LITIGATION, CLAIMS AND ASSESSMENTS	3 Months Ended
Mar. 31, 2016
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
LITIGATION, CLAIMS AND ASSESSMENTS	LITIGATION, CLAIMS AND ASSESSMENTS A. United States District Court Actions Finjan, Inc. v. FireEye, Inc., 4:13-cv-03133SBA, (N.D. Cal): Finjan filed a patent infringement lawsuit against FireEye, Inc. in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on July 8, 2013, asserting that FireEye, Inc. is directly and indirectly infringing certain claims of Finjan’s U.S. Patent Nos. 6,804,780, 7,058,822, 7,647,633, 7,975,305, 8,079,086, and 8,225,408, through the manufacture, use, importation, sale, and/or offer for sale of its products and services, including but not limited to FireEye’s Threat Protection Platform, including the FireEye Malware Protection System, the FireEye Dynamic Threat Intelligence, and the FireEye Central Management System. Finjan amended its Complaint on August 16, 2013, to add U.S. Patent No. 6,154,844 to the list of asserted patents. The principal parties in this proceeding are Finjan, Inc. and FireEye, Inc. Finjan seeks entry of judgment that FireEye, Inc. has infringed, is infringing, and has induced infringement of the above-listed patents, a preliminary and permanent injunction from infringing, or inducing the infringement of the above-listed patents, an accounting of all infringing sales and revenues, damages of no less than a reasonable royalty and consistent with proof, enhanced damages, and enhanced damages for willful infringement, costs, interest, and reasonable attorneys’ fees under 35 U.S.C. §285. FireEye, Inc. answered Finjan's Amended Complaint on September 3, 2013, by denying Finjan's allegations of infringement and counterclaiming that the asserted patents are invalid under 35 U.S.C. §§ 101, 102, 103 and/or 112. Both parties have demanded a jury trial. On June 2, 2014, the Honorable Saundra Brown Armstrong entered an Order Granting Motion to Stay Pending Reexamination of U.S. Patent Nos. 7,058,822 (“the ‘822 Patent”) and 7,647,633 (“the ‘633 Patent”). Accordingly, this action is off calendar until the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO") completes its administrative reexamination proceedings. On November 30, 2015, pursuant to the Court’s Order Granting Motion to Stay Pending Reexamination, the parties filed a joint status report regarding the status of reexamination proceedings of the ‘822 and ‘633 Patents. On October 23, 2014, an Advisory Action was issued by the USPTO in the ‘822 Patent reexamination proceedings maintaining the rejections from the final Office Action for the ‘822 Patent and indicating that Finjan’s proposed claims amendments would not be entered. On December 8, 2014, Finjan: (1) filed a petition to the Director of the Central Reexamination Unit (CRU) under 37 CFR 1.181 challenging the Examiner’s failure to enter the amendments for the ‘822 Patent and requesting entry; and (2) a notice of appeal to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board ("PTAB"). Finjan filed its appeal brief on February 8, 2015, and the Appeal was docketed at the PTAB and assigned Appeal No. 2015-006304. An oral hearing before the PTAB took place on November 3, 2015. On December 30, 2015, the PTAB issued a decision reversing the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-8 and 16-27 of the ‘822 Patent and on February 16, 2016, the patent received an Ex Parte Reexamination Certificate numbered 10815 with no changes from the original patented claims. On May 22, 2015, a final Office Action for the ‘633 Patent was issued, and Finjan filed a Notice of Appeal on May 22, 2015. On August 24, 2015, Finjan filed its appeal brief, appealing the rejections of claims 1-7, 28-33 and 42-52. An Examiner’s Answer was received on December 18, 2016. Finjan filed a Reply Brief and a Request for Oral Hearing on February 18, 2016. The appeal of the ‘633 Patent is assigned Appeal No. 2016-004279. There can be no assurance that Finjan will be successful in settling or litigating these claims. Finjan, Inc. v. Blue Coat Systems, Inc., Case 5:13-cv-03999-BLF, (N.D. Cal.): Finjan filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Blue Coat Systems, Inc., in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on August 28, 2013, asserting that Blue Coat is directly and indirectly infringing certain claims of Finjan’s U.S. Patent Nos. 6,154,844, 6,804,780, 6,965,968, 7,058,822, 7,418,731, and 7,647,333 patents. The principal parties in this proceeding are Finjan and Blue Coat. This action is before the Honorable Judge Beth Labson Freeman. The Court held a claim construction, or Markman Hearing, for this matter on August 22, 2014. The Court entered its Markman Order entitled “Order Construing Claims in U.S. Patent Nos. 6,154,844, 7,058,822, 7,418,731, and 7,647,633, on October 20, 2014, which is available on PACER (www.pacer.gov), as Docket No. 118. Trial for this action took place from July 20, 2015 through August 4, 2015. On August 4, 2015, the jury returned a unanimous verdict that each of the Finjan asserted patents are valid and enforceable. Further, the jury returned a unanimous verdict that Finjan’s U.S. Patent Nos. 6,154,844, 6,804,780, 6,965,968, and 7,418,731 were literally infringed by Blue Coat, and that U.S. Patent No. 7,647,633 was infringed by Blue Coat under the Doctrine of Equivalents. Upon the findings of infringement, the jury also awarded Finjan approximately $39.5 million in damages as reasonable royalties for Blue Coat's infringement. On September 9, 2015, the Court held a bench trial on non-jury legal issues, and issued findings of fact and conclusions of law on November 20, 2015. On November 20, 2015, the Court entered Judgment in favor of Finjan. On January 29, 2016, the Court taxed costs against Blue Coat. A hearing for the parties’ post-trial motions is scheduled for April 28, 2016. Finjan has not received any revenue from Blue Coat with respect to this lawsuit. There can be no assurance that Finjan will be successful in collecting the full amount of the jury award or otherwise in settling or litigating these claims. Finjan, Inc. v. Proofpoint, and Armorize Technologies, Inc., Case 3:13-cv-05808-HSG (N.D. Cal.): Finjan filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Proofpoint, Inc. and its wholly-owned subsidiary, Armorize Technologies, Inc., in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on December 16, 2013, asserting that Proofpoint and Armorize collectively and separately are directly and indirectly infringing one or more claims of Finjan’s U.S. Patent Nos. 6,154,844, 7,058,822, 7,613,918, 7,647,633, 7,975,305, 8,079,086, 8,141,154, and 8,225,408, through the manufacture, use, importation, sale, and/or offer for sale of its products and services, including but not limited to Proofpoint Enterprise Protection, Proofpoint’s Malvertising Protection, Proofpoint’s SafeImpressions, Proofpoint’s Targeted Attack Protection, Proofpoint Essentials, Proofpoint Protection Server, Proofpoint Messaging Security Gateway, HackAlert Anti-Malware, Codesecure, SmartWAF, Safelmpressions, and Malvertising Protection. The principal parties in this proceeding are Finjan, Proofpoint, and Armorize. Finjan seeks entry of judgment that Proofpoint and Armorize have infringed and are infringing the above-listed patents, a judgment that they have induced infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,154,844, 7,058,822, 7,613,918, 7,647,633, 7,975,305, 8,079,086, and 8,225,408, a preliminary and permanent injunction from infringing, or inducing the infringement of the same patents, an accounting of all infringing sales and revenues, damages of no less than a reasonable royalty and consistent with proof, enhanced damages, and costs, interest, and reasonable attorneys’ fees under 35 U.S.C. §285. This matter is assigned to the Honorable Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr., United States District Judge. A claim construction or Markman Hearing was heard on June 24, 2015, and the Court issued a Claim Construction Order on December 3, 2015. On April 12, 2016, the Court granted-in-part and denied-in-part each party’s motion for summary judgment, denying the parties’ motions for summary judgment of infringement and non-infringement for the ‘844, ‘822, ‘633, ‘408, and ‘086 Patents, and finding non-infringement of the ‘154 and ‘918 Patents. The Court also granted Finjan’s motion for summary judgment that Defendants did not have sufficient evidence that the ‘918 Patent was invalid, and denied all other motions for summary judgment that were filed by the parties with respect to validity. The Court also granted Defendants’ motion for summary judgment as to the priority date of the ‘822 patent, and denied all other motions for summary judgment regarding priority or invention date. A pretrial conference is scheduled for May 24, 2016, and a trial date is scheduled for June 13, 2016. There can be no assurance that Finjan will be successful in settling or litigating these claims. Finjan, Inc. v. Sophos Inc., Case 3:14-cv-01197-WHO (N.D. Cal.): Finjan filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Sophos Inc. in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on March 14, 2014, asserting that Sophos is directly and indirectly infringing certain claims of Finjan’s U.S. Patent Nos. 6,154,844, 6,804,780, 7,613,918, 7,613,926, 7,757,289, and 8,141,154. Finjan amended the Complaint on April 8, 2014, to add U.S. Patent Nos. 8,677,494 and 8,566,580 to the list of asserted patents. Finjan asserts infringement against Sophos through the manufacture, use, importation, sale, and/or offer for sale of its products and services, including but not limited to End User Protection Suites, Endpoint Antivirus, Endpoint Antivirus - Cloud, Sophos Cloud, Unified Threat Management, Next-Gen Firewall, Secure Web Gateway, Secure Email Gateway, Web Application Firewall, Network Storage Antivirus, Virtualization Security, SharePoint Security, Secure VPN, Secure Wi-Fi and Server Security. The principal parties in this proceeding are Finjan and Sophos. This action is before the Honorable William H. Orrick. Finjan seeks entry of judgment that Sophos has infringed and is infringing the above-listed patents, a judgment that Sophos has induced infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,804,780, 7,613,918, 7,613,926, 7,757,289, 6,154,844, and 8,667,494, a judgment that Sophos has contributorily infringed U.S. Patent No. 8,566,580, a preliminary and permanent injunction from infringing, inducing, or contributorily infringing the same patents, an accounting of all infringing sales and revenues, damages of no less than a reasonable royalty and consistent with proof, enhanced damages, costs, interest, and reasonable attorneys’ fees under 35 U.S.C. §285. Sophos filed its Answer to Finjan’s First Amended Complaint on May 9, 2014. Both parties demanded a jury trial. Sophos filed its Amended Answer to the Complaint on May 30, 2014. Mediation pursuant to the Court's ADR Program occurred on January 13, 2015 and it has not yet resulted in resolution between the parties. Further, a Technology Tutorial took place in this matter on February 9, 2015. A claim construction or Markman Hearing occurred on February 13, 2015. The Court entered its