Finjan, Inc. v. Secure Computing Corp.

Last updated

Finjan, Inc. v. Secure Computing Corp.
Court United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Full case name Finjan, Inc. (formerly Finjan Software, Ltd.), Plaintiff-Cross Appellant, v. Secure Computing Corporation, Cyberguard Corporation, and Webwasher AG, Defendant-Appellant and Does 1 through 100, Defendants.
DecidedNovember 4 2010
Citations626 F.3d 1197; 97 U.S.P.Q.2d 1161
Case history
Prior history06-CV-0369 (D. Dela. (2008))
Holding
Infringement on the asserted "system" and "storage medium" claims were affirmed, but infringement on the asserted "method" claims was reversed. The damage award was not only affirmed, but also remanded for extra damage determination for period between the post-judgment and pre-injunction.
Court membership
Judges sittingNewman, Gajarsa, and Linn
Case opinions
MajorityLinn

Finjan, Inc. v. Secure Computing Corp., 626 F.3d 1197 (2010), was a patent infringement case by the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit involving "proactive scanning" technology for computer security. [1] The Federal Circuit made a mixed decision after hearing the appeals from both sides. In terms of infringement, the Federal Circuit affirmed Secure Computing's infringement on Finjan's system and storage medium patent claims but reversed the infringement on Finjan's method claim. In terms of damage award, the Federal Circuit not only affirmed the previous $9.18 million award by the United States District Court for the District of Delaware, but also remanded for the district court to assess the extra damages between the post-judgement and pre-injunction period. [1]

Contents

Background

Brief history in the Lower Court

Finjan, Inc.("Finjan"), a company providing enterprise web security solutions, sued Secure Computing Corp. (acquired by McAfee in 2008), Cyberguard Corp., and Webwasher AG (collectively, "Secure") in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware for infringement of three U.S. patents (U.S. Patents No. 6,092,194, No. 6,804,780, and No. 7,058,822). Defendants counterclaimed against Finjan for infringement of two U.S. Patents (No. 6,357,010 and No. 7,185,361). In the decisions, the jury concluded that all of the patents mentioned above were valid and Finjan did not infringe upon the defendants' patents. The defendants, however, infringed on all of the asserted patent claims by Finjan. The district court awarded $9.18 million enhanced damages to Finjan under 35 U.S.C.   § 284, and imposed a permanent injunction against the defendants. [2]

After the verdict in the lower court, the defendants appealed both infringement and damages. Finjan, on the other hand, cross-appealed only the district court's damage ruling, claiming that additional damages should be awarded for the peiord between post-judgment and pre-injunction. [1]

Patents and claims from Finjan

In this case, Finjan owned three patents related to proactive scanning technique. They were used to detect and defeat previously unknown, Internet-based threats to computers. The brief descriptions of each patent are listed below.

Undisputed facts

Defendants sold three accused computer security products: a "Webwasher" software download, a "Webwasher" hardware appliance and a "Cyberguard TSP" hardware appliance. All three products contained source code for eight different software modules. Three of those modules — Anti-Virus, Anti-Malware, and Content Protection — offered proactive scanning functionality, which was related to the patents held by Finjan. The eight modules were "locked" when the three products were sold, requiring a customer to purchase a separate key to activate each individual module. Therefore, a customer who purchased an accused product can activate all, some, or none of the eight modules at different cost. [1]

Opinions of the Federal Court

On infringement

System and storage medium claims

Secure Computing argued that they did not directly infringe Finjan's patents because the software they sold to customers were"locked," meaning that none of the infringing features were functional until the customers "purchased keys and unlocked" the software components. This implied that the customers were the direct infringers, and the defendants were indirect infringers. [6] To prove their non-infringement theory, the defendants cited the Southwest Software, Inc. v. Harlequin Inc. case for the proposition that "locked [computer] code" cannot infringe.

