LITIGATION, CLAIMS AND ASSESSMENTS	6 Months Ended
Jun. 30, 2018
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
LITIGATION, CLAIMS AND ASSESSMENTS	LITIGATION, CLAIMS AND ASSESSMENTS A. United States District Court Actions Finjan, Inc. v. FireEye, Inc., Case No. 13-cv-03133SBA, (N.D. Cal) Finjan filed a patent infringement lawsuit against FireEye, Inc. (“FireEye”) in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on July 8, 2013, asserting that FireEye, Inc. was 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, 8,225,408, and 6,154,844, 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. On January 12, 2018, the parties stipulated that all claims in the case be dismissed with prejudice pursuant to a confidential patent license and settlement agreement executed December 29, 2017. Finjan, Inc. v. Blue Coat Systems, Inc., Case No. 13-cv-03999-BLF (N.D. Cal.) ("Blue Coat I") Finjan filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Blue Coat Systems, Inc., (“Blue Coat”) 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. The principal parties in this proceeding were Finjan and Blue Coat. This action was before the Honorable Judge Beth Labson Freeman. Trial commenced July 20, 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. The jury also awarded Finjan approximately $39.5 million in damages as reasonable royalties for Blue Coat's infringement. Which such finding was appealed by Blue Coat to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ("Federal Circuit"). On March 5, 2018, the Court ordered, pursuant to stipulation between the parties following entry into a confidential patent license and settlement agreement, that all claims in the case be dismissed with prejudice. Finjan, Inc. v. Blue Coat Systems LLC, Case No. 5:15-cv-03295-BLF (N.D. Cal.) Finjan filed a second patent infringement lawsuit against Blue Coat Systems LLC (“Blue Coat”) in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on July 15, 2015, asserting that Blue Coat was 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 (collectively, the “asserted patents”), through the manufacture, use, importation, sale, and/or offer for sale of its products and services. A trial was held on October 31, 2017, that resulted in a partial verdict, followed by a retrial on certain issues from the first trial (“Retrial I”) on January 8, 2018, which the Court declared a mistrial upon the Federal Circuit’s issuance on January 10, 2018, of its decision related to Blue Coat I. The Court ordered, among other things, a second retrial for February 12, 2018, which it later vacated on February 9, 2018. On March 5, 2018, the Court ordered pursuant to stipulation between the parties following entry into a confidential patent license and settlement agreement, dismissal of all claims with prejudice. Finjan, Inc. v. Symantec Corporation., Case No. 14-cv-02998-HSG (N.D. Cal.) Finjan filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Symantec Corporation (“Symantec”) in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on June 30, 2014, asserting that Symantec was 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, 8,141,154, 6,154,844, 7,613,926 and 8,677,494, through the manufacture, use, importation, sale, and/or offer for sale of certain products and services. On March 5, 2018, the Court ordered, pursuant to stipulation between the parties following entry into a confidential patent license and settlement agreement between the parties dated February 28, 2018, that all claims in the case be dismissed with prejudice. Finjan, Inc. v. Palo Alto Networks, Inc., Case No. 3:14-cv-04908 PJH (N.D. Cal.) Finjan filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Palo Alto Networks, Inc. (“Palo Alto Networks”) 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 (the "Asserted Patents"), 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 applied 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, is infringing, has induced infringement and is inducing infringement of the Asserted Patents, a preliminary and permanent injunction from infringing, or inducing the infringement the Asserted 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. This action is before the Honorable Phyllis J. Hamilton in the Oakland division of the District Court for the Northern District of California. Palo Alto Networks filed several petitions for IPR's before the PTAB. The PTAB instituted review of certain patents and denied institution on other challenged patents. In particular, the PTAB instituted and subsequently determined that the challenged claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 9,141,154 and 8,225,408 were not unpatentable; upon which Palo Alto Networks appealed to the Federal Circuit. Oral argument before the Federal Circuit regarding the ‘154 and ‘408 Patents was heard June 6, 2018. In addition, the PTAB instituted and subsequently determined that claims 3-5 and 10-15 of U.S. Patent No. 8,677,494 were not unpatentable, and that claims 1, 2, and 6 of the ‘494 Patent were shown to be unpatentable. Finjan appealed this latter determination to the Federal Circuit, which is pending. On May 26, 2016, the Court ordered the stay to remain in effect until the PTAB’s final determination of the instituted IPRs and the matter remains stayed pending appeal. There can be no assurance that Finjan will be successful in settling or litigating these claims. Finjan, Inc. v ESET, LLC et al., Case No. 3:16-cv-03731-JD (N.D. Cal.) Finjan filed a patent infringement lawsuit against ESET, LLC ("ESET, LLC") and ESET SPOL S.R.O. (“ESET SPOL”) (collectively "ESET") in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on July 1, 2016, asserting that ESET infringes Finjan’s U.S. Patent Nos. 6,154,844, 6,804,780, 7,975,305, 8,079,086, 9,189,621, and 9,219,755, through the manufacture, use, importation, sale, and/or offer for sale of its products and services, including but not limited to, ESET ThreatSense, ESET Advanced Heuristic, ESET DNA Signature, Host-based Intrusion Prevention System (HIPS), and ESET LiveGrid technologies including ESET’S Home Protection, Small Office, and Business product lines and ESET Services. Finjan seeks entry of a judgment that ESET has infringed and is infringing the asserted 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. This case was transferred to the Southern District of California on January 30, 2017 and was assigned to the Honorable Cathy Ann Bencivengo on February 8, 2017, Case No. 3-17-cv-00183 (S.D. Cal.). There can be no assurance that Finjan will be successful in settling or litigating these claims. ESET, LLC v. Finjan, Inc., Case No. 16-cv-01704 (S.D. Cal.) ESET, LLC (“ESET”) filed a Complaint for Declaratory Judgment against Finjan, Inc. (“Finjan”) in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California on July 1, 2016, asserting that there is an actual controversy between the parties to declare that ESET does not infringe any claim of U.S. Patent No. 7,975,305 (“the ‘305 Patent”). ESET sought an entry of judgment that it has not infringed any claim of the ’305 Patent, an injunction against Finjan from asserting any of the claims in the ‘305 Patent against ESET or any of its customers or suppliers, and a finding that the case is exceptional and an award of fees and costs under 35 U.S.C. § 285. On July 11, 2016, ESET filed an Amended Complaint for Declaratory Judgment, seeking entry of judgment that it does not infringe any claim of the U.S. Patent Nos. 6,154,844, 6,804,780, 7,975,305, 8,079,086, 9,189,621, and 9,219,755. ESET seeks an injunction against Finjan from asserting infringement of these patents against ESET or any of its customers or suppliers, and a finding that the case is exceptional and an award of fees and costs under 35 U.S.C. § 285. On July 26, 2016, Finjan filed a motion to dismiss the action pursuant to the first-to-file rule, asserting that Finjan was first to file an action in the Northern District of California with respect to five of the six patents at issue between the parties (Finjan, Inc. v ESET, LLC et al., Case 3:16-cv-03731-JD (N.D. Cal.). On September 26, 2016, the Court granted Finjan’s motion and dismissed this action without prejudice. ESET has appealed the dismissal to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The Federal Circuit dismissed this Appeal to the Federal Circuit on February 2, 2017 after the Court in Finjan, Inc. v. ESET, LLC et al., Case 3:16-cv-03731-JD, transferred that case to the Southern District of California. Finjan, Inc. v. ESET, LLC et al., Case No. 3:17-cv-00183 (S.D. Cal.) Finjan filed a patent infringement lawsuit against ESET, LLC (“ESET, LLC”) and ESET SPOL S.R.O. (“ESET SPOL”) (collectively, “ESET”) in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on July 1, 2016 (Case No. 3:16-cv-03731-JD (N.D. Cal.)), which was transferred to the Southern District of California on January 31, 2017. This action is currently before the Honorable Cathy Ann Bencivengo. Details on procedures prior to February 2018 are disclosed in Note 8 of our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2017. Finjan’s opposition was filed on March 13, 2018, and ESET filed its reply on March 20, 2018. On February 26, 2018, a hearing for the Motion for Reconsideration was held, and the Court denied Finjan’s Motion for Reconsideration. On February 26, 2018, the Court issued an Order following a case management conference regarding a second election of asserted claims and prior art and scheduled a status conference on June 14, 2018. On April 4, 2018, Finjan filed supplemental authority regarding ESET’s pending motion to stay. On May 7, 2018, the Court granted ESET’s motion to stay with regard to the ‘305 Patent only. On June 4, 2018, the Court amended the scheduling order such that opening summary judgment briefs are due October 17, 2018, with oppositions due on November 7, 2018, replies due on November 20, 2018, a hearing for the summary judgment motions will be held on November 29, 2018, a final pretrial conference on January 11, 2019, and a jury trial to commence on February 4, 2019. There can be no assurance that Finjan will be successful in settling or litigating these claims. Finjan, Inc. v. Cisco Systems, Inc., Case No. 17-cv-00072-BLF (N.D. Cal.) Finjan filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Cisco Systems, Inc. (“Cisco”) in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on January 6, 2017, asserting that Cisco infringes Finjan’s U.S. Patent Nos. 6,154,844, 6,804,780, 7,647,633, 8,141,154 and 8,677,494 (the "Asserted Patents") through the manufacture, use, importation, sale, and/or offer for sale of its products and services, including but not limited to, Cisco’s Advanced Malware Protection, Cisco Collective Security Intelligence, Cisco Outbreak Filters, Talos Security Intelligence and Research Group, and AMP Threat Grid technologies, including Cisco AMP for Endpoints, Cisco AMP for Networks (also referred to by Cisco as “NGIPS”), Cisco AMP for ASA with FirePOWER Services, Cisco AMP Private Cloud Virtual Appliance, Cisco AMP for CWS, ESA, or WSA, Cisco AMP for Meraki MX, Cisco AMP Threat Grid. Finjan seeks entry of a judgment that Cisco has infringed and is infringing the asserted 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. Details on procedures prior to March 2018 are disclosed in Note 8 of our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2017. On April 2, 2018, Finjan filed a motion to strike Cisco’s affirmative defenses of prosecution laches, ensnarement doctrine, and inequitable conduct, to which a hearing is set for August 30, 2018. Finjan filed a reply to its motion to strike on April 23, 2018. On June 7, 2018, the Court held a claim construction tutorial, and on June 15, 2018, the Court held a claim construction hearing. The Court entered its Order Construing Claims in the Asserted Claims on July 23, 2018, adopted nearly all of Finjan's proposed constructions.The Court set a case management conference for August 30, 2018 and a jury trial to commence on June 1, 2020. There can be no assurance that Finjan will be successful in settling or litigating these claims. Finjan, Inc. v. ESET SPOL S.R.O. et al., Docket Nos. 2 Ni 53/16 (EP). 