fnjn sj
Post on 03-Oct-2015
15 Views
Preview:
DESCRIPTION
TRANSCRIPT
-
__________________________________________________________________________________ FINJANS NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION Case No.: 13-CV-03999-BLF FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF INFRINGEMENT
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PAUL J. ANDRE (State Bar No. 196585) pandre@kramerlevin.com LISA KOBIALKA (State Bar No. 191404) lkobialka@kramerlevin.com JAMES HANNAH (State Bar No. 237978) jhannah@kramerlevin.com KRAMER LEVIN NAFTALIS & FRANKEL LLP 990 Marsh Road Menlo Park, CA 94025 Telephone: (650) 752-1700 Facsimile: (650) 752-1800 Attorneys for Plaintiff FINJAN, INC.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
SAN JOSE DIVISION
FINJAN, INC., a Delaware Corporation, Plaintiff,
v. BLUE COAT SYSTEMS, INC., a Delaware Corporation, Defendant.
Case No.: 13-CV-03999-BLF PLAINTIFF FINJAN, INC.S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NOS. 6,154,844; 7,058,822; 7,647,633; 7,418,731; 6,965,968; AND 6,804,780, OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF CERTAIN CLAIM ELEMENTS; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES Date: April 16, 2015 Time: 9:00 a.m. Place: Courtroom 3 5th Floor Before: Hon. Beth Labson Freeman
REDACTED VERSION OF DOCUMENT SOUGHT TO BE SEALED
Case5:13-cv-03999-BLF Document179 Filed03/12/15 Page1 of 30
-
i __________________________________________________________________________________ FINJANS NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION Case No.: 13-CV-03999-BLF FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF INFRINGEMENT
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT ........................... 1
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES .......................................................................... 1
I. INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................ 1
II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND ....................................................................................................... 2
A. History of Finjans Inventions and Blue Coats Infringement .......................................... 2
B. The Instant Lawsuit ........................................................................................................... 4
1. The Asserted Patents ............................................................................................. 4
2. The Accused Products ........................................................................................... 5
3. Fact and Expert Discovery .................................................................................... 8
III. SUMMARY OF ISSUES FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ........................................................ 9
IV. LEGAL STANDARD ................................................................................................................... 9
V. ARGUMENT .............................................................................................................................. 10
A. Partial Summary Judgment Should be Granted for Undisputed Elements ..................... 10
1. Undisputed Elements of the 844 Patent ............................................................. 10
2. Undisputed Elements of the 822 Patent ............................................................. 12
3. Undisputed Elements of the 633 Patent ............................................................. 13
4. Undisputed Elements of the 968 Patent ............................................................. 14
5. Undisputed Elements of the 780 Patent ............................................................. 16
B. Summary Judgment Should be Granted for Elements for which Blue Coats Defense is Unsupportable ............................................................................................... 18
1. Security Profile and Suspicious Code Elements ................................................. 18
2. Linking Element.................................................................................................. 19
3. Rule Set Element................................................................................................. 19
4. Mobile Protection Code Element ........................................................................ 20
Case5:13-cv-03999-BLF Document179 Filed03/12/15 Page2 of 30
-
ii __________________________________________________________________________________ FINJANS NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION Case No.: 13-CV-03999-BLF FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF INFRINGEMENT
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5. Providing an Information Re-Communicator and a Mobile Code Executor Element ................................................................................................ 21
6. Receiving Downloadable Information Element .................................................. 21
7. Causing Mobile Protection Code to be Executed Element ................................. 22
8. Computer Gateway Element ............................................................................... 22
9. File Cache Element ............................................................................................. 23
10. Security Policy Cache Element ........................................................................... 23
11. Policy Index Element .......................................................................................... 24
12. Hashing Element ................................................................................................. 25
VI. CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................................... 25
Case5:13-cv-03999-BLF Document179 Filed03/12/15 Page3 of 30
-
iii __________________________________________________________________________________ FINJANS NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION Case No.: 13-CV-03999-BLF FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF INFRINGEMENT
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Page(s)
Cases
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (1986) ............................................................................................................................ 9
Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (1986) ............................................................................................................................ 9
Kegel Co. v. AMF Bowling, Inc., 127 F.3d 1420 (Fed. Cir. 1997)........................................................................................................... 9
Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 517 U.S. 370 (1996) ............................................................................................................................ 9
MShift, Inc. v. Digital Insight Corp., 747 F. Supp. 2d 1147 (N.D. Cal. 2010) ............................................................................................ 10
Norian Corp. v. Stryker Corp., 433 F. Supp. 2d 1051 (N.D. Cal. 2004) .............................................................................................. 9
Volterra Semiconductor Corp. v. Primarion, Inc., 799 F. Supp. 2d 1092 (N.D. Cal. 2011) ............................................................................................ 10
Other Authorities
Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a) ................................................................................................................................. 9
Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c) ................................................................................................................................. 9
Case5:13-cv-03999-BLF Document179 Filed03/12/15 Page4 of 30
-
1 FINJANS NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION Case No.: 13-CV-03999-BLF FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF INFRINGEMENT
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD:
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on April 16, 2015 at 9:00 a.m., or as soon thereafter as the
matter may be heard by the Honorable Beth Labson Freeman in Courtroom 3, 5th Floor of the United
States District Court for the Northern District of California, 280 South 1st Street in San Jose, CA
95113, Plaintiff Finjan, Inc. (Finjan) shall, and hereby does, move the Court for an order granting
summary judgment of infringement in favor of Finjan that Blue Coat Systems, Inc. (Blue Coat)
infringes all of the elements of the following claims (collectively, the Asserted Claims):
U.S. Patent No. 6,154,844 (the 844 Patent), Claims 1, 7, 11, 15-16 and 41; U.S. Patent No. 7,058,822 (the 822 Patent), Claims 9 and 10; U.S. Patent No. 7,647,633 (the 633 Patent), Claims 8 and Claim 14; U.S. Patent No. 7,418,731 (the 731 Patent), Claim 1; U.S. Patent No. 6,965,968 (the 968 Patent), Claims 1, 9 and 33; U.S. Patent No. 6,804,780 (the 780 Patent), Claims 9, 13 and 18.