Markman Order entitled “Claim Construction Order” on March 2, 2015, which is available on PACER (www.pacer.gov), as Docket No. 73. On April 9, 2015, Finjan filed a Second Amended Complaint that included a certificate of correction for the ‘154 Patent. On November 17, 2015, Finjan filed a Third Amended Complaint to add claims of Sophos’s willful infringement. Sophos filed an Answer to Finjan’s Third Amended Complaint on December 4, 2015. Currently, a pretrial conference is scheduled for August 8, 2016, and a trial date is scheduled for September 6, 2016. There can be no assurance that Finjan will be successful in settling or litigating these claims. Finjan, Inc. v. Symantec Corporation., Case 3:14-cv-02998-HSG (N.D. Cal.): Finjan filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Symantec Corporation in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on June 30, 2014, asserting that Symantec is directly and indirectly infringing certain claims of Finjan’s U.S. Patent Nos. 7,756,996, 7,757,289, 7,930,299, 8,015,182, and 8,141,154, through the manufacture, use, importation, sale, and/or offer for sale of certain products and services. Finjan amended the Complaint on September 11, 2014 to add U.S. Patent Nos. 6,154,844, 7,613,926 and 8,677,494 (collectively the "asserted patents"). The accused products and services include Symantec Endpoint Protection, Symantec Endpoint Protection Small Business Edition, Network Access Control, Norton Internet Security, Norton Anti-Virus, Norton 360, Safe-Web Lite, Norton Safe Web, Messaging Gateway, Messaging Gateway for Service Providers, Messaging Gateway Small Business Edition Managed Security Services-Advance Threat Protection, Advanced Threat Protection Solution, Symantec Protection Engine for Cloud Services, Symantec Protection Engine for Network Attached Storage, Symantec Mail Security for Domino, Symantec Mail Security for Microsoft Exchange, Symantec Scan Engine for Windows, Web Security.cloud, Email Security.cloud, AntiVirus/Filtering for Domino, AntiVirus for Linux, Mail Security for SMTP, Scan Engine for Linux/Solaris, AntiVirus for Caching/Messaging/NAS for Linux/Solaris, Protection Engine for Linux/Solaris, AntiVirus for Caching/Messaging/NAS for Windows, Web Gateway and Norton Security. The principal parties in this proceeding are Finjan and Symantec. Finjan seeks entry of judgment that Symantec has infringed and is infringing the asserted patents, has contributorily infringed and is contributorily infringing U.S. Patent No. 8,015,182, and has induced infringement, and/or is inducing infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,154,844, 7,613,926, 7,756,996, 7,757,289, 7,930,299, and 8,677,494, a preliminary and permanent injunction from infringing, contributorily infringing, or inducing the infringement of the same patents, an accounting of all infringing sales and revenues, damages of no less than a reasonable royalty and consistent with proof, enhanced damages, and enhanced damages for willful infringement, costs, interest, and reasonable attorneys’ fees under 35 U.S.C. §285. Symantec answered the Amended Complaint on September 25, 2014, by denying Finjan’s allegations of infringement and counterclaiming that the asserted patents are invalid under 35 U.S.C. §§ 101, 102, 103 and/or 112. Symantec filed an Amended Answer on October 31, 2014, removing its Fourteenth Affirmative Defense of unenforceability. Both parties have demanded a jury trial. This matter is assigned to the Honorable Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr., United States District Judge. A claim construction or Markman Hearing was heard on June 29, 2015. On July 3, 2015, Symantec filed petitions for Inter Partes Review (“IPR”) before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) for all asserted claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 8,015,182, 8,141,154, 7,757,289, 7,930,299, and 7,756,996. On September 10, 2015, Symantec filed a total of 11 IPR petitions for all asserted claims of asserted patents. On August 20, 2015, Symantec filed a motion to stay the case pending completion of these eight IPR petitions. The motion was heard on October 1, 2015 and on October 9, 2015, the Court stayed the case pending the PTAB’s decision on whether to institute IPR of the claims that are the subject of Symantec’s petitions. On January 14, 2016, the PTAB denied institution of six IPRs of five asserted patents. On January 21, 2016, the parties filed a joint status report giving the Court an update regarding the status of the IPR petitions. On February 26, 2016 the PTAB denied institution of an additional two IPRs filed on separate patents, denying a total of eight petitions as of February 26, 2016. On March 11, 2016 the PTAB denied two more IPR's on patents against Symantec, denying a total of 10 petitions to date. On March 18, 2016, the PTAB granted institution on the 11th Petition by Symantec, relating to the ‘494 Patent (IPR2015-01892). On March 29, 2016, the parties jointly requested the Court lift the stay, and on March 30, 2016, the Court lifted the stay. On April 15, 2016, the parties jointly submitted a proposed schedule to the Court for the remainder of the case. There can be no assurance that Finjan will be successful in settling or litigating these claims. Finjan, Inc. v. Palo Alto Networks, Inc., Case 3:14-cv-04908 EMC (N.D. Cal.): Finjan filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Palo Alto Networks, Inc., in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on November 4, 2014, asserting that Palo Alto Networks is directly and indirectly infringing certain claims of Finjan’s U.S. Patent Nos. 6,804,780, 6,965,968, 7,058,822, 7,418,731, 7,613,918, 7,613,926, 7,647,633, 8,141,154, 8,225,408, and 8,677,494, through the manufacture, use, importation, sale, and/or offer for sale of its products and services, including but not limited to Next-Generation Security Platform, Next-Generation Firewall, Virtualized Firewall, WildFire Subscription, WildFire Platform, URL Filtering Subscription, Threat Prevention Subscription, and Advanced EndPoint Protection. Palo Alto Networks failed to timely respond to the Complaint and Finjan submitted an application for Entry of Default. On Palo Alto Networks’ request, Finjan stipulated to an extension of time for Palo Alto Networks to respond. The principal parties in this proceeding are Finjan and Palo Alto Networks. Finjan seeks entry of judgment that Palo Alto Networks has infringed and is infringing the above-listed patents, and has induced infringement and is inducing infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,804,780, 6,965,968, 7,058,822, 7,418,731, 7613,918, 7,613,926, 7,647,633, 8,141,154, 8,225,408, and 8,677,494, a preliminary and permanent injunction from infringing, or inducing the infringement the same patents, an accounting of all infringing sales and revenues, damages of no less than a reasonable royalty consistent with proof, and enhanced damages for willful infringement, costs, interest, and reasonable attorneys’ fees under 35 U.S.C. §285. Palo Alto Networks filed its Answer and Counterclaims on December 31, 2015, by denying Finjan's allegations of infringement and counterclaiming that the asserted patents are invalid under 35 U.S.C. §§ 101, 102, 103 and/or 112. Both parties have demanded a jury trial. On October 8, 2015, the Honorable Edward M. Chen recused himself from the case and requested the case be reassigned to another judge. Also on October 8, 2015, the case was reassigned to the Honorable Phyllis J. Hamilton in the Oakland division of the District Court for the Northern District of California. On September 25, 2015, Palo Alto Networks filed a petition for IPR before the PTAB of U.S. Patent No. 8,141,154. On September 30, 2015, Palo Alto Networks filed petitions for IPR of U.S. Patent Nos. 7,058,822, 7,418,731, 7,647,633 and 8,225,408. On November 4, 2015, Palo Alto Networks filed a IPR petition of U.S. Patent Nos. 7,613,926. On November 5, 2015, Palo Alto Networks filed IPR petitions of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,965,968 and 8,141,154. On November 6, 2015, Palo Alto Networks filed IPR petitions of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,804,780, 7,613,918, 8,225,408 and 8,667,494. On December 10, 2015, the matter was stayed pending a decision by the PTAB on whether to institute IPR of Finjan's claims of its ten patents asserted against Palo Alto Networks. On March 21, 2016, the PTAB instituted trial on claims 1-8, 10 and 11 of the ‘154 Patent. On March 29, 2016, the PTAB instituted trial on the ‘408 Patent, claims 14 and 19 of the ‘633 Patent, and denied institution of trial on all other challenged claims of the ‘633 Patent, and all challenged claims of the ‘822 Patent and the ‘731 Patent. The parties will file a joint status report with the District Court concerning whether to continue or lift the stay within seven (7) days of the PTAB’s last decision regarding whether to institute trial on the IPR requests that Palo Alto Networks has filed. There can be no assurance that Finjan will be successful in settling or litigating these claims. Finjan, Inc. v. Blue Coat Systems, Inc., Case 5:15-cv-03295-BLF (N.D. Cal.): Finjan filed a second patent infringement lawsuit against Blue Coat Systems, Inc. in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on July 15, 2015, asserting that Blue Coat is directly infringing certain claims of Finjan’s U.S. Patent Nos. 6,154,844, 6,965,968, 7,418,731, 8,079,086, 8,225,408, 8,677,494, and 8,566,580, through the manufacture, use, importation, sale, and/or offer for sale of its products and services, including but not limited to the Web Security Service, WebPulse Cloud Service, ProxySG Appliances and Software, Blue Coat Systems SV2800 and SV3800, Malware Analysis Appliances and Software, Security Analytics Platform, Content Analysis System, and Mail Threat Defense, S400-10 and S400-20. Finjan seeks entry of judgment that Blue Coat has infringed and is infringing the above-listed patents, a preliminary and permanent injunction from the infringement of the same patents, an accounting of all infringing sales and revenues, damages of no less than a reasonable royalty consistent with proof, and enhanced damages for willful infringement, costs, interest, and reasonable attorneys’ fees under 35 U.S.C. §285. Blue Coat filed its Answer to the Complaint with Jury Demand and Counterclaim with Jury Demand against Finjan on September 8, 2015. On September 29, 2015, Finjan filed its Answer to Blue Coat’s Counterclaim. This second Blue Coat action is also assigned to the Honorable Beth Labson Freeman. A Case Management Conference (CMC) was held on December 17, 2015. Blue Coat filed a Motion to Stay the case pending final resolution of Case 5:13-cv-03999-BLF, and Motions for Joinder of several Petitions for IPR on five of seven asserted patents, and Ex Parte Reexamination requests for two asserted patents, filed previously by other defendants. A claim construction tutorial is scheduled for December 2, 2016, and a claim construction hearing is scheduled for December 9, 2016. A pretrial conference is scheduled for October 5, 2017, and trial is scheduled for October 30, 2017. On March 1, 2016 Finjan filed an amended Complaint to add