Cisco, palo alto networks, symantec, blue coat systems, sophos, trend micro, eset, bitdefender, check point, qualys, rapid7, fortinet and others. On august 28, 20, finjan brought suit against blue coat in the northern district of california for infringe ment of patents owned by finjan and directed to identify ing and protecting against malware. Blue coat in the northern district of california for patent infringement. Finjan s patent relates to virus detection software and creating a security profile for web addresses.
United states district court northern district of california san jose division 14 jul, 2015 14 jul, 2015. With respect to the 844 patent, we agree with blue coat that finjan failed to apportion. Finjan blue is a patent acquisition and development partnership with ibm. Blue coat barred from challenging five finjan patents at. Jan 10, 2018 finjan filed a lawsuit against blue coat systems for infringement of four patents relating to computer software for identifying and protecting against malware. A jury found blue coat infringed the 844 patent owned by finjan and the district court held, as a matter of law, that the 844 patent was patent eligible under 101. In cases involving software innovations, this inquiry often turns on whether the. Jan 10, 2018 noting that reversal of the denial of jmol could result in a situation in which finjan receives no compensation for blue coats infringement of the 844 patent, the federal circuit remanded to the district court to determine whether finjan has waived the right to establish reasonable royalty damages under a new theory and whether to order a.
Federal circuit says finjan virusscreening method not. Blue coat systems, the court of appeals for the federal circuit rendered a decision containing interesting rulings on patentable subject matter affirming the district. Ciscos arguments are largely moot considering finjans corrected proposed construction in its reply brief and ciscos remaining points are insufficient to overcome the deference afforded the courts prior construction in blue coat. United states court of appeals for the federal circuit. Finjan provides shareholders with update for the 3rd. A decision is expected within the next several weeks. Blue coat has filed 9 iprs and 2 reexams against 6 of 10 finjan patents in this case. Finjan mobile develops mobile applications for the consumer with an emphasis on security. Cisco, palo alto networks, symantec, blue coat systems, sophos.
Finjan holdings cybersecurity intellectual propertybased technologies are capable of proactively detecting previously unknown and emerging threats on a realtime, behaviorbased basis. Finally, blue coats appeal of the judgment and jury award entered against it in finjan, inc. Finjan filed a lawsuit against blue coat systems for infringement of four patents relating to computer software for identifying and protecting against malware. In sum, the court adopts finjans construction, which is identical to the courts construction of this term in. Nasdaq cm stock quote finjan holdings inc bloomberg. Finjan asserted several patents against blue coat in the northern. Softwarebased inventions can be nonabstract improvements to computer technology when they are focused on improvements in computer functionality. In cases involving software innovations, this inquiry often turns on whether the claims focus on the specific asserted improvement in computer. Blue coat systems, the court of appeals for the federal circuit rendered a decision containing interesting rulings on patentable subject matter affirming the district court determination that certain claims were patent eligible and reasonable royalty damages vacating part of a jury verdict for failure to adequately apportion the royalty base. Softwarebased inventions can be nonabstract improvements to computer technology when they are focused on improvements in computer. Jan 26, 2018 many softwarerelated and business methodrelated patents have been invalidated for being directed to abstract ideas. Finjan brought suit against blue coat for infringement of software patents directed to identifying and protecting against malware.
Finjan filed a lawsuit against blue coat systems for infringement of four patents relating to computer software for identifying and protecting. Finjan seeks a preliminary injunction to prevent defendant blue making, using, offering to sell, or selling within the united states, or importing into the united. Blue coat appeals the district courts rulings on subject matter eligibility of the 844 patent. Finjan holdings finjan is a publicly traded company on nasdaq fnjn which centers on licensing of intellectual property. Plaintiff brings this action, alleging that defendant blue coat systems, inc. Blue coat now owned by symantec has attempted and failed to invalidate all of finjans patents using section 101alice. Broad software patent claims survive alice, federal circuit. For a preliminary in blue coat systems, llc, defendant. Blue coat, the federal circuit continues to refine its approach to patent eligibility under alice, and solidifies a set of concrete criteria for determining when software based. Blue coat february 12 retrial vacated and jury released.
Blue coat, the federal circuit continues to refine its approach to patent eligibility under alice, and solidifies a set of concrete criteria for determining when softwarebased. Making sense of the federal circuits damages opinions in exmark and finjan. Blue coat, alleging infringement of seven finjan patents relating to new infringing blue coat products and services. As construed, the invention claims novel behavioralbased analysis of source code to identify. Finjan your claims to patent eligibility workman nydegger. Court of appeals for the federal circuit in finjan, inc. Finjan asserts that blue coat infringes finjans european patent no. Finjans inventions are embedded within a strong portfolio of patents focusing on software and hardware technologies capable of proactively detecting previously unknown and emerging threats. One of the software patents is directed to a method of providing computer security by scanning a downloadable and attaching the results of that scan to the downloadable itself in the form of a security profile. Finjan provides shareholders with update for the 3rd quarter. Finjan accused blue coat s drtr or dynamic realtime rating engine of infringing.