4c O 33/16 (Düsseldorf District Court and Munich Court) Finjan filed a patent infringement lawsuit against ESET SPOL. S.R.O. (ESET SPOL"), a Slovak Republic Corporation, and ESET Deutschland GmbH (collectively “ESET”) in the Düsseldorf District Court of Germany on July 1, 2016, asserting that ESET infringes Finjan’s European Patent No. 0 965 094 B1 (“the ‘094 Patent”), through the offering and/or delivering to customers in the Federal Republic of Germany software covered by the ‘094 Patent, including but not limited to ESET’s ThreatSense, ESET Advanced Heuristic, ESET DNA Signature, ESET LiveGrid technologies, including ESET’s Home Users, Small Office, and Business product lines and ESET services. Finjan seeks a judgment sentencing ESET to a fine for each violation of patent infringement or, alternatively imprisonment of ESET directors, cease and desist orders for offering or delivering infringing software, providing Finjan with profit information for offering or delivering infringing software, damages, which Finjan has suffered or shall suffer as a result of ESET offering or delivering infringing software since November 1, 2008. The infringement hearing was held on October 5, 2017. No decision has been entered to date. On November 24, 2016, ESET filed a nullity action. Finjan responded to the nullity action contesting the nullity action completely and requesting the Court to reject the action and impose the cost of the proceedings to the claimant. There can be no assurance that Finjan will be successful in settling or litigating these claims. Finjan, Inc. v. Blue Coat Systems, Inc., and Blue Coat Systems GmbH., Docket Nos. 2 Ni 22/17 (EP), 4c O 57/16 (Dusseldorf District Court and Munich Court) Finjan filed a third patent infringement lawsuit against Blue Coat Systems, Inc., which is its first patent infringement suit against Blue Coat’s subsidiary Blue Coat Systems GmbH, located in Munich Germany in the Dusseldorf District Court of Germany on October 14, 2016. Finjan asserted that Blue Coat infringed Finjan’s European Patent No. 0 965 094 B1 (“the ‘094 Patent”), through the offering and/or delivering to customers in the Federal Republic of Germany software covered by the ‘094 Patent. Blue Coat filed a nullity (invalidity) action in Munich, Germany. On March 2, 2018, the parties entered into a confidential settlement agreement. On March 6, 2018, Blue Coat withdrew their nullity action in Germany. Finjan, Inc. v. SonicWall, Inc., Case No. 5:17-cv-04467 (N.D. Cal.) Finjan filed a patent infringement lawsuit against SonicWall, Inc. (“SonicWall”) in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on August 4, 2017, asserting that SonicWall is directly and indirectly infringing certain claims of Finjan’s U.S. Patent Nos. 6,154,844, 7,058,822, 6,804,780, 7,613,926, 7,647,633, 8,141,154, 8,677,494, 7,975,305, 8,225,408, and 6,965,968, through the manufacture, use, sale, importation, and/or offer for sale of its products and services, including but not limited to, Appliance Products utilizing Capture ATP and/or Gateway Security Services and Email Security Products utilizing Capture ATP and/or Gateway Security Services. Finjan seeks entry of a judgment that SonicWall has infringed and is infringing the asserted 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. This matter is assigned to the Honorable Beth Labson Freeman, United States District Judge. On October 13, 2017, SonicWall filed a Motion to Dismiss Finjan’s Complaint for Failure to State a Claim for Willful Infringement. On May 16, 2018, the Court denied Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim for Willful Infringement. On May 30, 2018, SonicWall filed its answer. On June 20, 2018, Finjan filed a motion to strike SonicWall’s affirmative defense of inequitable conduct. Defendant’s opposition was filed on July 5, 2018, and Finjan’s reply was filed on July 12, 2018. Finjan’s motion to strike is scheduled to be heard on December 6, 2018. A claim construction tutorial is set for October 5, 2018, a claim construction hearing for October 12, 2018, a final pretrial conference for March 18, 2021, and a jury trial to commence on May 3, 2021. There can be no assurance that Finjan will be successful in settling or litigating these claims. Finjan, Inc. v. Bitdefender Inc., et al., Case No. 5:17-cv-04790 (N.D. Cal.) Finjan filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Bitdefender Inc. and Bitdefender S.R.L. (“Bitdefender”) in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on August 16, 2017, asserting that Bitdefender is directly and indirectly infringing certain claims of Finjan’s U.S. Patent Nos. 6,804,780, 7,930,299, 8,141,154, and 8,677,494, through the manufacture, use, sale, importation, and/or offer for sale of its products and services, including but not limited to, Total Security, Family Pack, Internet Security, Antivirus Plus, Security for XP and Vista, Antivirus for Mac, Mobile Security, GravityZone Enterprise Security, GravityZone Elite Security, GravityZone Advanced Business Security, GravityZone Business Security, Hypervisor Introspection, Security for AWS, Cloud Security for MSP, GravityZone for xSP, and BOX. Finjan seeks entry of a judgment that Bitdefender has infringed and is infringing the asserted 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. This matter is assigned to the Honorable Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr., United States District Judge. On December 13, 2017, Finjan filed a Motion to Strike Bitdefender’s Answer, Counterclaims, and Affirmative Defenses, to which a hearing was held on March 8, 2018. On December 21, 2017, Bitdefender filed a motion to dismiss, or in the alternative, to quash the return of summons, and Finjan filed its opposition on January 4, 2018. On January 11, 2018, the parties submitted a proposed order stipulating to Bitdefender withdrawing its motion to dismiss as moot, which the Court entered into on January 12, 2018. On April 17, 2018, the Court granted in part and denied in part Finjan’s motion to strike affirmative defenses. Specifically, the Court granted Finjan’s motion to strike defenses of prosecution laches, waiver, estoppel, unclean hands, and denied the motion to strike the affirmative defenses of inequitable conduct and prosecution history estoppel. On February 5, 2018, Bitdefender filed a Motion to Stay, which it withdrew by stipulation with Finjan on May 8, 2018. On April 5, 2018, the parties filed a Joint Claim Construction statement. Bitdefender filed an amended answer and counterclaims on May 8, 2018, and Finjan filed its answer on May 22, 2018. A claim construction hearing was held on June 6, 2018. There can be no assurance that Finjan will be successful in settling or litigating these claims. Finjan, Inc. v. Juniper Networks, Inc., Case No. 4:17-cv-05659 (N.D. Cal.) Finjan filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Juniper Networks, Inc. (“Juniper”) in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on September 29, 2017, asserting that Juniper is directly and indirectly infringing certain claims of Finjan’s U.S. Patent Nos. 6,154,844, 6,804,780, 7,647,633, 7,613,926, 8,141,154, 8,677,494, 7,975,305, and 8,225,408, through the manufacture, use, sale, importation, and/or offer for sale of its products and services, including but not limited to, SRX Gateways, SRX Gateways using Sky ATP, and Contrail. Finjan seeks entry of a judgment that Juniper has infringed and is infringing the asserted patents, has and is inducing infringement, 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. This matter is assigned to the Honorable William H. Alsup, United States District Judge. On February 23, 2018, the Court set the following dates: (1) on June 7, 2018, the parties are to file early motions for summary judgment for the one asserted claim each have selected as its compelling case for noninfringement or invalidity, with oppositions due by June 28, 2018, and replies due by July 12, 2018, and a hearing for the summary judgment motions were held on July 26, 2018; (2) the last day for dispositive motions (other than the early motions for summary judgment) is April 11, 2019; (3) a pretrial conference on June 5, 2019; and (4) jury trial on July 8, 2019. On February 28, 2018, Juniper filed its answer and counterclaims against Finjan. On March 21, 2018, Finjan filed its answer to Juniper’s counterclaim. On May 31, 2018, Finjan filed a motion for leave to file a second amended complaint to assert U.S. Patent No. 7,418,731 (the “’731 Patent”), after considering the parties' briefs and oral argument, the Court granted Finjan's motion to file a second amended complaint on July 19, 2018.The parties filed their respective opening summary judgment briefs for one asserted claim on June 7, 2018, their oppositions on June 28, 2018, and replies on July 12, 2018. Finjan moved for summary judgment of infringement on the ‘494 Patent, and Juniper moved on summary judgment of invalidity of the ‘780 Patent. A hearing on the parties’ summary judgment was held on July 26, 2018. Finjan also moved to dismiss Juniper’s counterclaims and strike its affirmative defenses on June 15, 2018. On July 