existing Finjan patent 9,141,786 and two newly issued Finjan patents 9,189,621 (issued November 17, 2015) and 9,219,755 (issued December 22, 2015). On March 18, 2016, Blue Coat filed its Answer to the Amended Complaint and Counterclaims with Jury Demand. On April 8, 2016, Finjan filed its Answer to Blue Coat’s Counterclaims. There can be no assurance that Finjan will be successful in settling or litigating these claims. B. Proceedings before the United States Patent & Trademark Office (USPTO) Ex Parte Reexamination Proceedings: As defined by the USPTO, an Ex Parte Reexamination is a “proceeding in which any person may request reexamination of a U.S. Patent based on one or more prior patents or printed publications. A requester who is not the patent owner has limited participation rights in the proceedings.” U.S. Patent No. 8,079,086 (Assignee, Finjan, Inc.): A first third-party request for Ex Parte Reexamination of U.S. Patent No. 8,079,086 was filed on October 7, 2013, on behalf of FireEye, Inc. and assigned Reexamination Control Number 90/013,015. The USPTO denied FireEye’s request on November 19, 2013, and the reexamination proceedings terminated on January 14, 2014. A second third-party request by FireEye, Inc., for Ex Parte Reexamination of U.S. Patent No. 8,079,086 was filed on February 7, 2014, and assigned Reexamination Control Number 90/013,147. The USPTO denied FireEye’s second request on March 27, 2014, and the reexamination proceedings terminated on April 29, 2014. A third third-party request for Ex Parte Reexamination of Claims 17 and 24 of U.S. Patent No. 8,079,086 was filed on December 9, 2015 by Proofpoint, Inc. and assigned Reexamination Control Number 90/013,654. The reexamination request was partially granted on February 2, 2016. Requester’s petitioned the Director to reconsider the partial denial and the petition was granted on March 21, 2016. The case is currently awaiting USPTO action. There can be no assurance that Finjan will be successful in rebutting the patentability challenge before the USPTO. U.S. Patent No. 7,975,305 (Assignee, Finjan, Inc.): A third-party request for Ex Parte Reexamination of Claims 1, 2, 5 and 13 of U.S. Patent No. 7,975,305 was filed on December 11, 2015 by Proofpoint, Inc. and assigned Reexamination Control Number 90/013,660. The request for reexamination was granted on January 19, 2016 and a non-final Office Action was mailed on April 12, 2016. There can be no assurance that Finjan will be successful in rebutting the patentability challenge before the USPTO. U.S. Patent No. 7,647,633 (Assignee, Finjan, Inc.): A third-party request for Ex Parte Reexamination of Claims 1-7 and 28-33 of U.S. Patent No. 7,647,633 was filed on October 7, 2013, on behalf of FireEye, Inc. and assigned Reexamination Control Number 90/013,016. The request for reexamination was granted and a non-final Office Action was mailed November 19, 2013. The non-final Office Action included rejections of Claims 1-7 and 28-33 under various prior art (including previously considered and disclosed prior art) under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and/or 103. An in-person Examiner interview was conducted at the USPTO on February 4, 2014, and a timely response to non-final Office Action was filed on February 19, 2014. The response to non-final Office Action included arguments and a supporting declaration by Finjan showing commercial success, industry praise, and copying by others of products covered by pending claims; a declaration by a technology expert rebutting improper technical interpretations of the prior art and the invention; and additional new claims for consideration. Additionally, a renewed petition to accept an unintentionally delayed priority claim was also submitted and the petition was granted on January 23, 2015. An updated filing receipt reflecting the priority claim was issued. A final Office Action was issued May 22, 2015, and a Notice of Appeal was filed by Finjan on May 22, 2015. Finjan’s appeal brief was filed August 24, 2015, appealing the rejections of Claims 1-7, 28-33 and 42-52. An Examiner’s Answer was received on December 18, 2015. Finjan filed its Reply Brief requesting reversal of the rejections and a Request for Oral Hearing February 18, 2016. There can be no assurance that Finjan will be successful in rebutting the patentability challenge to Claims 1-7 and 28-33 (original claims) or added Claims 42-52 before the USPTO. A second third-party request for Ex Parte Reexamination of Claims 8 and 12 of U.S. Patent No. 7,647,633 was filed on December 9, 2015 by Proofpoint, Inc. and assigned Reexamination Control Number 90/013,652. The reexamination request was granted on February 3, 2016 and is currently awaiting USPTO action. There can be no assurance that Finjan will be successful in rebutting the patentability challenge before the USPTO. U.S. Patent No. 7,058,822 (Assignee, Finjan, Inc.): A third-party request for Ex Parte Reexamination of Claims 1-8 and 16-27 of U.S. Patent No. 7,058,822 was filed on October 7, 2013, on behalf of FireEye, Inc. and assigned Reexamination Control Number 90/013,017. The request for reexamination was granted and a non-final Office Action was mailed December 6, 2013. The non-final Office Action included rejections of Claims 1-8 and 16-27 under various prior art (including previously considered and disclosed prior art) under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and/or 103. An in-person Examiner interview was conducted at the USPTO on February 4, 2014, and a timely response to non-final Office Action was filed on March 6, 2014. A final Office Action was mailed on September 8, 2014 and a response thereto was filed on October 8, 2014, which included proposed claims amendments and arguments rebutting the various prior rejections. On October 23, 2014, an Advisory Action was issued by the Patent Office maintaining the rejections from the final Office Action and indicating that Finjan’s proposed claims amendments would not be entered. On December 8, 2014, Finjan: (1) filed a petition to the Director of the Central Reexamination Unit (CRU) under 37 CFR 1.181 challenging the Examiner’s failure to enter the amendments and requesting entry; and (2) a notice of appeal to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Finjan filed an appeal brief on February 8, 2015. The Examiner filed a brief on March 30, 2015. Finjan filed a Reply Brief and a Request for Oral Hearing on June 1, 2015, and the Appeal was docketed at the PTAB and assigned Appeal No. 2015-006304. An oral hearing before the PTAB took place on November 3, 2015. On December 30, 2015, the PTAB issue a decision reversing the Examiner’s rejection of Claims 1-8 and 16-27 and new claims 37 and 40 added during prosecution of the reexamination. On February 16, 2016, an Ex Parte Reexamination Certificate (Certificate No. US 7,058,822 C1) was issued to Finjan by the USPTO. Finjan was granted U.S. Patent No. 9,141,786 containing additional claims on September 22, 2015. A Track 1 (accelerated examination) continuation application was filed on November 16, 2015, seeking yet additional claim coverage. U.S. Patent No. 6,154,844 (Assignee, Finjan, Inc.): A third-party request for ex parte reexamination of claims 32 and 42 of U.S. Patent No. 6,154,844 was filed on December 9, 2015 by Proofpoint, Inc. and assigned Reexamination Control Number 90/013,653. The request for reexamination was granted on January 13, 2016. On March 30, 2016, the Patent Office terminated the reexamination and mailed a Notice of Intent to Issue a Reexamination Certificate. Inter Partes Reexamination Proceedings: As defined by the USPTO, an Inter Partes Reexamination is a “proceeding in which any person who is not the patent owner and is not otherwise estopped may request examination of a U.S. Patent issued from an original application filed on or after November 29, 1999, based on one or more prior patents or printed publications. Both patent owner and third party requester have participation rights throughout the proceeding, including appeal rights.” Effective September 16, 2012, the American Invents Act (AIA) replaced Inter Partes Reexaminations with proceedings referred to as post-grant review and Inter Partes Review (IPR). Post-grant proceedings are generally available immediately after patent issuance. For patents filed under the pre-AIA first to invent rules (i.e., applications filed prior to March 16, 2013, IPRs can be initiated immediately following issuance of patent. For patents examined under the AIA first-to-file rules (i.e., applications filed on or after March 16, 2013), IPRs can be initiated after the nine-month window of eligibility for post-grant review. U.S. Patent No. 6,480,962 (Assignee, Finjan, Inc.): A third-party request for Inter Partes Reexamination of all Claims 1-55 of U.S. Patent No. 6,480,962 was filed on November 29, 2011, on behalf of Symantec Corporation, and assigned Reexamination Control Number 95/001,836. The request for reexamination was granted and a non-final Office Action was mailed January 25, 2012. The non-final Office Action included rejections of claims 1-55 under numerous prior art references and combinations of such references (including previously considered and disclosed prior art) under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and/or 103. Finjan filed a response to non-final Office Action and the USPTO mailed an Action Closing Prosecution (ACP) on October 2, 2013. Finjan responded to the ACP on December 2, 2013, which included proposed claim amendments for consideration. Symantec responded on January 2, 2014. On June 27, 2014, the USPTO stated that the proposed claim amendments would not be entered and issued a Right of Appeal Notice. On July 1, 2014, Finjan filed a Notice of Appeal of the rejection of Claims 1-55 followed by an Appeal Brief on September 2, 2014. The Requester Symantec filed a respondent brief on October 2, 2014. The Examiner filed a brief on March 25, 2015. Finjan filed a Rebuttal Brief on April 27, 2015 and a Request for Oral Hearing on May 26, 2015. The Rebuttal Brief maintained Finjan’s request to review the rejections of Claims 2-4, 7-11, 13-14, 16-20, 22-32, 34-36, 39-44, 46-51, 53 and 54. Claims 1, 5, 6, 12, 15, 21, 33, 37, 38, 45, 52 and 55 were withdrawn from appeal in view the final invalidity decision issued on September 15, 2014 by the Federal Circuit. The Appeal was forwarded to the PTAB in accordance with the Notice mailed June 2, 2015. Finjan also sought examination of additional claims through multiple Track I expedited continuation applications. Finjan was granted U.S. Patent Nos. 9,189,621 and 9,291,755 containing those additional claims on November 17, 2015 and December 22, 2015, respectively. Oral argument was heard on February 17, 1016. On February 29, 2016, the PTAB issued a decision affirming the rejections of the Examiner. On March 29, 2016, Finjan filed a request for rehearing regarding the rejection of claims 22-32 and 46. There can be no assurance that Finjan will be successful in rebutting the patentability challenge to Claims 22-32 and 46 before the USPTO. Inter Partes Review Proceedings: As defined by the USPTO, Inter Partes Review (IPR) is a trial proceeding conducted at the Patent and Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB or Board) to review the patentability of one or more claims in a patent only on a ground that could be raised under §§ 102 or 103, and only on the basis of prior art consisting of patents or printed publications. For first-inventor-to-file patents IPR process begins with a third party (a person who is not the owner of the patent) filing a petition after the later of either: (1) nine months after the grant of the patent or issuance of a reissue patent; or (2) if a post grant review is instituted, the termination of the post grant review. These deadlines do not apply to first-to-invent patents. The patent owner may file a preliminary response to the petition. An IPR may be instituted upon a showing that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least one claim challenged. If the proceeding is instituted and not dismissed, a final determination by the Board will be issued within one year (extendable for good cause by six months). The procedure for conducting IPR took effect on September 16, 2012, and applies to any patent issued before, on, or after September 16, 2012. U.S. Patent No. 7,613,926 (the “’926 Patent”) On March 19, 2015, Sophos, Inc. filed a petition for IPR of U.S. Patent No. 7,613,926 (IPR2015-00907). Finjan filed a Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response (POPR) to the petition on June 26, 2015. The PTAB denied Sophos’ petition to institute the IPR proceeding on the ‘926 Patent on September 24, 2015. On October 26, 2015, Sophos filed a Request for Rehearing, and on December 4, 2015, the PTAB denied Sophos’ Request for Rehearing. U.S. Patent No. 8,677,494 (the “’494 Patent”) On April 8, 2015, Sophos, Inc. filed a petition for IPR of U.S. Patent No. 8,677,494 (IPR2015-01022). Finjan filed a POPR to the petition on July 15, 2015. The PTAB denied Sophos’ petition to institute the IPR proceeding on the ‘494 Patent on September 24, 2015. On October 26, 2015, Sophos filed a Request for Rehearing, and on January 28, 2016, the PTAB denied Sophos’ Request for Rehearing. U.S. Patent No. 7,756,996 (the “’996 Patent”) On July 3, 2015, Symantec Corporation filed two (2) separate petitions for IPR of U.S. Patent No. 7,756,996 (IPR2015-01545/01546). Finjan filed POPRs to the petitions October 19, 2015. The PTAB denied both of Symantec’s petitions to institute IPR proceedings on the ‘996 Patent on January 14, 2016. On February 16, 2016, Symantec filed a Request for Rehearing, and on February 25, 2016, the PTAB denied Symantec’s Request for Rehearing. U.S. Patent No. 7,757,289 (the “’289 Patent”) On July 3, 2015, Symantec Corporation filed a petition for IPR of U.S. Patent No. 7,757,289 (IPR2015-01552). Finjan filed a POPR to the petition on October 19, 2015. The PTAB denied Symantec’s petition to institute IPR proceedings on the ‘289 Patent on January 14, 2016. U.S. Patent No. 7,930,299 (the “’299 Patent”) On July 3, 2015, Symantec Corporation filed a petition for IPR of U.S. Patent No. 7,930,299 (IPR2015-01549). Finjan filed a POPR to the petition October 20, 2015. The PTAB denied Symantec’s petition to institute IPR proceedings on the ‘299 Patent on January 14, 2016. U.S. Patent No. 8,015,182 (the “’182 Patent”) On July 3, 2015, Symantec Corporation filed a petition for IPR of U.S. Patent No. 8,015,182 (IPR2015-01548). Finjan filed a POPR to the petition on October 20, 2015. The PTAB denied Symantec’s petition to institute IPR proceedings on the ‘182 Patent on January 14, 2016. U.S. Patent No. 8,141,154 (the “’154 Patent”) On July 3, 2015 and April 19, 2016, Symantec Corporation filed two (2) separate petitions for IPR of U.S. Patent No. 8,141,154 (IPR2015-01547; IPR2016-00919). Finjan filed a POPR to the petition in IPR2015-01547 on October 19, 2015. The PTAB denied Symantec’s petition to institute IPR proceedings in IPR2015-01547 on January 14, 2016. With respect to IPR2016-00919 on the ‘154 Patent, the PTAB’s decision is pending. U.S. Patent No. 8,677,494 (the “’494 Patent”) On September 10, 2015, Symantec Corporation filed two (2) separate petitions for IPR of U.S. Patent No. 8,677,494 (IPR2015-01892/01897). Finjan filed POPRs to the petitions on December 28, 2015. With respect to IPR 2015-01897, the PTAB denied institution of IPR proceedings on the ‘494 Patent on February 26, 2016. On March 18, 2016, the PTAB granted institution of IPR proceedings on the ‘494 Patent (IPR2015-01892). On April 1, 2016, Finjan filed a partial request for rehearing. U.S. Patent No. 6,154,844 (the “’844 Patent”) On September 10, 2015, Symantec Corporation filed a petition for IPR of U.S. Patent No. 6,154,844 (IPR2015-01894). Finjan filed a POPR to the petition on December 17, 2015. The PTAB denied institution of IPR proceedings on the ‘844 Patent on March 11, 2016. U.S. Patent No. 7,613,926 (the “’926 Patent”) On September 10, 2015, Symantec Corporation filed two (2) separate petitions for IPR of U.S. Patent No. 7,613,926 (IPR2015-01893/01895). Finjan filed POPRs to the petitions on December 17, 2015. With respect to IPR2015-01895, the PTAB denied institution of IPR proceedings on the ‘926 Patent on February 26, 1016. With respect to IPR2015-01893, the PTAB denied institution of IPR proceedings on the ‘926 Patent on March 11, 2016. U.S. Patent No. 8,141,154 (the “’154 Patent”) On September 25, 2015 and November 5, 2015, Palo Alto Networks Inc. filed two (2) separate petitions for IPR of U.S. Patent No. 8,141,154 and a Motion for Joinder to Symantec’s Petition for IPR of the ‘154 Patent (IPR2015-01547). (IPR2015-01979; IPR2016-00151). Finjan filed a POPR to the first petition in IPR2015-01979 on December 29, 2015. With respect to IPR2015-01979, the PTAB granted institution of IPR proceedings on the ‘154 Patent on March 21, 2016. On April 5, 2016, Finjan filed a partial request for rehearing, and on April 19, 2016, the PTAB denied Finjan’s partial request for rehearing. With respect to IPR2016-00151 on the ‘154 Patent, Finjan filed a POPR on February 17, 2016, and on April 20, 2016, the PTAB instituted trial on claims 1-8, 10, and 11, denied institution on the remaining claims and denied Palo Alto Network’s Motion for Joinder. U.S. Patent No. 7,647,633 (the “’633 Patent”) On September 30, 2015, Palo Alto Networks, Inc. filed a petition for IPR of U.S. Patent No. 7,647,633 (IPR2015-01974). Finjan filed a POPR to the petition on January 7, 2016. On March 29, 2016, the PTAB granted institution of IPR proceedings with respect to claims 14 and 19 of the ‘633 Patent, and denied institution with respect to all other challenged claims. On April 12, 2016, Palo Alto Networks filed a request for rehearing. U.S. Patent No. 7,058,822 (the “’822 Patent”) On September 30, 2015, Palo Alto Networks Inc. filed a petition for IPR of United States Patent No. 7,058,822 (IPR2015-01999). Finjan filed a POPR to the petition on January 6, 2016. The PTAB denied institution of IPR proceedings on the ‘822 Patent on March 29, 2016. U.S. Patent No. 7,418,731 (the “’731 Patent”) On September 30, 2015, Palo Alto Networks Inc. filed a petition for IPR of United States Patent No. 7,418,731 (IPR2015-02000). Finjan filed a POPR to the petition on January 8, 2016. The PTAB denied institution of IPR proceedings on the ‘731 Patent on March 23, 2016. U.S. Patent No. 8,225,408 (the “’408 Patent”) On September 30, 2015 and November 6, 2015, Palo Alto Networks Inc. filed two (2) separate petitions for IPRs of United States Patent No. 8,225,408 (IPR2015-02001; IPR2016-00157). Finjan filed POPRs to the petitions on January 6, 2016, and February 17, 2016 respectively. On March 29, 2016, the PTAB granted institution of IPR proceedings in IPR2015-02001 and IPR2016-00157. On April 12, 2016, Finjan filed requests for rehearing. U.S. Patent No. 7,613,926 (the “’926 Patent”) On November 4, 2015, Palo Alto Networks Inc. filed a petition for IPR of United States Patent No. 7,613,926 (IPR 2016-00145). Finjan filed a POPR to the petition on February 17, 2016. The PTAB’s decisions on the petitions are pending. U.S. Patent No. 6,965,968 (the “’968 Patent”) On November 5, 2015, Palo Alto Networks Inc. filed two (2) separate petitions for IPRs of United States Patent No. 6,965,968 (IPR 2016-00149, IPR2016-00150). Finjan filed POPRs to the petitions on February 17, 2016. The PTAB’s decisions on the petitions are pending. U.S. Patent No. 6,804,780 (the “’780 Patent”) On November 6, 2015, Palo Alto Networks Inc. filed a petition for IPR of United States Patent No. 6,804,780 (IPR 2016-00165). Finjan filed a POPR to the petition on February 17, 2016. The PTAB’s decisions on the petitions are pending. U.S. Patent No. 7,613,918 (the “’918 Patent”) On November 6, 2015, Palo Alto Networks Inc. filed a petition for IPR of United States Patent No. 7,613,918 (IPR 2016-00164). Finjan filed a POPR to the petition on February 17, 2016. The PTAB’s decisions on the petitions are pending. U.S. Patent No. 8,677,494 (the “494 Patent”) On November 6, 2015, Palo Alto Networks Inc. filed a petition for IPR of United States Patent No. 8,677,494 (IPR 2016-00159). Finjan filed a POPR to the petition on February 17, 2016. The PTAB’s decisions on the petitions are pending. U.S. Patent No. 6,965,968 (the “’968 Patent”) On January 19, 2016, Blue Coat Systems, Inc. filed two Petitions for IPR of U.S. Patent No. 6,965,968 (“the ‘968 Patent”) (IPR2016-00478; IPR2016-00479) and a Motion for Joinder to Palo Alto Networks’ Petition for IPR of the ‘968 Patent (IPR2015-00149; IPR2015-00150). The PTAB’s decision on the Motion for Joinder and Petitions are pending. U.S. Patent No. 7,647,633 (the “’633 Patent”) On January 20, 2016, Blue Coat Systems, Inc. filed a Petition for IPR of U.S. Patent No. 7,647,633 (“the ‘633 Patent”) (IPR2016-00480) and a Motion for Joinder to Palo Alto Networks’ Petition for IPR of the ‘633 Patent (IPR2015-01974). The PTAB’s decision on the Motion for Joinder and Petition are pending. U.S. Patent No. 7,418,731 (the “’731 Patent”) On January 21, 2016, Blue Coat Systems, Inc. filed a Petition for IPR of U.S. Patent No. 7,418,731 (“the ‘731 Patent”) (IPR2016-00493) and a Motion for Joinder to Palo Alto Networks’ Petition for IPR of the ‘731 Patent (IPR2015-0200). The PTAB’s decision on the Motion and Petition are pending. U.S. Patent No. 6,804,780 (the “’780 Patent”) On January 21, 2016, Blue Coat Systems, Inc. filed a Petition for IPR of U.S. Patent No. 6,804,780 (“the ‘780 Patent”) (IPR2016-00492) and a Motion for Joinder to Palo Alto Networks’ Petition for IPR of the ‘780 Patent (IPR2016-00165). The PTAB’s decision on the Motion and Petition are pending. U.S. Patent No. 6,154,844 (the “’844 Patent”) On January 25, 2016, Blue Coat Systems, Inc. filed a Petition for IPR of U.S. Patent No. 6,154,844 (“the ‘844 Patent”) (IPR2016-00498) and a Motion for Joinder to Symantec Corp.’s Petition for IPR of the ‘844 Patent (IPR2015-01894). The PTAB’s decision on the Motion and Petition are pending. Except for the foregoing disclosures, Finjan is not presently aware of any other material pending legal proceedings, to which Finjan or any of its subsidiaries are a party or of which any of its property is the subject. Litigation, including patent litigation, is inherently subject to uncertainties. As such, there can be no assurance that Finjan will be successful in litigating and/or settling any of these claims.