However, the Federal Circuit pointed out these two cases were actually different. The claim at that case was a method claim and it required performance of each claimed step in order to trigger infringement. The claims held by Finjan's '194 and '780 patent were "system" and "storage medium" claims, which were considered as apparatus claims and did not require performance of any method steps. [1] Merely "literal" presence of the software or binary code in the accused product is enough for infringement to occur. [6]

By relying on the ruling of another similar case Fantasy Sports Props v. Sportsline.com Inc., in which the customers also had to configure and activate features in the software, the Federal Circuit concluded that inactive software features could still have direct infringement on apparatus claims. [6]

Method claims

In addition to the system and storage medium claims, Finjan also asserted method claims from each of the three patents in suit. Based on the standard established in previous case Lucent Technologies v. Gateway, Inc., a person must have practiced all steps of the claimed method to infringe a method claim." [1]

In this case, the only two pieces of performance evidence Finjan had was that an Webwasher AG's engineer testified a debug file showing a depiction of proactive scanning and that same debug file showed performance of the claimed steps. Based on a single debug file, Finjan showed at most that Webwasher AG performed proactive scanning on one occasion during testing. [1] Since Finjan could not show that all steps of the claimed methods of their asserted patents were practiced in the United States, the court reversed the previous opinion from the district court and ruled that Secure Computing was not liable for patent infringement on Finjan's method claims in these three asserted patents. [7]

Term construction

Secure Computing argued that a new trial was required because the district court failed to construe the term "addressed to a client" from each asserted claim of the '194 patent, [7] similar as what happened in the case O2 Micro International Ltd. v. Beyond Innovation Technology Co..

The Federal Circuit explained that, rather than failing to resolve the parties' quarrel all together by construing the term in dispute, the district court just rejected Secure Computing's construction of the claim term. Unlike the O2 Micro case, there were no errors made on term construction by the district court in this case. What Defendants attempted to do is just to resurrect a claim construction that was already rejected by the district court. [1] Therefore, Secure Computing's request for a new trial was rejected.

On damages

Royalty base

The defendants challenged that: 1) the jury should calculate the damage based on their unlocked products value, instead of using their full sale value; and 2) the jury erroneously included sales to the U.S. government when calculating royalty base. [7]

For the first challenge, the Federal Circuit was persuaded by Finjan's waiver and explained that since Secure Computing did not raise this argument in its Judgment as a matter of law (JMOL) motion following the trial, Secure Computing may not raise these arguments for the first time on appeal, based on previous case Srein v. Frankford Trust Co.. [1] [8] Because this argument was waived, the Federal Circuit needed not address this challenge.

For the second challenge, the Federal Circuit found that the district court had in fact instructed the jury at trial that sales to the United States Government should not be included in any damages calculation. Besides, the damage number the jury awarded was also different from Finjan's calculation. [1] Moreover, the record showed that only a very small portion of the damage award was from sales to the United States. Therefore, the Federal Circuit decided that no new trial was necessary for the dispute around royalty base.

Royalty rates

The defendants argued that jury's royalty percentages calculation lacked support under the Georgia-Pacific factors. [7]

1. Secure Computing claimed that Finjan should rely its calculation on Secure's profits for the accused products, instead of its company-wide profits. The Federal Circuit concluded that substantial evidence supported the royalty rates calculation because the company-wide gross profit margin was very close to the gross margin for the accused products. [1]

2. Secure Computing argued that the jury ignored the fact that not all customers enabled proactive scanning modules. If no users activated modules containing proactive scanning, no revenue for that product was attributable to the Finjan's patented invention. The Federal Circuit disagreed with Secure Computing and explained that the accused direct infringers were Defendants, not their customers. Because Defendants included proactive scanning on every accused product, such function encompassed all of Secure Computing's sales, regardless of customer activation. For example, Secure Computing obtained advertising value from those products even customers did not unlock the proactive scanning modules. [1]

3. Secure Computing disagreed with the $9.18 million damage amount for infringement of three patents by identifying the fact that Microsoft acquired a license to Finjan's complete patent portfolio for only $8 million. The Federal Circuit emphasized that use of past patent licenses must account for differences in the technologies and economic circumstances. In this case, Finjan did not compete with Microsoft but did compete with Secure, and Finjan also received significant intangible value from Microsoft's endorsements of Finjan. [1]

In sum, The court contended that the royalty percentages were made with substantial evidence and based on expert's opinion. As a result, the Federal Circuit affirmed the denial of defendant's motions for JMOL or new trial on damages. [1]

On Finjan's cross-appeal on damages

Even though the district court granted Finjan additional damages by multiplying the jury's royalty rates against previously uncalculated sales, [7] the period was limited "to only those additional infringing sales that occurred up until the date of entry of the judgment in this case." [1] Finjan therefore claimed entitlement to damages for the 17-month period between the entry of the judge (March 28, 2008) and the injunction (August 28, 2009).