27, 2018, Finjan filed its second amended complaint to assert the ‘731 Patent. There can be no assurance that Finjan will be successful in settling or litigating these claims. Finjan, Inc. v. ZScaler, Inc., Case No. 3:17-cv-06946 (N.D. Cal.) Finjan filed a patent infringement lawsuit against ZScaler, Inc. (“ZScaler”) in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on December 5, 2017, asserting that ZScaler is directly and indirectly infringing certain claims of Finjan’s U.S. Patent Nos. 6,804,780, 7,647,633, 8,677,494 , 7,975,305, through the manufacture, use, sale, importation, and/or offer for sale of its products and services, including, but not limited to, ZScaler’s Internet Access Bundles (including Professional, Business, and Transformation), Private Access Bundle (including Professional Business, and Enterprise), ZScaler Enforcement Node (“ZEN”), Secure Web Gateway, Cloud Firewall, Cloud Sandbox, and Cloud Architecture products and services. Finjan seeks entry of a judgment that ZScaler has and continues to infringe the asserted patents, has and continues to induce infringement, 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, enhanced damages for willful infringement, costs, interest, and reasonable attorneys’ fees under 35 U.S.C. § 285. This matter is assigned to the Honorable Jon S. Tigar, United States District Judge. On March 5, 2018, Finjan moved to strike ZScaler’s affirmative defense. ZScaler filed an amended answer and counterclaims on March 29, 2018, and Finjan’s motion to strike was terminated as moot. Finjan filed its answer to ZScaler’s counterclaims on April 2, 2018. On April 2, 2018, Finjan filed an answer to ZScaler’s counterclaim. The Court set a claim construction tutorial for November 27, 2018, and a claim construction hearing for December 11, 2018. There can be no assurance that Finjan will be successful in settling or litigating these claims. Finjan, Inc. v. Trustwave Holdings, Inc., C.A. No. 18C-04-006 WCC-CCLD (Del. Super. Ct.) Finjan filed a breach of contract lawsuit against Trustwave Holdings, Inc. (“Trustwave”) in the Superior Court of Delaware on April 4, 2018, asserting that Trustwave breached a patent licensing agreement with Finjan by failing to pay owed royalties, failing to comply with audit procedures as provided by that licensing agreement, and for failing to pay for that audit. Finjan seeks entry of a judgment that Trustwave be ordered to pay damages due to the breach of the agreement and the cost of the audit, including interest, and that Finjan be awarded attorneys’ fees. This matter is assigned to the Honorable William C. Carpenter, Jr., Judge in the Superior Court of Delaware. A schedule has not yet been set in the case. There can be no assurance that Finjan will be successful in settling or litigating these claims. Finjan, Inc. v. Checkpoint, No. Case No. 3-18-cv-02621 (N.D. Cal.) Finjan filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Checkpoint (“Checkpoint”) in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on May 3, 2018. Finjan asserts that Checkpoint infringes U.S. Patent Nos. 6,154,844 (the “‘844 Patent”), 6,965,968 (the “’968 Patent”), 7,418,731 (the “’731 Patent”), 7,647,633 (the “’633 Patent”), 8,079,086 (the “’086 Patent”), 8,141,154 (the “’154 Patent”), and 8,677,494 (the “’494 Patent”). This matter is assigned to the Honorable William H. Orrick, United States District Judge. On July 16, 2018, Checkpoint filed its answer. A Case Management Conference is set for August 14, 2018. 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. 7,930,299 (Assignee, Finjan, Inc.) A third-party request for ex parte reexamination of claims 13, 14-18, 20 of U.S. Patent No. 7,930,299 was filed on September 16, 2016 and assigned Reexamination Control Number 90/013,811. The request for reexamination was granted on November 14, 2016. On January 17, 2017, Finjan filed a petition to consider pre-institution argument requesting, inter alia, that the Director rescind and/or terminate the reexamination pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 325(d). A decision dismissing Finjan’s petition to vacate the reexamination order was mailed on March 27, 2017. A Petition for Writ of Mandamus was filed with the Court of Appeal for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) requesting review of the Office’s Dismissal. A non-final Office Action was received, and a response was filed on January 30, 2018. On April 4, 2018, the Patent Office issued a Notice of Intent to Issue Ex Parte Reexamination Certificate confirming the patentability of all claims. The Certificate was issued on April 30, 2018. U.S. Patent No. 8,015,182 (Assignee, Finjan, Inc.) A third-party request for ex parte reexamination of claims 8-11, 13 of U.S. Patent No. 8,015,182 was filed on September 16, 2016 and assigned Reexamination Control Number 90/013,812. The request for reexamination was granted on October 17, 2016. On December 19, 2016, Finjan filed a petition to consider pre-institution argument requesting, inter alia, that the Director rescind and/or terminate the reexamination pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 325(d). A decision dismissing Finjan’s petition to vacate the reexamination order was mailed on March 27, 2017. A Petition for Writ of Mandamus was filed with the Court of Appeal for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) requesting review of the Office’s Dismissal. The CAFC denied the petition. A non-final Office Action rejecting claims 8-11 and 13 was issued on April 13, 2017. An Examiner Interview was conducted on May 23, 2017 and a response to the non-final Office Action was filed on June 13, 2017. A final Office Action was mailed November 9, 2017 and a response was filed January 8, 2018. An Advisory Action was mailed February 8, 2018 and a Notice of Appeal was filed February 12, 2018. An Appeal Brief was filed on April 12, 2018. An Examiner’s Answer was mailed on May 14, 2018 and a Reply Brief with request for Oral Hearing were filed on July 11, 2018. We now await Appeal docketing notice from the Patent Office. There can be no assurance that Finjan will be successful in rebutting the patentability challenge before the USPTO. U.S. Patent No. 7,756,996 (Assignee, Finjan, Inc.) A third-party request for ex parte reexamination of claims 1-7 of U.S. Patent No. 7,756,996 was filed on September 16, 2016 and assigned Reexamination Control Number 90/013,813. The request for reexamination was granted on November 14, 2016. On January 17, 2017, Finjan filed a petition to consider pre-institution argument requesting, inter alia, that the Director rescind and/or terminate the reexamination pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 325(d). A decision dismissing Finjan’s petition to vacate the reexamination order was mailed on March 27, 2017. A Petition for Writ of Mandamus was filed with the Court of Appeal for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) requesting review of the Office’s Dismissal. The CAFC denied the petition. A non-final Office Action was mailed February 1, 2018 and a response was filed on April 1, 2018. On June 21, 2018, a Notice of Intent to Issue Ex Parte Reexamination Certificate confirming the patentability of all claims was issued by the Patent Office. 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, 2016. 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 and the Requester filed comments on April 28, 2016. The PTAB denied Finjan’s Request for Rehearing on August 5, 2016. Finjan did not appeal the PTAB decision to the Federal Circuit. A Reexamination Certificate canceling the rejected claims 2-4, 7-11, 13-14, 16-20, 22-32, 34-36, 39-44, 46-51, 53 and 54 was issued on January 12, 2017. 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. 8,141,154 (the “’154 Patent”) On July 3, 2015, April 19, 2016, and May 26, 2016, Symantec Corporation filed three (3) separate petitions for IPR of U.S. Patent No. 8,141,154 (IPR2015-01547; IPR2016-00919; IPR2016-01071) and moved to join the petition for IPR filed by Palo Alto Networks with respect to the ‘154 Patent (IPR2016-00151). 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. On February 16, 2016, Symantec filed a Request for Rehearing with respect to IPR2015-01547, and on February 25, 2016, the PTAB denied Symantec’s Request for Rehearing. With respect to IPR2016-00919 and IPR2016-01071 on the ‘154 Patent, the PTAB granted Symantec’s motions for joinder on September 8, 2016. On March 15, 2017, the PTAB issued a final written decision maintaining the validity of the instituted claims in both IPR2016-00919 and IPR2016-01071. Palo Alto Networks and Symantec Corp. filed Notice of Appeals for IPR2016-00151, IPR2015-01979, IPR2016-00919, and IPR2016-01071 to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on July 19, 2017 (Case No. 17-2315 and 17-2314). On July 24, 2017, the Federal Circuit consolidated the two appeals. On October 30, 2017, Palo Alto Networks and Symantec Corp. filed their Opening Appellant Brief. Finjan’s Responsive Brief was filed on December 20, 2017. Palo Alto Network and Symantec Corp.’s Reply Brief was filed on January 25, 2018. On March 7, 2018, Symantec filed a motion to withdraw from appeal numbers 2017-2314, 2017-2315. On March 13, 2018, the Federal Circuit granted Symantec’s motion to withdraw. Oral argument was heard on June 6, 2018. U.S. Patent No. 8,677,494 (the “’494 Patent”) On September 10, 2015, Symantec filed a petition for inter partes review of the ’494 Patent (IPR2015-01892). Finjan filed a POPR to the petition on December 28, 2015. On March 18, 2016, the PTAB granted Symantec’s petition to institute the IPR proceeding on claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 10, 11, 14, and 15 of the ’494 Patent. On April 1, 2016, Finjan filed a request for rehearing. The PTAB denied the request for rehearing on May 23, 2016. On March 15, 2017, the PTAB issued a final written decision maintaining the validity of claims 5, 10, 11, 14, and 15 and invalidating claims 1, 2, and 6 of the ’494 Patent. Symantec filed a Notice of Appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on May 16, 2017, and on May 18, 2017, Finjan filed its Notice of Appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Case No. 17-2034 and 2017-2047). Symantec and Blue Coat filed its Opening Appellant Brief on August 25, 2017. The Federal Circuit consolidated Case No. 17-2543 filed by Palo Alto Networks and Blue Coat Systems with Case No. 17-2034. Palo Alto Networks’ and Blue Coat Systems’ Opening Appellant Brief filed its Opening Appellant Brief on December 29, 2017. Finjan filed its Cross-Appellant Principal and Response Brief on February 7, 2018. On March 8, 2018, Symantec and Blue Coat filed a motion to withdraw from appeal numbers 2017-2543, 2623. On March 13, 2018, the Federal Circuit granted Symantec and Blue Coat’s motion to withdraw and deconsolidated the appeal. On April 12, 2018, the Patent Office intervened in the appeal. Palo Alto Networks filed its reply brief on April 18, 2018. The Patent Office’s reply brief was filed on May 22, 2018, and Finjan’s reply brief was filed on June 5, 2018. 