SAN FRANCISCO — A networking company sued by a cybersecurity company over patent infringement had a motion to amend its counterclaims denied in part and granted in part.
U.S. District Judge William Alsup, on the bench of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, issued a seven-page order on Oct. 29 regarding the motion in the lawsuit filed by Finjan against Juniper Networks.
Finjan sued Juniper over allegations of infringing patents regarding its malware-detection technology.
"On June 15, Finjan moved to dismiss various counterclaims and strike related affirmative defenses, which were based on prosecution laches, inequitable conduct, unclean hands, and ensnarement," the order said.
An Aug. 31 order "granted in part and denied in part Finjan’s motion to strike and dismiss Juniper’s answer and counterclaims," leading to the current motion by Juniper to amend its pleas, the document stated.
In the order, Alsup denied amendments regarding a claim of unreasonable delay, stating that "Juniper does not specify which of the five patents and their related allegedly unreasonably delayed prosecution prejudiced Juniper insofar as to which of Juniper’s accused products were affected during the period of delay."
However, Alsup granted the motion for all other points.
In the case of ensnarement, Alsup said that "Juniper’s proposed amendment includes additional factual allegations supporting its ensnarement doctrine affirmative defense."
Alsup also granted the motion on the count of inequitable conduct, regarding some of the patents.
While analyzing some of the Juniper's attorney Dawn-Marie Bey's petitions to the Patent and Trademark Office (PTO), Alsup said that "Juniper’s proposed amendment plead sufficient facts to support the reasonable inference that Attorney Bey delayed claim of priority with the intent to deceive the PTO."
The judge ordered 14 calendar days for an answer to be submitted.
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California Case number 3:17-cv-05659-WHA