The court agreed and remanded for the district court to determine appropriate damages for the above mentioned period, which resulted in a more than $13.7 million damage totally. [9]

Subsequent development

Impact

This case involved system and computer-readable medium (Beauregard) claims as well as method (Bilski) claims. It was seen as a zenith in the winning of Beauregard claims where the Federal Circuit held that not only was it okay for a computer-readable medium with instructions on it to be enforced, but that the code needn't even be active in order to trigger infringement. [10]

On the other hand, the success of Beauregard claims as compared to the failure of Bilski claims in this case highlighted why Beauregard claims may be more desirable in a patent applications. [11]

Subsequent cases

Several later patent infringement cases had cited this case from different perspectives.

Versata Software, Inc. v. SAP America, Inc. [12] and Bally Technologies, Inc v. Business Intelligence Systems Solutions, Inc. [13] adopted the opinion that "inactive" program could still infringe apparatus claims.

In Brocade Communications Systems, Inc. and Foundry Networks, LLC., [14] criteria on deciding method claim infringement were based this case.

In Cisco Systems, Inc., v. Teleconference Systems, LLC et al., [15] the court made the same argument in that the court was not obligated to construe the term if it rejected one party's proposed construction.

The royalty calculation was referred in the case of Whitserve, LLC v. Computer Packages, Inc. [16]

See also

Related Research Articles

The multinational technology corporation Apple Inc. has been a participant in various legal proceedings and claims since it began operation and, like its competitors and peers, engages in litigation in its normal course of business for a variety of reasons. In particular, Apple is known for and promotes itself as actively and aggressively enforcing its intellectual property interests. From the 1980s to the present, Apple has been plaintiff or defendant in civil actions in the United States and other countries. Some of these actions have determined significant case law for the information technology industry and many have captured the attention of the public and media. Apple's litigation generally involves intellectual property disputes, but the company has also been a party in lawsuits that include antitrust claims, consumer actions, commercial unfair trade practice suits, defamation claims, and corporate espionage, among other matters.

<i>Alcatel-Lucent v. Microsoft Corp.</i> Legal case

Alcatel-Lucent v. Microsoft Corp., also known as Lucent Technologies Inc. v. Gateway Inc., was a long-running patent infringement case between Alcatel-Lucent and Microsoft litigated in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California and appealed multiple times to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Alcatel-Lucent was awarded $1.53 billion in a final verdict in August 2007 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California in San Diego. The damages award was reversed on appeal in September 2009, and the case was returned for a separate trial on the amount of damages.

Finjan Holdings is a company that focuses on the licensing of intellectual property. Finjan claims to own patented technology used in enterprise web security tools. Formerly a publicly traded company on NASDAQ (FNJN), it was acquired by the Fortress Investment Group in 2020.

<i>Jacobsen v. Katzer</i>

Jacobsen v. Katzer was a lawsuit between Robert Jacobsen (plaintiff) and Matthew Katzer (defendant), filed March 13, 2006 in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. The case addressed claims on copyright, patent invalidity, cybersquatting, and Digital Millennium Copyright Act issues arising from Jacobsen under an open source license developing control software for model trains.

Quanta Computer, Inc. v. LG Electronics, Inc., 553 U.S. 617 (2008), is a case decided by the United States Supreme Court in which the Court reaffirmed the validity of the patent exhaustion doctrine. The decision made uncertain the continuing precedential value of a line of decisions in the Federal Circuit that had sought to limit Supreme Court exhaustion doctrine decisions to their facts and to require a so-called "rule of reason" analysis of all post-sale restrictions other than tie-ins and price fixes. In the course of restating the patent exhaustion doctrine, the Court held that it is triggered by, among other things, an authorized sale of a component when the only reasonable and intended use of the component is to engage the patent and the component substantially embodies the patented invention by embodying its essential features. The Court also overturned, in passing, that the exhaustion doctrine was limited to product claims and did not apply to method claims.

Fonar Corp. v. General Electric Co., 107 F.3d 1543, was a case decided in 1997 by the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit concerning source code and the disclosure requirement for software patents.

Fujifilm Corp v. Benun, 605 F.3d 1366 was a case in which the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the judgment made by the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey that the defendants infringed patents owned by Fujifilm Corporation.