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. On July 12, 2016, Finjan submitted a Patent Owner Response to the Petition. 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. On May 4, 2016, Finjan filed a partial request for rehearing, and on June 2, 2016, the PTAB denied Finjan’s Request for Rehearing. On June 16, 2016, the parties filed a joint notice to amend the Scheduling Order. On August 31, 2016, Finjan filed its Patent Owner Response to Palo Alto Network’s Petition in IPR 2016-00151. The parties had an oral hearing for IPR2016-00151 on January 24, 2017 and on March 15, 2017, the PTAB issued a final written decision maintaining the validity of all instituted claims. The parties had an oral hearing for IPR2015-01979 on December 15, 2016 and on March 15, 2017, the PTAB issued a final written decision maintaining the validity of all instituted claims. On April 14, 2017, Palo Alto Networks filed a request for rehearing. On May 19, 2017, the PTAB denied Palo Alto Networks’ request for rehearing. Palo Alto Networks and Symantec Corp. filed Notice of Appeals for IPR2016-00151, IPR2015-01979, IPR2016-00919, and IPR2016-01071 to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on July 19, 2017 (Case No. 17-2315 and 17-2314). On July 24, 2017, the Federal Circuit consolidated the two appeals. On October 30, 2017, Palo Alto Networks and Symantec Corp. filed their Opening Appellant Brief. Finjan’s Responsive Brief was filed on December 20, 2017. Palo Alto Network and Symantec Corp.’s Reply Brief was filed on January 25, 2018. On March 8, 2018, Symantec filed a motion to withdraw from appeal numbers 2017-2314, 2315. On March 13, 2018, the Federal Circuit granted Symantec’s motion to withdraw. Oral argument was heard on June 6, 2018. 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. On May 18, 2016, the PTAB denied Palo Alto Networks’ Request for Rehearing. On June 1, 2016, the parties filed a joint notice to amend the Scheduling Order. On August 9, 2016, Finjan filed its Patent Owner Response to Palo Alto Network’s Petition in IPR 2015-01974. The parties had an oral hearing on January 5, 2017, and on March 16, 2017, the PTAB issued a final written decision maintaining the validity of all instituted claims. 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 the IPR proceedings in IPR2015-02001 and IPR2016-00157 and consolidated the two IPR proceedings. On April 12, 2016, Finjan filed requests for rehearing. On May 16, 2016, the PTAB denied Finjan’s Requests for Rehearing. On June 27, 2016, the parties filed a joint notice to amend the Scheduling Order. On August 9, 2016, Finjan filed its Patent Owner Response to Palo Alto Network’s Petition in IPR 2015-02001 and IPR 2016-00157. The parties had an oral hearing on January 5, 2017, and on March 17, 2017, the PTAB issued a final written decision maintaining the validity of all instituted claims. Palo Alto Networks and Blue Coat Systems LLC filed a Notice of Appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on May 22, 2017 (Case No. 17-2059). Palo Alto Networks and Blue Coat filed their Opening Appellant Brief on September 15, 2017. Finjan filed its Response Brief on November 27, 2017, and Palo Alto Networks and Blue Coat filed their Reply Brief on January 11, 2018. On March 7, 2018, Blue Coat filed a motion to withdraw from the appeal. On March 13, 2018, the Federal Circuit granted Blue Coat’s motion to withdraw. Oral argument was heard on June 6, 2018. 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. On May 13, 2016, the PTAB granted institution of IPR. On May 27, 2016, Finjan filed a Request for Rehearing, and on June 23, 2016 the PTAB denied Finjan’s Request for Rehearing. On June 27, 2016, the parties filed a joint notice to amend the Scheduling Order. On August 12, 2016, Finjan filed its Patent Owner Response to Palo Alto Network’s Petition in IPR 2016-00159. The parties had an oral hearing on February 16, 2017. On April 11, 2017, the PTAB issued a final written decision stating that claims 3 - 5 and 10 - 15 have not been shown to be unpatentable, and claims 1, 2, and 6 have been shown to be unpatentable. Finjan filed a request for rehearing on May 11, 2017, and on July 17, 2017, the PTAB denied Finjan's request. Palo Alto Networks and Blue Coat Systems LLC filed a Notice of Appeal for IPR2016-00159 and IPR2016-01174 to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on September 14, 2017, and on September 28, 2017, Finjan filed its Notice of Appeal (Case No. 17-2543). The Federal Circuit consolidated the appeal with Case No. 17-2034. Palo Alto Networks’ and Blue Coat Systems’ Opening Appellant Brief filed its Opening Appellant Brief on December 29, 2017. Finjan filed its Cross-Appellant Principal and Response Brief on February 7, 2018. On March 8, 2018, Symantec and Blue Coat filed a motion to withdraw from appeal numbers 2017-2543, 2623. On March 13, 2018, the Federal Circuit granted Symantec and Blue Coat’s motion to withdraw and deconsolidated the appeal. On April 12, 2018, the Patent Office intervened in the appeal. Palo Alto Networks filed its reply brief on April 18, 2018. The Patent Office’s reply brief was filed on May 22, 2018, and Finjan’s reply brief was filed on June 5, 2018. 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). On April 22, 2016, Finjan filed a POPR to the petition. On June 24, 2016, the PTAB instituted IPR, and granted Blue Coat’s Motion for Joinder. On March 16, 2017, the PTAB issued a final written decision maintaining the validity of all instituted claims. U.S. Patent No. 8,225,408 (the “’408 Patent”) On April 27, 2016, Blue Coat Systems, Inc. filed two (2) separate petitions for IPRs of United States Patent No. 8,225,408 (IPR2016-00955; IPR2016-00956), and Motion for Joinder to Palo Alto Networks, Inc.’s Petitions for IPR of the ‘408 Patent (IPR2015-02001 and IPR2016-00157). On August 30, 2016, the PTAB granted Blue Coat Systems, Inc.’s Motions for Joinder. On March 17, 2017, the PTAB issued a final written decision maintaining the validity of all instituted claims in IPR2015-02001 and IPR2016-00157. Palo Alto Networks and Blue Coat Systems LLC filed a Notice of Appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on May 22, 2017 (Case No. 17-2059). Palo Alto Networks and Blue Coat filed their Opening Appellant Brief on September 15, 2017. Finjan filed its Response Brief on November 27, 2017, and Palo Alto Networks and Blue Coat filed their Reply Brief on January 11, 2018. On March 7, 2018, Blue Coat filed a motion to withdraw from the appeal. On March 13, 2018, the Federal Circuit granted Blue Coat’s motion to withdraw. Oral argument was heard on June 6, 2018. U.S. Patent No. 8,677,494 (the “494 Patent”) On April 14, 2016 and on June 10, 2016, Blue Coat Systems, Inc. filed two Petitions for IPR of United States Patent No. 8,677,494 (IPR2016-00890; IPR2016-01174) and a Motion for Joinder to Symantec Corp.’s Petition for IPR of the ‘494 Patent (IPR2015-01892) and Palo Alto Networks, Inc.’s Petition for IPR of the ‘494 Patent (IPR2016-00159). The PTAB granted Blue Coat’s motions for joinder. On March 15, 2017, the PTAB issued a final written decision maintaining the validity of claims 5, 10, 11, 14, and 15 and invalidating claims 1, 2, and 6 of the ’494 Patent in IPR2015-01892. Palo Alto Networks and Blue Coat Systems LLC filed a Notice of Appeal for IPR2016-00159 and IPR2016-01174 to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on September 14, 2017, and on September 28, 2017, Finjan filed its Notice of Appeal (Case No. 17-2543). The Federal Circuit consolidated the appeal with Case No. 17-2034. Palo Alto Networks’ and Blue Coat Systems’ Opening Appellant Brief filed its Opening Appellant Brief on December 29, 2017. Finjan filed its Cross-Appellant Principal and Response Brief on February 7, 2018. On March 8, 2018, Symantec and Blue Coat filed a motion to withdraw from appeal numbers 2017-2543, 2623. On March 13, 2018, the Federal Circuit granted Symantec and Blue Coat’s motion to withdraw and deconsolidated the appeal. On April 12, 2018, the Patent Office intervened in the appeal. Palo Alto Networks filed its reply brief on April 18, 2018. The Patent Office’s reply brief was filed on May 22, 2018, and Finjan’s reply brief was filed on June 5, 2018. U.S Patent No. 7,975,305 (the “’305 Patent”) On July 4, 2017, ESET, LLC and ESET SPOL S.R.O. filed a petition for IPR of the '305 Patent (IPR2017-01738). Finjan filed its POPR on November 3, 2017. On January 31, 2018, the PTAB instituted IPR on claims 1-25 of the ’305 Patent. Finjan’s Patent Owner Response is to be filed on August 20, 2018 and Petitioner’s Reply is due on November 5, 2018. Oral argument is scheduled for December 3, 2018. U.S. Patent No. 8,079,086 (the “’086 Patent”) On August 16, 2017, ESET, LLC and ESET SPOL S.R.O. filed a petition for IPR of the ’086 Patent and motion for joinder to Blue Coat Systems, Inc. v. Finjan, Inc. IPR2016-01444 (IPR2017-01969). On November 3, 2017, Finjan filed its POPR. On January 9, 2018, the PTAB denied institution of IPR. On February 6, 2018, ESET filed a request for rehearing. On February 15, 2018, the PTAB denied ESETs’ request for rehearing. U.S. Patent No. 6,154,844 (the “’844 Patent”) On September 22, 2017, Cisco Systems, Inc. filed a petition for IPR of the ’844 Patent (IPR2017-02154). Finjan filed its POPR on January 6, 2018. On April 3, 2018, the PTAB denied institution of IPR. U.S. Patent No. 8,677,494 (the “’494 Patent”) On September 22, 2017, Cisco Systems, Inc. filed a petition for IPR of the ’494 Patent (IPR2017-02155). Finjan filed its POPR on January 8, 2018. On April 3, 2018, the PTAB denied institution of IPR. U.S. Patent No. 7,647,633 (the “’633 Patent”) On December 22, 2017, Cisco Systems, Inc. filed a petition for IPR of the ‘633 Patent (IPR2018-00391). Finjan’s POPR was filed on March 28, 2018. On June 5, 2018, the PTAB instituted IPR on claims 1, 4, 8, and 11-14 of the ‘633 Patent. Finjan’s Patent Owner Response is to be filed on September 10, 2018, and Petitioner’s Reply is to be filed on December 10, 2018. Oral argument is scheduled for March 6, 2019. 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., Case No. 13-cv-03133SBA, (N.D. Cal)

