SAN FRANCISCO – The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California recently denied a motion for a new trial in a patent infringement action involving Finjan Inc. and Juniper Networks Inc.
In a March 11 ruling, U.S. District Judge William Alsup denied plaintiff Finjan's renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law, its motion for a new trial and its request for certification of interlocutory appeal. Alsup also held in abeyance defendant Juniper's motion for judgment as a matter of law.
The dispute involves whether Juniper infringed on Finjan’s patented products. Juniper was granted a motion for summary judgment for a noninfringement claim in August 2018 and Finjan was granted in part its motion for summary judgment for an infringement claim, and also discovered a triable issue, court filings said. Trial was set for December 2018.
The issues remaining were if Juniper’s allegedly infringing products met the requirements of the “database” limitation, which states "a database manager coupled with said downloadable scanner, for storing the downloadable security profile data in a database,” as well as damages, the ruling states.
Finjan and Juniper filed motions for judgment as a matter of law in December, and Juniper received a favorable ruling. A post-trial order was then dated for January. The current action then ensued.
Alsup denied Finjan’s new motion for judgment as a matter of law. After disputes between the expert witness for both sides, Alsup added, “at bottom, drawing all reasonable inferences in favor of Juniper (the nonmoving party), this order finds that there exists substantial evidence supporting the jury’s verdict of noninfringement.”
The judge also denied Finjan’s alternative motion for a new trial. While Finjan raised issues like Juniper’s supposed inappropriate conduct at trial, Alsup said “none of these are grounds for a new trial,” as it denied this motion as well.
Finjan’s motion for certification for interlocutory appeal was also denied while Juniper’s renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law was held in abeyance. The court noted that Juniper's motion is premature and deferred ruling on the matter.