Quarterly report pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d)

LITIGATION, CLAIMS AND ASSESSMENTS

v3.19.1
LITIGATION, CLAIMS AND ASSESSMENTS
3 Months Ended
Mar. 31, 2019
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]  
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 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. There can be no assurance that Finjan will be successful in settling or litigating these claims.
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. 8,015,182 (Assignee, Finjan, Inc.)
A third-party request for Ex Parte Reexamination of claims 8-11, 13 of U.S. Patent No. 8,015,182 was filed on September 16, 2016 and assigned Reexamination Control Number 90/013,812. The request for reexamination was granted on October 17, 2016. On December 19, 2016, Finjan filed a Petition to consider pre-institution argument requesting, inter alia, that the Director rescind and/or terminate the reexamination pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 325(d). A decision dismissing Finjan’s petition to vacate the reexamination order was mailed on March 27, 2017. A Petition for Writ of Mandamus was filed with the Court of Appeal for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) requesting review of the Office’s Dismissal. The CAFC denied the petition. A non-final Office Action rejecting claims 8-11 and 13 was issued on April 13, 2017. An Examiner Interview was conducted on May 23, 2017 and a Response to the non-final Office Action was filed on June 13, 2017. A final Office Action was mailed November 9, 2017 and a Response was filed January 8, 2018. An Advisory Action was mailed February 8, 2018 and a Notice of Appeal was filed February 12, 2018. An Appeal Brief was filed on April 12, 2018. An Examiner’s Answer was mailed on May 14, 2018 and a Reply Brief and Request for Oral Hearing were filed on July 11, 2018. Oral arguments were presented before the PTAB on September 12, 2018 and a Decision reversing the Examiner’s rejection of claims 8-11 and 13 was issued on October 1, 2018. On January 24, 2019, a Notice of Intent to Issue Ex Parte Reexamination Certificate confirming the patentability of claims 8-11 and 13 was issued by the Patent Office. A Reexamination Certificate was issued on March 4, 2019.

U.S. Patent No. 7,975,305 (Assignee, Finjan, Inc.)
A third-party request for Ex Parte Reexamination of claims 1, 2, 5 and 13 of U.S. Patent No. 7,975,305 was filed on December 11, 2015 by Proofpoint, Inc. and assigned Reexamination Control Number 90/013,660. The request for reexamination was granted on January 19, 2016 and a non-final Office Action was mailed on April 12, 2016. A Response to the non-final Office Action was filed on June 13, 2016. A Final Action was mailed on August 24, 2016 with a Response due October 24, 2016. A Response to the Final Action was filed on October 24, 2016 and a second interview with the Patent Office was conducted. The Patent Office issued an Advisory Action maintaining the rejections. A Notice of Appeal was filed on November 11, 2016 and an Appeal Brief was filed on January 23, 2017. An Examiner’s Answer was mailed on March 29, 2017. Finjan’s Reply Brief and Request for Oral Hearing were filed on May 30, 2017. Oral Hearing was held December 12, 2017. On July 2, 2018 the Patent Trial and Appeal Board affirmed the Examiner in a 2-1 decision. A Notice of Appeal to the Federal Circuit was filed on September 4, 2018 (Case No. 18-2354). On December 21, 2018, Finjan filed its opening brief; on February 13, 2019, the appellee filed its responsive brief; and on March 20, 2019, Finjan filed its reply brief. There can be no assurance that Finjan will be successful in rebutting the patentability challenge before the USPTO.