Fujitsu Ltd. v. Netgear Inc., 620 F.3d 1321, was a patent infringement case centered on three patents claimed to be required for full compliance of the IEEE 802.11 (WiFi) standard and the WiFi Alliance Wireless Multimedia Extensions (WMM) Specification. US patents 4,975,952, 6,018,642, and 6,469,993 were owned by Philips Electronics, Fujitsu, and LG Electronics respectively, and placed in the Via Licensing pool. The Via Licensing pool claimed to hold all patents required for a complete WiFi/WMM implementation. Netgear did not enter an agreement with Via Licensing but produced a series of products that conform to the WiFi standard and WMM Specification. Philips Electronics, Fujitsu, and LG Electronics sued Netgear for patent infringement claiming a complete implementation of the WiFi standard implied violating patents held by Via Licensing pool. When tried in United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin, the court granted summary judgment of non-infringement by Netgear for all three patents thus plaintiffs appealed. The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit confirmed non-infringement for two of the three patent and found infringement of the third patent in four of Netgear's products.

TiVo Inc. v. EchoStar Corp. is a case stretching from 2004 to 2011, which took place in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas and the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. TiVo Inc. sued EchoStar Corp. claiming patent infringement of a DVR technology. The issues addressed during litigation included patent infringement, wording of injunctions, infringing product redesign, contempt of court orders, and contempt sanctions. Ultimately, the court held that EchoStar Corp. had indeed infringed TiVo Inc's patent and was in contempt of court for noncompliance of an injunction. The parties reached a settlement wherein EchoStar Corp. paid TiVo Inc. a licensing fee. Further, the court replaced the established contempt test with a single step test. The simplified test makes it more difficult for patent holders to prove contempt as a result of repeat infringement.

<i>Rambus Inc. v. Nvidia</i>

Rambus Inc. v. NVIDIA Corporation was a patent infringement case between Rambus and Nvidia. The case was heard in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California.

Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. is the general title of a series of patent infringement lawsuits between Apple Inc. and Samsung Electronics in the United States Court system, regarding the design of smartphones and tablet computers. Between them, the two companies have dominated the manufacturing of smartphones since the early 2010s, and made about 40% of all smartphones sold worldwide as of 2024. In early 2011, Apple initiated patent infringement lawsuits against Samsung, who typically responded with countersuits. Apple's multinational litigation over technology patents became known as part of the smartphone wars: extensive litigation and fierce competition in the global market for consumer mobile communications.

Uniloc USA, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., 632 F.3d 1292, was a patent lawsuit originally filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island.

DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, was the first United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit decision to uphold the validity of computer-implemented patent claims after the Supreme Court's decision in Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International. Both Alice and DDR Holdings are legal decisions relevant to the debate about whether software and business methods are patentable subject matter under Title 35 of the United States Code §101. The Federal Circuit applied the framework articulated in Alice to uphold the validity of the patents on webpage display technology at issue in DDR Holdings.

Versata Development Group, Inc. v. SAP America, Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, is a July 2015 decision of the Federal Circuit affirming the final order of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), the recently created adjudicatory arm of the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), invalidating as patent ineligible the claims in issue of Versata's U.S. Patent No. 6,553,350. This was the first case in the Federal Circuit reviewing a final order in a Covered Business Method (CBM) invalidation proceeding under the America Invents Act (AIA). The case set an important precedent by deciding several unsettled issues in the interpretation of the CBM provisions of the AIA>, including what are business-method patents under the AIA and whether the AIA authorizes the PTO to hold such patents invalid in CBM proceedings on the ground that they are patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as "abstract ideas."

JVC Kenwood Corp. v. Nero, Inc., 797 F.3d 1039, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 14402, is a 2015 decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit concerning the rights of end users who purchase products subject to fair, reasonable, and nondiscriminatory (FRAND) licensing under an industry-wide patent pool of standards-essential patents, and of suppliers of software to the end users. The Federal Circuit held that, where the patent holder had authorized sales to end users of optical discs compliant with the standard, which embodied the patents' essential features and were reasonably intended only to be used to practice the patents, the patent owner had no direct infringement claim against the end users without proof that the end-users were using unlicensed discs. The patent holder therefore had no claim for contributory infringement or induced infringement against a software company for selling software to the end users for use with the licensed discs. The decision is said to be an important one for clarifying the rights of downstream users and their suppliers in the context of patent pools and FRAND licensing.

Akamai Technologies, Inc. v. Limelight Networks, Inc., 797 F.3d 1020, is a 2015 en banc decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, on remand from a 2014 decision of the U.S. Supreme Court reversing a previous Federal Circuit decision in the case. This is the most recent in a string of decisions in the case that concern the proper legal standard for determining patent infringement liability when multiple actors are involved in carrying out the claimed infringement of a method patent and no single accused infringer has performed all of the steps. In the 2015 remand decision, the Federal Circuit expanded the scope of vicarious liability in such cases, holding that one actor could be held liable for the acts of another actor "when an alleged infringer conditions participation in an activity or receipt of a benefit upon performance of a step or steps of a patented method and establishes the manner or timing of that performance." In addition, the court held that where multiple "actors form a joint enterprise, all can be charged with the acts of the other[s], rendering each liable for the steps performed by the other[s] as if each is a single actor."