Finjan filed a patent infringement lawsuit against FireEye, Inc. (“FireEye”) in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on July 8, 2013, asserting that FireEye, Inc. was 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, 8,225,408, and 6,154,844, 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. On January 12, 2018, the parties stipulated that all claims in the case be dismissed with prejudice pursuant to a confidential patent license and settlement agreement executed December 29, 2017.

Finjan, Inc. v. Blue Coat Systems, Inc., Case No. 13-cv-03999-BLF (N.D. Cal.) ("Blue Coat I")

Finjan filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Blue Coat Systems, Inc., (“Blue Coat”) 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. The principal parties in this proceeding were Finjan and Blue Coat. This action was before the Honorable Judge Beth Labson Freeman. Trial commenced July 20, 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. The jury also awarded Finjan approximately $39.5 million in damages as reasonable royalties for Blue Coat's infringement. Which such finding was appealed by Blue Coat to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ("Federal Circuit"). On March 5, 2018, the Court ordered, pursuant to stipulation between the parties following entry into a confidential patent license and settlement agreement, that all claims in the case be dismissed with prejudice.

Finjan, Inc. v. Blue Coat Systems LLC, Case No. 5:15-cv-03295-BLF (N.D. Cal.)

Finjan filed a second patent infringement lawsuit against Blue Coat Systems LLC (“Blue Coat”) in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on July 15, 2015, asserting that Blue Coat was 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 (collectively, the “asserted patents”), through the manufacture, use, importation, sale, and/or offer for sale of its products and services. A trial was held on October 31, 2017, that resulted in a partial verdict, followed by a retrial on certain issues from the first trial (“Retrial I”) on January 8, 2018, which the Court declared a mistrial upon the Federal Circuit’s issuance on January 10, 2018, of its decision related to Blue Coat I. The Court ordered, among other things, a second retrial for February 12, 2018, which it later vacated on February 9, 2018. On March 5, 2018, the Court ordered pursuant to stipulation between the parties following entry into a confidential patent license and settlement agreement, dismissal of all claims with prejudice.

Finjan, Inc. v. Symantec Corporation., Case No. 14-cv-02998-HSG (N.D. Cal.)

Finjan filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Symantec Corporation (“Symantec”) in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on June 30, 2014, asserting that Symantec was 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, 8,141,154, 6,154,844, 7,613,926 and 8,677,494, through the manufacture, use, importation, sale, and/or offer for sale of certain products and services. On March 5, 2018, the Court ordered, pursuant to stipulation between the parties following entry into a confidential patent license and settlement agreement between the parties dated February 28, 2018, that all claims in the case be dismissed with prejudice.

Finjan, Inc. v. Palo Alto Networks, Inc., Case No. 3:14-cv-04908 PJH (N.D. Cal.)

Finjan filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Palo Alto Networks, Inc. (“Palo Alto Networks”) 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 (the "Asserted Patents"), 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 applied 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, is infringing, has induced infringement and is inducing infringement of the Asserted Patents, a preliminary and permanent injunction from infringing, or inducing the infringement the Asserted 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. This action is before the Honorable Phyllis J. Hamilton in the Oakland division of the District Court for the Northern District of California. Palo Alto Networks filed several petitions for IPR's before the PTAB. The PTAB instituted review of certain patents and denied institution on other challenged patents. In particular, the PTAB instituted and subsequently determined that the challenged claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 9,141,154 and 8,225,408 were not unpatentable; upon which Palo Alto Networks appealed to the Federal Circuit. Oral argument before the Federal Circuit regarding the ‘154 and ‘408 Patents was heard June 6, 2018.

In addition, the PTAB instituted and subsequently determined that claims 3-5 and 10-15 of U.S. Patent No. 8,677,494 were not unpatentable, and that claims 1, 2, and 6 of the ‘494 Patent were shown to be unpatentable. Finjan appealed this latter determination to the Federal Circuit, which is pending. On May 26, 2016, the Court ordered the stay to remain in effect until the PTAB’s final determination of the instituted IPRs and the matter remains stayed pending appeal. There can be no assurance that Finjan will be successful in settling or litigating these claims.

Finjan, Inc. v ESET, LLC et al., Case No. 3:16-cv-03731-JD (N.D. Cal.)

Finjan filed a patent infringement lawsuit against ESET, LLC ("ESET, LLC") and ESET SPOL S.R.O. (“ESET SPOL”) (collectively "ESET") in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on July 1, 2016, asserting that ESET infringes Finjan’s U.S. Patent Nos. 6,154,844, 6,804,780, 7,975,305, 8,079,086, 9,189,621, and 9,219,755, through the manufacture, use, importation, sale, and/or offer for sale of its products and services, including but not limited to, ESET ThreatSense, ESET Advanced Heuristic, ESET DNA Signature, Host-based Intrusion Prevention System (HIPS), and ESET LiveGrid technologies including ESET’S Home Protection, Small Office, and Business product lines and ESET Services. Finjan seeks entry of a judgment that ESET has infringed and is infringing the asserted 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. This case was transferred to the Southern District of California on January 30, 2017 and was assigned to the Honorable Cathy Ann Bencivengo on February 8, 2017, Case No. 3-17-cv-00183 (S.D. Cal.). There can be no assurance that Finjan will be successful in settling or litigating these claims.

ESET, LLC v. Finjan, Inc., Case No. 16-cv-01704 (S.D. Cal.)

ESET, LLC (“ESET”) filed a Complaint for Declaratory Judgment against Finjan, Inc. (“Finjan”) in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California on July 1, 2016, asserting that there is an actual controversy between the parties to declare that ESET does not infringe any claim of U.S. Patent No. 7,975,305 (“the ‘305 Patent”). ESET sought an entry of judgment that it has not infringed any claim of the ’305 Patent, an injunction against Finjan from asserting any of the claims in the ‘305 Patent against ESET or any of its customers or suppliers, and a finding that the case is exceptional and an award of fees and costs under 35 U.S.C. § 285. On July 11, 2016, ESET filed an Amended Complaint for Declaratory Judgment, seeking entry of judgment that it does not infringe any claim of the U.S. Patent Nos. 6,154,844, 6,804,780, 7,975,305, 8,079,086, 9,189,621, and 9,219,755. ESET seeks an injunction against Finjan from asserting infringement of these patents against ESET or any of its customers or suppliers, and a finding that the case is exceptional and an award of fees and costs under 35 U.S.C. § 285. On July 26, 2016, Finjan filed a motion to dismiss the action pursuant to the first-to-file rule, asserting that Finjan was first to file an action in the Northern District of California with respect to five of the six patents at issue between the parties (Finjan, Inc. v ESET, LLC et al., Case 3:16-cv-03731-JD (N.D. Cal.). On September 26, 2016, the Court granted Finjan’s motion and dismissed this action without prejudice. ESET has appealed the dismissal to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The Federal Circuit dismissed this Appeal to the Federal Circuit on February 2, 2017 after the Court in Finjan, Inc. v. ESET, LLC et al., Case 3:16-cv-03731-JD, transferred that case to the Southern District of California.

Finjan, Inc. v. ESET, LLC et al., Case No. 3:17-cv-00183 (S.D. Cal.)

Finjan filed a patent infringement lawsuit against ESET, LLC (“ESET, LLC”) and ESET SPOL S.R.O. (“ESET SPOL”) (collectively, “ESET”) in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on July 1, 2016 (Case No. 3:16-cv-03731-JD (N.D. Cal.)), which was transferred to the Southern District of California on January 31, 2017. This action is currently before the Honorable Cathy Ann Bencivengo. Details on procedures prior to February 2018 are disclosed in Note 8 of our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2017. Finjan’s opposition was filed on March 13, 2018, and ESET filed its reply on March 20, 2018. On February 26, 2018, a hearing for the Motion for Reconsideration was held, and the Court denied Finjan’s Motion for Reconsideration. On February 26, 2018, the Court issued an Order following a case management conference regarding a second election of asserted claims and prior art and scheduled a status conference on June 14, 2018. On April 4, 2018, Finjan filed supplemental authority regarding ESET’s pending motion to stay. On May 7, 2018, the Court granted ESET’s motion to stay with regard to the ‘305 Patent only. On June 4, 2018, the Court amended the scheduling order such that opening summary judgment briefs are due October 17, 2018, with oppositions due on November 7, 2018, replies due on November 20, 2018, a hearing for the summary judgment motions will be held on November 29, 2018, a final pretrial conference on January 11, 2019, and a jury trial to commence on February 4, 2019. There can be no assurance that Finjan will be successful in settling or litigating these claims.

Finjan, Inc. v. Cisco Systems, Inc., Case No. 17-cv-00072-BLF (N.D. Cal.)

Finjan filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Cisco Systems, Inc. (“Cisco”) in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on January 6, 2017, asserting that Cisco infringes Finjan’s U.S. Patent Nos. 6,154,844, 6,804,780, 7,647,633, 8,141,154 and 8,677,494 (the "Asserted Patents") through the manufacture, use, importation, sale, and/or offer for sale of its products and services, including but not limited to, Cisco’s Advanced Malware Protection, Cisco Collective Security Intelligence, Cisco Outbreak Filters, Talos Security Intelligence and Research Group, and AMP Threat Grid technologies, including Cisco AMP for Endpoints, Cisco AMP for Networks (also referred to by Cisco as “NGIPS”), Cisco AMP for ASA with FirePOWER Services, Cisco AMP Private Cloud Virtual Appliance, Cisco AMP for CWS, ESA, or WSA, Cisco AMP for Meraki MX, Cisco AMP Threat Grid. Finjan seeks entry of a judgment that Cisco has infringed and is infringing the asserted 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. Details on procedures prior to March 2018 are disclosed in Note 8 of our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2017. On April 2, 2018, Finjan filed a motion to strike Cisco’s affirmative defenses of prosecution laches, ensnarement doctrine, and inequitable conduct, to which a hearing is set for August 30, 2018. Finjan filed a reply to its motion to strike on April 23, 2018. On June 7, 2018, the Court held a claim construction tutorial, and on June 15, 2018, the Court held a claim construction hearing. The Court entered its Order Construing Claims in the Asserted Claims on July 23, 2018, adopted nearly all of Finjan's proposed constructions.The Court set a case management conference for August 30, 2018 and a jury trial to commence on June 1, 2020. There can be no assurance that Finjan will be successful in settling or litigating these claims.

