Narrative Opinion Summary
In the litigation between Finjan, Inc. and Sophos, Inc., the jury determined that Sophos infringed upon five of Finjan's patents, resulting in a $15 million damages award. Following the verdict, both parties submitted multiple post-trial motions. Finjan sought attorneys' fees, a new trial or remittitur, and an injunction, while Sophos filed motions for a renewed judgment as a matter of law and a partial judgment. The court denied all motions except Finjan's request for pre- and post-judgment interest, which was granted at the treasury bill rate. Finjan's claim for attorneys' fees under 35 U.S.C. § 285 was dismissed as the court found the case did not meet the 'exceptional' standard. The court also rejected Sophos's collateral estoppel defense regarding invalidity claims, ruling that Sophos failed to demonstrate the combinations of prior art asserted were interchangeable. Furthermore, the court upheld the patent eligibility of the ’494 and ’844 patents, dismissing Sophos's challenge under 35 U.S.C. § 101, as these patents were deemed to contain inventive concepts. The court’s denial of Sophos's motions, alongside the award of interest to Finjan, underscores the jury’s findings and the court's interpretation of applicable patent and procedural law.
Legal Issues Addressed
Attorneys' Fees under 35 U.S.C. § 285subscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court denied Finjan’s request for attorneys' fees as the case was not deemed 'exceptional' under the statute.
Reasoning: Finjan sought attorneys' fees under 35 U.S.C. § 285, claiming the case was 'exceptional' due to Sophos's allegedly unreasonable defenses and pre-trial misconduct, including discovery issues.
Claim Construction and Misconduct Allegationssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court found Sophos’s defenses regarding the Demo2 demonstrative and invalidity arguments reasonable, rejecting Finjan's misconduct claims.
Reasoning: When questioned about the Script Claim Elements, Dr. Cohen emphasized that SWEEP-InterCheck met the claims' limitations, indicating that Demo2 was merely a demonstrative aid for his analysis.
Collateral Estoppel in Patent Invaliditysubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: Sophos's collateral estoppel argument was rejected as it failed to demonstrate the interchangeability of prior art combinations.
Reasoning: Sophos claims that the combination of SWEEP-2.72 and InterCheck-2.11 is undisputedly identical to other combinations, but the court previously ruled against this claim.
Patent Eligibility under Section 101subscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court found the ’494 and ’844 patents to be patent-eligible, rejecting Sophos's Section 101 challenge.
Reasoning: The ’494 patent presents an inventive concept through a system designed for scanning malware on an intermediate network rather than an end-user computer, along with a method for identifying unknown viruses by extracting suspicious operations from files.
Patent Infringement and Damagessubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: Sophos was found to infringe all five of Finjan’s asserted patents, resulting in a $15 million damages award.
Reasoning: In the patent infringement case between Finjan, Inc. and Sophos, Inc., the jury concluded that Sophos infringed all five patents asserted by Finjan, resulting in a $15 million damages award.
Prejudgment Interestsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court granted Finjan pre- and post-judgment interest at the treasury bill rate, rejecting the prime rate request.
Reasoning: Ultimately, the court grants Finjan’s request for prejudgment interest, but it will be calculated at the treasury rate compounded annually.