In the alternative, Finjan moves for partial summary judgment that Blue Coat infringes the following
elements of the following claims (collectively, the Undisputed Elements):
the 844 Patent, Claim 1, elements (a)-(b); Claim 7; Claim 15, element (a); and Claim 41, elements (a)-(b);
the 822 Patent, Claim 9, elements (a)-(c) and (e); and Claim 10; the 633 Patent, Claim 8, elements (a)-(c); and Claim 14, element (a); the 968 Patent, Claim 1, elements (a) and (c); Claim 9; and Claim 33,
elements (a)-(b); the 780 Patent, Claim 9, elements (a)-(b), Claim 13; and Claim 18, elements
(a)-(b).
This motion is based on: this Notice of Motion and supporting Memorandum of Points and
Authorities; the Declaration of James Hannah in Support of Plaintiff Finjan, Inc.s Motion for
Summary Judgment and exhibits attached thereto; the Moving Separate Statement submitted
concurrently herewith; and such other written or oral argument as may be presented at or before the
time this motion is deemed submitted by the Court.
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
I. INTRODUCTION
Blue Coat infringes Finjans patents covering pioneering technology for protecting computers
Case5:13-cv-03999-BLF Document179 Filed03/12/15 Page5 of 30
-
2 FINJANS NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION Case No.: 13-CV-03999-BLF FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF INFRINGEMENT
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
and networks from viruses delivered over the Internet.
With this backdrop, it becomes apparent after
analyzing Blue Coats technical documents that this case is ripe for summary judgment.
Blue Coat cannot point to any evidence that creates a genuine issue of fact regarding its
infringement of various claim elements of Finjans patents. These elements fall into two categories.
First, for certain elements, Blue Coat altogether fails to dispute that its products meet the element.
These elements include descriptions of the accused products (e.g., an inspector system, a processor-
based system) and actions that they perform (e.g., receiving a Downloadable, storing a cache of
digital content). Second, for the other elements, Blue Coat provides defenses that are completely
unsupportable because they are directly contradicted by Blue Coats own documents and testimony.
Thus, because Blue Coat has failed to provide any supportable defense or any defense at all for
various claim elements, Finjan is entitled to summary judgment for all elements of the Asserted
Claims, or, in the alternative, partial summary judgment of the Undisputed Elements.
II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND
A. History of Finjans Inventions and Blue Coats Infringement
Finjan formed in 1995 to develop technology to proactively detect a new generation of
computer virus threats delivered over the Internet. Through over a decade of research, and after
spending over $65 million in research and development, Finjan developed an innovative suite of anti-
malware technologies. Finjans inventions included the identification of behavior of malicious code,
which allows previously unknown threats to be blocked proactively (in contrast to prior technology,
which relied on signatures of viruses already known in the security industry). Finjan has been
awarded various patents for these new techniques and sold products incorporating them, resulting in
millions of dollars of sales. Finjans patented technology has been long acknowledged by the industry
as a significant innovation and consistently praised for its pioneering nature. See, e.g., Ex. 11 at
1 All Ex. citations are to exhibits attached to the Declaration of James Hannah in Support of Finjans Motion for Summary Judgment filed herewith.
Case5:13-cv-03999-BLF Document179 Filed03/12/15 Page6 of 30
-
3 FINJANS NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION Case No.: 13-CV-03999-BLF FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF INFRINGEMENT
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
FINJAN-BC 052429-30 (Finjan is the inventor of proactive content behavior inspection.); see also
Ex. 2 (2007 SC Magazine finalist for Best Security Company and Best Security Solution for
Government); Ex. 3 at FINJAN-BC 046307 (Finjan developed some of the basic building blocks of
the modern computer security industry, including the security sandbox.).
Finjan has had numerous partners in the computer and network security industry who have used
Finjans products within or along with their own products, including Blue Coat. Recognizing the
importance of Finjans proprietary technology in achieving online security, various leading technology
and network and computer security companies have also taken a license under Finjans patents,
amounting to over $150 million in fees to date. Finjan has also successfully enforced its patents in
court (including the 822 and 780 Patents asserted here against Blue Coat) in a decision upheld by the
Federal Circuit in 2010.
Blue Coat was founded in 1996 as a company focused on web optimization and acceleration.
In 2002, Blue Coat began partnering with other companies to add security features to its products,
including a partnership with Finjan.
Case5:13-cv-03999-BLF Document179 Filed03/12/15 Page7 of 30
-
4 FINJANS NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION Case No.: 13-CV-03999-BLF FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF INFRINGEMENT
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
(
.
