1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Case 5:13-cv-03999-BLF Document 486 Filed 11/20/15 Page 1 of 21 1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 5 SAN JOSE DIVISION 6 FINJAN, INC., 7 Case No. 13-cv-03999-BLF Plaintiff, 8 v. ORDER REGARDING NON-JURY 9 LEGAL ISSUES BLUE COAT SYSTEMS, INC., 10 Defendant. 11 12 13 Plaintiff Finjan, Inc. (“Plaintiff”) brings this action, alleging that Defendant Blue Coat 14 Systems, Inc.’s (“Defendant”) Internet security software products infringe six of Finjan’s patents. 15 ECF 1. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant infringes U.S. Patent Nos. 6,804,780 (the “’780 patent”), 16 6,154,844 (the “’844 patent”), 7,418,731 (the “’731 patent”), 6,965,968 (the “’968 patent”), 17 7,058,822 (the “’822 patent”), 7,647,633 (the “’663 patent”) (collectively, the “Asserted Patents”). United States District Court District United States Northern District of California District Northern 18 The Court conducted a jury trial, in which the jury found Blue Coat infringed five of the asserted 19 patents and awarded damages. ECF 438. Following the jury’s verdict, the Court conducted a 20 bench trial regarding the priority dates for the ’844 and ’731 patents, prosecution history estoppel, 21 the patent eligibility of the ’844 patent, and laches. The Court having heard live testimony, and 22 considered the evidence and parties’ briefing, makes the following findings of fact and 23 conclusions of law in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 52(a).1 24 I. BACKGROUND 25 The factual and procedural background of this case is well-known to the parties and need 26 not be repeated in full here. From July 20, 2015 to August 4, 2015, the Court held a jury trial 27 1 28 To the extent that any conclusion of law is deemed to be a finding of fact, it is adopted as such; and likewise, any finding of fact that is deemed to be a conclusion of law is so adopted. Case 5:13-cv-03999-BLF Document 486 Filed 11/20/15 Page 2 of 21 1 regarding Defendant’s alleged infringement of the Asserted Patents. On August 4, 2015, the jury 2 returned a verdict finding that Defendant infringed claims 1, 7, 11, 15, and 41 of the ’844 patent, 3 claim 14 of the ’633 patent, claims 1 and 17 of the ’731 patent, claim 1 of the ’968 patent, and 4 claims 9 and 13 of the ’780 patent. ECF 438 at 2-3. The jury found that Defendant did not 5 infringe claims 9 and 10 of the ’822 patent. Id. As part of the verdict, the jury was asked to 6 provide an advisory verdict on the dates of invention for the ’844 and ’731 patents. Id. at 4. The 7 jury found that the ’844 patent was invented on November 8, 1996 and the ’731 patent was 8 invented on November 6, 1997. Id. The jury found that Defendant did not prove the Asserted 9 Patents were anticipated by any prior art references. Id. at 5. Finally, the jury awarded a lump- 10 sum damages award to Plaintiff for each of the patents Defendant infringed. Id. at 6-7. 11 Following the jury’s verdict, the Court set a bench trial on the non-jury legal issues for 12 September 9, 2015. ECF 466. Defendant submitted its opening brief on August 20, 2015. ECF 13 446. Plaintiff filed its opposition brief on August 27, 2015. ECF 451. Defendant filed its reply 14 brief on September 2, 2015. ECF 459. On September 3, 2015, Defendant also filed a motion to 15 exclude certain witnesses from testifying about laches during the bench trial.2 ECF 460. During 16 the bench trial, Defendant elicited testimony from Steven Schoenfeld and Plaintiff elicited 17 testimony from Dr. Harry Bims. ECF 465 at 3. The Court also heard argument from Plaintiff and United States District Court District United States Northern District of California District Northern 18 Defendant about the non-jury legal issues. Id. The Court ordered the parties to submit proposed 19 findings of fact and law by September 23, 2015. ECF 470. However, on September 18, 2015, the 20 Federal Circuit issued its en banc decision in SCA Hygiene Products Atiebolag v. First Quality 21 Baby Products, LLC, No. 2013-1564 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 18, 2015) which addressed the current status 22 of laches in the patent context. As a result, at the parties’ request, the Court allowed the parties to 23 file their findings of fact and law by September 28, 2015. ECF 470. On September 28, 2015, both 24 parties submitted their proposed findings of fact and law. ECF 472, 473. 