| LITIGATION, CLAIMS AND ASSESSMENTS | LITIGATION, CLAIMS AND ASSESSMENTS Finjan recognizes that the dynamic nature of the COVID-19 Pandemic requires flexibility in its normal business activities particularly with respect to ongoing litigation. Most courts have postponed long-set trials and hearings, or are conducting them via virtual meeting platforms. We report below those cases and activities that have been directly impacted by the Pandemic, while noting that other normal business activities are ongoing remotely. 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. Details on procedures prior to January 2020 are disclosed in Note 8 of our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019. There are no new developments to report since January 1, 2020. 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 January 2020 are disclosed in Note 8 of our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019. A Mandatory Settlement Conference was held on February 10, 2020 in person before the Honorable Magistrate Judge Bernard G. Skomal and did not result in any resolution between the parties. 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 commenced on March 9, 2020. On March 16, 2020, Judge Bencivengo deemed a mistrial based upon the current state of extraordinary circumstances due to the Coronavirus/COVID-19 Pandemic, suspending all proceedings until further notice. 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 January 2020 are disclosed in Note 8 of our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019. A hearing on summary judgment motions occurred on January 9, 2020. On February 3, 2020, the Court denied Finjan’s Motion for Summary Judgment of validity, and March 30, 2020, the Court granted in part and denied in part Cisco's motion for summary judgment of non-infringement. The Court heard oral arguments on Daubert motions on March 26, 2020, and issued an Order on Daubert Motions on April 17, 2020. The final pretrial conference was held on April 30, 2020 and a jury trial is scheduled to commence on June 22, 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. Details on procedures prior to January 2020 are disclosed in Note 8 of our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019. There are no new developments to report since January 1, 2020. 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 January 2020 are disclosed in Note 8 of our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019. A summary judgment hearing is scheduled for January 14, 2021, a final pretrial conference 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 was before the Honorable Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. Details on procedures prior to January 2020 are disclosed in Note 8 of our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019. 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 2020 are disclosed in Note 8 of our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019. This case is now pending before the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Finjan’s Opening Brief was filed on December 18, 2019, Juniper’s Response was filed on March 27, 2020, and the projected date for Finjan’s Reply is May 18, 2020. There can be no assurance that Finjan will be successful in settling or litigating these claims. Finjan, Inc. v. Trustwave Holdings, Inc. & Singapore Telecommunications Ltd., Case No. 1:20-cv-00371-LPS (D. Del.) Finjan filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Trustwave Holdings, Inc. (“Trustwave”) and its parent Singapore Telecommunications Ltd. (“SingTel”) in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware on March 26, 2020, asserting that Trustwave and SingTel are directly and indirectly infringing certain claims of Finjan’s U.S. Patent No. 8,141,154 (the “Asserted Patent”) through the manufacture, use, sale, importation, and/or offer for sale of their products and services, including, but not limited to, Trustwave’s Secure Web Gateway and Secure Email Gateway products. Finjan seeks entry of judgment that Trustwave and SingTel have infringed, are infringing, have induced infringement and are inducing infringement of the Asserted Patent, a preliminary and permanent injunction from infringing, or inducing the infringement of the Asserted Patent, 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 Leonard P. Stark. Finjan, Inc. v. Trustwave Holdings, Inc., Case No. 1:20-cv-00372-LPS (D. Del.) Finjan filed a breach of contract lawsuit against Trustwave Holdings, Inc. (“Trustwave”) in the Superior Court of Delaware on April 4, 2018 (Case No. N18C-04-006 WCC-CCLD), 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 was before the Honorable William C. Carpenter, Jr. Details on procedures prior to January 2020 are disclosed in Note 8 of our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019. On March 16, 2020 Finjan filed a Notice of Removal of this case to the U.S. District Court of Delaware. The case is now pending before the Honorable Leonard P. Stark. On April 14, 2020 Trustwave filed a motion to remand the case to Superior Court. 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. Details on procedures prior to January 2020 are disclosed in Note 8 of our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019. The Court issued an order on January 17, 2020 granting in part Check Point’s motion to strike Finjan’s second amended infringement contentions. Finjan filed a motion to certify the order for interlocutory appeal, which the Court denied on April 20, 2020. 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 technologies, including Rapid7's 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 5, 2020. The deadline for dispositive and Daubert motions is September 25, 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. Details on procedures prior to January 2020 are disclosed in Note 8 of our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019. There are no new developments to report since January 1, 2020. 