Finjan LLC v. ESET, LLC

I. Background

24 This motion has an unusual history. ESET filed a motion for summary judgment 25 asserting that the patents at-issue are indefinite at the close of fact discovery in this case, 26 and the Court held argument on September 26, 2019. Finding that there were factual 27 disputes regarding what a skilled artisan in 1997 would have understood constituted a 28 “Downloadable” based on the Court’s construction of that term, the Court denied the motion without prejudice. [Doc. No. 699.] It was anticipated that trial testimony would establish what was generally understood in the art in 1997 as a “Downloadable” and such testimony would inform the scope of infringement. [Doc. No. 697, at 22:3-15.] A jury trial commenced in this case on March 10, 2020. After three trial days the Court was forced to vacate the remainder of the trial, excuse the jury and declare a mistrial due to the COVID-19 pandemic and the issuance of the State of California’s stay-home order. [Doc. No. 783.] This District’s continuing moratorium on civil jury trials and backlog of criminal jury trials currently precludes scheduling a new trial in this matter. …