LITIGATION, CLAIMS AND ASSESSMENTS

A. United States District Court Actions

Finjan, Inc. v. FireEye, Inc., 4:13-cv-03133SBA, (N.D. Cal):

Finjan filed a patent infringement lawsuit against FireEye, Inc. in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on July 8, 2013, asserting that FireEye, Inc. is directly and indirectly infringing certain claims of Finjan’s U.S. Patent Nos. 6,804,780, 7,058,822, 7,647,633, 7,975,305, 8,079,086, and 8,225,408, through the manufacture, use, importation, sale, and/or offer for sale of its products and services, including but not limited to FireEye’s Threat Protection Platform, including the FireEye Malware Protection System, the FireEye Dynamic Threat Intelligence, and the FireEye Central Management System. Finjan amended its Complaint on August 16, 2013, to add U.S. Patent No. 6,154,844 to the list of asserted patents. The principal parties in this proceeding are Finjan, Inc. and FireEye, Inc. Finjan seeks entry of judgment that FireEye, Inc. has infringed, is infringing, and has induced infringement of the above-listed patents, a preliminary and permanent injunction from infringing, or inducing the infringement of the above-listed patents, an accounting of all infringing sales and revenues, damages of no less than a reasonable royalty and consistent with proof, enhanced damages, and enhanced damages for willful infringement, costs, interest, and reasonable attorneys’ fees under 35 U.S.C. §285. FireEye, Inc. answered Finjan's Amended Complaint on September 3, 2013, by denying Finjan's allegations of infringement and counterclaiming that the asserted patents are invalid under 35 U.S.C. §§ 101, 102, 103 and/or 112. Both parties have demanded a jury trial. On June 2, 2014, the Honorable Saundra Brown Armstrong entered an Order Granting Motion to Stay Pending Reexamination of U.S. Patent Nos. 7,058,822 (“the ‘822 Patent”) and 7,647,633 (“the ‘633 Patent”). Accordingly, this action is off calendar until the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO") completes its administrative reexamination proceedings. On November 30, 2015, pursuant to the Court’s Order Granting Motion to Stay Pending Reexamination, the parties filed a joint status report regarding the status of reexamination proceedings of the ‘822 and ‘633 Patents.

On October 23, 2014, an Advisory Action was issued by the USPTO in the ‘822 Patent reexamination proceedings maintaining the rejections from the final Office Action for the ‘822 Patent and indicating that Finjan’s proposed claims amendments would not be entered. On December 8, 2014, Finjan: (1) filed a petition to the Director of the Central Reexamination Unit (CRU) under 37 CFR 1.181 challenging the Examiner’s failure to enter the amendments for the ‘822 Patent and requesting entry; and (2) a notice of appeal to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board ("PTAB"). Finjan filed its appeal brief on February 8, 2015, and the Appeal was docketed at the PTAB and assigned Appeal No. 2015-006304. An oral hearing before the PTAB took place on November 3, 2015. On December 30, 2015, the PTAB issued a decision reversing the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-8 and 16-27 of the ‘822 Patent and on February 16, 2016, the patent received an Ex Parte Reexamination Certificate numbered 10815 with no changes from the original patented claims. On May 22, 2015, a final Office Action for the ‘633 Patent was issued, and Finjan filed a Notice of Appeal on May 22, 2015. On August 24, 2015, Finjan filed its appeal brief, appealing the rejections of claims 1-7, 28-33 and 42-52. An Examiner’s Answer was received on December 18, 2016. Finjan filed a Reply Brief and a Request for Oral Hearing on February 18, 2016. The appeal of the ‘633 Patent is assigned Appeal No. 2016-004279. There can be no assurance that Finjan will be successful in settling or litigating these claims.

Finjan, Inc. v. Blue Coat Systems, Inc., Case 5:13-cv-03999-BLF, (N.D. Cal.):

Finjan filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Blue Coat Systems, Inc., in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on August 28, 2013, asserting that Blue Coat is directly and indirectly infringing certain claims of Finjan’s U.S. Patent Nos. 6,154,844, 6,804,780, 6,965,968, 7,058,822, 7,418,731, and 7,647,333 patents. The principal parties in this proceeding are Finjan and Blue Coat. This action is before the Honorable Judge Beth Labson Freeman. The Court held a claim construction, or Markman Hearing, for this matter on August 22, 2014. The Court entered its Markman Order entitled “Order Construing Claims in U.S. Patent Nos. 6,154,844, 7,058,822, 7,418,731, and 7,647,633, on October 20, 2014, which is available on PACER (www.pacer.gov), as Docket No. 118. Trial for this action took place from July 20, 2015 through August 4, 2015. On August 4, 2015, the jury returned a unanimous verdict that each of the Finjan asserted patents are valid and enforceable. Further, the jury returned a unanimous verdict that Finjan’s U.S. Patent Nos. 6,154,844, 6,804,780, 6,965,968, and 7,418,731 were literally infringed by Blue Coat, and that U.S. Patent No. 7,647,633 was infringed by Blue Coat under the Doctrine of Equivalents. Upon the findings of infringement, the jury also awarded Finjan approximately $39.5 million in damages as reasonable royalties for Blue Coat's infringement. On September 9, 2015, the Court held a bench trial on non-jury legal issues, and issued findings of fact and conclusions of law on November 20, 2015. On November 20, 2015, the Court entered Judgment in favor of Finjan. On January 29, 2016, the Court taxed costs against Blue Coat. A hearing for the parties’ post-trial motions is scheduled for April 28, 2016. Finjan has not received any revenue from Blue Coat with respect to this lawsuit. There can be no assurance that Finjan will be successful in collecting the full amount of the jury award or otherwise in settling or litigating these claims.

Finjan, Inc. v. Proofpoint, and Armorize Technologies, Inc., Case 3:13-cv-05808-HSG (N.D. Cal.):

Finjan filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Proofpoint, Inc. and its wholly-owned subsidiary, Armorize Technologies, Inc., in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on December 16, 2013, asserting that Proofpoint and Armorize collectively and separately are directly and indirectly infringing one or more claims of Finjan’s U.S. Patent Nos. 6,154,844, 7,058,822, 7,613,918, 7,647,633, 7,975,305, 8,079,086, 8,141,154, and 8,225,408, through the manufacture, use, importation, sale, and/or offer for sale of its products and services, including but not limited to Proofpoint Enterprise Protection, Proofpoint’s Malvertising Protection, Proofpoint’s SafeImpressions, Proofpoint’s Targeted Attack Protection, Proofpoint Essentials, Proofpoint Protection Server, Proofpoint Messaging Security Gateway, HackAlert Anti-Malware, Codesecure, SmartWAF, Safelmpressions, and Malvertising Protection. The principal parties in this proceeding are Finjan, Proofpoint, and Armorize. Finjan seeks entry of judgment that Proofpoint and Armorize have infringed and are infringing the above-listed patents, a judgment that they have induced infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,154,844, 7,058,822, 7,613,918, 7,647,633, 7,975,305, 8,079,086, and 8,225,408, a preliminary and permanent injunction from infringing, or inducing the infringement of the same patents, an accounting of all infringing sales and revenues, damages of no less than a reasonable royalty and consistent with proof, enhanced damages, and costs, interest, and reasonable attorneys’ fees under 35 U.S.C. §285. This matter is assigned to the Honorable Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr., United States District Judge. A claim construction or Markman Hearing was heard on June 24, 2015, and the Court issued a Claim Construction Order on December 3, 2015. On April 12, 2016, the Court granted-in-part and denied-in-part each party’s motion for summary judgment, denying the parties’ motions for summary judgment of infringement and non-infringement for the ‘844, ‘822, ‘633, ‘408, and ‘086 Patents, and finding non-infringement of the ‘154 and ‘918 Patents. The Court also granted Finjan’s motion for summary judgment that Defendants did not have sufficient evidence that the ‘918 Patent was invalid, and denied all other motions for summary judgment that were filed by the parties with respect to validity. The Court also granted Defendants’ motion for summary judgment as to the priority date of the ‘822 patent, and denied all other motions for summary judgment regarding priority or invention date. A pretrial conference is scheduled for May 24, 2016, and a trial date is scheduled for June 13, 2016. There can be no assurance that Finjan will be successful in settling or litigating these claims.

Finjan, Inc. v. Sophos Inc., Case 3:14-cv-01197-WHO (N.D. Cal.):

Finjan filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Sophos Inc. in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on March 14, 2014, asserting that Sophos is directly and indirectly infringing certain claims of Finjan’s U.S. Patent Nos. 6,154,844, 6,804,780, 7,613,918, 7,613,926, 7,757,289, and 8,141,154. Finjan amended the Complaint on April 8, 2014, to add U.S. Patent Nos. 8,677,494 and 8,566,580 to the list of asserted patents. Finjan asserts infringement against Sophos through the manufacture, use, importation, sale, and/or offer for sale of its products and services, including but not limited to End User Protection Suites, Endpoint Antivirus, Endpoint Antivirus - Cloud, Sophos Cloud, Unified Threat Management, Next-Gen Firewall, Secure Web Gateway, Secure Email Gateway, Web Application Firewall, Network Storage Antivirus, Virtualization Security, SharePoint Security, Secure VPN, Secure Wi-Fi and Server Security. The principal parties in this proceeding are Finjan and Sophos. This action is before the Honorable William H. Orrick. Finjan seeks entry of judgment that Sophos has infringed and is infringing the above-listed patents, a judgment that Sophos has induced infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,804,780, 7,613,918, 7,613,926, 7,757,289, 6,154,844, and 8,667,494, a judgment that Sophos has contributorily infringed U.S. Patent No. 8,566,580, a preliminary and permanent injunction from infringing, inducing, or contributorily infringing the same patents, an accounting of all infringing sales and revenues, damages of no less than a reasonable royalty and consistent with proof, enhanced damages, costs, interest, and reasonable attorneys’ fees under 35 U.S.C. §285. Sophos filed its Answer to Finjan’s First Amended Complaint on May 9, 2014. Both parties demanded a jury trial. Sophos filed its Amended Answer to the Complaint on May 30, 2014. Mediation pursuant to the Court's ADR Program occurred on January 13, 2015 and it has not yet resulted in resolution between the parties. Further, a Technology Tutorial took place in this matter on February 9, 2015. A claim construction or Markman Hearing occurred on February 13, 2015. The Court entered its Markman Order entitled “Claim Construction Order” on March 2, 2015, which is available on PACER (www.pacer.gov), as Docket No. 73. On April 9, 2015, Finjan filed a Second Amended Complaint that included a certificate of correction for the ‘154 Patent. On November 17, 2015, Finjan filed a Third Amended Complaint to add claims of Sophos’s willful infringement. Sophos filed an Answer to Finjan’s Third Amended Complaint on December 4, 2015. Currently, a pretrial conference is scheduled for August 8, 2016, and a trial date is scheduled for September 6, 2016. There can be no assurance that Finjan will be successful in settling or litigating these claims.

