By the time of those statements, the parties had already abandoned development of the Version 25 3-chip design and recognized the new 4-chip design would not be covered by the Amended Agreement. Case5:12-cv-04175-EJD Document339 Filed06/19/14 Page29 of 30 5:12-cv-04175 EJD 25 OKI ELECTRIC’S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS’ RENEWED MOTION FOR JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW PURSUANT TO FRCP 50(b) 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 NavCom had choices: it was considering terminating the contract, pursuing a new development with other vendors, staying with the discrete design or continuing with Oki Semiconductor in a new design and development effort. (See DX-1022; Tr.

CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, the Court should grant Finjan’s motion for judgment as a matter of law pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 50(a). Case 5:15-cv-03295-BLF Document 423 Filed 11/13/17 Page 23 of 24 21 FINJAN’S MOTION FOR JUDGMENT AS A MATTER CASE NO. 15-cv-03295-BLF-SVK OF LAW PURSUANT TO FED. R. CIV. P. 50(a) 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: November 13, 2017 Respectfully submitted, By: /s/ Lisa Kobialka Paul J. Andre (SBN 196585) Lisa Kobialka (SBN 191404) James Hannah (SBN 237978) Hannah Lee (SBN 253197) 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 hlee@kramerlevin.com Attorneys for Plaintiff FINJAN, INC. Case 5:15-cv-03295-BLF Document 423 Filed 11/13/17 Page 24 of 24

Thus, Blue Coat is not entitled to JMOL of no damages. V. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, Finjan requests that the Court deny Blue Coat’s motion for judgment as a matter of law pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 50(a). Case 5:15-cv-03295-BLF Document 459 Filed 11/28/17 Page 26 of 27 23 FINJAN’S OPPOSITION TO BLUE COAT’S RULE 50(A) CASE NO. 15-cv-03295-BLF-SVK MOTION FOR JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW 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: November 28, 2017 Respectfully submitted, By: /s/ Lisa Kobialka Paul J. Andre (SBN 196585) Lisa Kobialka (SBN 191404) James Hannah (SBN 237978) Hannah Lee (SBN 253197) 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 hlee@kramerlevin.com Attorneys for Plaintiff FINJAN, INC. Case 5:15-cv-03295-BLF Document 459 Filed 11/28/17 Page 27 of 27

For damages for infringement of the ‘494 Patent by GIN/WebPulse , as discussed above, Dr. Meyer excluded damages based on the 4% of traffic that was used to calculate damages in Blue Coat I. Trial Tr. at 1263:19-25. In sum, Blue Coat failed to present contrary evidence to rebut Finjan’s evidence supporting damages, and, as a result, no reasonable jury could conclude that Finjan is not entitled to a reasonable royalty of at least $29.8 million for infringement of the ‘844 Patent and $16.2 million for infringement of the ‘494 Patent. VI. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, the Court should grant Finjan’s renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 50(b) that (1) Blue Coat infringes the ‘844 and ‘494 Patents; (2) Blue Coat’s infringement was and continues to be willful; and (3) Blue Coat owes damages of no less than a reasonable royalty for infringement of the ‘844 Patent and ‘494 Patent, i.e. $29.8 million and $16.2 million respectively. Dated: December 15, 2017 Respectfully submitted, By: /s/ Paul Andre Paul J. Andre (SBN 196585) Lisa Kobialka (SBN 191404) James Hannah (SBN 237978) Hannah Lee (SBN 253197) 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 hlee@kramerlevin.

See, e.g., Microsoft, 550 at 444-45 (holding no infringement even though accused software “is designed, authored, and tested at Microsoft’s Redmond, Washington, headquarters”). Finjan asserts two system claims requiring a combination of hardware and software for infringement. As Finjan argued to the Federal Circuit, the ’844 patent would be patent-ineligible if they were directed to disembodied software. See Response Brief for Plaintiff-Appellee Finjan, Inc., Finjan, Inc. v. Blue Coat Sys., Inc., No. 2016-2520, Dkt. No. 41 at 25 (filed Jan. 30, 2017) Case 5:15-cv-03295-BLF Document 464 Filed 12/08/17 Page 20 of 21 BLUE COAT’S PARTIAL RENEWED RULE 50(B) MOTION FOR JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW 15-cv-03295-BLF-SVK 15 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 (“Independent Claim 15 adds specific and concrete components within an ‘inspector system,’ including a separate ‘memory storing a first rule set’ to be used by a ‘content inspection engine . . . to generate a first Downloadable security profile.”) (emphasis added).