B. The Instant Lawsuit
1. The Asserted Patents
Finjan filed this action on August 28, 2013 for Blue Coats infringement of six of the Finjan
patents described above, specifically, the 844 Patent, 968 Patent, 731 Patent, 780 Patent, 822 Patent
and 633 Patent (the Asserted Patents). The Asserted Patents relate to a variety of technologies to
protect computers from viruses downloaded through the Internet, including technologies for
optimization of this protection.
The 844 Patent is the first line of defense and protects users against unknown downloadables
that are potentially malicious using behavior detection. Rather than relying on signatures, the system
of the 844 Patent tracks the operations that a downloadable is programmed to perform. Ex. 13 at 2:65.
In so doing, the system generates a profile that identifies suspicious code within the downloadable. Id.
at 2:5-3:5. This profile is linked to the downloadable before it is made available to the client who
requested the content so that appropriate actions can be taken. Id. at 5:59-6:24, Fig. 6. As a result, the
system can proactively protect users against malicious downloadables, even downloadables that have
never been seen before. Id. at 2:60-3:5.
If the downloadable is allowed to pass the inspection system described in the 844 Patent, the
system of the 822 Patent provides additional protection for users. The 822 Patents system inspects
downloadable information for executable code, such as downloadables, and injects mobile protection
code into the content in order to monitor or intercept any malicious activity made by executable code.
Ex. 17 at 2:40-3:20. The monitored downloadable content is then passed to the user. Id. at 7:5-15.
The 633 Patent is related to the 822 Patent and shares the same specification. The claims of
the 633 Patent, however, are different than the 822 Patent. While the claimed systems of the 822
Case5:13-cv-03999-BLF Document179 Filed03/12/15 Page8 of 30
-
5 FINJANS NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION Case No.: 13-CV-03999-BLF FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF INFRINGEMENT
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
and 633 Patents can monitor content through mobile protection code injection, the system claimed in
the 633 Patent can also run the downloadable in a protective virtual environment or sandbox. Ex.
18 at 3:15-20. This provides even further protection because the true actions of the code can be
determined without having to run the downloadable on the users computer. Id. at 4:10-25.
The remaining three patents provide a framework to optimize a security system. The system of
the 731 Patent utilizes multiple caches (temporary memory) to store various components of a typical
system that analyzes web traffic. Specifically, the 731 Patents system stores files (such as webpages)
in a file cache so that the system can quickly retrieve previously requested content. Ex. 15 at 1:64-
4:67. It stores the results of a security scan in a security profile cache so that it can avoid having to
rescan every file. Id. at 6:55-60. Finally, the system of the 731 stores security policies in a cache so
that decisions about which user can access which file or webpage is done an efficient manner. Id. at
7:55-59.
The 968 Patent describes a different cache-based system which provides for even further
efficiencies. After content is retrieved and scanned, security policies must be applied in order to
determine whether the content is allowable. The system of the 968 Patent stores these policy
decisions in a policy index (also known as a policy cache) for quick retrieval in analyzing requested
content. Ex. 14 at 1:63-2:10.
The 780 Patent protects users from downloadables by generating identifiers for incoming
downloadables at a network security system before they arrive at a users computer. Ex. 16 at 3:36-44
and Fig. 1. Hashing is used in this process, which is a mathematical function to determine whether
data was previously seen. Id. at 2:12-27. The generation of these identifiers allows the network
security system to avoid expensive analysis for previously seen Downloadables. Id.
2. The Accused Products
The Blue Coat technologies that infringe the Asserted Patents include WebPulse, ProxySG,
Content Analysis System (CAS), Malware Analysis Appliance (MAA) and ProxyAV. The following
chart summarizes which products infringe the Asserted Patents:
Case5:13-cv-03999-BLF Document179 Filed03/12/15 Page9 of 30
-
6 FINJANS NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION Case No.: 13-CV-03999-BLF FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF INFRINGEMENT
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Asserted Patents Infringing Products
844 Patent WebPulse2
822 Patent ProxySG3
633 Patent ProxySG;
MAA;
ProxySG with CAS and MAA
731 Patent ProxySG with WebPulse
968 Patent ProxySG with WebPulse
780 Patent ProxyAV4
ProxySG with ProxyAV
These technologies are the core of Blue Coats defense solution and often work in conjunction with
one another as part of a layered defense. Indeed, WebPulse, ProxySG, CAS and MAA are often
referred to as the secure web gateway. See Ex. 31 at BC0210379; see also Ex. 69 at BC0193196.
WebPulse is the front line of defense against unknown threats in the Blue Coat security system,
and is depicted below in relation to ProxySG and an origin content server, also known as a web server:
2 All references to WebPulse include all products that use WebPulse to analyze web traffic, including ThreatBLADES. 3 ProxySG includes a number of components, including Webfilter which interacts with WebPulse. Thus, all references to ProxySG includes all components within ProxySG, including Webfilter. 4 Notably, ProxyAV is the predecessor product to CAS.
Case5:13-cv-03999-BLF Document179 Filed03/12/15 Page10 of 30
-
7 FINJANS NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION Case No.: 13-CV-03999-BLF FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF INFRINGEMENT
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5 ProxyAV is the predecessor of CAS.
Case5:13-cv-03999-BLF Document179 Filed03/12/15 Page11 of 30
-
8 FINJANS NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION Case No.: 13-CV-03999-BLF FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF INFRINGEMENT
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Ex. 71, Content Analysis System Guide Version 1.2 at 3.
.
