Finjan Holdings Inc (FNJN) Quote

Judge Shuts Down Finjan Investors' Suit Over $44M Sale
By Craig Clough

Law360 (September 14, 2021, 7:31 PM EDT) -- A California federal judge has dismissed with prejudice Finjan Holdings investors' proposed securities class action over the cybersecurity company's $44 million sale to Fortress Investment Group, finding the lead plaintiff again failed to allege any plausible motive for leadership to devalue the company.

Judge Edward M. Chen said lead plaintiff Robert Grier "selectively cites" from a recommendation statement Finjan filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission to his benefit, and a full examination of the document leads to the conclusion that Finjan was sold at a fair market price.

Judge Chen had already dismissed the suit earlier in the year without prejudice while giving the lead plaintiff another shot at outlining a theory of motive, but said in his new order on Monday that no definite facts emerged about why Finjan President and CEO Philip Hartstein would undervalue the company due to Hartstein's ownership of a significant amount of restricted stock units.

"Indeed, if Mr. Hartstein wished to maximize the benefit to be obtained from his RSUs, if anything, he had an incentive to get a higher tender offer (per share) from Fortress (or any other suitor) because the value of the RSUs was based on the merger consideration per share," the judge said. "It was thus contrary to his financial interest in his RSUs to undervalue Finjan shares."

Grier filed the proposed class action against Finjan, Hartstein and former members of its board of directors, relating to a deal announced June 2020 in which Fortress Investment Group LLC agreed to buy Finjan's outstanding shares for $1.55 each in a tender offer. The transaction closed in July 2020.

Finjan's board issued a recommendation statement that was supported by a fairness opinion prepared by financial adviser Atlas Technology Group LLC. The suit alleges that only one of three analyses in the fairness opinion supported the merger consideration of $1.55 per share, but that analysis was allegedly flawed because it was based on false or misleading information from Finjan management.

Grier alleges that the "multiyear projections" used in the analysis undervalued Finjan. Those projections, based on information Finjan gave to Atlas in May, indicated Finjan was expected to earn about $160 million in revenue across its three business lines over five years. But Finjan said in an investor presentation in December 2019 that it expected to generate $200 million to $400 million in licensing and enforcement revenue alone for the 2019-2022 period, according to the judge's order.

Grier said that with $200 million in revenue, Finjan stock would have been worth about $4.36 per share, and with $400 million, it would have been worth about $15.50 per share.

When Judge Chen dismissed the suit in April without prejudice, he had said he couldn't overlook the suit's failure to allege a plausible motive because there are no "compelling and particularized facts alleged in support of the claim of fraudulent intent." He added there was concrete market evidence that the merger consideration was reasonable, noting that around the same time of Fortress' offer, another party had made an offer of $1.50 per share.

The second amended complaint failed to change Judge Chen's mind. After examining the entire sales process, rather than just what was presented by Grier, the judge said it is clear only two companies made a solid offer.

"Weighing against lead plaintiff is the undisputed fact that the offer made by Fortress ($1.55 per share) was similar to the offer made by Party B ($1.50 per share)," the judge said.

The judge added, "Moreover, the full picture of the sales process as described above indicates that the similar valuation was not mere happenstance but rather was reflective of the true market value of Finjan's stock."

The second amended complaint also outlined a theory that Hartstein would be in a better position if Fortress bought Finjan over the other bidder, including that Finjan was "agitated" with Hartstein, and he would have more job security by Fortress taking the cybersecurity company private. But the judge said the arguments were only speculation.

"Here, there is no particularized evidence supporting lead plaintiff's speculation that Mr. Hartstein had a motive to undervalue Finjan's stock in order to induce Fortress to acquire Finjan as a way to thwart Party B," the judge said.

Counsel for the parties did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

Grier and the proposed class are represented by Juan E. Monteverde, David E. Bower, Miles D. Schreiner and John Baylet of Monteverde & Associates PC.

Finjan is represented by James L. Jacobs and Valerie M. Wagner of GCA Law Partners LLP.

The case is In re: Finjan Holdings, Inc. Securities Litigation, case number 3:20-cv-04289, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.

--Additional reporting by Sarah Jarvis. Editing by Lakshna Mehta.
For a reprint of this article, please contact reprints@law360.com.

the biggie, gone

Finjan, Cisco Will Drop IP Fight Before COVID-Delayed Trial
By Tiffany Hu

Law360 (May 27, 2021, 8:02 PM EDT) -- Finjan and Cisco have agreed to drop a patent fight in California federal court over anti-malware systems, days before a much-delayed trial was scheduled to take place.

The companies' stipulation of dismissal, filed Wednesday, seeks to end Finjan's lawsuit against Cisco, which was accused of infringing five Finjan patents that cover ways to protect computers from malicious software and viruses when connected to the internet.

The case was originally set for trial in June 2020 before being postponed because of the COVID-19 pandemic to Oct. 19. It was then delayed to Nov. 2, and then to Jan. 11, before being postponed again to next week.

The stipulation doesn't offer an explanation but states that the companies "have resolved their dispute in the captioned case and accordingly stipulate to dismissal with prejudice."

Representatives for the companies did not immediately return requests for comment Thursday.

According to Finjan's lawsuit, Cisco's infringement began when it acquired technology from a company called Sourcefire Inc. and then refused to enter a licensing agreement with Finjan.

Cisco had denied the allegations and sought to invalidate at least some of the patents-in-suit.

In April 2020, Judge Freeman told the attorneys to prepare for a June 15, 2020, trial. At the time, the judge said she was "fairly confident" that Finjan's patent infringement suit could go before a jury in June and July, with social distancing restrictions in place.

But the Northern District of California's top judge issued an order in May 2020 postponing or vacating all new civil jury trials scheduled to commence through Sept. 30, citing the continued disruptions to the judicial system caused by the pandemic.

During a status conference last May, Judge Freeman pushed the start of the trial to Oct. 19, saying that she had "high hopes" it would be the first civil jury trial in the district but that the court's "enormous backlog" of criminal cases would take priority.

The patents-in-suit are U.S. Patent Nos. 6,154,844, 6,804,780, 7,647,633, 8,141,154 and 8,677,494.

Finjan is represented by Juanita Brooks, Roger Denning, Frank J. Albert, Megan A. Chacon, K. Nicole Williams, Oliver J. Richards, Jared A. Smith, Tucker N. Terhufen and Aamir Kazi of Fish & Richardson PC.

Cisco is represented by D. Stuart Bartow, Joseph A. Powers, Jarrad M. Gunther, L. Norwood Jameson, Matthew C. Gaudet, David C. Dotson, John R. Gibson, Jennifer H. Forté and Alice E. Snedeker of Duane Morris LLP.

The case is Finjan LLC v. Cisco Systems Inc., case number 5:17-cv-00072, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.

--Additional reporting by Lauren Berg and Craig Clough. Editing by Rich Mills.

Finjan Owes $5.9M In Patent 'Fiasco,' Special Master Says
By Lauren Berg

Law360 (May 24, 2021, 9:05 PM EDT) -- Finjan Inc. should foot a $5.9 million portion of Juniper Networks' legal bill, a special master has determined, after U.S. District Judge William Alsup said Finjan repeatedly "wasted everyone's time and energy" by flip-flopping on its patent infringement theory in an attempt to artificially boost damages.

In a 21-page report Thursday, special master Matthew Borden of Braunhagey & Borden LLP recommended that patent licensing company Finjan pay networking infrastructure provider Juniper nearly $6 million in reasonable fees for work done that culminated in winning two summary judgment motions, defeating a summary judgment motion and prevailing in a five-day jury trial in California federal court.

Juniper asked for a little more than $6.2 million after writing off more than $2.4 million in fees and organizing its billing into 133 separate projects, according to the report. Finjan objected to nearly every project, arguing that Juniper's senior attorneys spent too much time on the case and that it should only get fees for work on the two patents at issue, rather than all the patents-in-suit, the report states.

"From a review of both sides' billing records, it appears that Juniper's defense was proportional to the intensity with which Finjan prosecuted the case," Borden said. "It does not appear that Juniper overreached on its claimed fees, such that any penalty should be assessed against it."

Juniper is entitled to recover reasonable fees except those "bearing little or no relation" to U.S. Patent Nos. 8,677,494 and 6,804,780, the special master said, but said the company's apportionment of fees for its work on other patents is fair and accurate.

Special master Borden's report comes after Judge Alsup in January ordered Finjan to pay a portion of Juniper's legal fees. He said Finjan "flip-flopped" on the eve of trial when it sought to put forth a new infringement theory over one of its malware detection patents after realizing its original one only covered a small part of Juniper's revenue.