Open source license litigation involves lawsuits surrounding open-source licensed software. Many of the legal rights of open source software licensors enforceable against users violating licensing agreements are untested by the U.S. legal system. Free and open source software (FOSS) is distributed under a variety of free-software licenses, which are unique among other software licenses. Legal action against open source licenses involves questions about their validity and enforceability.

Romag Fasteners, Inc. v. Fossil, Inc., 590 U.S. ___ (2020), was a United States Supreme Court case related to trademark law under the Lanham Act. In the 9–0 decision on judgement, the Court ruled that a plaintiff in a trademark infringement lawsuit is not required to demonstrate that the defendant willfully infringed on their trademark to claim lost profit damages.

Commil USA, LLC v. Cisco Systems, Inc., 135 S.Ct. 1920 (2015), was a 2015 decision by the United States Supreme Court pertaining to the standard for induced patent infringement. Writing for a 6-2 majority, Justice Anthony Kennedy held that (1) a claim of induced infringement requires a showing that the defendant knew that it is engaging in infringing conduct and (2) a defendant's belief that a patent is invalid is not a defense to a claim of induced infringement. Justice Antonin Scalia dissented from the second point, arguing that, in his view, a good faith belief in a patent's invalidity should constitute a defense to a charge of induced infringement.

References

  1. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Finjan, Inc. v. Secure Computing Corp., 626F.3d1197 (Fed. Cir.2010).
  2. ↑ Finjan Software, LTD., v. Secure Computing Corp., C.A. No. 06-369 Archived 2012-04-15 at the Wayback Machine .
  3. ↑ USpatent 6092194,TOUBOUL&SHLOMO,"System and Method for Protecting a Computer and a Network From Hostile Downloadables",published 2000-07-18
  4. ↑ USpatent 6804780,TOUBOUL&SHLOMO,"System and Method for Protecting a Computer and a Network From Hostile Downloadables",published 2004-10-12
  5. ↑ USpatent 7058822,EDERY YIGAL MORDECHAI & VERED NIMROD ITZHAK&KROLL DAVID R,"Malicious Mobile Code Runtime Monitoring System and Methods",published 2002-01-31
  6. 1 2 3 Yeh, Robert (2010). "Finjan v. Secure Computing: Direct Infringement of Apparatus Claims by Software That Requires User Unlocking or Activation". BTLJ. Retrieved September 30, 2012.
  7. 1 2 3 4 5 Bhateja, Rajiv K. (2011). "Period Between Entry of Judgment and Entry of Permanent Injunction Should Be Considered When Calculating Damages". Finnegan. Retrieved September 30, 2012.[ permanent dead link ]
  8. ↑ Srein v. Frankford Trust Co., 323 F.3d 214,(United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit, 2003)
  9. ↑ Rashid, Fahmida (2010). "McAfee Loses Finjan Patent Infringement Appeal, Owes Damages". EWEEK.com. Archived from the original on July 29, 2012. Retrieved November 12, 2012.
  10. ↑ Ostler, Trent (2011). "The current status of the Beauregard claim after Cybersource v. Retail Decisions". Archived from the original on June 18, 2012. Retrieved October 17, 2012.
  11. ↑ Donovan, Larry B. (2011). "Method Vs. Apparatus and Software Claims". OSBA. Retrieved September 30, 2012.
  12. ↑ Versata Software, Inc. v. SAP America, Inc., 2:07-CV-153 CE, (E.D. Tex. 2011)
  13. ↑ Bally Technologies, Inc v. Business Intelligence Systems Solutions, Inc., 2:10-CV-00440-PMP-GWF, (D. Nev. 2012).
  14. ↑ Brocade Communications Systems, Inc. and Foundry Networks, LLC, 10-CV-03428-LHK (N.D. Cal. 2012).
  15. ↑ Cisco Systems, Inc., v. Teleconference Systems, LLC, C 09-01550 JSW et al (N.D. Cal. 2011).
  16. ↑ Whitserve, LLC v. Computer Packages, Inc., No. 2011-1206 (Fed. Cir. 2012).
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.