25 II. LEGAL STANDARD 26 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 52(a) requires district courts to make findings of fact in an 27 2 28 For the reasons addressed on the record during the bench trial, the Court TERMINATES AS MOOT Defendant’s motion to exclude witnesses. 2 Case 5:13-cv-03999-BLF Document 486 Filed 11/20/15 Page 3 of 21 1 action “tried on the facts without a jury or with an advisory jury.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 52(a)(1). When 2 a claim is submitted to an advisory jury, “the court is free to accept or reject the jury's advisory 3 verdict in making its own findings.” Harris v. Sec’y. U.S. Dep’t of Army, 119 F.3d 1313, 1320 4 (8th Cir. 1997). The Court is required to “find facts specially and state its conclusions of law 5 separately.” Id. “One purpose behind Rule 52(a) is to aid the appellate court’s understanding of 6 the bases of the trial court’s decision.” Simeonoff v. Hener, 249 F.3d 883, 891 (9th Cir. 2001) 7 (internal citations omitted). The Court is not required to make findings on each and every fact 8 presented at trial. Id. Conflicting testimony must be resolved on relevant issues. Zivkovic v. 9 Southern California Edison, Co., 302 F.3d 1080, 1090 (9th Cir. 2002). 10 III. PRIORITY DATES 11 A. ’844 Patent 12 Defendant argues that the ’844 patent is not entitled to an effective filing date earlier than 13 December 22, 1997 for two reasons. Def.’s Mot. at 1-3, ECF 446-3. First, Defendant argues that 14 Plaintiff did not properly claim priority to an earlier effective filing date of November 8, 1996 15 through the ’388 and ’097 applications during prosecution. Id. at 1-2. Second, Defendant 16 contends that Plaintiff has not put forth evidence to show it conceived of the invention covered by 17 the ’844 patent by November 8, 1996, and was diligent in reducing it to practice from November United States District Court District United States Northern District of California District Northern 18 8, 1996 to December 22, 1997. Id. Plaintiff argues that it is not trying to claim priority to 19 November 8, 1996 based on its actions during prosecution. Sept. 9 Trial Tr. 218:2-7, ECF 465. 20 Instead, Plaintiff argues that it provided evidence that it conceived of the ’844 patent invention by 21 November 8, 1996. Plaintiff contends it showed that the ’639 provisional application which is 22 listed on the front page of the ’844 patent was filed on November 8, 1996. Plaintiff also argues 23 that it showed it was diligent between November 8, 1996 and December 22, 1997 in reducing the 24 invention to practice by filing the ’097 and ’388 provisional applications. Pl.’s Opp. at 1-2, ECF 25 451-4. The jury’s advisory verdict found that the ’844 patent’s priority date is November 8, 1996. 26 ECF 438 at 4. 27 i. Findings of Fact 28 With respect to the priority date of the ’844 patent, the Court makes the following findings 3 Case 5:13-cv-03999-BLF Document 486 Filed 11/20/15 Page 4 of 21 1 of fact: 2 1. The ’844 patent issued on November 28, 2000. See JTX-2001. 3 2. The Provisional Application No. 60/030,639 (“the ’639 provisional application”) is 4 listed on the first page of the ’844 patent, id., and is also identified in the specification 5 under the title “Priority Reference to Related Applications.” Id. at col. 1:8-12 6 3. The ’639 provisional application was filed on November 8, 1996. Id. 7 4. Dr. Trent Jaeger testified that the ’844 patent specification told him that the idea for the 8 patent was disclosed on November 8, 1996 by claiming benefit to the ’639 provisional 9 application. Trial Tr. at 1918:8-1919:1. Dr. Jaeger did not show that the ’639 10 provisional application disclosed the claimed invention of the ’844 patent and he did 11 not testify as to why the disclosure of the ’639 provisional application informed him 12 that one of ordinary skill in the art had conceived of the claimed invention of the ’844 13 patent. See id. 14 5. Application Nos. 08/964,388 (“the ’388 application) and 08/790,097 (“the ’097 15 application”) are listed within the “Priority Reference to Related Applications” section 16 of the ’844 patent. See JTX-2001 at col. 1:5-20. 17 6. The ’097 application was filed on January 29, 1997 and the ’388 application was filed United States District Court District United States Northern District of California District Northern 18 on November 6, 1997. Id. 19 7. The ’844 patent application was filed on December 22, 1997.