Finjan, Inc. v. Symantec Corporation., Case 3:14-cv-02998-HSG (N.D. Cal.):

Finjan filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Symantec Corporation in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on June 30, 2014, asserting that Symantec is directly and indirectly infringing certain claims of Finjan’s U.S. Patent Nos. 7,756,996, 7,757,289, 7,930,299, 8,015,182, and 8,141,154, through the manufacture, use, importation, sale, and/or offer for sale of certain products and services. Finjan amended the Complaint on September 11, 2014 to add U.S. Patent Nos. 6,154,844, 7,613,926 and 8,677,494 (collectively the "asserted patents"). The accused products and services include Symantec Endpoint Protection, Symantec Endpoint Protection Small Business Edition, Network Access Control, Norton Internet Security, Norton Anti-Virus, Norton 360, Safe-Web Lite, Norton Safe Web, Messaging Gateway, Messaging Gateway for Service Providers, Messaging Gateway Small Business Edition Managed Security Services-Advance Threat Protection, Advanced Threat Protection Solution, Symantec Protection Engine for Cloud Services, Symantec Protection Engine for Network Attached Storage, Symantec Mail Security for Domino, Symantec Mail Security for Microsoft Exchange, Symantec Scan Engine for Windows, Web Security.cloud, Email Security.cloud, AntiVirus/Filtering for Domino, AntiVirus for Linux, Mail Security for SMTP, Scan Engine for Linux/Solaris, AntiVirus for Caching/Messaging/NAS for Linux/Solaris, Protection Engine for Linux/Solaris, AntiVirus for Caching/Messaging/NAS for Windows, Web Gateway and Norton Security. The principal parties in this proceeding are Finjan and Symantec. Finjan seeks entry of judgment that Symantec has infringed and is infringing the asserted patents, has contributorily infringed and is contributorily infringing U.S. Patent No. 8,015,182, and has induced infringement, and/or is inducing infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,154,844, 7,613,926, 7,756,996, 7,757,289, 7,930,299, and 8,677,494, a preliminary and permanent injunction from infringing, contributorily infringing, or inducing the infringement of the same patents, an accounting of all infringing sales and revenues, damages of no less than a reasonable royalty and consistent with proof, enhanced damages, and enhanced damages for willful infringement, costs, interest, and reasonable attorneys’ fees under 35 U.S.C. §285. Symantec answered the Amended Complaint on September 25, 2014, by denying Finjan’s allegations of infringement and counterclaiming that the asserted patents are invalid under 35 U.S.C. §§ 101, 102, 103 and/or 112. Symantec filed an Amended Answer on October 31, 2014, removing its Fourteenth Affirmative Defense of unenforceability. Both parties have demanded a jury trial. This matter is assigned to the Honorable Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr., United States District Judge. A claim construction or Markman Hearing was heard on June 29, 2015. On July 3, 2015, Symantec filed petitions for Inter Partes Review (“IPR”) before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) for all asserted claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 8,015,182, 8,141,154, 7,757,289, 7,930,299, and 7,756,996. On September 10, 2015, Symantec filed a total of 11 IPR petitions for all asserted claims of asserted patents. On August 20, 2015, Symantec filed a motion to stay the case pending completion of these eight IPR petitions. The motion was heard on October 1, 2015 and on October 9, 2015, the Court stayed the case pending the PTAB’s decision on whether to institute IPR of the claims that are the subject of Symantec’s petitions. On January 14, 2016, the PTAB denied institution of six IPRs of five asserted patents. On January 21, 2016, the parties filed a joint status report giving the Court an update regarding the status of the IPR petitions. On February 26, 2016 the PTAB denied institution of an additional two IPRs filed on separate patents, denying a total of eight petitions as of February 26, 2016. On March 11, 2016 the PTAB denied two more IPR's on patents against Symantec, denying a total of 10 petitions to date. On March 18, 2016, the PTAB granted institution on the 11th Petition by Symantec, relating to the ‘494 Patent (IPR2015-01892). On March 29, 2016, the parties jointly requested the Court lift the stay, and on March 30, 2016, the Court lifted the stay. On April 15, 2016, the parties jointly submitted a proposed schedule to the Court for the remainder of the case. There can be no assurance that Finjan will be successful in settling or litigating these claims.

Finjan, Inc. v. Palo Alto Networks, Inc., Case 3:14-cv-04908 EMC (N.D. Cal.):

Finjan filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Palo Alto Networks, Inc., in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on November 4, 2014, asserting that Palo Alto Networks is directly and indirectly infringing certain claims of Finjan’s U.S. Patent Nos. 6,804,780, 6,965,968, 7,058,822, 7,418,731, 7,613,918, 7,613,926, 7,647,633, 8,141,154, 8,225,408, and 8,677,494, through the manufacture, use, importation, sale, and/or offer for sale of its products and services, including but not limited to Next-Generation Security Platform, Next-Generation Firewall, Virtualized Firewall, WildFire Subscription, WildFire Platform, URL Filtering Subscription, Threat Prevention Subscription, and Advanced EndPoint Protection. Palo Alto Networks failed to timely respond to the Complaint and Finjan submitted an application for Entry of Default. On Palo Alto Networks’ request, Finjan stipulated to an extension of time for Palo Alto Networks to respond. The principal parties in this proceeding are Finjan and Palo Alto Networks. Finjan seeks entry of judgment that Palo Alto Networks has infringed and is infringing the above-listed patents, and has induced infringement and is inducing infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,804,780, 6,965,968, 7,058,822, 7,418,731, 7613,918, 7,613,926, 7,647,633, 8,141,154, 8,225,408, and 8,677,494, a preliminary and permanent injunction from infringing, or inducing the infringement the same patents, an accounting of all infringing sales and revenues, damages of no less than a reasonable royalty consistent with proof, and enhanced damages for willful infringement, costs, interest, and reasonable attorneys’ fees under 35 U.S.C. §285. Palo Alto Networks filed its Answer and Counterclaims on December 31, 2015, by denying Finjan's allegations of infringement and counterclaiming that the asserted patents are invalid under 35 U.S.C. §§ 101, 102, 103 and/or 112. Both parties have demanded a jury trial. On October 8, 2015, the Honorable Edward M. Chen recused himself from the case and requested the case be reassigned to another judge. Also on October 8, 2015, the case was reassigned to the Honorable Phyllis J. Hamilton in the Oakland division of the District Court for the Northern District of California. On September 25, 2015, Palo Alto Networks filed a petition for IPR before the PTAB of U.S. Patent No. 8,141,154. On September 30, 2015, Palo Alto Networks filed petitions for IPR of U.S. Patent Nos. 7,058,822, 7,418,731, 7,647,633 and 8,225,408. On November 4, 2015, Palo Alto Networks filed a IPR petition of U.S. Patent Nos. 7,613,926. On November 5, 2015, Palo Alto Networks filed IPR petitions of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,965,968 and 8,141,154. On November 6, 2015, Palo Alto Networks filed IPR petitions of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,804,780, 7,613,918, 8,225,408 and 8,667,494. On December 10, 2015, the matter was stayed pending a decision by the PTAB on whether to institute IPR of Finjan's claims of its ten patents asserted against Palo Alto Networks. On March 21, 2016, the PTAB instituted trial on claims 1-8, 10 and 11 of the ‘154 Patent. On March 29, 2016, the PTAB instituted trial on the ‘408 Patent, claims 14 and 19 of the ‘633 Patent, and denied institution of trial on all other challenged claims of the ‘633 Patent, and all challenged claims of the ‘822 Patent and the ‘731 Patent. The parties will file a joint status report with the District Court concerning whether to continue or lift the stay within seven (7) days of the PTAB’s last decision regarding whether to institute trial on the IPR requests that Palo Alto Networks has filed. There can be no assurance that Finjan will be successful in settling or litigating these claims.

Finjan, Inc. v. Blue Coat Systems, Inc., Case 5:15-cv-03295-BLF (N.D. Cal.):

Finjan filed a second patent infringement lawsuit against Blue Coat Systems, Inc. in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on July 15, 2015, asserting that Blue Coat is directly infringing certain claims of Finjan’s U.S. Patent Nos. 6,154,844, 6,965,968, 7,418,731, 8,079,086, 8,225,408, 8,677,494, and 8,566,580, through the manufacture, use, importation, sale, and/or offer for sale of its products and services, including but not limited to the Web Security Service, WebPulse Cloud Service, ProxySG Appliances and Software, Blue Coat Systems SV2800 and SV3800, Malware Analysis Appliances and Software, Security Analytics Platform, Content Analysis System, and Mail Threat Defense, S400-10 and S400-20. Finjan seeks entry of judgment that Blue Coat has infringed and is infringing the above-listed patents, a preliminary and permanent injunction from the infringement of the same patents, an accounting of all infringing sales and revenues, damages of no less than a reasonable royalty consistent with proof, and enhanced damages for willful infringement, costs, interest, and reasonable attorneys’ fees under 35 U.S.C. §285. Blue Coat filed its Answer to the Complaint with Jury Demand and Counterclaim with Jury Demand against Finjan on September 8, 2015. On September 29, 2015, Finjan filed its Answer to Blue Coat’s Counterclaim. This second Blue Coat action is also assigned to the Honorable Beth Labson Freeman. A Case Management Conference (CMC) was held on December 17, 2015. Blue Coat filed a Motion to Stay the case pending final resolution of Case 5:13-cv-03999-BLF, and Motions for Joinder of several Petitions for IPR on five of seven asserted patents, and Ex Parte Reexamination requests for two asserted patents, filed previously by other defendants. A claim construction tutorial is scheduled for December 2, 2016, and a claim construction hearing is scheduled for December 9, 2016. A pretrial conference is scheduled for October 5, 2017, and trial is scheduled for October 30, 2017. On March 1, 2016 Finjan filed an amended Complaint to add existing Finjan patent 9,141,786 and two newly issued Finjan patents 9,189,621 (issued November 17, 2015) and 9,219,755 (issued December 22, 2015). On March 18, 2016, Blue Coat filed its Answer to the Amended Complaint and Counterclaims with Jury Demand. On April 8, 2016, Finjan filed its Answer to Blue Coat’s Counterclaims. There can be no assurance that Finjan will be successful in settling or litigating these claims.

B. Proceedings before the United States Patent & Trademark Office (USPTO)

Ex Parte Reexamination Proceedings: As defined by the USPTO, an Ex Parte Reexamination is a “proceeding in which any person may request reexamination of a U.S. Patent based on one or more prior patents or printed publications. A requester who is not the patent owner has limited participation rights in the proceedings.”

U.S. Patent No. 8,079,086 (Assignee, Finjan, Inc.):

A first third-party request for Ex Parte Reexamination of U.S. Patent No. 8,079,086 was filed on October 7, 2013, on behalf of FireEye, Inc. and assigned Reexamination Control Number 90/013,015. The USPTO denied FireEye’s request on November 19, 2013, and the reexamination proceedings terminated on January 14, 2014.