Defendant’s Motion should be denied. III. CONCLUSION. The jury’s verdict and award of damages in this case was righteous and just. Defendant has not met its burden under either Rule 50(b) or Rule 59. WHEREFORE, for the reasons set forth above, Plaintiff respectfully requests the Court deny Defendant’s Renewed Rule 50 Motion, alternative Rule 59 Motion for New Trial, or Remittitur, in its entirety. Respectfully submitted, s/ Michael L. Barkett Michael L. Barkett, OBA No. 16171 Cassie M. Barkett, OBA No. 18658 THE BARKETT LAW FIRM 2021 South Lewis Avenue, Suite 630 Tulsa, OK 74104 918-582-6900 mbarkett@barkettlaw.net Case 4:16-cv-00677-GKF-JFJ Document 140 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 06/06/18 Page 33 of 34 28    ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on June 6, 2018, I electronically transmitted the foregoing Brief in Response to Defendant’s Motion to the following counsel of record/ECF registrants: Patrick Clark Patrick.clark@ogletreedeakins.com Amy Jensen Amy.Jensen@ogletreedeakins.com Steven Lance Freije lfreije@lswsl.com Attorneys for Defendant AHS Oklahoma Physician Group, LLC d/b/a Utica Park Clinic s/ Michael L. Barkett Michael L. Barkett Case 4:16-cv-00677-GKF-JFJ Document 140 Filed in USDC ND

See NTP, 418 F.3d at 1316-17. Similarly, nothing in Fr. Telecom S.A. v. Marvell Semiconductor Inc. extends the holding in Microsoft in a way to discredit all the evidence of infringement by GIN/WebPulse within the U.S, as the accused product in Fr. Telecom was never made, used or sold within the U.S. 39 F. Supp. 3d 1080, 1102–03 (N.D. Cal. 2014) (recognizing that accused infringer established “undisputed evidence that the manufacturing, sale, and delivery of the accused chips all occurred outside the United States”). Case 5:15-cv-03295-BLF Document 477 Filed 12/22/17 Page 19 of 20 16 FINJAN’S OPPOSITION TO BLUE COAT’S PARTIAL CASE NO. 15-cv-03295-BLF-SVK RENEWED RULE 50(B) MOTION FOR JMOL 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: December 22, 2017 Respectfully submitted, By: /s/ Paul J. Andre Paul J. Andre (SBN 196585) Lisa Kobialka (SBN 191404) James Hannah (SBN 237978) Hannah Lee (SBN 253197) 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 hlee@kramerlevin.com Attorneys for Plaintiff FINJAN, INC. Case 5:15-cv-03295-BLF Document 477 Filed 12/22/17 Page 20 of 20

hewsjohnson@wilkinsonwalsh.com) Rakesh Kilaru (pro hac vice) (rkilaru@wilkinsonwalsh.com) WILKINSON WALSH + ESKOVITZ LLP 2001 M St. NW, 10th Floor Washington, DC 20036 Tel: 202-847-4030 Fax: 202-847-4005 Pamela Yates (CA Bar No. 137440) (Pamela.Yates@arnoldporter.com) ARNOLD & PORTER KAYE SCHOLER 777 South Figueroa St., 44th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90017 Tel: 213-243-4178 Fax: 213-243-4199 Eric G. Lasker (pro hac vice) (elasker@hollingsworthllp.com) HOLLINGSWORTH LLP 1350 I St. NW Washington, DC 20005 Tel: 202-898-5843 Fax: 202-682-1639 Michael X. Imbroscio (pro hac vice) (mimbroscio@cov.com) COVINGTON & BURLING LLP One City Center 850 10th St. NW Washington, DC 20001 Tel: 202-662-6000 Attorneys for Defendant MONSANTO COMPANY Case 3:16-md-02741-VC Document 3157 Filed 03/25/19 Page 21 of 22 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 - 17 - MONSANTO’S RULE 50(a) MOTION FOR JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW AND FOR DIRECTED VERDICT CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that on this 25th day of March 2019, a copy of the foregoing was filed with the Clerk of the Court through the CM/ECF system which sent notice of the filing to all appearing parties of record. /s/ Brian L. Stekloff Case 3:16-md-02741-VC Document 3157 Filed 03/25/19 Page 22 of 22

The ’844 and ’494 patent have identical features and their inventions are completely overlapping. (Trial Tr. (Meyer) at 1294:13-20 (“Q. So why don’t you look at this footnote and see for me if you can find any features that are identified for the ’621 and ’844 patents that are not also identified for the ’494 patent? A. I think that’s right. I don’t think there are any. That’s correct.”); Finjan, Inc. v. Case 5:15-cv-03295-BLF Document 424 Filed 11/14/17 Page 19 of 20 BLUE COAT’S RULE 50(A) MOTION 15-cv-03295-BLF-SVK 16 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 Sophos, Inc., Case No. 14-cv-01197-WHO, 2016 U.S. Dist. Lexis 107831, at *11-12 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 15, 2016) (stating with respect to the ’844 and ’494 patents that it is “not possible, as a matter of law and logic” that Finjan is entitled to recover more than 100% of the value of the accused product features). The features of the ’621 patent are subsumed by the features of the ’494 and ’844 patents.

. For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs respectfully request that the Court deny Oki’s Rule 50(b) motion. Dated: June 19, 2014 MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP By: /s/ Brett M. Schuman Brett M. Schuman Attorneys for Plaintiffs NavCom Technology, Inc. and Deere & Company Case5:12-cv-04175-EJD Document338 Filed06/19/14 Page6 of 6