"Finjan tried to sneak this theory in with its expert-damages report, but we caught it, and the Daubert order excluded that trick," Judge Alsup said.

Finjan, which brought suit in 2017 alleging Juniper infringed nine patents covering technologies for storing and downloading security data, tried to claim $142 million in damages after Juniper provided evidence in discovery that, at most, Juniper would owe less than $1.8 million if a jury found its products infringed the remaining patent in the case, U.S. Patent No. 8,677,494.

"Finjan's first-round '494 patent damages fiasco wasted a great deal of everyone's time and energy," Judge Alsup wrote in his order.

After the Federal Circuit affirmed Juniper's jury win against the only patent claim that had survived to trial, Juniper asked Judge Alsup to grant it legal fees for its expenses litigating against the nine patent claims.

At a hearing on Juniper's bid for attorney fees in January, Finjan pointed to its expert testimony, but Judge Alsup lamented the "standard patent BS by bought-and-paid-for experts." Finjan pushed back, saying it had a good-faith belief it wasn't altering its damages theory.

Judge Alsup appointed Borden, his former law clerk, to sort out the fee dispute and instructed Juniper to resubmit billing records distinguishing between time spent by its attorneys on the '494 and '780 patents and time spent on other facets of the litigation.

In his report and recommendation on Thursday, special master Borden rejected Finjan's argument that Juniper's senior attorneys spent too much time on the case, finding that a comparison between the parties' billing for 16 projects showed their staffing was generally proportional.

For example, Juniper's staffing for the summary judgment motions on the '780 and '494 patents was similar to, if not more efficient than, Finjan's, the special master said. He said Juniper had three fewer timekeepers and spent less time overall: 644.8 hours by Juniper compared to 696.5 hours by Finjan.

The special master also said the record doesn't support Finjan's argument that Juniper's senior lawyers spent too much time on the case.

Representatives for the parties did not immediately respond to requests for comment Monday.

The patents-in-suit are U.S. Patent Nos. 6,804,780 and 8,677,494.

Finjan is represented by Juanita Brooks, Frank J. Albert, Rob Courtney and Oliver J. Richards of Fish & Richardson PC.

Juniper is represented by Jonathan S. Kagan, Rebecca Carson and Ingrid Petersen of Irell & Manella LLP.

The case is Finjan Inc. v. Juniper Network Inc. et al., case number 3:17-cv-05659, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.

--Additional reporting by Hannah Albarazi and Britain Eakin. Editing by Michael Watanabe

Finjan Beats Investor Suit Over $44M Fortress Deal, For Now
By Sarah Jarvis

Law360 (April 14, 2021, 7:33 PM EDT) -- Cybersecurity company Finjan Holdings has beaten shareholders' proposed securities class action, but a California federal judge left room for the investors to amend their claims that the company made misrepresentations about its $44 million acquisition deal last year.

U.S. District Judge Edward M. Chen said in his order on Tuesday that lead plaintiff Robert Grier didn't include in his November amended complaint any allegations as to why Finjan and its leaders would endorse as true certain financial projections that allegedly undervalued the company if management actually believed the projections were false.

"The FAC does not contain any allegations suggesting that defendants would secure unique benefits not afforded to shareholders if the tender offer were to go through," Judge Chen said. "Nor are there any other allegations suggesting that defendants' interests regarding the tender offer were not aligned with those of the shareholders."

Judge Chen called the complaint's lack of motive "highly problematic" in light of a recent Ninth Circuit opinion in Prodanova v. H.C. Wainwright & Co. LLC, which found that if a complaint "fails to plead a plausible motive for the allegedly fraudulent action, the plaintiff will face a substantial hurdle in establishing scienter," according to Tuesday's order.

Grier and the proposed class had filed suit against Finjan, its president and CEO Philip Hartstein and former members of its board of directors, relating to an announced deal in which Fortress Investment Group LLC agreed to buy Finjan's outstanding shares for $1.55 each in a tender offer. The transaction closed in July, according to an announcement from Finjan.

Judge Chen said Finjan's board issued a recommendation statement that was supported by a fairness opinion prepared by financial adviser Atlas Technology Group LLC. The shareholders had alleged that only one of three analyses in the fairness opinion supported the fairness of the merger consideration of $1.55 per share, but that analysis was allegedly flawed because it was based on false or misleading information from Finjan management.

The shareholders alleged that the "multiyear projections" used in the analysis undervalued Finjan. Those projections, based on information Finjan gave to Atlas in May, indicated Finjan was expected to earn about $160 million in revenue across its three business lines over five years. But Finjan said in an investor presentation in December 2019 that it expected to generate $200 million to $400 million in licensing and enforcement revenue alone for the 2019-2022 period, according to the order.

Grier said that with $200 million in revenue, Finjan stock would have been worth about $4.36 per share, and with $400 million, it would have been worth about $15.50 per share. He also argued that "optimism aside," the state of Finjan at that time justified more than $1.55 per share, according to the order.

Finjan argued that the recommendation statement and fairness opinion were accurate, because there was volatility and a downward trend in revenues in the months leading up to the deal, adding that operating expenses were high and the coronavirus pandemic created uncertainty, a delay in revenue and an increase in expenses.

Finjan also indicated the company's cash balances had decreased from $65 million in June 2018 to the $27 million they had projected for June 2020, according to the order.

Judge Chen said he can't overlook the shareholders' failure to allege a plausible motive, because there are not "compelling and particularized facts alleged in support of the claim of fraudulent intent." He added there was concrete market evidence that the merger consideration was reasonable, noting that around the same time of Fortress' offer, another party had made an offer of $1.50 per share.

But Judge Chen gave Grier leave to amend his Securities Exchange Act claim, saying the shareholder argued at a court hearing that Finjan managers would have wanted to carry out the merger because the company would become private and they would have had more secure employment.

"This motive, however, has not been alleged in the operative pleading and therefore the court gives it no consideration at this juncture," Judge Chen said.

Counsel for the parties did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

Grier and the proposed class are represented by Juan E. Monteverde, David E. Bower, Miles D. Schreiner and John Baylet of Monteverde & Associates PC.

Finjan is represented by James L. Jacobs and Valerie M. Wagner of GCA Law Partners LLP.

The case is In re: Finjan Holdings Inc. Securities Litigation, case number 3:20-cv-04289, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.

--Additional reporting by McCord Pagan. Editing by Nicole Bleier.

Alsup Rips 'Standard Patent BS' In $8.7M Atty Fee Fight
By Hannah Albarazi

Law360, San Francisco (January 7, 2021, 8:29 PM EST) -- U.S. District Judge William Alsup appeared unlikely to let Finjan Inc. skip out on Juniper Networks' $8.65 million legal bill following its defeat at trial, calling out Finjan on Thursday for changing its patent infringement theory to inflate damages and lamenting the "standard patent BS by bought-and-paid-for experts."

Juniper, which won a judgment in 2018 that it does not infringe the patents asserted by Finjan, urged Judge Alsup to find the case exceptional and to award it attorneys fees, pointing to Finjan's attempt to change its infringement theory to one not advanced by its expert in order to increase damages.

While Finjan denied changing its infringement theory and argued that it "had a good-faith belief it wasn't changing its damages theory," Judge Alsup disagreed.

"It is absolutely true that Finjan changed its damages model and its infringement theory whenever it learned that it wasn't going to get much money out of the first one," Judge Alsup said. "I remember that. I was convinced of it at the time; I'm convinced of it now."

When Finjan's attorney, Juanita R. Brooks of Fish & Richardson P.C., tried to point to expert statements on the subject, Judge Alsup wasn't having it and described those statements as "just standard patent BS by bought-and-paid for-experts."

"The bought-and-paid-for experts will say anything. They will say anything, on both sides. I don't trust a word of that," Judge Alsup said.

After the Federal Circuit affirmed Juniper's jury win against the only patent claim that had survived to trial, Juniper asked Judge Alsup to grant it legal fees for its expenses litigating against the nine patent claims that the California-based patent licensing company lodged against it in 2017. Finjan accused Juniper of infringing patents covering technologies for storing and downloading security data.

Juniper said that as the case was nearing trial, Finjan tried to claim $142 million in damages after Juniper provided evidence in discovery that, at most, Juniper would owe less than $1.8 million if the jury found its products infringed the remaining patent in the case, U.S. Patent No. 8,677,494.

But Finjan said it had reasonably relied on an expert damages model approved by past Federal Circuit law and aligned with an expert's damages model that the infringing act was Juniper's sale of its product.