A second third-party request by FireEye, Inc., for Ex Parte Reexamination of U.S. Patent No. 8,079,086 was filed on February 7, 2014, and assigned Reexamination Control Number 90/013,147. The USPTO denied FireEye’s second request on March 27, 2014, and the reexamination proceedings terminated on April 29, 2014.

A third third-party request for Ex Parte Reexamination of Claims 17 and 24 of U.S. Patent No. 8,079,086 was filed on December 9, 2015 by Proofpoint, Inc. and assigned Reexamination Control Number 90/013,654. The reexamination request was partially granted on February 2, 2016. Requester’s petitioned the Director to reconsider the partial denial and the petition was granted on March 21, 2016. The case is currently awaiting USPTO action. There can be no assurance that Finjan will be successful in rebutting the patentability challenge before the USPTO.

U.S. Patent No. 7,975,305 (Assignee, Finjan, Inc.):

A third-party request for Ex Parte Reexamination of Claims 1, 2, 5 and 13 of U.S. Patent No. 7,975,305 was filed on December 11, 2015 by Proofpoint, Inc. and assigned Reexamination Control Number 90/013,660. The request for reexamination was granted on January 19, 2016 and a non-final Office Action was mailed on April 12, 2016. There can be no assurance that Finjan will be successful in rebutting the patentability challenge before the USPTO.

U.S. Patent No. 7,647,633 (Assignee, Finjan, Inc.):

A third-party request for Ex Parte Reexamination of Claims 1-7 and 28-33 of U.S. Patent No. 7,647,633 was filed on October 7, 2013, on behalf of FireEye, Inc. and assigned Reexamination Control Number 90/013,016. The request for reexamination was granted and a non-final Office Action was mailed November 19, 2013. The non-final Office Action included rejections of Claims 1-7 and 28-33 under various prior art (including previously considered and disclosed prior art) under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and/or 103. An in-person Examiner interview was conducted at the USPTO on February 4, 2014, and a timely response to non-final Office Action was filed on February 19, 2014. The response to non-final Office Action included arguments and a supporting declaration by Finjan showing commercial success, industry praise, and copying by others of products covered by pending claims; a declaration by a technology expert rebutting improper technical interpretations of the prior art and the invention; and additional new claims for consideration. Additionally, a renewed petition to accept an unintentionally delayed priority claim was also submitted and the petition was granted on January 23, 2015. An updated filing receipt reflecting the priority claim was issued. A final Office Action was issued May 22, 2015, and a Notice of Appeal was filed by Finjan on May 22, 2015. Finjan’s appeal brief was filed August 24, 2015, appealing the rejections of Claims 1-7, 28-33 and 42-52. An Examiner’s Answer was received on December 18, 2015. Finjan filed its Reply Brief requesting reversal of the rejections and a Request for Oral Hearing February 18, 2016. There can be no assurance that Finjan will be successful in rebutting the patentability challenge to Claims 1-7 and 28-33 (original claims) or added Claims 42-52 before the USPTO.

A second third-party request for Ex Parte Reexamination of Claims 8 and 12 of U.S. Patent No. 7,647,633 was filed on December 9, 2015 by Proofpoint, Inc. and assigned Reexamination Control Number 90/013,652. The reexamination request was granted on February 3, 2016 and is currently awaiting USPTO action. There can be no assurance that Finjan will be successful in rebutting the patentability challenge before the USPTO.

U.S. Patent No. 7,058,822 (Assignee, Finjan, Inc.):

A third-party request for Ex Parte Reexamination of Claims 1-8 and 16-27 of U.S. Patent No. 7,058,822 was filed on October 7, 2013, on behalf of FireEye, Inc. and assigned Reexamination Control Number 90/013,017. The request for reexamination was granted and a non-final Office Action was mailed December 6, 2013. The non-final Office Action included rejections of Claims 1-8 and 16-27 under various prior art (including previously considered and disclosed prior art) under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and/or 103. An in-person Examiner interview was conducted at the USPTO on February 4, 2014, and a timely response to non-final Office Action was filed on March 6, 2014. A final Office Action was mailed on September 8, 2014 and a response thereto was filed on October 8, 2014, which included proposed claims amendments and arguments rebutting the various prior rejections. On October 23, 2014, an Advisory Action was issued by the Patent Office maintaining the rejections from the final Office Action and indicating that Finjan’s proposed claims amendments would not be entered. On December 8, 2014, Finjan: (1) filed a petition to the Director of the Central Reexamination Unit (CRU) under 37 CFR 1.181 challenging the Examiner’s failure to enter the amendments and requesting entry; and (2) a notice of appeal to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Finjan filed an appeal brief on February 8, 2015. The Examiner filed a brief on March 30, 2015. Finjan filed a Reply Brief and a Request for Oral Hearing on June 1, 2015, and the Appeal was docketed at the PTAB and assigned Appeal No. 2015-006304. An oral hearing before the PTAB took place on November 3, 2015. On December 30, 2015, the PTAB issue a decision reversing the Examiner’s rejection of Claims 1-8 and 16-27 and new claims 37 and 40 added during prosecution of the reexamination. On February 16, 2016, an Ex Parte Reexamination Certificate (Certificate No. US 7,058,822 C1) was issued to Finjan by the USPTO. Finjan was granted U.S. Patent No. 9,141,786 containing additional claims on September 22, 2015. A Track 1 (accelerated examination) continuation application was filed on November 16, 2015, seeking yet additional claim coverage.

U.S. Patent No. 6,154,844 (Assignee, Finjan, Inc.):

A third-party request for ex parte reexamination of claims 32 and 42 of U.S. Patent No. 6,154,844 was filed on December 9, 2015 by Proofpoint, Inc. and assigned Reexamination Control Number 90/013,653. The request for reexamination was granted on January 13, 2016. On March 30, 2016, the Patent Office terminated the reexamination and mailed a Notice of Intent to Issue a Reexamination Certificate.

Inter Partes Reexamination Proceedings:

As defined by the USPTO, an Inter Partes Reexamination is a “proceeding in which any person who is not the patent owner and is not otherwise estopped may request examination of a U.S. Patent issued from an original application filed on or after November 29, 1999, based on one or more prior patents or printed publications. Both patent owner and third party requester have participation rights throughout the proceeding, including appeal rights.” Effective September 16, 2012, the American Invents Act (AIA) replaced Inter Partes Reexaminations with proceedings referred to as post-grant review and Inter Partes Review (IPR). Post-grant proceedings are generally available immediately after patent issuance. For patents filed under the pre-AIA first to invent rules (i.e., applications filed prior to March 16, 2013, IPRs can be initiated immediately following issuance of patent. For patents examined under the AIA first-to-file rules (i.e., applications filed on or after March 16, 2013), IPRs can be initiated after the nine-month window of eligibility for post-grant review.

U.S. Patent No. 6,480,962 (Assignee, Finjan, Inc.):

A third-party request for Inter Partes Reexamination of all Claims 1-55 of U.S. Patent No. 6,480,962 was filed on November 29, 2011, on behalf of Symantec Corporation, and assigned Reexamination Control Number 95/001,836. The request for reexamination was granted and a non-final Office Action was mailed January 25, 2012. The non-final Office Action included rejections of claims 1-55 under numerous prior art references and combinations of such references (including previously considered and disclosed prior art) under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and/or 103. Finjan filed a response to non-final Office Action and the USPTO mailed an Action Closing Prosecution (ACP) on October 2, 2013. Finjan responded to the ACP on December 2, 2013, which included proposed claim amendments for consideration. Symantec responded on January 2, 2014. On June 27, 2014, the USPTO stated that the proposed claim amendments would not be entered and issued a Right of Appeal Notice. On July 1, 2014, Finjan filed a Notice of Appeal of the rejection of Claims 1-55 followed by an Appeal Brief on September 2, 2014. The Requester Symantec filed a respondent brief on October 2, 2014. The Examiner filed a brief on March 25, 2015. Finjan filed a Rebuttal Brief on April 27, 2015 and a Request for Oral Hearing on May 26, 2015. The Rebuttal Brief maintained Finjan’s request to review the rejections of Claims 2-4, 7-11, 13-14, 16-20, 22-32, 34-36, 39-44, 46-51, 53 and 54. Claims 1, 5, 6, 12, 15, 21, 33, 37, 38, 45, 52 and 55 were withdrawn from appeal in view the final invalidity decision issued on September 15, 2014 by the Federal Circuit. The Appeal was forwarded to the PTAB in accordance with the Notice mailed June 2, 2015. Finjan also sought examination of additional claims through multiple Track I expedited continuation applications. Finjan was granted U.S. Patent Nos. 9,189,621 and 9,291,755 containing those additional claims on November 17, 2015 and December 22, 2015, respectively. Oral argument was heard on February 17, 1016. On February 29, 2016, the PTAB issued a decision affirming the rejections of the Examiner. On March 29, 2016, Finjan filed a request for rehearing regarding the rejection of claims 22-32 and 46. There can be no assurance that Finjan will be successful in rebutting the patentability challenge to Claims 22-32 and 46 before the USPTO.

Inter Partes Review Proceedings:

As defined by the USPTO, Inter Partes Review (IPR) is a trial proceeding conducted at the Patent and Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB or Board) to review the patentability of one or more claims in a patent only on a ground that could be raised under §§ 102 or 103, and only on the basis of prior art consisting of patents or printed publications. For first-inventor-to-file patents IPR process begins with a third party (a person who is not the owner of the patent) filing a petition after the later of either: (1) nine months after the grant of the patent or issuance of a reissue patent; or (2) if a post grant review is instituted, the termination of the post grant review. These deadlines do not apply to first-to-invent patents. The patent owner may file a preliminary response to the petition. An IPR may be instituted upon a showing that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least one claim challenged. If the proceeding is instituted and not dismissed, a final determination by the Board will be issued within one year (extendable for good cause by six months). The procedure for conducting IPR took effect on September 16, 2012, and applies to any patent issued before, on, or after September 16, 2012.

U.S. Patent No. 7,613,926 (the “’926 Patent”)

On March 19, 2015, Sophos, Inc. filed a petition for IPR of U.S. Patent No. 7,613,926 (IPR2015-00907). Finjan filed a Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response (POPR) to the petition on June 26, 2015. The PTAB denied Sophos’ petition to institute the IPR proceeding on the ‘926 Patent on September 24, 2015. On October 26, 2015, Sophos filed a Request for Rehearing, and on December 4, 2015, the PTAB denied Sophos’ Request for Rehearing.

