Question

8–9 Patent Infringement. Finjan, Inc., owns a patent—U.S. Patent No. 7,418,731, or "the ‘731 patent"—for a system and method that provide computer security from malicious software embedded in websites on the Internet. The system consists of a gateway that compares security profiles associated with requested files with the security policies of requesting users. The method includes scanning an incoming file to create the profile, which comprises a list of computer commands the file is programmed to perform. The ’731 patent required "a list of computer commands." Blue Coat Systems, Inc., sold a competing product. Blue Coat’s product scanned an incoming file for certain commands and created a new file called Cookie2 that contained a field showing whether, and how often, those commands appeared. Finjan filed a suit against Blue Coat, alleging patent infringement. Blue Coat argued that its profiles did not contain the ’731 patent’s required "list of computer commands." Did Blue Coat’s product infringe Finjan’s patent? Explain. [Finjan, Inc. v. Blue Coat Systems, Inc., 879 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2018)] (See Patents.)

Answer 1

Blue Coat's product did infringe Finjan's patent, as it performed the same function of identifying and tracking specific commands within the incoming file.

Step-by-step explanation:

Blue Coat argued that its profiles did not contain the '731 patent's required "list of computer commands." However, the court ruled that Blue Coat's product did infringe Finjan's patent. The reason is that even though Blue Coat's product did not generate an explicit list of computer commands like the '731 patent required, it still performed the same function of identifying and tracking specific commands within the incoming file, which is the essence of the '731 patent.