Judge Alsup has yet to rule on Juniper's earlier allegations that Finjan's former counsel, attorneys at Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel LLP, ought to be sanctioned for lying and pushing "overreaching" theories, particularly about damages.

Juniper's attorney, Jonathan Kagan of Irell & Manella LLP, told Judge Alsup Thursday that Finjan is still misleading the court.

Kagan said that Finjan's "shenanigans" are "the exact type of shifting sand approach" that justifies finding a case extraordinary.

"We have this changing infringement theory just to try to artificially boost damages, the undisclosed theory that your honor [struck] and then they tried to end run the ruling by sneaking it in in a different way at trial, forcing your honor to again strike it and take the issue from the jury," Kagan said.

While Brooks argued that Finjan's position was not objectively unreasonable, she also told Judge Alsup, "This is not a hill I want to die on."

Brooks told the judge that if he ends up finding Finjan absolutely changed its damages theory, he could ask Juniper to supply the attorney fees and expenses it ran up defending that issue alone, instead of its entire litigation expenses.

Kagan, however, reminded Judge Alsup that while he has such discretion, he is also under no obligation to parse out which parts of Finjan's case are exceptional.

Judge Alsup took the matter under submission Thursday without issuing a ruling.

Representatives and counsel for the parties did not immediately respond to requests for comment Thursday.

The patents-in-suit are U.S. Patent Nos. 8,141,154; 6,804,780; and 8,677,494.

Finjan is represented by Juanita R. Brooks, Francis Joseph Albert, Robert Printon Courtney and Oliver James Richards of Fish & Richardson P.C.

Juniper is represented by Jonathan Kagan, Rebecca Carson and Ingrid Marie Haslund Petersen of Irell & Manella LLP.

Cisco IP Trial Pushed To June After Multiple COVID Delays

A California federal judge on Wednesday again delayed Finjan's patent infringement suit against Cisco amid the coronavirus pandemic, moving the scheduled start of the trial from January to June.

Finjan Fights $8.7M Fee Bid For 'BS' Juniper Patent War
By Dave Simpson

Law360 (December 15, 2020, 11:03 PM EST) -- Finjan urged a California federal judge not to force it to pay Juniper Networks' $8.65 million legal bill for its expenses defending a case that Judge William Alsup said evoked "all the BS that goes on" in patent lawsuits, arguing that the case was "far from frivolous" and pursued in good faith.

Finjan Inc. said Monday that while it lost the jury trial in the patent infringement suit, it did win "a number of battles along the way," including beating Juniper Networks' motions to invalidate its patents and getting to trial on one of its patents.

"Contrary to Juniper's contention, this case was resolved on entirely unexceptional grounds, and though Juniper ended up prevailing in the end, Finjan vigorously pursued claims it reasonably and in good faith believed were meritorious," Finjan said. "Nothing about this case calls for fee shifting."

Last month, Juniper Networks asked U.S. District Judge Alsup to grant it legal fees for its expenses litigating against the nine patent claims that Finjan had lodged against Juniper in 2017.

The fee claims came less than two months after the Federal Circuit affirmed Juniper's win before a jury against the only patent claim that had survived to trial in a one-line order.

In Juniper's telling on Monday, Finjan had threatened "a multi-headed hydra of lawsuit[s]" if Juniper didn't agree to license an array of Finjan's alleged inventions. These were patents on technologies for storing and downloading security data and were allegedly owned by the Palo Alto, California-based patent licensing company.

But Juniper didn't think that its technology used those inventions at all. Finjan then said it would hit Juniper with a world of legal expenses in which its "best-case scenario would be to spend millions upon millions of dollars defeating each of Finjan's meritless claims."

Now, Juniper wants those millions from Finjan.

Juniper drew particular attention to an effort by Finjan, as the case was about to head to trial, to claim $142 million in damages after Juniper provided evidence in discovery that, at most, Juniper would owe less than $1.8 million if the jury found its products infringed on the remaining patent in the case, U.S. Patent No. 8,677,494.

Judge Alsup had rejected Finjan there, too, Juniper's filing recollected. Reviewing Finjan's new theory of damages, he called the numbers "eyepopping" and ultimately "preposterous."

Finjan responded Monday that the court's disagreement with the damages doesn't make the position frivolous.

"Finjan reasonably relied on an expert damages model approved by past Federal Circuit law and aligning with a reasonable interpretation that the infringing act was Juniper's sale of its product — not the consumers' post-sale use," it said.

The trial has had its odd moments. Interrogating the jurors, Judge Alsup had asked about their belief in aliens and forms of telekinesis. Finjan had rejected two jurors who expressed a dim view of so-called patent trolls, a pejorative term for nonpracticing entities that make a business of suing for patent infringement. In another filing, Juniper would note that the company is, elsewhere, suing some 20 other companies for patent infringement.

Nonetheless, the jury had found no infringement. The saga, however, only came to an end this October after a Federal Circuit panel responded with skepticism to Finjan's appeal of an earlier ruling that Finjan didn't properly notify Juniper about its alleged infringement, a finding of Judge Alsup's court.

Among other things, Juniper played up, in its bid for fees, its trial win.

Finjan shot back Monday that the court granted summary judgment in its favor that Juniper's products infringed all but one element of the claim at issue in the '494 patent — whether the products had a database.

"Juniper also ignores that Finjan presented evidence (including documents from Juniper's marketing materials and Juniper's own engineers) confirming that Juniper's product uses a database," Finjan said Monday. "While Juniper ended up prevailing with the jury, this evidence at a minimum shows Finjan's case was far from frivolous."

The tone of Juniper's November filing seemed at times incredulous about Finjan's legal strategy during the trial, which was handled by its former counsel, the New York firm Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel LLP.

"It is difficult to conceive of a weaker case," Juniper said about the suit, as it landed at the company's door. Following a few early summary judgment wins in 2018, Juniper said there was no reason for Finjan not to simply give up.

Judge Alsup has yet to rule on Juniper's earlier allegations that lawyers on the case at Kramer Levin ought to be sanctioned for lying in Judge Alsup's court and pushing "overreaching" theories, particularly about damages. Last month, Juniper again urged Judge Alsup to finally rule on those sanctions.

In the midst of that trial, Judge Alsup shook his head and remarked that he was convinced one side in the case must be lying to his face. He said that the case was, in his mind, indicative of "all the BS that goes on" in patent litigation.

Juniper said last month that the liars were Finjan and its legal team.

Finjan's Monday filing makes little mention of its former counsel but did ask that the firm be involved if the court does opt to award attorneys' fees.

"Even if the court were inclined to award any attorney fees, pursuant to the court's order of October 22, 2020 retaining jurisdiction over Kramer Levin for the purpose of sanctions motions, Finjan respectfully submits that further discussions concerning potential fee-shifting or sanctions require participation from Kramer Levin," it said.

The patents-in-suit are U.S. Patent Nos. 8,141,154; 6,804,780; and 8,677,494.

Finjan was represented by Francis Joseph Albert, Juanita R. Brooks, Robert Printon Courtney and Oliver James Richards of Fish & Richardson P.C.

Juniper was represented by Rebecca Carson, Dennis Joseph Courtney, Alexis Paschedag Federico, Alan J. Heinrich, Jonathan Kagan and Ingrid Marie Haslund Petersen of Irell & Manella LLP.

The case is Finjan Inc. v. Juniper Network Inc., case number 3:17-cv-05659, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.

Finjan Faces $8.7M Fee Bid For 'BS' Juniper Patent War
By Andrew Karpan

Law360 (December 2, 2020, 11:02 PM EST) -- Finjan and its lawyers at Kramer Levin could face blowback for their litigation style to the tune of $8.65 million in attorney fees if Judge William Alsup, who said the case evoked "all the BS that goes on" in patent lawsuits, ultimately accepts Juniper Network's claims that the three-year patent war was based on an exceptionally weak case.

On Monday, Juniper Networks asked U.S. District Judge Alsup to grant it legal fees totaling $8.65 million for its expenses litigating against the nine patent claims that Finjan Inc. had lodged against Juniper in 2017. In a one-page ruling on Wednesday and without comment, Judge Alsup sent the fee claims to the court of U.S. Magistrate Judge Nathanael Cousins for a first look.

The fee claims come less than two months after the Federal Circuit affirmed Juniper's win before a jury against the only patent claim that had survived to trial in a one-line order.

In Juniper's telling on Monday, Finjan had threatened "a multi-headed hydra of lawsuit[s]" if Juniper didn't agree to license an array of Finjan's alleged inventions. These were patents on technologies for storing and downloading security data and were allegedly owned by the Palo Alto, California-based patent licensing company.