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.)
On July 3, 2015, April 19, 2016, and May 26, 2016, Symantec Corporation filed three (3) separate Petitions for IPR of U.S. Patent No. 8,141,154 (IPR2015-01547; IPR2016-00919; IPR2016-01071) and moved to join the Petition for IPR filed by Palo Alto Networks (IPR2016-00151). Finjan filed a POPR to the Petition in IPR2015-01547 on October 19, 2015. The PTAB denied Symantec’s Petition to institute IPR proceedings in IPR2015-01547 on January 14, 2016. On February 16, 2016, Symantec filed a Request for Rehearing with respect to IPR2015-01547, and on February 25, 2016, the PTAB denied Symantec’s Request for Rehearing. With respect to IPR2016-00919 and IPR2016-01071, the PTAB granted Symantec’s motions for joinder on September 8, 2016. On March 15, 2017, the PTAB issued a Final Written Decision maintaining the validity of the instituted claims in both IPR2016-00919 and IPR2016-01071. Palo Alto Networks and Symantec Corp. filed Notices of Appeals for IPR2016-00151, IPR2015-01979, IPR2016-00919, and IPR2016-01071 to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on July 19, 2017 (Case Nos. 17-2315 and 17-2314). On July 24, 2017, the Federal Circuit consolidated the two appeals. On October 30, 2017, Palo Alto Networks and Symantec Corp. filed their Opening Appellant Brief. Finjan’s Responsive Brief was filed on December 20, 2017. Palo Alto Networks and Symantec Corp.’s Reply Brief was filed on January 25, 2018. On March 7, 2018, Symantec filed a motion to withdraw from appeal numbers 17-2314 and 017-2315. On March 13, 2018, the Federal Circuit granted Symantec’s motion to withdraw. Oral argument was heard on June 6, 2018. On November 19, 2018, the Federal Circuit upheld the PTAB’s decision in IPR2015-01979 and vacated the PTAB’s decision in IPR2016-00151 and remanded the proceeding to be consistent with the Supreme Court’s decision in SAS Institute. On January 23, 2019, the PTAB modified its institution decision to include review of dependent claims 9 and 12. Petitioner’s Institution Opening Brief was filed on February 13, 2019, Patent Owner’s Response was filed on March 6, 2019, Petitioner’s Reply was filed on March 13, 2019, and Patent Owner’s Sur-reply was filed on March 20, 2019. Oral argument was heard on March 26, 2019.

U.S. Patent No. 8,677,494 (Assignee, Finjan, Inc.)
On September 10, 2015, Symantec filed a Petition for IPR of U.S. Patent No. 8,677,494 (IPR2015-01892). Finjan filed a POPR to the Petition on December 28, 2015. On March 18, 2016, the PTAB granted Symantec’s Petition to institute the IPR proceeding on claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 10, 11, 14, and 15. On April 1, 2016, Finjan filed a Request for Rehearing. The PTAB denied the Request for Rehearing on May 23, 2016. On March 15, 2017, the PTAB issued a Final Written Decision maintaining the validity of claims 5, 10, 11, 14, and 15 and invalidating claims 1, 2, and 6. Symantec filed a Notice of Appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on May 16, 2017, and on May 18, 2017, Finjan filed its Notice of Appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Case Nos. 17-2034 and 17-2047). Symantec and Blue Coat filed their Opening Appellant Brief on August 25, 2017. The Federal Circuit consolidated Case No. 17-2543 filed by Palo Alto Networks and Blue Coat Systems with Case No. 17-2034. Palo Alto Networks and Blue Coat Systems filed their Opening Appellant Brief on December 29, 2017. Finjan filed its Cross-Appellant Principal and Response Brief on February 7, 2018. On March 8, 2018, Symantec and Blue Coat filed a Motion to Withdraw from appeal numbers 17-2034, 17-2047, 17-2543 and 17-2623. On March 13, 2018, the Federal Circuit granted Symantec and Blue Coat’s Motion to Withdraw and deconsolidated the appeal. On April 12, 2018, the Patent Office intervened in the appeal. Palo Alto Networks filed its Reply Brief on April 18, 2018. The Patent Office’s Reply Brief was filed on May 22, 2018, and Finjan’s Reply Brief was filed on June 5, 2018. Oral argument was heard on December 6, 2018.

