Examples of Finjan in a sentence
As discussed above, Finjan actively and diligently attempted to engage in good faith negotiations with Defendants for over two years regarding Defendants’ infringement of Finjan’s Asserted Patents.
In the complaint, Finjan sought unspecified damages, attorneys' fees and injunctive relief.
Un- like in Finjan, Fairchild argues, the timing of Power Integrations’ motion for a post-verdict accounting is extremely prejudicial.
The defendants argued that Finjan had waived its right to an accounting because Finjan’s complaint sought only “such damages as it shall prove at trial.” Id. at 1213.
Id. “Therefore,” we held, “the district court should have awarded compensation for any infringement prior to the injunction.” Id. Power Integrations is correct that it was entitled to an accounting for Fairchild’s post-verdict infringement.10 We 10 See Finjan, 626 F.3d at 1212–13; see also 35 U.S.C§ 284 (2012) (“When damages are not found by a jury, the court shall assess them.”) (emphasis added); Ecolab, Inc.v. FMC Corp., 569 F.3d 1335, 1353, amended on reh’g in part, 366 F.
Power Integrations’ complaint further requested “such other and further relief as this Court finds just and proper.” As in Finjan, this open-ended request confirms that Power Integrations intended no waiver of any appropriate remedy.
There, Finjan challenged the district court’s decision to deny Finjan an accounting for post-judgment damages.
For example, Finjan intends to acquire “IP portfolios or other assets” andidentify relevant security technologies and patents that have been, or are anticipated to be, widely adopted by third parties in connection with the manufacture or sale of products and services, and to which we can bring enforcement actions.151Similarly, Spherix Inc., a “patent commercialization company” has a strategy of “acquiring IP from patent holders” and then “managing a licensing campaign, or .
Fairchild urges us not to give Power Integrations a “second bite at the apple.” Despite Fairchild’s objection, our decision in Finjan is on point.
In Finjan, we determined that the claimed in- vention was not abstract because it claimed the use of a “behavior-based” virus scan that was able to identify and compile unique information about potentially hostile oper- ations, while the traditional scan method was limited to recognizing the presence of previously identified viruses.