3. Fact and Expert Discovery
Fact discovery took place from November 19, 2013 to December 12, 2014. Expert discovery
commenced on January 12, 2015. Below is a summary of the parties expert reports regarding
infringement and the Asserted Patents addressed by each report:
844 822 633
731 968 780
Dr. Coles 1/12/15 report for Finjan (Cole Report) X X X Dr. Mitzenmachers 1/12/15 report for Finjan (Mitzenmacher Report)
X X X
Dr. Bestavros 2/13/15 report for Blue Coat (Bestavros Report)
X X X X
Dr. Hicks 2/13/15 report for Blue Coat (Hicks Report)
X X
Each of these experts was deposed regarding his respective report in February 2015.
Case5:13-cv-03999-BLF Document179 Filed03/12/15 Page12 of 30
-
9 FINJANS NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION Case No.: 13-CV-03999-BLF FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF INFRINGEMENT
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
III. SUMMARY OF ISSUES FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
Appendix A provides a chart that summarizes the claim elements at issue in the instant motion
and the Blue Coat products accused for each claim. For each element in the chart, Blue Coat has
either: (1) not disputed that the element is present in the accused products, indicated as Undisputed
and shaded in the chart and addressed in Section V(A) below, or (2) presented only factually
unsupported argument, indicated as Unsupported Defense in the chart and addressed in Section V(B)
below.
IV. LEGAL STANDARD
Summary judgment is proper when the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and
admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any
material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. Anderson v.
Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248-49 (1986); Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). An issue is genuine only if
there is a sufficient evidentiary basis on which a reasonable fact finder could find for the non-moving
party. A dispute is material only if it could affect the outcome of the suit under governing law. See
Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248-49. Summary judgment is proper on each claim or defenseor the part of
each claim or defenseon which summary judgment is sought in order to isolate and dispose of
factually unsupported claims or defenses. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a); Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S.
317, 323-24 (1986).
To determine patent infringement, first, the court must determine as a matter of law the
meaning of the particular patent claims at issue; second, it must consider whether the accused product
infringes a properly construed claim. Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 517 U.S. 370 (1996).
The plaintiff bears the burden under a preponderance of the evidence standard. See Kegel Co. v.
AMF Bowling, Inc., 127 F.3d 1420, 1425 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (affirming summary judgment of
infringement). Comparison of a properly interpreted claim with an uncontested description of an
accused process would reflect such an absence of material fact as to warrant summary judgment.
Norian Corp. v. Stryker Corp., 433 F. Supp. 2d 1051, 1053 (N.D. Cal. 2004). Also, summary
judgment is appropriate when an expert opinion is not supported by sufficient facts to validate it in
Case5:13-cv-03999-BLF Document179 Filed03/12/15 Page13 of 30
-
10 FINJANS NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION Case No.: 13-CV-03999-BLF FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF INFRINGEMENT
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
eyes of law, or when indisputable record facts contradict or otherwise render opinion unreasonable.
Volterra Semiconductor Corp. v. Primarion, Inc., 799 F. Supp. 2d 1092, 1098-99 (N.D. Cal. 2011)
(quotations omitted); see also MShift, Inc. v. Digital Insight Corp., 747 F. Supp. 2d 1147, 1165-66
(N.D. Cal. 2010).
V. ARGUMENT
As explained below, Finjan has identified ample factual support (and supporting expert
opinions) to show that each element of claims of each Asserted Patent is present in the accused
products. Yet Blue Coat has either (1) completely failed to dispute the presence of the element
(Section A below) or (2) provided no supportable noninfringement defense for the element (Section B
below). As such, Finjan is entitled to summary judgment for all elements of the Asserted Claims, or,
in the alternative, partial summary judgment of the Undisputed Elements.
A. Partial Summary Judgment Should be Granted for Undisputed Elements
For various elements, Blue Coats own experts do not dispute that the elements are present in
the accused products. Moreover, the record in this matterincluding deposition testimony, source
code, expert testimony, expert reports, and documents producedclearly proves that Blue Coats
products infringe these elements. Blue Coat entirely fails to address this record. In the face of such
uncontroverted evidence, there is no genuine issue of material fact regarding infringement of these
elements. Thus, Finjan is entitled to at least partial summary judgment of infringement for each of
these elements.
1. Undisputed Elements of the 844 Patent
Blue Coat does not dispute that elements 1(a)-(b), 7, 15(a), and 41(a)-(b) of the 844 Patent are
present in WebPulse. Ex. 19, Bestavros Report, 180-244. As set forth below, Finjan has provided
ample evidence showing the presence of these elements, none of which Blue Coat has rebutted:
Element 1(a) - A method comprising: WebPulse is a hardware and software system that
performs methods to provide intelligence on unknown web threats. Ex. 20, 104-107. See Blue
Coats documents (id., 108-110), the deposition testimony of Messrs. Andersen, Harrison, and
Tomic (id., 111-112), and Dr. Coles testing (id., 113).
Case5:13-cv-03999-BLF Document179 Filed03/12/15 Page14 of 30
-
11 FINJANS NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION Case No.: 13-CV-03999-BLF FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF INFRINGEMENT
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Element 1(b) - receiving by an inspector a Downloadable: WebPulse intercepts requests
from a web client and inspects Downloadables from an origin content server before the server makes
the Downloadable available to the web client. Id., 114-119.
, testimony of Messrs. Andersen, Harrison, Larsen, Tomic (id., 130-132),
and Dr. Coles testing (id., 133).
