 are disclosed in Note 8 of our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018. 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 April 15, 2019, Cisco filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the Court’s Order Construing Additional Claims with respect to Patent No. 7,647,633, and on April 30, 2019, the Court granted Cisco’s Motion for Reconsideration. On May 7, 2019, the Court issued an Order modifying the dates for summary judgment briefing, so that the opening summary judgment briefs were filed on October 22, 2019, oppositions on November 12, 2019, and replies on November 26, 2019. Finjan filed a motion for summary judgment of validity of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,154,844, 7,647,633, and 8,677,494, and Cisco filed a partial motion for summary judgment of non-infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,804,780, 7,647,633, and 8,141,154, and of no pre-suit damages. The hearing on summary judgment motions was held on January 9, 2020. On February 3, 2020, the Court denied Finjan’s Motion for Summary Judgement of validity. The final pretrial conference is scheduled for April 30, 2020 and a jury trial is scheduled to commence on June 1, 2020. 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 products including 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 has sought cease and desist orders against both defendants for offering or delivering the challenged products, under penalty of a fine for each violation of such orders, for orders providing Finjan with profit information regarding the challenged products, and for damages which Finjan has suffered or shall suffer as a result of ESET offering or delivering the challenged products 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”). On November 9, 2017, the Düsseldorf District Court issued a formal order to take evidence through the opinion of a court-appointed expert. The infringement proceedings in the Düsseldorf District Court were later 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 29, 2018, and the Court issued its decision in German determining the claims at issue to be unpatentable. Finjan filed an appeal of the Court’s judgment with the Federal Court of Justice of Germany on April 25, 2019, and its Appeal Brief on July 25, 2019. ESET’s Reply to the Appeal Brief was filed on November 29, 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. 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 March 1, 2019, and 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. On April 30, 2019, SonicWall filed a motion for leave to Conduct Additional Claim Construction Proceedings, which the Court denied on May 7, 2019. The parties participated in a court-ordered mediation on September 18, 2019, without resolution. On October 3, 2019, SonicWall filed a motion for leave to Conduct Additional Claim Construction Proceedings, which Finjan opposed on October 7, 2019. On October 11, 2019, the Court granted in part SonicWall's motion for leave to conduct additional claim construction proceedings, and set a Markman hearing for January 17, 2020. On December 12, 2019, the Court vacated the January 17, 2020 Markman hearing pursuant to stipulation between the parties. A final pretrial conference is scheduled 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. On June 18, 2019, Bitdefender filed a Motion to Amend/Correct Counterclaims, Finjan opposed the motion on July 2, 2019, and on July 9, 2019, Bitdefender replied. The matter was taken under submission by the Court. Pursuant to the Court’s Scheduling Order, dispositive motions were filed on November 7, 2019, oppositions on December 5, 2019, and replies on December 19, 2019. A jury trial was set to commence on April 6, 2020. On January 23, 2020, the parties filed a Joint Stipulation of Dismissal with Prejudice pursuant to a confidential settlement agreement between the parties, which the Court granted on the same day. 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 was before the Honorable William H. Alsup. Details on procedures prior to January 2019 are disclosed in Note 8 of our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018. On January 10, 2019, subsequent to the December 2018 trial and jury verdict concerning the ‘494 Patent, the parties filed and briefed Motions for Judgment as a Matter of Law (“JMOL”). On March 11, 2019, the Court denied Finjan’s motion for JMOL, a new trial, and certification for interlocutory appeal, and held Juniper’s renewed motion for JMOL in abeyance. A trial for Juniper’s equitable defenses, counterclaims, and Section 101 defense was set for July 29, 2019, but was subsequently vacated. 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 were heard on May 9, 2019. On May 22, 2019, the Court issued an Order denying Finjan’s Rule 60(b) motion, and held in abeyance Juniper’s motion for sanctions. The second round of early summary judgment motions were briefed during February, March, and April, with a hearing on May 2, 2019. Finjan moved for summary judgment of infringement of Claim 1 of the ‘154 Patent, and Juniper moved for summary judgment of non-infringement of Claim 9 of the ‘780 Patent. On May 8, 2019 the Court denied Finjan’s motion, granted Juniper’s motion, issued an Order to Show Cause why summary judgment should not be granted regarding Claim 1 of the ‘154 Patent, and set a jury trial to commence on October 21, 2019. The parties filed responses to the Order to Show Cause, and filed respective replies to the same. On June 19, 2019, the Court entered the Fourth Amended Case Management Order setting a hearing on summary judgment motions for September 12, 2019, a hearing on Daubert motions for October 3, 2019, and a pretrial conference for October 9, 2019. A court-ordered settlement conference was held before U.S. Magistrate Judge Nathanael M. Cousins on July 9, 2019. On July 23, 2019, the Court issued an Order re the Order to Show Cause granting summary judgment of noninfringement of Claim 1 of the ‘154 Patent. On August 2, 2019, the parties filed a Joint Stipulation of Dismissal with Prejudice with respect to specific patents, claims, and counterclaims. On August 6, 2019, the Court issued an Order re Proposed Judgment, requesting the parties to jointly file a proposed judgment, and on August 8, 2019 the parties filed competing proposed judgments. On August 13, 2019, the Court entered Judgment in the case. On September 9, 2019, Finjan filed a Notice of Appeal to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (19-2405). Finjan’s Opening Brief was filed on December 18, 2019, Juniper’s Response is due on March 27, 2020, and the projected date for Finjan’s Reply is April 17, 2020. 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. Zscaler filed its Answer and Counterclaims on February 12, 2018, and its Amended Answer and Counterclaims on March 19, 2018. 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, which the Court granted on the same day. 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 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. On February 19, 2019, Trustwave filed its Answer and Affirmative Defenses to Finjan’s Complaint. A schedule has not yet been set in the case. Discovery is ongoing. 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. (collectively “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 Software Technologies Inc. filed its Answer. A case management conference was held on August 14, 2018. On November 21, 2018, Check Point Software Technologies Inc. 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 8, 2019, Check Point Software Technologies Ltd. filed its answer and affirmative defenses. 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. Between May and November 2019, the parties engaged in briefing regarding Check Point’s motions to strike Finjan’s amended infringement contentions. The Court issued an order on January 17, 2020 granting in part the motion to strike Finjan’s second amended infringement contentions. The Court also issued a notice of intent to appoint a special master to address the remainder of the dispute and on February 14, 2020 appointed Magistrate Elizabeth Laporte as the special master.. 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, and Metasploit 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. The Court held claim construction hearings on January 15 and January 22, 2020 and issued a claim construction order on February 25, 2020. The deadline for dispositive and Daubert motions is August 7, 2020, a pretrial conference is set for February 8, 2021, and trial for February 22, 2021. 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, FortiCache, 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. On February 26, 2019, Finjan filed its answer to Fortinet’s counterclaims. On September 11, 2019, Finjan filed an updated status report, and Fortinet responded on September 13, 2019. The Court has yet to decide if it will further stay the case pending resolution of other Finjan actions. 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’ Counterclaims. 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 submit information identifying common asserted claims in other cases, as well as overlapping claim construction terms and definitions. Finjan filed its submission on March 15, 2019. On July 16, 2019, the Court issued an Order setting the claim construction hearing for |