U.S. Patent No. 8,141,154 (Assignee, Finjan, Inc.)
On September 25, 2015 and November 5, 2015, Palo Alto Networks Inc. filed two (2) separate Petitions for IPR of U.S. Patent No. 8,141,154 (IPR2015-01979; IPR2016-00151) and a Motion for Joinder to Symantec’s Petition for IPR (IPR2015-01547). Finjan filed a POPR to the first Petition in IPR2015-01979 on December 29, 2015 and the PTAB granted institution of IPR proceedings on March 21, 2016. On April 5, 2016, Finjan filed a Partial Request for Rehearing, and on April 19, 2016, the PTAB denied Finjan’s Partial Request for Rehearing. On July 12, 2016, Finjan submitted a Patent Owner Response to the Petition. With respect to IPR2016-00151, Finjan filed a POPR on February 17, 2016, and on April 20, 2016, the PTAB instituted trial on claims 1-8, 10, and 11, denied institution on the remaining claims and denied Palo Alto Network’s Motion for Joinder. On May 4, 2016, Finjan filed a Partial Request for Rehearing, and on June 2, 2016, the PTAB denied Finjan’s Request for Rehearing. On June 16, 2016, the parties filed a Joint Notice to Amend the Scheduling Order. On August 31, 2016, Finjan filed its Patent Owner Response to Palo Alto Network’s Petition. An oral hearing was held for IPR2016-00151 on January 24, 2017 and on March 15, 2017, the PTAB issued a Final Written Decision maintaining the validity of all instituted claims. An oral hearing was held for IPR2015-01979 on December 15, 2016 and on March 15, 2017, the PTAB issued a Final Written Decision maintaining the validity of all instituted claims. On April 14, 2017, Palo Alto Networks filed a Request for Rehearing. On May 19, 2017, the PTAB denied Palo Alto Networks’ Request for Rehearing. Palo Alto Networks and Symantec Corp. filed Notice of Appeals for IPR2016-00151, IPR2015-01979, IPR2016-00919, and IPR2016-01071 to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on July 19, 2017 (Case Nos. 17-2315 and 17-2314). On July 24, 2017, the Federal Circuit consolidated the two appeals. On October 30, 2017, Palo Alto Networks and Symantec Corp. filed their Opening Appellant Brief. Finjan’s Responsive Brief was filed on December 20, 2017. Palo Alto Networks and Symantec Corp.’s Reply Brief was filed on January 25, 2018. On March 8, 2018, Symantec filed a Motion to Withdraw from appeal numbers 17-2314 and 17- 2315. On March 13, 2018, the Federal Circuit granted Symantec’s Motion to Withdraw. Oral argument was heard on June 6, 2018. On November 19, 2018, the Federal Circuit upheld the PTAB’s decision in IPR2015-01979 and vacated the PTAB’s decision in IPR2016-00151 and remanded the proceeding to be consistent with the Supreme Court’s decision in SAS Institute. On January 23, 2019, the PTAB modified its institution decision to include review of dependent claims 9 and 12. Petitioner’s Institution Opening Brief was filed on February 13, 2019, Patent Owner’s Response was filed on March 6, 2019, Petitioner’s Reply was filed on March 13, 2019, and Patent Owner’s Sur-reply was filed on March 20, 2019. Oral argument was heard on March 26, 2019.

U.S. Patent No. 8,677,494 (Assignee, Finjan, Inc.)
On November 6, 2015, Palo Alto Networks Inc. filed a Petition for IPR of U.S. Patent No. 8,677,494 (IPR2016-00159). Finjan filed a POPR to the Petition on February 17, 2016. On May 13, 2016, the PTAB granted institution of IPR. On May 27, 2016, Finjan filed a Request for Rehearing, and on June 23, 2016 the PTAB denied Finjan’s Request for Rehearing. On June 27, 2016, the parties filed a Joint Notice to Amend the Scheduling Order. On August 12, 2016, Finjan filed its Patent Owner Response to Palo Alto Network’s Petition. An oral hearing was held on February 16, 2017. On April 11, 2017, the PTAB issued a Final Written Decision stating that claims 3 - 5 and 10 - 15 have not been shown to be unpatentable, and that claims 1, 2, and 6 have been shown to be unpatentable. Finjan filed a Request for Rehearing on May 11, 2017, and on July 17, 2017, the PTAB denied Finjan's request. Palo Alto Networks and Blue Coat Systems LLC filed a Notice of Appeal for IPR2016-00159 and IPR2016-01174 to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on September 14, 2017, and on September 28, 2017, Finjan filed its Notice of Appeal (Case No. 17-2543). The Federal Circuit consolidated the appeal with Case No. 17-2034. Palo Alto Networks and Blue Coat Systems filed their Opening Appellant Brief on December 29, 2017. Finjan filed its Cross-Appellant Principal and Response Brief on February 7, 2018. On March 8, 2018, Symantec and Blue Coat filed a Motion to Withdraw from appeal numbers 17-2543 and 17-2623. On March 13, 2018, the Federal Circuit granted Symantec and Blue Coat’s Motion to Withdraw and deconsolidated the appeal. On April 12, 2018, the Patent Office intervened in the appeal. Palo Alto Networks filed its Reply Brief on April 18, 2018. The Patent Office’s Reply Brief was filed on May 22, 2018, and Finjan’s Reply Brief was filed on June 5, 2018. Oral argument was heard on December 6, 2018.