Element 7 - wherein the Downloadable includes a JavaScript script: WebPulse receives
and processes Downloadables including JavaScript. Id., 189-192. See Blue Coats own documents
(id., 193-199), testimony of Messrs. Harrison, Whitchurch, Andersen, Larsen, and Tomic (id.,
200-204), and Dr. Coles testing (id., 205).
Element 15(a) - An inspector system comprising: WebPulse is an inspector system because it
requests, retrieves and inspects digital content from the Internet. Id., 229-235.
. Id. See Blue Coats own documents (id.,
236-244), testimony of Messrs. Andersen, Harrison, Larsen, and Tomic (id., 245-247), and Dr.
Coles testing (id., 248).
Element 41(a) A computer-readable storage medium storing program code for causing a
data processing system on an inspector to perform the steps of: WebPulse includes computer-
readable medium storage, such as storage for software, which causes the data processing system on an
inspector, such as DRTR, to perform a number of computer steps that provide intelligence on web
threats. Id., 349-355. See Blue Coats own documents (id., 356-364), testimony of Messrs.
Andersen, Harrison, Whitchurch, and Tomic (id., 365-367), and Dr. Coles testing (id., 368).
Element 41(b) receiving a Downloadable: WebPulse includes software such as DRTR, for
receiving a Downloadable from an origin content server. Id., 369-372. See Blue Coats own
documents (id., 373-381), testimony of Messrs. Andersen, Harrison, Larsen, and Tomic (id., 382-
Case5:13-cv-03999-BLF Document179 Filed03/12/15 Page15 of 30
-
12 FINJANS NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION Case No.: 13-CV-03999-BLF FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF INFRINGEMENT
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
384), and Dr. Coles testing (id., 385).
2. Undisputed Elements of the 822 Patent
Blue Coat does not dispute that elements 9(a)-(c), 9(e) and 10 of the 822 Patent, are present in
ProxySG. Ex. 29, Hicks Report, 85-134. As set forth below, Finjan has provided ample evidence
showing the presence of these elements, none of which Blue Coat has rebutted:
Element 9(a) A processor-based system, comprising: ProxySG is a hardware and software
product running on computers that utilize processors. Ex. 20, 441-443. See Blue Coats own
documents (id., 444-449), testimony of Mr. Tomic (id., 450), and Dr. Coles testing (id., 451).
Element 9(b) an information monitor for receiving downloadable-information: ProxySG
includes components that monitor traffic to an intranet of clients, receiving both requests for content
and the actual requested content. Id., 453. See Blue Coats own documents (id., 456-463),
testimony of Mr. Tomic (id., 464), and Dr. Coles testing (id., 465).
Element 9(c) - a content inspection engine communicatively coupled to the information
monitor for determining whether the downloadable-information includes executable code:
Id., 468. See Blue Coats own documents
(id., 471-491), testimony of Mr. Tomic (id., 492), Blue Coats source code (id., 493-497) and Dr.
Coles testing (id., 498).
Element 9(e) wherein the content inspection engine comprises one or more downloadable-
information analyzers : ProxySG includes a content inspection engine communicatively coupled to
the information monitor, which determines whether the downloadable-information includes executable
code. Id., 538-542.
Case5:13-cv-03999-BLF Document179 Filed03/12/15 Page16 of 30
-
13 FINJANS NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION Case No.: 13-CV-03999-BLF FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF INFRINGEMENT
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
. Id. See Blue Coats own documents (id., 543-561), testimony
of Mr. Tomic (id., 562), Blue Coats source code (id., 563-566) and Dr. Coles testing (id., 567).
Element 10 wherein at least one of the detection-indicators indicates a level of
downloadable-information characteristic and executable code characteristic correspondence:
See Blue Coats own documents (id., 577-595), testimony of Mr. Tomic (id., 596), and Blue
Coats source code (id., 597-600).
3. Undisputed Elements of the 633 Patent
Blue Coat does not dispute that elements 8(a)-(c) and 14(a) of the 633 Patent, are present in
ProxySG, CAS and MAA. Ex. 29, Hicks Report, 139-228, 238-263. Finjan has provided ample
evidence showing the presence of these elements, none of which Blue Coat has rebutted:
Element 8(a) A computer processor-based system for computer security, the system
comprising: ProxySG, CAS, and MAA are hardware and software products that run on computers
utilizing processors. Id., 608-610. ProxySG enforces security policies at the gateway and can use
the CAS and MAA to detect and block malicious content. Id. See Blue Coats own documents (id.,
611-635), testimony of Messrs. Runald, Whitchurch, Tomic, Harrison, and Ahlander (id., 636-
640), and Dr. Coles testing (id., 641).
Element 8(b) an information monitor for receiving downloadable-information by a
computer: ProxySG, CAS, and MAA receiving downloadable-information. Id., 642-648.
Specifically, ProxySG, CAS and MAA, working as a system, receive Downloadable-information such
as webpages that can be passed between them. Id.
(id., 649-678), testimony of Messrs.
Runald, Whitchurch, Ahlander, and Tomic (id., 679-682), and Dr. Coles testing (id., 683).
Element 8(c) a content inspection engine communicatively coupled to the information
Case5:13-cv-03999-BLF Document179 Filed03/12/15 Page17 of 30
-
14 FINJANS NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION Case No.: 13-CV-03999-BLF FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF INFRINGEMENT
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
monitor for determining, by the computer, whether the downloadable-information includes executable
code:
. Id. See Blue Coats own documents (id., 694-733), testimony of
Messrs. Runald, Whitchurch, Ahlander, Tomic, and Harrison (id., 734-738), and Dr. Coles testing
(id., 739).