But Juniper didn't think that its technology used those inventions at all. Finjan then said it would hit Juniper with a world of legal expenses in which its "best-case scenario would be to spend millions upon millions of dollars defeating each of Finjan's meritless claims."

Now, Juniper wants those millions from Finjan.

The tone of Monday's filing seemed at times incredulous about Finjan's legal strategy during the trial, which was handled by the New York firm Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel LLP.

"It is difficult to conceive of a weaker case," Juniper said about the suit, as it landed at the company's door. Following a few early summary judgment wins in 2018, Juniper said there was no reason for Finjan not to simply give up.

"A reasonable party would have either cut its losses or accepted that it would need to adjust its expectations about the appropriate damages. Not Finjan," Juniper said in its filing.

The filing comes as Judge Alsup has yet to rule on Juniper's earlier allegations that lawyers on the case at Kramer Levin ought to be sanctioned for lying in Judge Alsup's court and pushing "overreaching" theories, particularly about damages. On Monday, Juniper again urged Judge Alsup to finally rule on those sanctions.

In the midst of that trial, Judge Alsup shook his head and remarked that he was convinced one side in the case must be lying to his face. He said that the case was, in his mind, indicative of "all the BS that goes on" in patent litigation.

Juniper said on Monday that the liars were Finjan and its legal team.

Monday's motion drew particular attention to an effort by Finjan, as the case was about to head to trial, to claim $142 million in damages after Juniper provided evidence in discovery that, at most, Juniper would owe less than $1.8 million if the jury found its products infringed on the remaining patent in the case, U.S. Patent No. 8,677,494.

Judge Alsup had rejected Finjan there, too, Juniper's filing recollected. Reviewing Finjan's new theory of damages, he called the numbers "eyepopping" and ultimately "preposterous."

"A reasonable party would have — once again — cut its losses or accepted that it would need to adjust its expectations regarding damages. But, once again, not Finjan," the filing went on.

Finjan instead pushed the case onward on its remaining patent claim and it went before a jury in late 2018.

The trial has had its odd moments. Interrogating the jurors, Judge Alsup had asked about their belief in aliens and forms of telekinesis. Finjan had rejected two jurors who expressed a dim view so-called patent trolls, a pejorative term for nonpracticing entities that make a business of suing for patent infringement. In another filing, Juniper would note that the company is, elsewhere, suing some 20 other companies for patent infringement.

Nonetheless, the jury had found no infringement. The saga, however, only came to an end this October after a Federal Circuit panel responded with skepticism to Finjan's appeal of an earlier ruling that Finjan didn't properly notify Juniper about its alleged infringement, a finding of Judge Alsup's court.

Juniper tallies the $8.65 million that it is demanding from Finjan from the costs it sustained litigating the particularly "meritless claims" before both a jury and then having to defend that verdict in the Federal Circuit.

These fees do not, however, include what Juniper spent defending the patents before inter partes reviews at the instigation of the suit, the company notes.

"Indeed, courts have approved fee awards far larger than the amount sought by Juniper for patent cases litigated through trial," Juniper said.

Representatives for the parties did not respond to a request for comment on Wednesday.

The patents-in-suit are U.S. Patent Nos. 8,141,154; 6,804,780; and 8,677,494.

Finjan was represented by Paul J. Andre and Yuridia Caire of Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel LLP and Francis Joseph Albert, Juanita R. Brooks, Robert Printon Courtney and Oliver James Richards of Fish & Richardson P.C.

Juniper was represented by Rebecca Carson, Dennis Joseph Courtney, Alexis Paschedag Federico, Alan J. Heinrich, Jonathan Kagan and Ingrid Marie Haslund Petersen of Irell & Manella LLP.

The case is Finjan Inc. v. Juniper Network Inc., case number 3:17-cv-05659, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.

--Additional reporting by Hannah Albarazi, Dani Kass, Dorothy Atkins and Britain Eakin. Editing by Peter Rozovsky.

Fed. Circ. Asks Judge To Explain Reasoning Behind Unsealing
By Tiffany Hu

Law360 (October 20, 2020, 10:08 PM EDT) -- The Federal Circuit on Tuesday told U.S. District Judge William Alsup to explain why filings containing cybersecurity firm Finjan Inc.'s patent licensing information should be unsealed, saying the judge "did not perform the required analysis" in his initial order.

In a nonprecedential order, a three-judge panel ruled that Judge Alsup failed to make "particularized" findings before issuing an order to unseal Daubert motions that included confidential information relating to Finjan's licensing negotiations with other companies.

The panel said Judge Alsup should have followed Ninth Circuit precedent, which required him to weigh the competing interests: Finjan's interest in keeping the records private, as well as the public's interest in knowing the information, it said.

"The district court did not perform the required analysis," U.S. Chief Circuit Judge Sharon Prost wrote for the panel. "That analysis is not for us to undertake in the first instance. Therefore, we vacate the unsealing order and remand for the district court."

The sealing fight is part of a patent lawsuit Finjan filed in 2017 against Juniper Networks. During discovery, Finjan handed over certain communications containing terms of Finjan's patent licenses with other companies, which were supposed to remain confidential, Finjan said.

In December 2018, Judge Alsup entered an order on Finjan's Daubert motions that included proposed fees and terms in the company's licensing discussions and temporarily sealed the order for two weeks. Finjan then requested to hold off on unsealing the order while it appealed the case, and the judge agreed to do so.

In the same month, a California federal jury found that Juniper didn't infringe Finjan's malware detection patent, and the verdict was later backed by Judge Alsup.

The parties' tit-for-tat following the patent trial had notably led Judge Alsup to lambast the "obstinate" attorneys and decry "all the BS that goes on" in patent litigation, with the judge refusing to grant Finjan's bid for a new trial last May.

U.S. Chief Judge Sharon Prost and U.S. Circuit Judges Evan J. Wallach and Kara F. Stoll sat on the panel for the Federal Circuit.

Counsel for the parties did not immediately return requests for comment Tuesday.

Finjan is represented by Juanita Rose Brooks, Francis J. Albert, Oliver Richards and Robert Courtney of Fish & Richard PC and Lisa Kobialka and Hannah Yunkyung Lee of Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel LLP.

Juniper is represented by Jonathan S. Kagan of Irell & Manella LLP.

The case is Finjan Inc. v. Juniper Networks Inc., case number 19-1837, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.

--Additional reporting by Mike LaSusa and Hannah Albarazi. Editing by Haylee Pearl

Lost again

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit ______________________
FINJAN, INC.,
Plaintiff-Appellant
v.
JUNIPER NETWORKS, INC.,
Defendant-Appellee
______________________
2019-2405
______________________
Appeal from the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California in No. 3:17-cv-05659-WHA,
Judge William H. Alsup.
______________________
JUDGMENT
______________________
JUANITA ROSE BROOKS, Fish & Richardson, PC, San Diego, CA, argued for plaintiff-appellant. Also represented
by FRANCIS J. ALBERT, OLIVER RICHARDS; ROBERT
COURTNEY, Minneapolis, MN.
JONATHAN STUART KAGAN, Irell & Manella LLP, Los
Angeles, CA, argued for defendant-appellee. Also represented by REBECCA CARSON, Newport Beach, CA.
______________________
Case: 19-2405 Document: 59 Page: 1 Filed: 10/09/2020
THIS CAUSE having been heard and considered, it is
ORDERED and ADJUDGED:
PER CURIAM (PROST, Chief Judge, WALLACH and
STOLL, Circuit Judges).
AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36.
ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT

Lost again

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit ______________________
FINJAN, INC.,
Plaintiff-Appellant
v.
JUNIPER NETWORKS, INC.,
Defendant-Appellee
______________________
2019-2405
______________________
Appeal from the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California in No. 3:17-cv-05659-WHA,
Judge William H. Alsup.
______________________
JUDGMENT
______________________
JUANITA ROSE BROOKS, Fish & Richardson, PC, San Diego, CA, argued for plaintiff-appellant. Also represented
by FRANCIS J. ALBERT, OLIVER RICHARDS; ROBERT
COURTNEY, Minneapolis, MN.
JONATHAN STUART KAGAN, Irell & Manella LLP, Los
Angeles, CA, argued for defendant-appellee. Also represented by REBECCA CARSON, Newport Beach, CA.
______________________
Case: 19-2405 Document: 59 Page: 1 Filed: 10/09/2020
THIS CAUSE having been heard and considered, it is
ORDERED and ADJUDGED:
PER CURIAM (PROST, Chief Judge, WALLACH and
STOLL, Circuit Judges).
AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36.
ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT

But the stories never stop
Fed. Circ. Iffy On Finjan Notice Argument In Malware IP Fight
By Britain Eakin

Law360 (October 7, 2020, 9:34 PM EDT) -- Finjan Inc.'s argument Wednesday that a California federal judge wrongly determined it didn't properly notify rival Juniper Networks Inc. that it allegedly infringed one of three malware patents and couldn't recover damages as a result met some resistance from members of a Federal Circuit panel.