Finjan, Inc. v. ESET SPOL S.R.O. et al., Docket Nos. 2 Ni 53/16 (EP). 4c O 33/16 (Düsseldorf District Court and Munich Court)

Finjan filed a patent infringement lawsuit against ESET SPOL. S.R.O. (ESET SPOL"), a Slovak Republic Corporation, and ESET Deutschland GmbH (collectively “ESET”) in the Düsseldorf District Court of Germany on July 1, 2016, asserting that ESET infringes Finjan’s European Patent No. 0 965 094 B1 (“the ‘094 Patent”), through the offering and/or delivering to customers in the Federal Republic of Germany software covered by the ‘094 Patent, including but not limited to ESET’s ThreatSense, ESET Advanced Heuristic, ESET DNA Signature, ESET LiveGrid technologies, including ESET’s Home Users, Small Office, and Business product lines and ESET services. Finjan seeks a judgment sentencing ESET to a fine for each violation of patent infringement or, alternatively imprisonment of ESET directors, cease and desist orders for offering or delivering infringing software, providing Finjan with profit information for offering or delivering infringing software, damages, which Finjan has suffered or shall suffer as a result of ESET offering or delivering infringing software since November 1, 2008. The infringement hearing was held on October 5, 2017. No decision has been entered to date. On November 24, 2016, ESET filed a nullity action. Finjan responded to the nullity action contesting the nullity action completely and requesting the Court to reject the action and impose the cost of the proceedings to the claimant. There can be no assurance that Finjan will be successful in settling or litigating these claims.

Finjan, Inc. v. Blue Coat Systems, Inc., and Blue Coat Systems GmbH., Docket Nos. 2 Ni 22/17 (EP), 4c O 57/16 (Dusseldorf District Court and Munich Court)

Finjan filed a third patent infringement lawsuit against Blue Coat Systems, Inc., which is its first patent infringement suit against Blue Coat’s subsidiary Blue Coat Systems GmbH, located in Munich Germany in the Dusseldorf District Court of Germany on October 14, 2016. Finjan asserted that Blue Coat infringed Finjan’s European Patent No. 0 965 094 B1 (“the ‘094 Patent”), through the offering and/or delivering to customers in the Federal Republic of Germany software covered by the ‘094 Patent. Blue Coat filed a nullity (invalidity) action in Munich, Germany. On March 2, 2018, the parties entered into a confidential settlement agreement. On March 6, 2018, Blue Coat withdrew their nullity action in Germany.

Finjan, Inc. v. SonicWall, Inc., Case No. 5:17-cv-04467 (N.D. Cal.)

Finjan filed a patent infringement lawsuit against SonicWall, Inc. (“SonicWall”) in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on August 4, 2017, asserting that SonicWall is directly and indirectly infringing certain claims of Finjan’s U.S. Patent Nos. 6,154,844, 7,058,822, 6,804,780, 7,613,926, 7,647,633, 8,141,154, 8,677,494, 7,975,305, 8,225,408, and 6,965,968, through the manufacture, use, sale, importation, and/or offer for sale of its products and services, including but not limited to, Appliance Products utilizing Capture ATP and/or Gateway Security Services and Email Security Products utilizing Capture ATP and/or Gateway Security Services. Finjan seeks entry of a judgment that SonicWall has infringed and is infringing the asserted 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. This matter is assigned to the Honorable Beth Labson Freeman, United States District Judge. On October 13, 2017, SonicWall filed a Motion to Dismiss Finjan’s Complaint for Failure to State a Claim for Willful Infringement. On May 16, 2018, the Court denied Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim for Willful Infringement. On May 30, 2018, SonicWall filed its answer. On June 20, 2018, Finjan filed a motion to strike SonicWall’s affirmative defense of inequitable conduct. Defendant’s opposition was filed on July 5, 2018, and Finjan’s reply was filed on July 12, 2018. Finjan’s motion to strike is scheduled to be heard on December 6, 2018. A claim construction tutorial is set for October 5, 2018, a claim construction hearing for October 12, 2018, a final pretrial conference for March 18, 2021, and a jury trial to commence on May 3, 2021. There can be no assurance that Finjan will be successful in settling or litigating these claims.

Finjan, Inc. v. Bitdefender Inc., et al., Case No. 5:17-cv-04790 (N.D. Cal.)

Finjan filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Bitdefender Inc. and Bitdefender S.R.L. (“Bitdefender”) in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on August 16, 2017, asserting that Bitdefender is directly and indirectly infringing certain claims of Finjan’s U.S. Patent Nos. 6,804,780, 7,930,299, 8,141,154, and 8,677,494, through the manufacture, use, sale, importation, and/or offer for sale of its products and services, including but not limited to, Total Security, Family Pack, Internet Security, Antivirus Plus, Security for XP and Vista, Antivirus for Mac, Mobile Security, GravityZone Enterprise Security, GravityZone Elite Security, GravityZone Advanced Business Security, GravityZone Business Security, Hypervisor Introspection, Security for AWS, Cloud Security for MSP, GravityZone for xSP, and BOX. Finjan seeks entry of a judgment that Bitdefender has infringed and is infringing the asserted 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. This matter is assigned to the Honorable Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr., United States District Judge. On December 13, 2017, Finjan filed a Motion to Strike Bitdefender’s Answer, Counterclaims, and Affirmative Defenses, to which a hearing was held on March 8, 2018. On December 21, 2017, Bitdefender filed a motion to dismiss, or in the alternative, to quash the return of summons, and Finjan filed its opposition on January 4, 2018. On January 11, 2018, the parties submitted a proposed order stipulating to Bitdefender withdrawing its motion to dismiss as moot, which the Court entered into on January 12, 2018. On April 17, 2018, the Court granted in part and denied in part Finjan’s motion to strike affirmative defenses. Specifically, the Court granted Finjan’s motion to strike defenses of prosecution laches, waiver, estoppel, unclean hands, and denied the motion to strike the affirmative defenses of inequitable conduct and prosecution history estoppel. On February 5, 2018, Bitdefender filed a Motion to Stay, which it withdrew by stipulation with Finjan on May 8, 2018. On April 5, 2018, the parties filed a Joint Claim Construction statement. Bitdefender filed an amended answer and counterclaims on May 8, 2018, and Finjan filed its answer on May 22, 2018. A claim construction hearing was held on June 6, 2018. There can be no assurance that Finjan will be successful in settling or litigating these claims.

Finjan, Inc. v. Juniper Networks, Inc., Case No. 4:17-cv-05659 (N.D. Cal.)

Finjan filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Juniper Networks, Inc. (“Juniper”) in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on September 29, 2017, asserting that Juniper is directly and indirectly infringing certain claims of Finjan’s U.S. Patent Nos. 6,154,844, 6,804,780, 7,647,633, 7,613,926, 8,141,154, 8,677,494, 7,975,305, and 8,225,408, through the manufacture, use, sale, importation, and/or offer for sale of its products and services, including but not limited to, SRX Gateways, SRX Gateways using Sky ATP, and Contrail. Finjan seeks entry of a judgment that Juniper has infringed and is infringing the asserted patents, has and is inducing infringement, 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. This matter is assigned to the Honorable William H. Alsup, United States District Judge. On February 23, 2018, the Court set the following dates: (1) on June 7, 2018, the parties are to file early motions for summary judgment for the one asserted claim each have selected as its compelling case for noninfringement or invalidity, with oppositions due by June 28, 2018, and replies due by July 12, 2018, and a hearing for the summary judgment motions were held on July 26, 2018; (2) the last day for dispositive motions (other than the early motions for summary judgment) is April 11, 2019; (3) a pretrial conference on June 5, 2019; and (4) jury trial on July 8, 2019. On February 28, 2018, Juniper filed its answer and counterclaims against Finjan. On March 21, 2018, Finjan filed its answer to Juniper’s counterclaim. On May 31, 2018, Finjan filed a motion for leave to file a second amended complaint to assert U.S. Patent No. 7,418,731 (the “’731 Patent”), after considering the parties' briefs and oral argument, the Court granted Finjan's motion to file a second amended complaint on July 19, 2018.The parties filed their respective opening summary judgment briefs for one asserted claim on June 7, 2018, their oppositions on June 28, 2018, and replies on July 12, 2018. Finjan moved for summary judgment of infringement on the ‘494 Patent, and Juniper moved on summary judgment of invalidity of the ‘780 Patent. A hearing on the parties’ summary judgment was held on July 26, 2018. Finjan also moved to dismiss Juniper’s counterclaims and strike its affirmative defenses on June 15, 2018. On July 27, 2018, Finjan filed its second amended complaint to assert the ‘731 Patent. There can be no assurance that Finjan will be successful in settling or litigating these claims.

Finjan, Inc. v. ZScaler, Inc., Case No. 3:17-cv-06946 (N.D. Cal.)