Element 14(a) A computer program product, comprising a computer usable medium having
a computer readable program code therein, the computer readable program code adapted to be
executed for computer security, the method comprising: ProxySG, CAS, and MAA are hardware and
software products that run on computers utilizing processors. Id., 847-849.
. Id.
See Blue Coats own documents (id., 850-871), testimony of Messrs. Runald, Whitchurch, Tomic,
Harrison (id., 872-875), and Dr. Coles testing (id., 876).
4. Undisputed Elements of the 968 Patent
Blue Coat does not dispute that elements 1(a) and 1(c), 9, and 33(a)-(b), are present in
ProxySG, WebFilter and WebPulse. Ex. 19, 301-350, 405-453. As set forth below, Finjan has
provided ample evidence showing the presence of these elements, none of which Blue Coat has
rebutted:
Element 1(a) A policy-based cache manager, comprising:
Case5:13-cv-03999-BLF Document179 Filed03/12/15 Page18 of 30
-
15 FINJANS NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION Case No.: 13-CV-03999-BLF FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF INFRINGEMENT
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
. Id. See Blue Coats own documents (id., 300-
319), testimony of Messrs. Andersen, Harrison, Ahlander, Larsen, and Tomic (id., 320-323), and Dr.
Mitzenmachers testing (id., 324).
Element 1(c) - a content scanner, communicatively coupled with said memory, for scanning a
digital content received, to derive a corresponding content profile: ProxySG includes WebFilter
components that interact with WebPulse to analyze unknown web pages. Id., 374-383.
. Id. See Blue Coats own documents (id., 384-
398), testimony of Messrs. Andersen, Harrison, Larsen, and Tomic (id., 399-402), Blue Coats
source code (id., 403-404), and Dr. Mitzenmachers testing (id., 405).
Element 9 wherein the plurality of policies are used for URL filtering: ProxySG includes
WebFilter components that interact with WebPulse, and together act as a policy-based cache manager
and for URL filtering. Id., 445-448.
. Id. See Blue Coats own
documents (id., 449-458), testimony of Messrs. Harrison, Andersen, Tomic, and Ahlander (id.,
459-462), Blue Coats source code (id., 462), and Dr. Mitzenmachers testing. (id., 463).
Element 33(a) A policy-based cache manager, comprising: ProxySG includes software that
runs on hardware systems for managing a cache of digital content based on policy decisions. Id.,
657-660. ProxySG includes WebFilter components that interact with WebPulse, and together act as
a policy-based cache manager. Id. See Blue Coats own documents (id., 661-679), testimony of
Messrs. Andersen, Harrison, Ahlander, Larsen, and Tomic (id., 680-683), and Dr. Mitzenmachers
testing (id., 684).
Case5:13-cv-03999-BLF Document179 Filed03/12/15 Page19 of 30
-
16 FINJANS NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION Case No.: 13-CV-03999-BLF FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF INFRINGEMENT
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Element 33(b) a memory for storing a cache of digital content, and a plurality of policies:
.
See Blue Coats own documents (id., 692-706), testimony of Messrs. Andersen, Harrison, Larsen,
Ahlander, and Tomic (id., 707-710), Blue Coats source code (id., 711-713), and Dr.
Mitzenmachers testing (id., 714).
5. Undisputed Elements of the 780 Patent
Blue Coat does not dispute that elements 9(a)-(b), 13, and 18(a)-(b) of the 780 Patent are
present in ProxyAV and ProxySG. Ex. 19, 143-170. As set forth below, Finjan has provided ample
evidence showing the presence of these elements, none of which Blue Coat has rebutted:
Element 9(a) A system for generating a Downloadable ID to identify a Downloadable,
comprising:
. See Blue Coats own documents
(id., 81-95), testimony of Messrs. Ahlander, Whitchurch, and Tomic (id., 96-98), Blue Coats
source code (id., 99-100), and Dr. Mitzenmachers testing (id., 101).
Element 9(b) a communications engine for obtaining a Downloadable that includes one or
more references to software components required to be executed by the Downloadable:
See Blue Coats own documents (id., 110-127), testimony of Messrs. Ahlander, Whitchurch, and
Case5:13-cv-03999-BLF Document179 Filed03/12/15 Page20 of 30
-
17 FINJANS NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION Case No.: 13-CV-03999-BLF FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF INFRINGEMENT
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Tomic (id., 128-130), Blue Coats source code (id., 131-132), and Dr. Mitzenmachers testing (id.,
133).
Element 13 wherein the Downloadable includes HTML code: ProxySG includes
components for receiving digital content from the Internet requested by a client, such as HTML code
and content. Id., 172-174.
. Id. See Blue Coats own documents (id., 175-181),
testimony of Messrs. Ahlander and Tomic (id., 182-183), Blue Coats source code (id., 184-185),
and Dr. Mitzenmachers testing (id., 186).
Element 18(a) A computer-readable storage medium storing program code for causing a
computer to perform the steps of:
. Id.,
187-190. See Blue Coats own documents (id., 191-193), testimony of Messrs. Ahlander,
Whitchurch, and Tomic (id., 194-196), Blue Coats source code (id., 197-198), and Dr.