The opinion rejects blue coats request for straight reversal of the jmol denial, as this could lead to finjan recovering no compensation for blue coats infringement. On august 28, 20, finjan brought suit against blue coat in the northern district of california for infringement of patents owned by finjan and directed to identifying and protecting against malware. On remand, the district court will determine whether finjan waived its right to present an alternate theory of damages. Finjan has filed a large number of lawsuits against leading software security companies asserting its patents including against. Jan 12, 2018 step one and done to patent eligibility. Posted in america, courtroom, microsoft, patents at 11. Finjan and blue coats parent, symantec corporation collectively symantec, have entered into a confidential term sheet. Finjan and blue coat s parent, symantec corporation collectively symantec, have entered into a confidential term sheet. A jury found blue coat infringed the 844 patent owned by finjan and the. The court finds the claim at issue to be similar to the hypothetical claim in the patent offices guidance.
Many softwarerelated and business methodrelated patents have been invalidated for being directed to abstract ideas. Finjan expects that a definitive agreement will be finalized by no later than february 28, 2018. A jury found that blue coat infringed each of the four asserted patents and awarded reasonable royalty damages. The plaintiff finjan owns patented technology used in enterprise web security solutions. As reported here, the district court had denied a posttrial motion seeking to set aside a finding of infringement on the grounds that claims of the 844. The defendant is blue coat systems, which provides hardware, software, and services designed for cybersecurity and network management. Federal circuit continues to clarify subject matter.
This opinion provides insight on how the first step of alices twostep test is applied and provides an. Federal circuit finds generating new and useful data. A jury found blue coat liable for infringement on four patents and awarded damages for each infringement. June 2, 2015 blue coat ii finding claim 14 of the 633 patent not indefinite as construed to not include the words the method. Although a rare step 1 victory for a software inventor, finjan v. Finjan and symantec have entered into a confidential term. Filing 378 order on daubert motions, granting in part and denying in part 245. Blue coat appealed the subjectmatter eligibility decision under 101 to the federal circuit. District court denies blue coats motion to stay in finjan v.
As reported here, the district court had denied a posttrial motion seeking to set aside a finding of infringement on the grounds that claims of the 844 patent were patentineligible. Reasonable patent royalties require proper apportionment. Finally, blue coat s appeal of the judgment and jury award entered against it in finjan, inc. Making sense of federal circuit damages opinions in exmark. Finjan claims to own patented technology used in enterprise web security tools. Thereafter, the district court denied blue coats motions for judgment as a matter of law and a new trial, concluding that finjan had provided substantial evidence to support each finding of infringement and damages the award.
Patent troll finjan manages to defend a patent on appeal. Court of appeals for federal court cafc on september 8, 2017. Jan 16, 2018 on january 10, 2018, the federal circuit added finjan, inc. Jan 11, 2018 finjan filed a lawsuit against blue coat systems for infringement of four patents relating to computer software for identifying and protecting against malware. On july 16, 2015, the company announced that its subsidiary, finjan, inc. On january 10, 2018, the federal circuit added finjan, inc. District court denies blue coats motion to stay in finjan. In finjan, the court took the opportunity to further clarify the line between inventions that are patent eligible and those that are merely directed to abstract ideas and, therefore, patent ineligible. Finjan and blue coat compete directly in providing antivirus and antimalware screening software to companies of all sizes.
The security profile must include the information about potentially hostile operations produced by a behaviorbased virus scan. Blue coat does not bring any clarity to what it means to claim an abstract idea. Nov 10, 2015 on august 4, 2015, the jury in finjan, inc. Finjans inventions are embedded within a strong portfolio of patents focusing. This operation is distinguished from traditional, codematching virus scans that are limited to. In addition, no ruling is made as to whether dependent claims 15 to 20 are indefinite for lack of an. District court for the northern district of californias holding of patent eligibility of u. Court of appeals for the federal circuit scheduled in finjan, inc. Broad patent claims directed to computer virus screening have survived an alice35 u.
649 697 177 1308 799 380 1430 78 49 916 16 921 172 17 666 1057 1158 38 924 714 731 86 122 1379 718 1225 1212 8 928 232 10 1212 1377 187 1281 1375 1294 12 559 33