Symantec Corp. vs. Finjan, Inc. – Board Rules Against Symantec Petition

Finjan TeamBlog

Finjan Symantec Corp. vs. Finjan, Inc.   Board Rules Against Symantec Petition

Update on Symantec Corp. vs Finjan, Inc.

Symantec’s Allegations of Inequitable Conduct Not Proper for Petition for Inter Partes Review and will be Disregarded

On February 26th, 2016 in the case Symantec Corp. (NASDAQ:SYMC) vs. Finjan Inc. (NASDAQ:FNJN) (IPR2015-01897) the US Patent and Trademark office (USPTO) ruled in favor of Finjan, Inc ($FNJN), finding that allegations tantamount to unfair conduct are not proper in a petition for inter partes review (IPR) and will be disregarded. The USPTO denied Symantec Corp. claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 10, 11, 14, and 15 of Finjan’s ‘494 patent (entitled “Malicious Mobile Code Runtime Monitoring System and Methods”).

According to Symantec (Petitioner), the claims in the ’494 patent are ‘defective for a number of reasons and, therefore, the challenged claims are not entitled to earlier priority based on any of the Priority Applications.’ Finjan (Patent Owner) countered “that the ’494 patent properly claims priority back to Touboul I, rendering both Touboul I and Touboul II ‘inoperative as prior art.’”

In the end, because “Petitioner has not shown that Touboul I and Touboul II are prior art to the challenged claims,” the Board denied institution of the Petition for inter partes review.

Symantec Corp. vs Finjan, Inc. IPR2015-01897

  • Paper 7: Decision Denying Institution of Inter Partes Review
  • Dated: February 26, 2016
  • Patent: 8,677,494 B2
  • Before: James B. Arpin, Zhenyu Yang, and Charles J. Boudreau

For more information, read the original article on The National Law Review.

Share this Post

Summary
Article Name
Symantec Corp. vs. Finjan, Inc. - Board Rules Against Symantec Petition
Description
On February 26th, 2016 in the case Symantec Corp. (NASDAQ:SYMC) vs. Finjan Inc. (NASDAQ:FNJN) (IPR2015-01897) the US Patent and Trademark office ruled in favor of Finjan, finding that allegations tantamount to unfair conduct are not proper in a petition for inter partes review and will be disregarded.
Author