Finjan, Inc. v. Blue Coat Systems, LLC
Opinion
Lead Opinion
Lloyd, J.
ORDER GRANTING-IN-PART AND DENYING-IN-PART DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO STRIKE PLAINTIFF’S INFRINGEMENT CONTENTIONS
Re: Dkt. No.
Defendant Blue Coat Systems, Inc. (“Blue Coat”) moves to strike Plaintiff Fin-jan, Inc.’s (“Finjan”) Patent Local Rule 3-1 Infringement Contentions Regarding U.S. Patent Nos. 6,154,844 (the ’844 Patent), 6,956,968 (the ’968 Patent), and 7,418,731 (the ’731 Patent) (together, the “three patents”). For the following reasons, the court grants Blue Coat’s motion in part and denies it in part.
BACKGROUND
This is the second suit between these two parties, both players in the cy-bersecurity industry, involving these three patents. In 2013, Finjan sued Blue Coat, accusing the latter’s products of infringing six of its patents. 5:13-ev-03999-BLF, Dkt. No. 1, ¶ 37. During the prior case {“Blue Coat I”), Finjan sought leave to amend its infringement contentions to assert certain of its patents against additional Blue Coat products (specifically, Content Analysis System (“CAS”), Malware Analysis Appliance (“MAA”), and Web-Pulse Service (‘WebPulse”)). The court granted leave for Finjan to amend its infringement contentions with respect to asserting the ’731 patent…