Finjan appealed various aspects of its loss on all three patents in its case against Juniper, but the panel on Wednesday focused nearly all of its questions on the notice issue.

Juanita Brooks of Fish & Richardson PC, the attorney representing Finjan, told the panel during a remote hearing that a jury — not U.S. District Judge William Alsup — should have decided whether the substance of licensing negotiations and mention of the patent in a presentation during those talks were enough to satisfy the notice requirement.

Judge Alsup also erred, Brooks said, by faulting Finjan for not supplying an infringement claim chart for U.S. Patent No. 6,804,780 showing how Juniper's malware detection products allegedly infringed in determining that the cybersecurity company didn't meet the notice requirement.

Two panel judges, however, appeared unpersuaded by that contention.

"Where in the summary judgment order did the district court conclude you were required to, but did not, supply a claim chart?" U.S. Circuit Judge Evan J. Wallach said.

Brooks said it could be inferred from the order and that Judge Alsup told Finjan during a hearing that it would lose the summary judgment motion without a claim chart for the patent.

U.S. Circuit Judge Kara Farnandez Stoll chimed in here, saying she saw no reference to a claim chart in Judge Alsup's actual order.

Brooks pointed to a portion of the order saying that Finjan "attempted to cobble together a showing of actual notice," and since it specifically called out the two other patents at issue in the suit in the licensing negotiations and presentation, it should have done so for the third patent.

Judge Stoll pushed back again, noting the presentation mentioned roughly 17 patents.

"So, your point is that, even though it's one of 17 [patents], a reasonable jury could have thought that that was notice?" the judge added.

Brooks said that even if the licensing negotiations and presentation were not sufficient to establish notice, "it's a question of fact for the jury to decide."

U.S. Circuit Judge Sharon Prost pressed Juniper attorney Jonathan Kagan of Irell & Manella LLP about Finjan's assertion when it was his turn to argue, noting there were documents in the record to support Finjan's notice argument.

"Why isn't that really … a jury question and not one for the judge to decide on summary judgment?" Judge Prost asked.

Kagan said Finjan's presentation did not highlight the patent as one infringed by a security software company Juniper acquired in 2017, but as one that others had infringed. He went on to say that for Finjan to meet the notice requirement, it should have been more clear that Cyphort, the company Juniper acquired, was potentially infringing the patent, and since it wasn't clear, Judge Alsup didn't err.

Finjan accused Juniper in 2017 of infringing a bevy of patents, but only one of them — U.S. Patent No. 8,677,494 — made it to trial. A jury determined the following year that Juniper's malware detection products did not infringe.

The parties moved in August 2019 to voluntarily dismiss what was left of the suit, leaving district court decisions on just three of the patents at issue in Finjan's appeal.

The appeals court also grappled Wednesday with the question of damages. Finjan argued that Judge Alsup wrongly excluded certain Juniper products that should have been included in the damages base.

Juniper, meanwhile, argued that those products were rightfully excluded from the damages base because they did not infringe as sold.

The patents-in-suit are U.S. Patent Nos. 8,141,154; 6,804,780; and 8,677,494.

U.S. Circuit Judges Sharon Prost, Evan J. Wallach and Kara Farnandez Stoll sat on the panel.

Finjan is represented by Juanita Brooks of Fish & Richardson PC.

Juniper is represented by Jonathan Kagan of Irell & Manella LLP.

The cases are Finjan Inc. v. Juniper Networks Inc., case numbers 19-1837 and 19-2405, before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.

--Additional reporting by Mike LaSusa. Editing by Abbie Sarfo.

Going... going... gone.

Good luck with future endeavors. Made some money trading FNJN, but they still leave a bad taste in my mouth.

Hartstein and Noonan got over $5 for their shares and then failed to negotiate in good faith so they could milk the gravy train a bit longer. Noonan knew it would come out eventually and headed for the hills. Hartstein has no shame and stayed. What a system we have where this is all legal and there is no recourse.

Guess it is all over except for the lawyers

Yeah, I saw them this AM,

two, four, would be surprised to see more

Four lawsuits with basic descriptions here:

https://ir.finjan.com/sec-filings-email/content/0001104659-20-081815/a20-22252_3sc14d9a.htm

I should be able to find them once I set aside the time. Might be helpful to just copy and paste a few paragraphs of what is alleged for people who aren't familiar with how to navigate PACER. Thanks.

If I held shares now, I would be selling at $1.54 just in case it fell apart. Hundreds of thousands on the Bid at $1.53 for the sure sale.

If you can't find them, I can send them to you

I will have to check it out on PACER. Hartstein and Noonan should have their profits disgorged from when they sold their remaining shares over $5. They had no more skin in the game and continued to collect salary and benefits while utterly failing to uphold their fiduciary duty to shareholders.

At least Noonan had enough sense to run before TSHTF.

There are at least 2 suits already filed, but I don't hold a lot of hope

I gotta tell you, Paullee. I am always first and foremost a shareholder advocate. When I see management failing to act in the best interests of shareholders, I blow the whistle. We have butted heads in the past over my exposing the negative. That was an absolutely sickening chronology. I had to lift my jaw off the floor after finishing.

I don't even know what to tell you anymore. I hope they are held accountable, but we both know that is not likely.

Unreal!

Absolutely unbelievable and a clear failure to uphold their fiduciary duty to shareholders:

"On November 7, 2018, Party C submitted a revised non-binding proposal to acquire all of the stock of the Company for $5.10 per share in cash. Party C also requested the exclusive right to transact with the Company through November 30, 2018 with the possibility of extending such exclusivity through December 14, 2018. Party C explained several weeks of exclusivity was necessary due to the Company's unique business and the need for significant intellectual property and litigation due diligence and that this period of exclusivity was a requirement in order for them to commit the necessary time and financial resources to such due diligence effort."

THEY HAD AN OFFER OF $5.10 AND SOLD YOU OUT TO CONTINUE TO COLLECT SALARIES AND BENEFITS!

Hartstein sold his shares for over $5.00 as the offer leaked. Why would he do the deal now? He got his cash for shares and could still milk it for salary and benefits.

If there isn't a class-action lawsuit for failure to uphold his fiduciary duty to shareholders you are a shameful group!

They refused to continue negotiating in good faith and continued to spurn offers up to $3.50. $1.55 is a joke with what was on the table and you got SCREWED!

just filed with the SEC, you should read the deal making section,

they should be marched out and shot

simple math, they have about a 1.20 in cash, so they are almost paying Fortress to take this pos of their hands

Interesting. Fortress taking out the troll.

Your long nightmare is over, they are selling out for 1.55 @ share Ha!
Finjan Enters into Agreement to be Acquired by Affiliates of Fortress in an All Cash Transaction
Download as PDF
June 10, 2020

EAST PALO ALTO, Calif., June 10, 2020 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- Finjan Holdings, Inc. (NASDAQ: FNJN) (Finjan) today announced that it has entered into a definitive agreement (the “Merger Agreement”) pursuant to which affiliates of Fortress Investment Group LLC (collectively “Fortress”) would acquire all outstanding shares of Finjan common stock for $1.55 per share in cash (the “Transaction”), representing an aggregate equity value of approximately $43.9 million. Finjan, a recognized pioneer in the development of cybersecurity technologies, will maintain its brand and business model post-transaction, licensing and enforcing a substantial patent portfolio that has been consistently upheld by courts and patent offices.

Under the terms of the Merger Agreement, Fortress will commence a tender offer to purchase all the outstanding shares of Finjan’s common stock for $1.55 per share in cash. The closing of the tender offer is subject to customary conditions, including the tender of a majority of the outstanding shares of Finjan’s common stock. Following successful completion of the tender offer, Fortress will acquire all remaining shares not tendered in the offer through a merger at the same price as in the tender offer.

Finjan’s Board of Directors unanimously approved the Merger Agreement and recommends that shareholders tender their shares. In connection with the Merger Agreement, directors and officers of the Company, together with shareholders, in the aggregate holding approximately 28 percent of the outstanding shares of common stock of the Company, have agreed to tender their shares in the offer pursuant to support agreements.