U.S. Patent No. 8,677,494 (the “’494 Patent”)

On April 8, 2015, Sophos, Inc. filed a petition for IPR of U.S. Patent No. 8,677,494 (IPR2015-01022). Finjan filed a POPR to the petition on July 15, 2015. The PTAB denied Sophos’ petition to institute the IPR proceeding on the ‘494 Patent on September 24, 2015. On October 26, 2015, Sophos filed a Request for Rehearing, and on January 28, 2016, the PTAB denied Sophos’ Request for Rehearing.

U.S. Patent No. 7,756,996 (the “’996 Patent”)

On July 3, 2015, Symantec Corporation filed two (2) separate petitions for IPR of U.S. Patent No. 7,756,996 (IPR2015-01545/01546). Finjan filed POPRs to the petitions October 19, 2015. The PTAB denied both of Symantec’s petitions to institute IPR proceedings on the ‘996 Patent on January 14, 2016. On February 16, 2016, Symantec filed a Request for Rehearing, and on February 25, 2016, the PTAB denied Symantec’s Request for Rehearing.

U.S. Patent No. 7,757,289 (the “’289 Patent”)

On July 3, 2015, Symantec Corporation filed a petition for IPR of U.S. Patent No. 7,757,289 (IPR2015-01552). Finjan filed a POPR to the petition on October 19, 2015. The PTAB denied Symantec’s petition to institute IPR proceedings on the ‘289 Patent on January 14, 2016.

U.S. Patent No. 7,930,299 (the “’299 Patent”)

On July 3, 2015, Symantec Corporation filed a petition for IPR of U.S. Patent No. 7,930,299 (IPR2015-01549). Finjan filed a POPR to the petition October 20, 2015. The PTAB denied Symantec’s petition to institute IPR proceedings on the ‘299 Patent on January 14, 2016.

U.S. Patent No. 8,015,182 (the “’182 Patent”)

On July 3, 2015, Symantec Corporation filed a petition for IPR of U.S. Patent No. 8,015,182 (IPR2015-01548). Finjan filed a POPR to the petition on October 20, 2015. The PTAB denied Symantec’s petition to institute IPR proceedings on the ‘182 Patent on January 14, 2016.

U.S. Patent No. 8,141,154 (the “’154 Patent”)

On July 3, 2015 and April 19, 2016, Symantec Corporation filed two (2) separate petitions for IPR of U.S. Patent No. 8,141,154 (IPR2015-01547; IPR2016-00919). Finjan filed a POPR to the petition in IPR2015-01547 on October 19, 2015. The PTAB denied Symantec’s petition to institute IPR proceedings in IPR2015-01547 on January 14, 2016. With respect to IPR2016-00919 on the ‘154 Patent, the PTAB’s decision is pending.

U.S. Patent No. 8,677,494 (the “’494 Patent”)

On September 10, 2015, Symantec Corporation filed two (2) separate petitions for IPR of U.S. Patent No. 8,677,494 (IPR2015-01892/01897). Finjan filed POPRs to the petitions on December 28, 2015. With respect to IPR 2015-01897, the PTAB denied institution of IPR proceedings on the ‘494 Patent on February 26, 2016. On March 18, 2016, the PTAB granted institution of IPR proceedings on the ‘494 Patent (IPR2015-01892). On April 1, 2016, Finjan filed a partial request for rehearing.

U.S. Patent No. 6,154,844 (the “’844 Patent”)

On September 10, 2015, Symantec Corporation filed a petition for IPR of U.S. Patent No. 6,154,844 (IPR2015-01894). Finjan filed a POPR to the petition on December 17, 2015. The PTAB denied institution of IPR proceedings on the ‘844 Patent on March 11, 2016.

U.S. Patent No. 7,613,926 (the “’926 Patent”)

On September 10, 2015, Symantec Corporation filed two (2) separate petitions for IPR of U.S. Patent No. 7,613,926 (IPR2015-01893/01895). Finjan filed POPRs to the petitions on December 17, 2015. With respect to IPR2015-01895, the PTAB denied institution of IPR proceedings on the ‘926 Patent on February 26, 1016. With respect to IPR2015-01893, the PTAB denied institution of IPR proceedings on the ‘926 Patent on March 11, 2016.

U.S. Patent No. 8,141,154 (the “’154 Patent”)

On September 25, 2015 and November 5, 2015, Palo Alto Networks Inc. filed two (2) separate petitions for IPR of U.S. Patent No. 8,141,154 and a Motion for Joinder to Symantec’s Petition for IPR of the ‘154 Patent (IPR2015-01547). (IPR2015-01979; IPR2016-00151). Finjan filed a POPR to the first petition in IPR2015-01979 on December 29, 2015. With respect to IPR2015-01979, the PTAB granted institution of IPR proceedings on the ‘154 Patent on March 21, 2016. On April 5, 2016, Finjan filed a partial request for rehearing, and on April 19, 2016, the PTAB denied Finjan’s partial request for rehearing. With respect to IPR2016-00151 on the ‘154 Patent, Finjan filed a POPR on February 17, 2016, and on April 20, 2016, the PTAB instituted trial on claims 1-8, 10, and 11, denied institution on the remaining claims and denied Palo Alto Network’s Motion for Joinder.

U.S. Patent No. 7,647,633 (the “’633 Patent”)

On September 30, 2015, Palo Alto Networks, Inc. filed a petition for IPR of U.S. Patent No. 7,647,633 (IPR2015-01974). Finjan filed a POPR to the petition on January 7, 2016. On March 29, 2016, the PTAB granted institution of IPR proceedings with respect to claims 14 and 19 of the ‘633 Patent, and denied institution with respect to all other challenged claims. On April 12, 2016, Palo Alto Networks filed a request for rehearing.

U.S. Patent No. 7,058,822 (the “’822 Patent”)

On September 30, 2015, Palo Alto Networks Inc. filed a petition for IPR of United States Patent No. 7,058,822 (IPR2015-01999). Finjan filed a POPR to the petition on January 6, 2016. The PTAB denied institution of IPR proceedings on the ‘822 Patent on March 29, 2016.

U.S. Patent No. 7,418,731 (the “’731 Patent”)

On September 30, 2015, Palo Alto Networks Inc. filed a petition for IPR of United States Patent No. 7,418,731 (IPR2015-02000). Finjan filed a POPR to the petition on January 8, 2016. The PTAB denied institution of IPR proceedings on the ‘731 Patent on March 23, 2016.

U.S. Patent No. 8,225,408 (the “’408 Patent”)

On September 30, 2015 and November 6, 2015, Palo Alto Networks Inc. filed two (2) separate petitions for IPRs of United States Patent No. 8,225,408 (IPR2015-02001; IPR2016-00157). Finjan filed POPRs to the petitions on January 6, 2016, and February 17, 2016 respectively. On March 29, 2016, the PTAB granted institution of IPR proceedings in IPR2015-02001 and IPR2016-00157. On April 12, 2016, Finjan filed requests for rehearing.

U.S. Patent No. 7,613,926 (the “’926 Patent”)

On November 4, 2015, Palo Alto Networks Inc. filed a petition for IPR of United States Patent No. 7,613,926 (IPR 2016-00145). Finjan filed a POPR to the petition on February 17, 2016. The PTAB’s decisions on the petitions are pending.

U.S. Patent No. 6,965,968 (the “’968 Patent”)

On November 5, 2015, Palo Alto Networks Inc. filed two (2) separate petitions for IPRs of United States Patent No. 6,965,968 (IPR 2016-00149, IPR2016-00150). Finjan filed POPRs to the petitions on February 17, 2016. The PTAB’s decisions on the petitions are pending.

U.S. Patent No. 6,804,780 (the “’780 Patent”)

On November 6, 2015, Palo Alto Networks Inc. filed a petition for IPR of United States Patent No. 6,804,780 (IPR 2016-00165). Finjan filed a POPR to the petition on February 17, 2016. The PTAB’s decisions on the petitions are pending.

U.S. Patent No. 7,613,918 (the “’918 Patent”)

On November 6, 2015, Palo Alto Networks Inc. filed a petition for IPR of United States Patent No. 7,613,918 (IPR 2016-00164). Finjan filed a POPR to the petition on February 17, 2016. The PTAB’s decisions on the petitions are pending.

U.S. Patent No. 8,677,494 (the “494 Patent”)

On November 6, 2015, Palo Alto Networks Inc. filed a petition for IPR of United States Patent No. 8,677,494 (IPR 2016-00159). Finjan filed a POPR to the petition on February 17, 2016. The PTAB’s decisions on the petitions are pending.

U.S. Patent No. 6,965,968 (the “’968 Patent”)

On January 19, 2016, Blue Coat Systems, Inc. filed two Petitions for IPR of U.S. Patent No. 6,965,968 (“the ‘968 Patent”) (IPR2016-00478; IPR2016-00479) and a Motion for Joinder to Palo Alto Networks’ Petition for IPR of the ‘968 Patent (IPR2015-00149; IPR2015-00150). The PTAB’s decision on the Motion for Joinder and Petitions are pending.

U.S. Patent No. 7,647,633 (the “’633 Patent”)

On January 20, 2016, Blue Coat Systems, Inc. filed a Petition for IPR of U.S. Patent No. 7,647,633 (“the ‘633 Patent”) (IPR2016-00480) and a Motion for Joinder to Palo Alto Networks’ Petition for IPR of the ‘633 Patent (IPR2015-01974). The PTAB’s decision on the Motion for Joinder and Petition are pending.

U.S. Patent No. 7,418,731 (the “’731 Patent”)

On January 21, 2016, Blue Coat Systems, Inc. filed a Petition for IPR of U.S. Patent No. 7,418,731 (“the ‘731 Patent”) (IPR2016-00493) and a Motion for Joinder to Palo Alto Networks’ Petition for IPR of the ‘731 Patent (IPR2015-0200). The PTAB’s decision on the Motion and Petition are pending.

U.S. Patent No. 6,804,780 (the “’780 Patent”)

On January 21, 2016, Blue Coat Systems, Inc. filed a Petition for IPR of U.S. Patent No. 6,804,780 (“the ‘780 Patent”) (IPR2016-00492) and a Motion for Joinder to Palo Alto Networks’ Petition for IPR of the ‘780 Patent (IPR2016-00165). The PTAB’s decision on the Motion and Petition are pending.

U.S. Patent No. 6,154,844 (the “’844 Patent”)

On January 25, 2016, Blue Coat Systems, Inc. filed a Petition for IPR of U.S. Patent No. 6,154,844 (“the ‘844 Patent”) (IPR2016-00498) and a Motion for Joinder to Symantec Corp.’s Petition for IPR of the ‘844 Patent (IPR2015-01894). The PTAB’s decision on the Motion and Petition are pending.

Except for the foregoing disclosures, Finjan is not presently aware of any other material pending legal proceedings, to which Finjan or any of its subsidiaries are a party or of which any of its property is the subject.

Litigation, including patent litigation, is inherently subject to uncertainties. As such, there can be no assurance that Finjan will be successful in litigating and/or settling any of these claims.