Legal Opinion
Finjan, Inc. v. Blue Coat Systems, LLC
District Court, N.D. California
Decided February 2, 2017No. Case No.15-cv-03295-BLF (HRL)PublishedCited by 1 opinion
1Opinion of the Court
ORDER GRANTING-IN-PART AND DENYING-IN-PART DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO STRIKE PLAINTIFF’S INFRINGEMENT CONTENTIONS
Re: Dkt. No. 89
HOWARD R. LLOYD, United States Magistrate Judge
Defendant Blue Coat Systems, Inc. (“Blue Coat”) moves to strike Plaintiff Fin-jan, Inc.’s (“Finjan”) Patent Local Rule 3-1 Infringement Contentions Regarding U.S. Patent Nos. 6,154,844 (the ’844 Patent), 6,956,968 (the ’968 Patent), and 7,418,731 (the ’731 Patent) (together, the “three patents”). For the following reasons, the court grants Blue Coat’s motion in part and denies it in part.
BACKGROUND
This is the second suit…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Lawlor v. National Screen Service Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1955
- Margaret Stewart Jamey L. Paulson William Keith Laura Spencer Lee Callison Stephanie Glowa Terri Gorecki Dan Berryman v. U.S. BancorpCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2002
- Kessler v. EldredSupreme Court of the United States · 1907
- Aspex Eyewear, Inc. v. Marchon Eyewear, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2012
- ACUMED LLC v. Stryker Corp.Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2008
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by1 opinion
- Oyster Optics, LLC v. Ciena CorporationDistrict Court, N.D. California · 2021