The Transaction is not subject to any financing condition and is expected to close in the third quarter of 2020.

Daniel Chinn, Chairman of Finjan Holdings, stated, “The Board of Directors thoroughly evaluated all of our strategic options, giving careful consideration to the current unprecedented and uncertain environment, and we believe that this transaction will provide the best outcome for Finjan and its stockholders. We appreciate the continued patience of our investors and employees and thank them for their support. We recommend all shareholders to tender their shares in the offer.”

Phil Hartstein, President and Chief Executive Officer of Finjan, commented, “We believe that this transaction strengthens our ability to continue executing our business model, particularly while facing unpredictable timelines in the court system and a challenging macro-economic environment. The acquisition enables Finjan to continue to pursue our licensing mission and expand our reputation and credibility on policy related initiatives, while providing us greater resources and opportunities as a Fortress portfolio company.”

Eran Zur, Managing Director and head of the Fortress IP Finance Group, commented, “Finjan pioneered many of the technologies that underpin how companies protect their networks from cyberattacks. Finjan had the foresight to patent its innovations and its patent portfolio has been repeatedly upheld by courts and patent offices while being widely licensed to industry players. Fortress and Finjan share a strong belief in the importance of preserving a patent system that allows innovators to earn a fair return on their investment and we look forward to supporting Finjan as it moves forward with its licensing program.”

Atlas Technology Group, LLC is acting as exclusive financial advisor to Finjan, and Perkins Coie LLP and GCA Law Partners LLP are serving as legal advisors to Finjan. Sidley Austin LLP is serving as legal advisor to Fortress.

Important Information
The tender offer for the outstanding common stock of Finjan referred to in this document has not yet commenced. This document for informational purposes only and is not a recommendation, an offer to purchase or a solicitation of an offer to sell shares of Finjan’s common stock or any other securities. The solicitation and the offer to purchase shares of Finjan’s common stock will only be made pursuant to an offer to purchase and related materials that CFIP Goldfish Merger Sub Inc., an affiliate of Fortress (“Merger Sub”) intends to file with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”) and this document is not a substitute for such materials. At the time the tender offer is commenced, Merger Sub will file a Tender Offer Statement on Schedule TO with the SEC, and soon thereafter Finjan will file a Solicitation/Recommendation Statement on Schedule 14D-9 with respect to the tender offer. There is no assurance the Transaction will be completed as described above or at all, or that the anticipated closing date will materialize.

Stockholders of Finjan are urged to read the Schedule TO (including an offer to purchase, a related letter of transmittal and other offer documents) and the solicitation/recommendation statement on Schedule 14D-9, as each may be amended or supplemented from time to time, and any other relevant documents filed with the SEC carefully when they become available, before making any decision with respect to the tender offer because these documents will contain important information about the proposed transactions and the parties thereto such stockholders should consider.

The Offer to Purchase, the related Letter of Transmittal and certain other tender offer documents, as well as the Solicitation/Recommendation Statement, will be made available to all stockholders of Finjan at no expense to them. Investors may obtain free copies of the Schedule TO and Schedule 14D-9, as each may be amended or supplemented from time to time, and other documents filed by the parties (when available), at the SEC’s web site at www.sec.gov or by visiting Finjan’s Investor Relations website at ir.finjan.com or by contacting Finjan’s Investor Relations Department by phone at 650-282-3245 or by e-mail at investors@finjan.com.

About Fortress Investment Group LLC
Fortress Investment Group LLC is a leading, highly diversified global investment manager with approximately $43.5 billion of assets under management as of December 31, 2019. Founded in 1998, Fortress manages assets on behalf of over 1,750 institutional clients and private investors worldwide across a range of credit and real estate, private equity and permanent capital investment strategies.

About Finjan Holdings, Inc.
Established in 1996, Finjan is a globally recognized pioneer in cybersecurity. Finjan's inventions are embedded within a strong portfolio of patents focusing on software and hardware technologies used to proactively detect previously unknown and emerging threats on a real-time, behavior-based basis. After receiving initial funding from a broad group of investors, including venture, private equity, and large software and technology companies. Finjan has continued to grow through investments in innovation, strategic acquisitions, and partnerships promoting economic advancement and job creation.

No worries. I sincerely do wish you and the rest of the gang come out okay. You sound like someone I would enjoy having a beer or six with. I really do understand how they can appear to look okay on paper. It puts it into perspective when you have followed them for a long time and know for a fact their guidance is all nonsense.

Have fun if you want to trade a small speculative position. This can be traded. Just don't fall in love with it and get in too deep. If you are in deep, I recommend going back a ways and read old guidance and listen to old conference calls. Then compare them to what actually happened in the future.

Best of luck to you!

I respect you lbcb123 for your style when standing your ground.

Me, taking your full statement out of text was wrong.

Ummm... why did you change a clear quote of, "They can survive three or more years" to "ONLY Survive 3 years!"? They might hang on for ten years, but it doesn't change the fact there is no longer a path for shareholders to share in their personal enrichment. They don't have enough cash left to transition into a real company. They will just milk the remainder of an obsolete patent portfolio where the big money-makers have now expired.

Some of us have followed them for many years and have heard the many Hartstein lies over and over while he pumped the price to dump his shares much higher. We saw Noonan jump ship as he knew it was no longer a viable company

It is unlikely you will see new license agreements unless it is for a nominal nuisance settlement. Their current portfolio of patents is irrelevant as the two big ones that have generated most of the revenue through the years expired. Everybody is just running the clock out on them now.

Best of luck to you. I understand they can look intriguing on paper, but dig further. Their time has come and gone and they gave themselves huge bonuses of more than their annual salaries and burned cash on frivolous things instead of using the cash to transition to a real company with recurring revenue.

The timing is unknown, but the end result is obvious.

They can survive three or more years

That’s what the fake little bitty shorts said about Interdigital when the stock was trading between 3 and 6 dollars a share back in the nineties.

ONLY Survive 3 years!

Great balls of fire, that’s what they told me after graduating high school and joining the Navy.

Seabee Builder School, Combat training at Marine Base Camp Pendleton, radio school and heavy equipment trucking school. Amphibious landing training as a M-60 machine gunner. And only weighting 130 pounds.

Duck soup…2 combat tours to Vietnam, classified projects with the 3rd Marine Division and Army Military Assistance Command. They even assigned me a South Vietnam Arvin Officer translator.

I survived 4 Agent Orange diseases and I am only 72 years old.

Hell, even Obama was tracking me at the NSA in 2013, and he left me alone.

ONLY Survive 3 years!

Too bad it is delayed again. Now take October 2020 and add two years before appeals would play out. Cisco is the master at delaying things. I don't see the possibility of any significant revenue for at least two years. Nothing is close.

Also, NortonLifelock (formerly Symantec) is in the process of upgrading everyone for free with enhanced services that include VPN. Even though it is obvious that the Finjan VPN is just a sham so they can claim they aren't a Non-Performing Entity, (Patent troll) there are numerous free VPN products and it is included in other subscriptions now. There is not even the possibility of that becoming a real revenue stream now.

My opinion is still that Finjan exists to enrich insiders and there is no path for shareholders to benefit. The money-making patents expired and the current cases don't have a lot of potential. It is shameful they never actually developed a real core business when they had the cash. They can survive three or more years, but looks to be pretty much dead money with maybe a few trading opportunities here and there.

Still wish you all the best. Thanks for the Law360 reprints Paullee.

Cisco, Finjan IP Trial Delayed Until October Due To Pandemic
By Dorothy Atkins

Law360 (May 26, 2020, 5:05 PM EDT) -- A California federal judge on Tuesday delayed a trial in Finjan's patent infringement suit against Cisco from June until October because of the coronavirus pandemic, saying she had "high hopes" it would be the first civil jury trial in the district, but the court's "enormous backlog" of criminal cases takes priority.


"The last thing you want is a group of jurors who look at your clients and think, 'Why are you making us do this now?'" a judge said Tuesday when delaying a patent trial between Finjan and Cisco. (AP Photo/Richard Drew, File)
During a status conference Tuesday held via videoconference, U.S. District Judge Beth Freeman set an Oct. 19 date for openings of the trial, which involves about a dozen cybersecurity patent claims asserted by Israeli software maker Finjan Inc. against California technology giant Cisco Systems Inc., with jury selection likely to be held remotely days before.

"I'm really disappointed that we can't move this along, because I know you're ready," the judge told counsel for the parties. "But we have an enormous backlog of criminal cases and they take priority no matter what."