Mitzenmachers testing (id., 199).
Element 18(b) obtaining a Downloadable that includes one or more references to software
components required to be executed by the Downloadable:
. Id. See Blue Coats own
documents (id., 208-226), deposition testimony of Messrs. Ahlander, Whitchurch, and Tomic (id.,
227-229), Blue Coats source code (id., 230-231), and Dr. Mitzenmachers testing (id., 232).
Thus, because the elements set forth above are undisputed, summary judgment of infringement
of these elements should be granted.
Case5:13-cv-03999-BLF Document179 Filed03/12/15 Page21 of 30
-
18 FINJANS NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION Case No.: 13-CV-03999-BLF FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF INFRINGEMENT
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
B. Summary Judgment Should be Granted for Elements for which Blue Coats Defense is Unsupportable
For the other elements, Blue Coat has no support for its noninfringement defense. For these
elements, Blue Coats experts Dr. Bestavros and Dr. Hicks have provided opinions that are directly
contradicted by Blue Coats own documents, source code and testimony. Thus, Finjan is entitled to
summary judgment of infringement with respect to each of these elements because no reasonable jury
could find that the elements are not met.
1. Security Profile and Suspicious Code Elements
Claims 1(c), 15(c) and 41(c) of the 844 Patent contain the claim element: generating a first
Downloadable security profile that identifies suspicious code in the received Downloadable. Claim
11 includes the element wherein the first Downloadable security profile includes a list of operations
deemed suspicious by the inspector, and Claim 16 includes the element wherein the first rule set
includes a list of suspicious operations. Claim 1(b) of the 731 Patent includes a scanner for deriving
security profiles for incoming files from the Internet, wherein each of the security profiles comprises
a list of computer commands that a corresponding one of the incoming files is programmed to
perform. Claim 1(d) of the 731 Patent includes a security profile cache for storing the security
profiles derived by the scanner. These elements are referred to collectively herein as the Security
Profile and Suspicious Code Elements.
.
Case5:13-cv-03999-BLF Document179 Filed03/12/15 Page22 of 30
-
19 FINJANS NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION Case No.: 13-CV-03999-BLF FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF INFRINGEMENT
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
. As a result of this
unequivocal evidence, there is no genuine issue of fact that WebPulse generates a security profile
which identifies suspicious code, thus satisfying the Security Profile and Suspicious Code Elements.
2. Linking Element
Claims 1(d), 15(c) and 41(d) of the 844 Patent each contain the claim element requiring:
linking by the inspector the first Downloadable security profile to the Downloadable before a web
server makes the Downloadable available to web clients . . . . (the Linking Element).
In rebuttal, Dr. Bestavros simply disagrees with Finjans argumentsbut puts forth no
analysis and no evidence disputing Finjans arguments regarding the timing of the linking of the
security profile. Such unsupported conclusions cannot create a material issue of fact in light of the
concrete evidence. As such, Finjan is entitled to summary judgment with regard to the Linking
Element.
3. Rule Set Element
Claim 15(b) of the 844 Patent requires: memory storing a first rule set (the Rule Set
Element).
.
Case5:13-cv-03999-BLF Document179 Filed03/12/15 Page23 of 30
-
20 FINJANS NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION Case No.: 13-CV-03999-BLF FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF INFRINGEMENT
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
. Blue Coats Rule 30(b)(6) witness and documents demonstrate
that WebPulse uses rule sets. See, e.g., id., 250-252, 283-284.
.
4. Mobile Protection Code Element
Claims 9(d) of the 822 Patent and Claim 8 of the 633 Patent each contain the claim element
causing a mobile protection code to be communicated to the information destination (the Mobile
Protection Code Element).
. All of these scenarios are fully supported by
the testimony of Blue Coats 30(b)(6) witnesses, documents, and source code. See, e.g., Ex. 20, 499-
Case5:13-cv-03999-BLF Document179 Filed03/12/15 Page24 of 30
-
21 FINJANS NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION Case No.: 13-CV-03999-BLF FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF INFRINGEMENT
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
509, 525-531, 745-758, 798-805, 808-812. As such, Blue Coat and cannot raise any genuine factual
dispute that the Mobile Protection Code Element is met because any such assertions are contrary to the
factual evidence in this case.
5. Providing an Information Re-Communicator and a Mobile Code Executor Element
Claim 14(b) of the 633 Patent contains the claim element providing a system, wherein the
system comprises distinct software modules, and wherein the distinct software modules comprise an
information re-communicator and a mobile code executor. There can be no doubt that ProxySG, CAS
and MAA are computer software systems which contain distinct software modules. Ex. 25, Tomic Tr.
at 16:12-17:8, 18:18-19:13; Ex. 40, Runald Tr. at 10:17-12:5; Ex. 30, Ahlander Tr. at 96:21-97:5; Ex.
27 at BC0182646; Ex. 41 at BC0182658; Ex. 32 at BC0182641.
. See Blue Coats
own documents (Ex. 20, 884-907), testimony of Messrs. Runald, Whitchurch, Ahlander, Tomic,
Harrison (id., 908-912), and Dr. Coles testing (id., 913). As such, there is no genuine issue of
material fact that Blue Coat satisfies this element.
6. Receiving Downloadable Information Element
Claim 14(c) of the 633 Patent contains the claim element receiving, at the information re-
communicator, downloadable-information including executable code. ProxySG, CAS, and MAA
include components that receive downloadable-information with executable code. Id., 915-921.
