New User:

-or-
Username:
Password:
Forgot your password?

Stock Market & Financial Investment News

News Breaks
July 22, 2014
08:33 EDTFNJNFinjan Holdings announces Markman Hearing set for August 22
Finjan Holdings announced an update on its lawsuit against Blue Coat Systems. Finjan Holdings' subsidiary Finjan, filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Blue Coat on August 28, 2013. In accordance with the local patent rules of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, a Claim Construction or "Markman" Hearing is set for August 22. The Markman hearing is an important pre-trial event in a patent lawsuit, wherein the Court will construe the asserted patent claims after consideration of the parties' evidence.
News For FNJN From The Last 14 Days
Check below for free stories on FNJN the last two weeks.
Sign up for a free trial to see the rest of the stories you've been missing.
September 15, 2014
18:25 EDTFNJNFinjan Holdings provides update on Federal Circuit Ruling in patent case
Finjan Holdings (FNJN) provides an update on the case Finjan, Inc. v. Symantec Corp. (SYMC), Websense (WBSN), Inc., Sophos. This patent infringement suit dates back to a legacy litigation filed on July 12, 2010, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware against Symantec Corp., Websense, Inc., Sophos Inc., et al. During this time, two of the five defendants settled; for the three remaining defendants, Websense, Inc., Sophos Inc., and Symantec Corp., the verdict resulted in a finding of invalidity of certain asserted claims of Finjan's patents, U.S. Patent Nos. 6,092,194 and 6,480,962, and non-infringement of same, against the three parties. Finjan's Appeal Brief was filed on December 10, 2013, and the Oral Argument was heard on September 9, 2014. The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued a decision, affirming the District Court's prior ruling with no opinion, citing Federal Circuit Rule 36. Rule 36 findings by the Court do not provide any additional insight or context into the Court's decision in the case. This CAFC ruling was the most recent outcome in the process to reverse the lower Court's finding of invalidity on claims in the two patents. The two patents in question are not at issue in any of six currently pending cases in the Northern District of California, including three separate actions involving the three remaining parties in the appeal, noted previously. "While we are disappointed with the Panel's finding, we continue to believe in the Court's ability to adjudicate complicated issues in patent cases," commented Julie Mar-Spinola, VP Legal Operations of Finjan. "The two patents in question represent a small number – two of twenty –currently involved in our licensing and enforcement program related to Finjan's pioneering cybersecurity related technologies." Finjan has also filed patent infringement lawsuits against FireEye, Inc., Blue Coat, Inc., Websense, Inc., Sophos Inc. and Symantec Corp. relating to, collectively, more than 20 patents in the Finjan portfolio. The company will continue to provide timely updates of important events relating to these matters on an on-going basis.
September 11, 2014
07:16 EDTFNJNSeeThruEquity to hold a conference
Subscribe for More Information
September 4, 2014
16:35 EDTFNJNFinjan provides litigation update, Proofpoint motion to stay denied
Finjan Holdings provides an update on the case Finjan (FNJN) v. Proofpoint (PFPT) et al., Case No. 5:13-cv-05808-BLF. The Honorable Beth Labson Freeman denied Proofpoint's Motion to Stay the Case pending the completion of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office's reexamination of claims in two of eight patents-in-suit representing only 10% of the Claims in question. The Court declined to issue a Stay by concluding it "…would unnecessarily delay this litigation and unduly prejudice the interests of [Finjan]." The current matter with Proofpoint is expected to continue with the Court's previously determined calendar including a Markman hearing, which is scheduled for May 8, 2015 and trial, which is set to begin January 11, 2016.According to Julie Mar-Spinola, VP, Legal Operations of Finjan, "The Court's denial of Proofpoint's Motion to Stay clears the way for the parties to prove their respective claims against the other expeditiously and on the merits, which we believe is fair for all parties concerned."

Sign up for a free trial to see the rest of the stories you've been missing.

I agree to the theflyonthewall.com disclaimer & terms of use