Finjan initially hit Cisco with a lawsuit in January 2017 alleging its products infringe five Finjan patents that cover ways to protect computers from malicious software and viruses when connected to the internet. Finjan claims that Cisco's infringement began when it acquired technology from a company called Sourcefire Inc. and then refused to enter a licensing agreement with Finjan.

Cisco denies the allegations and has sought to invalidate at least some of the patents-in-suit.

In April, Judge Freeman had told the attorneys to prepare for a June 15 trial. At the time, the judge said she was "fairly confident" Finjan's patent infringement suit could go before a jury in June and July, even with social distancing restrictions in place.

But the Northern District of California's top judge issued an order last week postponing or vacating all new civil jury trials scheduled to commence through Sept. 30, citing the continued disruptions to the judicial system caused by the pandemic.

During Tuesday's hearing, Judge Freeman said the district courts are currently not allowed to hold more than one jury trial in a courthouse at a time, and therefore the only two trial dates available to the parties are in October and January. Though the judge acknowledged that "I don't have a crystal ball," she suggested that the parties agree to an October trial date, because a January trial would coincide with the winter flu season and might be more likely to be delayed.

Judge Freeman added that while she had hoped to hold a jury trial this summer, the parties need to be mindful that they don't know what the reaction of the jury pool will be and that "there's virtually no experience across the country now" with calling in jurors.

"I think the last thing you want is a group of jurors who look at your clients and think, 'Why are you making us do this now?'" the judge said.

The judge said they would hold another pretrial conference before October, but she held off on setting a firm date.

These trials will go on for years just like the apple bs with samsung

qtr call script

https://seekingalpha.com/article/4347337-finjan-holdings-fnjn-ceo-phil-hartstein-on-q1-2020-results-earnings-call-transcript?part=single

This just happened when I tried to post the last post.
Maybe I am being tracked big time.

Host
Error
What happened?
There is an unknown connection issue between Cloudflare and the origin web server. As a result, the web page can not be displayed.
What can I do?
If you are a visitor of this website:
Please try again in a few minutes.
If you are the owner of this website:
There is an issue between Cloudflare's cache and your origin web server. Cloudflare monitors for these errors and automatically investigates the cause. To help support the investigation, you can pull the corresponding error log from your web server and submit it our support team. Please include the Ray ID (which is at the bottom of this error page). Additional troubleshooting resources.

Thanks Paullee;

I printed out the closing action on FNJN from May 11, 2020.

Schwab showing $1.2365 Vol 224,289
Barchart showing $1.1800
Yahoo showing $1.1800 Vol 212,794
iHub showing $1.1800 Vol 212,794

Just saying Schwab had a higher closing price.
Some things about Wall Street can not be splained.

Thanks Paullee;

I printed out the closing action on FNJN from May 11, 2020.

Schwab showing $1.2365 Total Vol 224,289
Barchart showing $1.1800
Yahoo showing $1.1800 Vol 212,794
iHub showing $1.1800 Vol 212,794

Just saying Schwab had a higher closing price.
Some things about Wall Street can not be splained.

Finjan Holds Onto Antivirus Patent In Fight With ESET
By Ryan Davis

Law360 (May 11, 2020, 10:32 PM EDT) -- The Federal Circuit on Monday upheld a Patent Trial and Appeal Board decision that ESET LLC failed to prove that a Finjan computer antivirus patent is invalid, dismissing ESET's argument that it faced "undeserved prejudice" from the board, a claim Finjan called "simply nonsense."

In a one-line summary affirmance after the case was submitted on the briefs Wednesday without oral argument, the appeals court affirmed the PTAB's January 2019 finding that earlier patents cited by ESET do not render Finjan's patent invalid as obvious.

The case is the first one in which the Federal Circuit has decided a case on the briefs after canceling oral arguments due to the pandemic and then issued a summary affirmance. In all other cases where the court has not heard arguments, it has issued a full opinion.

On appeal, ESET had argued that the board's decision upholding the patent, one of several Finjan has accused it of infringing, was based on an incorrect claim construction, and that a sequence of events early in the case indicated that the PTAB judges were biased against it.

ESET challenged the patent on two grounds, but the PTAB initially only instituted review on one of them and made clear that it thought ESET had a weak case on the other one.

But after the U.S. Supreme Court's SAS Institute decision in April 2018 held that the PTAB must issue a final decision on all claims and grounds in the petition, the board instituted review on all claims, but not before asking ESET to consider dropping the ground it had previously rejected.

ESET told the Federal Circuit that it refused and was "seeking only to employ the [inter partes review] processes to which it was entitled." It said it did so "despite the risk of incurring the board's wrath," which it said the board displayed by ultimately upholding the patent.

ESET told the appeals court that the board's final decision abandoned the board's original claim construction for one advanced by Finjan, a move ESET said "resulted from undeserved prejudice" against ESET for its refusal to drop one of the grounds.

Finjan did not mince words in its appraisal of ESET's argument in its response, telling the Federal Circuit that to accept it, the court would have to believe that the board "engaged in a conspiracy to institute trial on every ground requested in the petition just so that it could harbor a personal grudge against ESET."

"This baseless conspiracy theory is unprofessional, strains credulity, and is simply nonsense," it said.

The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office intervened in the case to defend the board, telling the Federal Circuit that it did nothing wrong in making clear to ESET that it believed one of the grounds was weak, and that its decision to review all the grounds in the petition actually favored ESET.

"ESET therefore fails to establish any arbitrary action by the board or identify any harm as a result of the board's action," the office said.

Since it affirmed the decision to uphold the patent without opinion, the Federal Circuit did not opine on those issues.

The patent is one of six that Finjan has accused ESET of infringing in a suit in the Southern District of California. A jury trial in the case got underway March 10 on five of the patents, excluding the one at issue in Monday's decision, since that part of the case was stayed pending the outcome of the appeal.

But after three days of proceedings, during which Finjan said it was seeking $40 million in damages, U.S. District Judge Cathy Ann Bencivengo called a mistrial and dismissed the jury after President Donald Trump declared the COVID-19 pandemic a national emergency.

The Federal Circuit has been canceling oral argument in many cases during the pandemic and reaching decisions on the briefs. This case was unique in that the court did that and issued a summary affirmance.

The court has long had a practice of only issuing summary affirmances when oral argument is held, and providing written opinions when it is not, so that the parties have an opportunity to hear the court's views one way or the other.

The summary affirmance in this case indicates the court may not do that in all cases where arguments were canceled due to the pandemic.

Counsel for ESET and Finjan could not immediately be reached for comment Monday. The USPTO does not comment on litigation.

The patent-in-suit is U.S. Patent No. 7,975,305.

U.S. Circuit Judges Alan Lourie, Richard Linn and Evan Wallach sat on the panel for the Federal Circuit.

ESET is represented by Nicola A. Pisano, Jose L. Patiño and Justin E. Gray of Eversheds Sutherland.

Finjan is represented by Paul Andre, James Hannah and Jeffrey Price of Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel LLP.

The USPTO is represented by Michael Forman, Thomas Krause, Farheena Yasmeen Rasheed and Maureen Donovan Queler of the agency's office of the solicitor.

The case is ESET LLC v. Finjan Inc., case number 19-1716, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.

--Editing by Abbie Sarfo.

FNJN prevails on PTAB appeal from ESSET

http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/19-1716.Rule_36_Judgment.5-11-2020.1_1585303.pdf


should help when they go to trial

On May 4, 2020, Finjan Holdings, Inc. (the “Company”) and its wholly-owned subsidiary, Finjan, Inc. (“Finjan”), announced that Finjan’s trial against Cisco Systems, Inc. (Cisco) previously scheduled for June 1, 2020 is now set to begin on June 22, 2020. The case is pending in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, Case No. 5:17-cv-00072-BLF, before the Honorable Beth Labson Freeman.

Thanks Paullee;

Cisco, Finjan Patent Fight Headed For June Jury Trial
By Dorothy Atkins

Law360 (April 30, 2020, 10:05 PM EDT) -- A California federal judge told counsel for Finjan and Cisco on Thursday to prepare for a June 15 trial, saying she is "fairly confident" Finjan's patent infringement suit could come before a jury in June and July, even with COVID-19 social distancing restrictions in place.

Finjan Inc.'s case, which currently involves 13 patent claims asserted against Cisco Systems Inc., was initially slated to go to a jury trial June 1, which is the day federal courts in California's Northern District are slated to reopen.

