Filed: Dec. 11, 2018
Latest Update: Dec. 11, 2018
Summary: ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE JON S. TIGAR , District Judge . As shown in the attached table as Exhibit A, Plaintiff Finjan, Inc. has several active cases in this district. The cases assert overlapping claims within the same group of patents. The unmanaged simultaneous litigation of these cases presents the risk of redundant proceedings, inconsistent outcomes, and the inefficient use of judicial and litigant resources. Accordingly, the parties, and each of them, are now ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE why thi
Summary: ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE JON S. TIGAR , District Judge . As shown in the attached table as Exhibit A, Plaintiff Finjan, Inc. has several active cases in this district. The cases assert overlapping claims within the same group of patents. The unmanaged simultaneous litigation of these cases presents the risk of redundant proceedings, inconsistent outcomes, and the inefficient use of judicial and litigant resources. Accordingly, the parties, and each of them, are now ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE why this..
More
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
JON S. TIGAR, District Judge.
As shown in the attached table as Exhibit A, Plaintiff Finjan, Inc. has several active cases in this district. The cases assert overlapping claims within the same group of patents. The unmanaged simultaneous litigation of these cases presents the risk of redundant proceedings, inconsistent outcomes, and the inefficient use of judicial and litigant resources.
Accordingly, the parties, and each of them, are now ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE why this case should not be stayed pending the resolution of the other cases construing identical claims from United States Patent Nos. 7,647,633; 7,975,305; and 8,677,494, as set forth on the attached table.
A written response to this order is due December 21, 2018. The court will hold a hearing on this order to show cause on January 2, 2019 at 2:00 p.m.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
EXHIBIT A
The chart below identifies the Finjan Actions pending in this District in which Finjan is asserting claims at issue in this action and the overlapping claims in each case.
Finjan Claims Currently Asserted Claims Currently Asserted in Other Pending
Patent Against Fortinet N.D. Cal. Cases
Cisco Action
Claims 1, 7, 15, and 43
Sonicwall Action
Claims 1, 7, 15, 16, 41, and 43
Juniper Action
`844 Patent Claims 1-44 Claims 1, 15, and 41
Check Point Action
Claims 1, 15, 41, and 42
Qualys Action
Claims 1-44
PAN Action
Claims 1-38
Sonicwall Action
Claims 1, 7, and 11
`968 Patent Claims 1-38 Check Point Action
Claims 1, 9, 10, and 33
Qualys Action
Claims 1-38
PAN Action
Claims 1-35
`822 Patent Claims 1-35 Sonicwall Action
Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 9, and 10
PAN Action
Claims 1-22
Juniper Action
Claims 1 and 17
`731 Patent Claims 1-22 Check Point Action
Claims 1, 2, 14, 16, and 17
Qualys Action
Claims 1-22
Cisco Action
Claims 1, 8, 13, and 14
PAN Action
Claims 1-41
Zscaler Action
Claims 1-4, 8-11, 14, and 19
`633 Patent Claims 1-41 Sonicwall Action
Claims 1, 8, 9, 14
Juniper Action
Claims 1, 8, 14, and 19
Check Point Action
Claims 8, 9, 14, 20, and 34
Zscaler Action
Claims 1, 2, 5-9, and 11-13
Sonicwall Action
`305 Patent Claims 3-4, 6-12, and 14-25 Claims 6, 11, 12, and 13
Qualys Action
Claims 3-4, 6-12, and 14-25
Check Point Action
`086 Patent Claims 1-42 Claims 24, 33, and 42
PAN Action
Claims 1-35
Sonicwall Action
`408 Patent Claims 1-35 Claims 1, 3, 4, 9, and 22
Qualys Action
Claims 1-35
Cisco Action
Claims 10, 11, 14, and 15
PAN Action
Claims 1-18
Zscaler Action
Claims 10 and 14
Bitdefender Action
Claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 10, 11, and 14-16
`494 Patent Claims 3-5, and 7-18 Sonicwall Action
Claims 10, 14, and 18
Juniper Action
Claims 10, 14, 16, and 18
Check Point Action
Claims 10, 14, and 15
Qualys Action
Claims 3-5, and 7-18
Courts in this District first addressed the issue of consolidation of actions involving Finjan's patents in Finjan, Inc. v. FireEye, Inc., Case No. 4:13-cv-03133-SBA ("FireEye Action"), which eventually settled and is no longer pending. In the FireEye action, the defendant filed a motion (FireEye Action, Dkt. No. 25) seeking to relate the case to the then-pending Blue Coat and Websense