U.S. Patent No. 8,677,494 (Assignee, Finjan, Inc.)
On April 14, 2016 and on June 10, 2016, Blue Coat Systems, Inc. filed two Petitions for IPR of U.S. Patent No. 8,677,494 (IPR2016-00890; IPR2016-01174) and a Motion for Joinder to Symantec Corp.’s Petition for IPR (IPR2015-01892) and Palo Alto Networks, Inc.’s Petition for IPR (IPR2016-00159). The PTAB granted Blue Coat’s Motions for Joinder. On March 15, 2017, the PTAB issued a Final Written Decision maintaining the validity of claims 5, 10, 11, 14, and 15 and invalidating claims 1, 2, and 6 in IPR2015-01892. Palo Alto Networks and Blue Coat Systems LLC filed a Notice of Appeal for IPR2016-00159 and IPR2016-01174 to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on September 14, 2017, and on September 28, 2017, Finjan filed its Notice of Appeal (Case No. 17-2543). The Federal Circuit consolidated the appeal with Case No. 17-2034. Palo Alto Networks and Blue Coat Systems filed their Opening Appellant Brief on December 29, 2017. Finjan filed its Cross-Appellant Principal and Response Brief on February 7, 2018. On March 8, 2018, Symantec and Blue Coat filed a Motion to Withdraw from appeal numbers 17-2543 and 17-2623. On March 13, 2018, the Federal Circuit granted Symantec and Blue Coat’s Motion to Withdraw and deconsolidated the appeal. On April 12, 2018, the Patent Office intervened in the appeal. Palo Alto Networks filed its Reply Brief on April 18, 2018. The Patent Office’s Reply Brief was filed on May 22, 2018, and Finjan’s Reply Brief was filed on June 5, 2018. Oral argument was heard on December 6, 2018.

U.S Patent No. 7,975,305 (Assignee, Finjan, Inc.)
On July 4, 2017, ESET, LLC and ESET SPOL S.R.O. filed a Petition for IPR of U.S. Patent No. 7,975,305 (IPR2017-01738). Finjan filed its POPR on November 3, 2017. On January 31, 2018, the PTAB instituted IPR on claims 1-25. Finjan’s Patent Owner Response was filed on August 21, 2018 and Petitioner’s Reply was filed on November 5, 2018. Oral argument was heard on December 3, 2018. On January 24, 2019, the PTAB issued a Final Written Decision maintaining the validity of all instituted claims. On March 25, 2019, Petitioner filed a Notice of Appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.

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). Finjan’s POPR was filed on March 28, 2018. On June 5, 2018, the PTAB instituted IPR on claims 1, 4, 8, and 11-14. Finjan’s Patent Owner Response was filed on September 10, 2018, and Petitioner’s Reply was filed on December 10, 2018, and Finjan’s Sur-Reply was filed on January 30, 2019. Oral argument was heard on March 6, 2019.

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 is due on July 2, 2019, Petitioner’s Reply is due September 24, 2019, and Finjan’s Sur-Reply is due on November 5, 2019. Oral argument is scheduled for January 10, 2020.

U.S. Patent No. 8,141,154 (Assignee, Finjan, Inc.)
On October 3, 2018, Juniper Networks, Inc. filed a Petition for IPR of U.S. Patent No. 8,141,154 (IPR2019-00031). Finjan’s POPR was filed on January 11, 2019. On March 25, 2019, the PTAB denied institution of IPR.

U.S. Patent No. 7,647,633 (Assignee, Finjan, Inc.)
On October 10, 2018, Juniper Networks, Inc. filed a Petition for IPR of U.S. Patent No. 7,647,633 (IPR2019-00060). Finjan’s POPR was filed on February 7, 2019. On April 29, 2019, the PTAB denied institution of IPR.

U.S. Patent No. 7,613,926 (Assignee, Finjan, Inc.)
On October 11, 2018, Juniper Networks, Inc. filed a Petition for IPR of U.S. Patent No. 7,613,926 (IPR2019-00073). Finjan’s POPR was filed on February 7, 2019. On May 1, 2019, 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. As such, there can be no assurance that Finjan will be successful in litigating and/or settling any of these claims.