Finjan filed a patent infringement lawsuit against ZScaler, Inc. (“ZScaler”) in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on December 5, 2017, asserting that ZScaler is directly and indirectly infringing certain claims of Finjan’s U.S. Patent Nos. 6,804,780, 7,647,633, 8,677,494 , 7,975,305, through the manufacture, use, sale, importation, and/or offer for sale of its products and services, including, but not limited to, ZScaler’s Internet Access Bundles (including Professional, Business, and Transformation), Private Access Bundle (including Professional Business, and Enterprise), ZScaler Enforcement Node (“ZEN”), Secure Web Gateway, Cloud Firewall, Cloud Sandbox, and Cloud Architecture products and services. Finjan seeks entry of a judgment that ZScaler has and continues to infringe the asserted patents, has and continues to induce infringement, 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, enhanced damages for willful infringement, costs, interest, and reasonable attorneys’ fees under 35 U.S.C. § 285. This matter is assigned to the Honorable Jon S. Tigar, United States District Judge. On March 5, 2018, Finjan moved to strike ZScaler’s affirmative defense. ZScaler filed an amended answer and counterclaims on March 29, 2018, and Finjan’s motion to strike was terminated as moot. Finjan filed its answer to ZScaler’s counterclaims on April 2, 2018. On April 2, 2018, Finjan filed an answer to ZScaler’s counterclaim. The Court set a claim construction tutorial for November 27, 2018, and a claim construction hearing for December 11, 2018. There can be no assurance that Finjan will be successful in settling or litigating these claims.

Finjan, Inc. v. Trustwave Holdings, Inc., C.A. No. 18C-04-006 WCC-CCLD (Del. Super. Ct.)

Finjan filed a breach of contract lawsuit against Trustwave Holdings, Inc. (“Trustwave”) in the Superior Court of Delaware on April 4, 2018, asserting that Trustwave breached a patent licensing agreement with Finjan by failing to pay owed royalties, failing to comply with audit procedures as provided by that licensing agreement, and for failing to pay for that audit. Finjan seeks entry of a judgment that Trustwave be ordered to pay damages due to the breach of the agreement and the cost of the audit, including interest, and that Finjan be awarded attorneys’ fees. This matter is assigned to the Honorable William C. Carpenter, Jr., Judge in the Superior Court of Delaware. A schedule has not yet been set in the case. There can be no assurance that Finjan will be successful in settling or litigating these claims.

Finjan, Inc. v. Checkpoint, No. Case No. 3-18-cv-02621 (N.D. Cal.)

Finjan filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Checkpoint (“Checkpoint”) in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on May 3, 2018. Finjan asserts that Checkpoint infringes U.S. Patent Nos. 6,154,844 (the “‘844 Patent”), 6,965,968 (the “’968 Patent”), 7,418,731 (the “’731 Patent”), 7,647,633 (the “’633 Patent”), 8,079,086 (the “’086 Patent”), 8,141,154 (the “’154 Patent”), and 8,677,494 (the “’494 Patent”). This matter is assigned to the Honorable William H. Orrick, United States District Judge. On July 16, 2018, Checkpoint filed its answer. A Case Management Conference is set for August 14, 2018. 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. 7,930,299 (Assignee, Finjan, Inc.)

A third-party request for ex parte reexamination of claims 13, 14-18, 20 of U.S. Patent No. 7,930,299 was filed on September 16, 2016 and assigned Reexamination Control Number 90/013,811. The request for reexamination was granted on November 14, 2016. On January 17, 2017, Finjan filed a petition to consider pre-institution argument requesting, inter alia, that the Director rescind and/or terminate the reexamination pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 325(d). A decision dismissing Finjan’s petition to vacate the reexamination order was mailed on March 27, 2017. A Petition for Writ of Mandamus was filed with the Court of Appeal for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) requesting review of the Office’s Dismissal. A non-final Office Action was received, and a response was filed on January 30, 2018. On April 4, 2018, the Patent Office issued a Notice of Intent to Issue Ex Parte Reexamination Certificate confirming the patentability of all claims. The Certificate was issued on April 30, 2018.

U.S. Patent No. 8,015,182 (Assignee, Finjan, Inc.)

A third-party request for ex parte reexamination of claims 8-11, 13 of U.S. Patent No. 8,015,182 was filed on September 16, 2016 and assigned Reexamination Control Number 90/013,812. The request for reexamination was granted on October 17, 2016. On December 19, 2016, Finjan filed a petition to consider pre-institution argument requesting, inter alia, that the Director rescind and/or terminate the reexamination pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 325(d). A decision dismissing Finjan’s petition to vacate the reexamination order was mailed on March 27, 2017. A Petition for Writ of Mandamus was filed with the Court of Appeal for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) requesting review of the Office’s Dismissal. The CAFC denied the petition. A non-final Office Action rejecting claims 8-11 and 13 was issued on April 13, 2017. An Examiner Interview was conducted on May 23, 2017 and a response to the non-final Office Action was filed on June 13, 2017. A final Office Action was mailed November 9, 2017 and a response was filed January 8, 2018. An Advisory Action was mailed February 8, 2018 and a Notice of Appeal was filed February 12, 2018. An Appeal Brief was filed on April 12, 2018. An Examiner’s Answer was mailed on May 14, 2018 and a Reply Brief with request for Oral Hearing were filed on July 11, 2018. We now await Appeal docketing notice from the Patent Office. There can be no assurance that Finjan will be successful in rebutting the patentability challenge before the USPTO.

U.S. Patent No. 7,756,996 (Assignee, Finjan, Inc.)

A third-party request for ex parte reexamination of claims 1-7 of U.S. Patent No. 7,756,996 was filed on September 16, 2016 and assigned Reexamination Control Number 90/013,813. The request for reexamination was granted on November 14, 2016. On January 17, 2017, Finjan filed a petition to consider pre-institution argument requesting, inter alia, that the Director rescind and/or terminate the reexamination pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 325(d). A decision dismissing Finjan’s petition to vacate the reexamination order was mailed on March 27, 2017. A Petition for Writ of Mandamus was filed with the Court of Appeal for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) requesting review of the Office’s Dismissal. The CAFC denied the petition. A non-final Office Action was mailed February 1, 2018 and a response was filed on April 1, 2018. On June 21, 2018, a Notice of Intent to Issue Ex Parte Reexamination Certificate confirming the patentability of all claims was issued by the Patent Office.

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, 2016. 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 and the Requester filed comments on April 28, 2016. The PTAB denied Finjan’s Request for Rehearing on August 5, 2016. Finjan did not appeal the PTAB decision to the Federal Circuit. A Reexamination Certificate canceling the rejected claims 2-4, 7-11, 13-14, 16-20, 22-32, 34-36, 39-44, 46-51, 53 and 54 was issued on January 12, 2017.

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. 8,141,154 (the “’154 Patent”)

On July 3, 2015, April 19, 2016, and May 26, 2016, Symantec Corporation filed three (3) separate petitions for IPR of U.S. Patent No. 8,141,154 (IPR2015-01547; IPR2016-00919; IPR2016-01071) and moved to join the petition for IPR filed by Palo Alto Networks with respect to the ‘154 Patent (IPR2016-00151). 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. On February 16, 2016, Symantec filed a Request for Rehearing with respect to IPR2015-01547, and on February 25, 2016, the PTAB denied Symantec’s Request for Rehearing. With respect to IPR2016-00919 and IPR2016-01071 on the ‘154 Patent, the PTAB granted Symantec’s motions for joinder on September 8, 2016. On March 15, 2017, the PTAB issued a final written decision maintaining the validity of the instituted claims in both IPR2016-00919 and IPR2016-01071. Palo Alto Networks and Symantec Corp. filed Notice of Appeals for IPR2016-00151, IPR2015-01979, IPR2016-00919, and IPR2016-01071 to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on July 19, 2017 (Case No. 17-2315 and 17-2314). On July 24, 2017, the Federal Circuit consolidated the two appeals. On October 30, 2017, Palo Alto Networks and Symantec Corp. filed their Opening Appellant Brief. Finjan’s Responsive Brief was filed on December 20, 2017. Palo Alto Network and Symantec Corp.’s Reply Brief was filed on January 25, 2018. On March 7, 2018, Symantec filed a motion to withdraw from appeal numbers 2017-2314, 2017-2315. On March 13, 2018, the Federal Circuit granted Symantec’s motion to withdraw. Oral argument was heard on June 6, 2018.

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

On September 10, 2015, Symantec filed a petition for inter partes review of the ’494 Patent (IPR2015-01892). Finjan filed a POPR to the petition on December 28, 2015. On March 18, 2016, the PTAB granted Symantec’s petition to institute the IPR proceeding on claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 10, 11, 14, and 15 of the ’494 Patent. On April 1, 2016, Finjan filed a request for rehearing. The PTAB denied the request for rehearing on May 23, 2016. On March 15, 2017, the PTAB issued a final written decision maintaining the validity of claims 5, 10, 11, 14, and 15 and invalidating claims 1, 2, and 6 of the ’494 Patent. Symantec filed a Notice of Appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on May 16, 2017, and on May 18, 2017, Finjan filed its Notice of Appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Case No. 17-2034 and 2017-2047). Symantec and Blue Coat filed its Opening Appellant Brief on August 25, 2017. The Federal Circuit consolidated Case No. 17-2543 filed by Palo Alto Networks and Blue Coat Systems with Case No. 17-2034. Palo Alto Networks’ and Blue Coat Systems’ Opening Appellant Brief filed its Opening Appellant Brief on December 29, 2017. Finjan filed its Cross-Appellant Principal and Response Brief on February 7, 2018. On March 8, 2018, Symantec and Blue Coat filed a motion to withdraw from appeal numbers 2017-2543, 2623. On March 13, 2018, the Federal Circuit granted Symantec and Blue Coat’s motion to withdraw and deconsolidated the appeal. On April 12, 2018, the Patent Office intervened in the appeal. Palo Alto Networks filed its reply brief on April 18, 2018. The Patent Office’s reply brief was filed on May 22, 2018, and Finjan’s reply brief was filed on June 5, 2018.