During a pretrial conference held over the Zoom Video Communications platform, U.S. District Judge Beth Freeman said she thinks it will be virtually impossible to call in potential jurors that day, so she pushed back the trial two weeks to June 15 and emphasized that she plans for the trial to proceed.

"I am fairly confident we could get this case to trial in June and July and I'd like to do that," the judge said. "This case is old, and I think we're all ready."

Finjan initially hit Cisco with a lawsuit in January 2017 alleging its products infringe five Finjan patents that cover ways to protect computers from malicious software and viruses when connected to the internet. Finjan claims that Cisco's infringement began when it acquired technology from a company called Sourcefire Inc. and then refused to enter a licensing agreement with Finjan.

Cisco has denied the allegations and has sought to invalidate at least some of the patents-in-suit.

On Thursday, counsel for both sides said they would be prepared to go to trial in June, although they noted that some witnesses might have health risks that could make traveling to the courthouse problematic.

Judge Freeman acknowledged that the schedule could be subject to change, but she laid out the ground rules based on the expectation that in June a 50-member jury panel will be called in.

She said potential jurors will fill out their hardship questionnaires at home and the court will only call in jurors 10 at a time to conduct peremptory challenges. She said the trial itself will be held in the courthouse's ceremonial courtroom, which is larger than the other courtrooms, and space will be measured inside the courtroom so that everyone is maintaining social distancing.

Judge Freeman also said she suspects a number of jurors will have hardships. She said she'll plan to seat nine jurors, so that there won't be a mistrial if a juror gets sick. Instead of a jury room, she said, the panel will probably meet in another courtroom that is not being used in order to give jurors more space.

The judge gave each side 18 hours to argue its case, with each party getting 45 minutes for openings and 1.5 hours for closings. She added that she wants the case to go to the jury within two weeks.

Aside from logistics, Judge Freeman told Cisco's counsel that she wasn't pleased to see that Cisco suggested that the jury decide whether a patent claim is invalid by prior art under Section 101 of the Patent Act, since she considers the issue a threshold matter that should be resolved before trial by the judge.

"Just because there may be some factual issue doesn't necessarily mean that it's entitled to a jury," the judge said.

Judge Freeman told Cisco counsel Matthew C. Gaudet of Duane Morris LLP to brief the issue and cite any cases in which such a question has been sent to a jury to decide or in which the Federal Circuit has reversed a ruling for failure to send the issue to a jury.

Gaudet agreed to submit additional briefs on the matter, and he explained that Cisco raised the issue after U.S. District Judge William Alsup sent a similar question to a jury in a patent case involving Finjan and Juniper Networks Inc.

"If it turns out that this is not a fact issue, then this issue is gone," Gaudet said.

Judge Freeman replied that she has "high regard" for Judge Alsup, but she said the Juniper case was "one of a kind." The judge added that in the Juniper case, Judge Alsup implemented his novel "showdown" procedure, in which each side offers only one claim that illustrates whether he should toss the case.

"I don't do my cases that way," Judge Freeman said.

Judge Freeman also prohibited the parties from using pejorative terms like "patent troll" or "nonpracticing entity" to refer to Finjan during trial and prohibited the parties from diving into details of ongoing litigation involving the parties.

"I don't want to get into a tangent of litigating those other cases in front of the jury," she said.

The patents-in-suit are U.S. Patent Nos. 6,154,844; 6,804,780; 7,647,633; 8,141,154; and 8,677,494.

Finjan is represented by Juanita Brooks, Roger Denning, Frank Albert, Megan Chacon, Aamir Kazi and Nicole Williams of Fish & Richardson PC.

Cisco is represented by Woody Jameson, Matthew C. Gaudet, Robin L. McGrath, David Carl Dotson and Alice E. Snedeker of Duane Morris LLP.

The case is Finjan Inc. v. Cisco Systems Inc., case number 5:17-cv-00072, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.

--Additional reporting by Bonnie Eslinger. Editing by Gemma Horowitz.

Thx, IBC

interesting exercise, I rate it a draw

Correct. 1:30 Pacific. 4:30 Eastern. Court is in California.

is that 1:30 pacific time ?

You can view the Pretrial Conference Thursday:

CLERKS NOTICE CONVERTING THE PRETRIAL CONFERENCE ON 4/30/2020 AT 1:30 PM TO A ZOOM WEBINAR.

***REGISTRATION OF COUNSEL IN ADVANCE IS REQUIRED, SEE BELOW***

Pre-registration by counsel with the clerk in advance of the Pretrial Conference must be done by emailing one list from each side of the names of counsel who will be participating in the hearing to blfcrd@cand.uscourts.gov no later than Wednesday, April 29, 2020, at 2:00 PM, PST.

All counsel, public, and press will join the webinar as attendees and be able to see and hear the proceedings, but will not be able to actually participate in the proceedings until the Court switches them over to a participant. Before each case is called, counsel who have pre-registered with the clerk in advance of the hearing will be converted from attendee to participant. Once the hearing ends for their case, they will be switched back to attendee.
The links below are for all counsel, members of the public and press to use for accessing the Pretrial Conference on April 30, 2020, at 1:30 PM.
***All Preregistered Counsel participating in the hearing shall sign in no later than 1:20 PM for check in.***

Please click the link below to join the webinar: https://us02web.zoom.us/j/86506417530?pwd=S015Um41ZEtITm9wRHFucURBelR2UT09
Password: 490854

Apple is another that will try to crush all accusers. They don't care if it costs more than a settlement. They view it as cost of doing business and prevents others from seeking damages.

Cisco has done this for decades. I said from the very outset they would rue the day they filed against Cisco. Final pretrial conference still going forward, but via telephone:

The following transaction was entered on 4/15/2020 at 9:35 AM and filed on 4/15/2020
Case Name: Finjan, Inc. v. Cisco Systems Inc.
Case Number: 5:17-cv-00072-BLF
Filer:
Document Number: 522(No document attached)

Docket Text:
CLERK'S NOTICE RE FINAL PRETRIAL CONFERENCE SET ON APRIL 30, 2020.
Due to ongoing health concerns, the Final Pretrial Conference set in this case on April 30, 2020 will be held telephonically at 1:30 PM.
To join the hearing, call (888) 278-0296 and use the following access code when prompted: 9795027.
Counsel and parties joining the hearing are to dial in at least 5 minutes before the hearing for check-in. If possible, counsel and parties joining the hearing shall use a land line rather than a cellular telephone. For questions regarding telephonic hearings, please contact Tiffany Salinas-Harwell by email at blfcrd@cand.uscourts.gov.
(This is a text-only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.)
(tshS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/15/2020)

not fighting any harder than Apple did with VHC

Change of counsel approved:

The following transaction was entered on 4/15/2020 at 7:57 AM and filed on 4/15/2020
Case Name: Finjan, Inc. v. Cisco Systems Inc.
Case Number: 5:17-cv-00072-BLF
Filer:
Document Number: 521

Docket Text:
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF FINJAN, INC.'S UNOPPOSED MOTION [519] TO WITHDRAW AND SUBSTITUTE COUNSEL. Signed by Judge Beth Labson Freeman on 4/15/2020. (blflc3S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/15/2020)

Definitely not due to a settlement as they are still deep in the weeds with petty motions and challenges. Cisco making this a very expensive litigation fighting them every step of the way:

The following transaction was entered by Johnson, Nicole on 4/14/2020 at 10:35 PM and filed on 4/14/2020
Case Name: Finjan, Inc. v. Cisco Systems Inc.
Case Number: 5:17-cv-00072-BLF
Filer: Cisco Systems Inc.
Document Number: 520

Docket Text:
Declaration of Nicole E. Grigg in Support of [507] Administrative Motion to File Under Seal Plaintiff Finjan, Inc.'s Opposition to Cisco Systems, Inc.'s Motion to Strike Portions of Dr. Nenad Medvidovic's Amended Expert Report of Infringement of Patent No. 7,647,633 filed byCisco Systems Inc.. (Related document(s)[507]) (Johnson, Nicole) (Filed on 4/14/2020)

Kramer Levin ranked #34 in 2018 profits and Fish & Richardson ranked #48 so they are similar in size. I am aware of both being pretty well-respected and don't know if it is a perceived up or down move.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_United_States-based_law_firms_by_profits_per_partner

It is just that Kramer Levin attorneys have been intimately involved with Finjan for many years and know all of the nuances and challenges to their patent portfolio. It is really odd to make a change years into a case and right before trial.

I'm sorry, but I don't have anything much to add. Just the fact the change is happening and no knowledge of the circumstances or relevance. I passed on buying under a buck, but hope long-suffering shareholders get one more good chance to unload before they fade away.