.
Case5:13-cv-03999-BLF Document179 Filed03/12/15 Page25 of 30
-
22 FINJANS NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION Case No.: 13-CV-03999-BLF FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF INFRINGEMENT
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
See Blue Coats own documents (id., 922-959), testimony of Messrs. Runald, Whitchurch, Ahlander,
Tomic, Harrison (id., 960-964), and Dr. Coles testing (id., 965). Thus, the facts are unequivocal
that this element is met.
7. Causing Mobile Protection Code to be Executed Element
Claim 14(d) of the 633 Patent contains the claim element causing mobile protection code to
be executed by the mobile code executor at a downloadable-information destination such that one or
more operations of the executable code at the destination, if attempted, will be processed by the mobile
protection code.
. See Blue Coats own documents (id., 974-1007), testimony of Messrs. Runald,
Whitchurch, Ahlander, Tomic, Harrison (id., 1008-1012), and Dr. Coles testing (id., 1013). Thus,
Blue Coat cannot raise a genuine issue of material fact for this element as any such position is directly
contrary to Blue Coats own documents and witnesses.
8. Computer Gateway Element
Element 1(a) of the 731 patent includes the preamble of [a] computer gateway for an intranet
of computers (the Computer Gateway Element).
Case5:13-cv-03999-BLF Document179 Filed03/12/15 Page26 of 30
-
23 FINJANS NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION Case No.: 13-CV-03999-BLF FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF INFRINGEMENT
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
. Because the evidence and testimony of Blue Coats expert confirms
that the Computer Gateway Element is met, Finjan should be granted summary judgment.
9. File Cache Element
Claim 1(c) of the 731 Patent requires a file cache for storing files that have been scanned by
the scanner for future access, wherein each of the stored files is indexed by a file identifier, and Claim
1(d) of the 731 Patent contains the claim element wherein each of the security profiles is indexed in
the security profile cache by a file identifier associated with a corresponding file stored in the file
cache (the File Cache Element). The specification of the 731 Patent states that in a preferred
embodiment, the web page and the web objects that the page references are stored in a web cache
160. Ex. 15, 731 Patent at 6:57-58.
. This is supported by the deposition of Blue Coats Rule 30(b)(6) witness
and documents. See e.g., id., 857-861, 878-879. There is no dispute that ProxySG caches webpages.
Ex. 25, Tomic Tr. at 159:6-9. Thus, Blue Coat does not, and cannot, raise any factual dispute that the
File Cache Element is met.
10. Security Policy Cache Element
Element 1(e) is of the 731 Patent is a security policy cache for storing security policies for
intranet computers within the intranet, the security policies each including a list of restrictions for files
that are transmitted to a corresponding subset of the intranet computers (Security Policy Cache
Element). This element is met because:
Case5:13-cv-03999-BLF Document179 Filed03/12/15 Page27 of 30
-
24 FINJANS NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION Case No.: 13-CV-03999-BLF FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF INFRINGEMENT
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Id., BC0160145. Blue Coat provides no analysis or
evidence to contradict this undisputable evidence and thus there is no genuine issue of fact.
11. Policy Index Element
Claims 1, 9 and 33 of the 968 patent each contain the claim element requiring a policy index
(the Policy Index Element), which was agreed to be a data structure indicating allowability of
cached content relative to a plurality of policies.
Case5:13-cv-03999-BLF Document179 Filed03/12/15 Page28 of 30
-
25 FINJANS NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION Case No.: 13-CV-03999-BLF FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF INFRINGEMENT
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Ex. 25, Tomic Tr. at 106:4-15, 122:1-4, 128:22-129:8 (emphasis added). Blue Coat does not dispute
that Finjan accurately described the functionality of ProxySG, or the testimony of Blue Coats Rule
30(b)(6) witness, and thus, summary judgment should be granted.
12. Hashing Element
Claims 9(c) and 18(d) of the 780 Patent contain the claim element: performing a hashing
function on the Downloadable and the fetched software components to generate a Downloadable ID
which the parties agreed is construed as performing a hashing function on the Downloadable together
with its fetched software components. Dkt. 118. In addition, Claim 18(c) contains the element
fetching at least one software component identified by the one or more references. (The Hashing
Element.)
Because Blue Coat has not provided a supportable defense for the twelve elements above, there
is no genuine issue of material fact regarding the presence of these elements in the accused products.
Thus, summary judgment of infringement should be granted for all of the Asserted Claims.
VI. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, Finjan is entitled to summary judgment of the Asserted Claims, or,
in the alternative, partial summary judgment of the Undisputed Elements.
Case5:13-cv-03999-BLF Document179 Filed03/12/15 Page29 of 30
-
26 FINJANS NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION Case No.: 13-CV-03999-BLF FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF INFRINGEMENT
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Dated: March 12, 2015
Respectfully submitted, By: /s/ James Hannah
Paul J. Andre (SBN 196585) Lisa Kobialka (SBN 191404) James Hannah (SBN 237978) KRAMER LEVIN NAFTALIS & FRANKEL LLP 990 Marsh Road Menlo Park, CA 94025 Telephone: (650) 752-1700 Facsimile: (650) 752-1800 pandre@kramerlevin.com lkobialka@kramerlevin.com jhannah@kramerlevin.com Attorneys for Plaintiff FINJAN, INC.
Case5:13-cv-03999-BLF Document179 Filed03/12/15 Page30 of 30
top related