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. On July 12, 2016, Finjan submitted a Patent Owner Response to the Petition. 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. On May 4, 2016, Finjan filed a partial request for rehearing, and on June 2, 2016, the PTAB denied Finjan’s Request for Rehearing. On June 16, 2016, the parties filed a joint notice to amend the Scheduling Order. On August 31, 2016, Finjan filed its Patent Owner Response to Palo Alto Network’s Petition in IPR 2016-00151. The parties had an oral hearing for IPR2016-00151 on January 24, 2017 and on March 15, 2017, the PTAB issued a final written decision maintaining the validity of all instituted claims. The parties had an oral hearing for IPR2015-01979 on December 15, 2016 and on March 15, 2017, the PTAB issued a final written decision maintaining the validity of all instituted claims. On April 14, 2017, Palo Alto Networks filed a request for rehearing. On May 19, 2017, the PTAB denied Palo Alto Networks’ request for rehearing. Palo Alto Networks and Symantec Corp. filed Notice of Appeals for IPR2016-00151, IPR2015-01979, IPR2016-00919, and IPR2016-01071 to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on July 19, 2017 (Case No. 17-2315 and 17-2314). On July 24, 2017, the Federal Circuit consolidated the two appeals. On October 30, 2017, Palo Alto Networks and Symantec Corp. filed their Opening Appellant Brief. Finjan’s Responsive Brief was filed on December 20, 2017. Palo Alto Network and Symantec Corp.’s Reply Brief was filed on January 25, 2018. On March 8, 2018, Symantec filed a motion to withdraw from appeal numbers 2017-2314, 2315. On March 13, 2018, the Federal Circuit granted Symantec’s motion to withdraw. Oral argument was heard on June 6, 2018.

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. On May 18, 2016, the PTAB denied Palo Alto Networks’ Request for Rehearing. On June 1, 2016, the parties filed a joint notice to amend the Scheduling Order. On August 9, 2016, Finjan filed its Patent Owner Response to Palo Alto Network’s Petition in IPR 2015-01974. The parties had an oral hearing on January 5, 2017, and on March 16, 2017, the PTAB issued a final written decision maintaining the validity of all instituted claims.

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 the IPR proceedings in IPR2015-02001 and IPR2016-00157 and consolidated the two IPR proceedings. On April 12, 2016, Finjan filed requests for rehearing. On May 16, 2016, the PTAB denied Finjan’s Requests for Rehearing. On June 27, 2016, the parties filed a joint notice to amend the Scheduling Order. On August 9, 2016, Finjan filed its Patent Owner Response to Palo Alto Network’s Petition in IPR 2015-02001 and IPR 2016-00157. The parties had an oral hearing on January 5, 2017, and on March 17, 2017, the PTAB issued a final written decision maintaining the validity of all instituted claims. Palo Alto Networks and Blue Coat Systems LLC filed a Notice of Appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on May 22, 2017 (Case No. 17-2059). Palo Alto Networks and Blue Coat filed their Opening Appellant Brief on September 15, 2017. Finjan filed its Response Brief on November 27, 2017, and Palo Alto Networks and Blue Coat filed their Reply Brief on January 11, 2018. On March 7, 2018, Blue Coat filed a motion to withdraw from the appeal. On March 13, 2018, the Federal Circuit granted Blue Coat’s motion to withdraw. Oral argument was heard on June 6, 2018.

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. On May 13, 2016, the PTAB granted institution of IPR. On May 27, 2016, Finjan filed a Request for Rehearing, and on June 23, 2016 the PTAB denied Finjan’s Request for Rehearing. On June 27, 2016, the parties filed a joint notice to amend the Scheduling Order. On August 12, 2016, Finjan filed its Patent Owner Response to Palo Alto Network’s Petition in IPR 2016-00159. The parties had an oral hearing on February 16, 2017. On April 11, 2017, the PTAB issued a final written decision stating that claims 3 - 5 and 10 - 15 have not been shown to be unpatentable, and claims 1, 2, and 6 have been shown to be unpatentable. Finjan filed a request for rehearing on May 11, 2017, and on July 17, 2017, the PTAB denied Finjan's request. Palo Alto Networks and Blue Coat Systems LLC filed a Notice of Appeal for IPR2016-00159 and IPR2016-01174 to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on September 14, 2017, and on September 28, 2017, Finjan filed its Notice of Appeal (Case No. 17-2543). The Federal Circuit consolidated the appeal with Case No. 17-2034. Palo Alto Networks’ and Blue Coat Systems’ Opening Appellant Brief filed its Opening Appellant Brief on December 29, 2017. Finjan filed its Cross-Appellant Principal and Response Brief on February 7, 2018. On March 8, 2018, Symantec and Blue Coat filed a motion to withdraw from appeal numbers 2017-2543, 2623. On March 13, 2018, the Federal Circuit granted Symantec and Blue Coat’s motion to withdraw and deconsolidated the appeal. On April 12, 2018, the Patent Office intervened in the appeal. Palo Alto Networks filed its reply brief on April 18, 2018. The Patent Office’s reply brief was filed on May 22, 2018, and Finjan’s reply brief was filed on June 5, 2018.

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). On April 22, 2016, Finjan filed a POPR to the petition. On June 24, 2016, the PTAB instituted IPR, and granted Blue Coat’s Motion for Joinder. On March 16, 2017, the PTAB issued a final written decision maintaining the validity of all instituted claims.

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

On April 27, 2016, Blue Coat Systems, Inc. filed two (2) separate petitions for IPRs of United States Patent No. 8,225,408 (IPR2016-00955; IPR2016-00956), and Motion for Joinder to Palo Alto Networks, Inc.’s Petitions for IPR of the ‘408 Patent (IPR2015-02001 and IPR2016-00157). On August 30, 2016, the PTAB granted Blue Coat Systems, Inc.’s Motions for Joinder. On March 17, 2017, the PTAB issued a final written decision maintaining the validity of all instituted claims in IPR2015-02001 and IPR2016-00157. Palo Alto Networks and Blue Coat Systems LLC filed a Notice of Appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on May 22, 2017 (Case No. 17-2059). Palo Alto Networks and Blue Coat filed their Opening Appellant Brief on September 15, 2017. Finjan filed its Response Brief on November 27, 2017, and Palo Alto Networks and Blue Coat filed their Reply Brief on January 11, 2018. On March 7, 2018, Blue Coat filed a motion to withdraw from the appeal. On March 13, 2018, the Federal Circuit granted Blue Coat’s motion to withdraw. Oral argument was heard on June 6, 2018.

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

On April 14, 2016 and on June 10, 2016, Blue Coat Systems, Inc. filed two Petitions for IPR of United States Patent No. 8,677,494 (IPR2016-00890; IPR2016-01174) and a Motion for Joinder to Symantec Corp.’s Petition for IPR of the ‘494 Patent (IPR2015-01892) and Palo Alto Networks, Inc.’s Petition for IPR of the ‘494 Patent (IPR2016-00159). The PTAB granted Blue Coat’s motions for joinder. On March 15, 2017, the PTAB issued a final written decision maintaining the validity of claims 5, 10, 11, 14, and 15 and invalidating claims 1, 2, and 6 of the ’494 Patent in IPR2015-01892. Palo Alto Networks and Blue Coat Systems LLC filed a Notice of Appeal for IPR2016-00159 and IPR2016-01174 to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on September 14, 2017, and on September 28, 2017, Finjan filed its Notice of Appeal (Case No. 17-2543). The Federal Circuit consolidated the appeal with Case No. 17-2034. Palo Alto Networks’ and Blue Coat Systems’ Opening Appellant Brief filed its Opening Appellant Brief on December 29, 2017. Finjan filed its Cross-Appellant Principal and Response Brief on February 7, 2018. On March 8, 2018, Symantec and Blue Coat filed a motion to withdraw from appeal numbers 2017-2543, 2623. On March 13, 2018, the Federal Circuit granted Symantec and Blue Coat’s motion to withdraw and deconsolidated the appeal. On April 12, 2018, the Patent Office intervened in the appeal. Palo Alto Networks filed its reply brief on April 18, 2018. The Patent Office’s reply brief was filed on May 22, 2018, and Finjan’s reply brief was filed on June 5, 2018.

U.S Patent No. 7,975,305 (the “’305 Patent”)

On July 4, 2017, ESET, LLC and ESET SPOL S.R.O. filed a petition for IPR of the '305 Patent (IPR2017-01738). Finjan filed its POPR on November 3, 2017. On January 31, 2018, the PTAB instituted IPR on claims 1-25 of the ’305 Patent. Finjan’s Patent Owner Response is to be filed on August 20, 2018 and Petitioner’s Reply is due on November 5, 2018. Oral argument is scheduled for December 3, 2018.

U.S. Patent No. 8,079,086 (the “’086 Patent”)

On August 16, 2017, ESET, LLC and ESET SPOL S.R.O. filed a petition for IPR of the ’086 Patent and motion for joinder to Blue Coat Systems, Inc. v. Finjan, Inc. IPR2016-01444 (IPR2017-01969). On November 3, 2017, Finjan filed its POPR. On January 9, 2018, the PTAB denied institution of IPR. On February 6, 2018, ESET filed a request for rehearing. On February 15, 2018, the PTAB denied ESETs’ request for rehearing.

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

On September 22, 2017, Cisco Systems, Inc. filed a petition for IPR of the ’844 Patent (IPR2017-02154). Finjan filed its POPR on January 6, 2018. On April 3, 2018, the PTAB denied institution of IPR.

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

On September 22, 2017, Cisco Systems, Inc. filed a petition for IPR of the ’494 Patent (IPR2017-02155). Finjan filed its POPR on January 8, 2018. On April 3, 2018, the PTAB denied institution of IPR.

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

On December 22, 2017, Cisco Systems, Inc. filed a petition for IPR of the ‘633 Patent (IPR2018-00391). Finjan’s POPR was filed on March 28, 2018. On June 5, 2018, the PTAB instituted IPR on claims 1, 4, 8, and 11-14 of the ‘633 Patent. Finjan’s Patent Owner Response is to be filed on September 10, 2018, and Petitioner’s Reply is to be filed on December 10, 2018. Oral argument is scheduled for March 6, 2019.

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.