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. Details on procedures prior to January 2020 are disclosed in Note 8 of our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019. On February 28, 2020 Qualys filed a motion for leave to amend its answer and affirmative defenses, which Finjan opposed, and on April 13, 2020 the Court issued an order granting the leave to amend. On April 14, 2020, Qualys filed its Second Amended Answer to Complaint and Counterclaims, to which Finjan filed its answer on April 28, 2020. A claim construction hearing has been scheduled for May 27, 2020, via Zoom meeting platform due to the COVID-19 Pandemic. 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. 7,975,305 (Assignee, Finjan, Inc.) A third-party request for Ex Parte Reexamination of claims 6, 9, 11, 12, 17, and 25 of U.S. Patent No. 7,975,305 was filed on March 19, 2020 by Rapid7, Inc. and SonicWall, Inc., and assigned Reexamination Control Number 90/014,477. Reexamination was ordered on May 7, 2020. An optional Patent Owner Statement is due July 7, 2020. Inter Partes Review Proceedings As defined by the USPTO, Inter Partes Review (“IPR”) is a trial proceeding conducted at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB or Board) to review the patentability of one or more claims in a patent only on a ground that could be raised under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 or 103, and only on the basis of prior art consisting of patents or printed publications. For first-inventor-to-file patents, the IPR process begins with a third party (a person who is not the owner of the patent) filing a petition after the later of either: (1) nine months after the grant of the patent or issuance of a reissue patent; or (2) if a post grant review is instituted, the termination of the post grant review. These deadlines do not apply to first-to-invent patents. The patent owner may file a preliminary response to the petition ("POPR"). An IPR may be instituted upon a showing that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least one claim challenged. If the proceeding is instituted and not dismissed, a final determination by the Board will be issued within one year (extendable for good cause by six months). The procedure for conducting IPR took effect on September 16, 2012, and applies to any patent issued before, on, or after September 16, 2012. U.S. Patent No. 8,141,154 (Assignee, Finjan, Inc.) Details on procedures prior to January 2020 are disclosed in Note 8 of our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019. On July 17, 2019, Palo Alto Networks filed a Notice of Appeal for IPR2016-00151 to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Case No. 19-2151). Palo Alto Networks’ filed its Opening Brief on November 27, 2019, and the Director of the USPTO intervened in the appeal on January 6, 2020. Intervenor filed its Response Brief on March 4, 2020, Finjan’s filed its Response Brief on March 20, 2020, and Palo Alto Networks’ filed its Reply on April 10, 2020. No date for oral argument has been set. U.S Patent No. 7,975,305 (Assignee, Finjan, Inc.) On July 4, 2017, ESET, LLC and ESET SPOL S.R.O. (collectively “ESET”) filed a Petition for IPR of U.S. Patent No. 7,975,305 (IPR2017-01738). On January 24, 2019, the PTAB issued a Final Written Decision maintaining the validity of all instituted claims. On March 25, 2019, ESET filed a Notice of Appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Case No. 19-1716). ESET filed its Opening Brief on September 6, 2019. On October 18, 2019 the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) filed a Notice of Intervention. Finjan filed its Response Brief and the USPTO filed its Intervenor Brief on November 15, 2019, and ESET filed its Reply on December 20, 2019. On April 9, 2020, due to COVID-19, an order issued canceling the previously scheduled oral argument set for May 6, 2020, and the appeal was submitted on the briefs without oral argument on that date. On May 11, 2020, the Federal Circuit issued a Judgment affirming the PTAB’s Final Written Decision. U.S. Patent No. 7,647,633 (Assignee, Finjan, Inc.) On December 22, 2017, Cisco Systems, Inc. filed a Petition for IPR of U.S. Patent No. 7,647,633 (IPR2018-00391). On May 23, 2019, the PTAB issued its Final Written Decision maintaining the validity of claim 14 and invalidating claims 1-4, 8, and 11-13. Finjan filed a Notice of Appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on June 27, 2019, and Cisco filed a Notice of Cross Appeal on July 1, 2019 (Case No. 19-2074). Finjan’s Opening Brief was filed on November 22, 2019 and Cisco’s Opening Brief on January 16, 2020. Finjan’s Reply Brief was filed on March 26, 2020 and Cisco's Reply Brief on April 16, 2020. No date for oral argument has been set. U.S. Patent No. 6,154,844 (Assignee, Finjan, Inc.) On October 2, 2018, Juniper Networks, Inc. filed a Petition for IPR of U.S. Patent No. 6,154,844 (IPR2019-00026). Finjan’s POPR was filed on January 11, 2019. On April 9, 2019, the PTAB instituted IPR on claims 1, 15, and 41. Finjan’s Patent Owner Response was filed on July 2, 2019, Petitioner’s Reply was filed on September 24, 2019, and Finjan’s Sur-Reply was filed on November 5, 2019. Oral argument was held on January 10, 2020. On April 7, 2020, the PTAB issued its Final Written Decision maintaining the validity of claims 1, 15, and 41. U.S. Patent No. 7,418,731 (Assignee, Finjan, Inc.) On July 26, 2019, Juniper Networks, Inc. filed a Petition for IPR of U.S. Patent No. 7,418,731 (IPR2019-01403). Finjan’s POPR was filed on November 22, 2019. On December 18, 2019, the PTAB denied institution of IPR. On January 14, 2020, Juniper filed a Request for Rehearing, and on February 27, 2020 the PTAB denied the request. U.S. Patent No. 8,079,086 (Assignee, Finjan, Inc.) On September 18, 2019, Unified Patents, Inc. filed a Petition for IPR of U.S. Patent No. 8,079,086 (IPR2019-01611). Finjan’s POPR was filed on January 23, 2020, and Unified’s Reply to POPR was filed on February 11, 2020. On April 13, 2020, the PTAB denied institution of IPR. Except for the foregoing disclosures, Finjan is not presently aware of any other material pending legal proceedings, to which Finjan or any of its subsidiaries are a party or of which any of its property is the subject. Litigation, including patent litigation, is inherently subject to uncertainties, especially in the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic . As such, there can be no assurance that Finjan will be successful in litigating and/or settling any of these claims. |
