NEW YORK, Aug. 11, 2014 /PRNewswire/ -- Finjan Holdings, Inc. (NASDAQ: FNJN), a technology company committed to enabling innovation through the licensing of its intellectual property, today is providing an update on the Company's continued progress in executing its strategy.

Through our wholly-owned subsidiary Finjan Inc., we own a portfolio of patents related to security software that proactively detects malicious code and thereby protects end users from identity and data theft, spyware, malware, phishing, trojans and other online threats. We continue to maximize the economic benefits of our technology through further licensing of our technology and patents, and to broaden our technology and patent holdings through acquisitions and strategic partnerships.

CORPORATE AND OPERATIONAL HIGHLIGHTS

Since June 2013, when our cybersecurity business became public, Finjan Holdings has continued to execute its business strategy to capitalize on today's emerging cybersecurity and related markets. The following are recent corporate and operational milestones achieved in the second quarter of 2014, as well as subsequent events:

• Finjan Holdings' common stock began trading on The NASDAQ Capital Market on Monday, May 12, 2014.
• On June 27, 2014, Finjan Holdings was added to the Russell Microcap Index.
• On June 30, 2014, Finjan, Inc. filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Symantec Corp. alleging infringement of Finjan U.S. Patent Nos. 7,756,996, 7,757,289, 7,930,299, 8,015,182, and 8,141,154 relating to endpoint, web, and network security technologies (see details below).
• On July 14, 2014, Finjan's Board of Directors appointed Daniel Chinn as Executive Chairman of the Board. In light of Mr. Chinn's appointment as Executive Chairman, the Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee, which was previously comprised of Daniel Chinn and Michael Eisenberg, was reconstituted and now consists of Michael Eisenberg and Alex Rogers. Both Messrs. Eisenberg and Rogers are considered independent under applicable NASDAQ rules.
• Further on July 14, 2014, Finjan Holdings' President, Phil Hartstein, was re-appointed as President and named Chief Executive Officer of the Company and Shimon Steinmetz, was re-appointed as the Company's Chief Financial Officer and named Treasurer.

FINANCIAL UPDATE

• As of June 30, 2014, the Company held $20.6 million in cash and cash equivalents.
• The Company ended the second quarter 2014 reporting no long-term debt.
• Revenues for the second quarter increased to $636,000 compared to $198,000 in the prior year quarter, while cost of revenues increased to $332,000 compared to $148,000 in the prior year quarter.
• Total operating expenses for the second quarter were $3.6 million, an increase of $1.3 million or 56.1% compared to the prior year period. These increased costs were primarily due to increase in legal and consultancy fees for patent enforcement activities, compensation expenses due to additional employees in 2014 compared to the prior year period, costs related to public company expenses and various costs related to opening new offices in Silicon Valley, evaluation of strategic alternatives, franchise taxes, and directors and officers insurance.
• On November 21, 2013, we made a $5 million commitment to invest in an Israel-based limited partnership venture capital fund seeking to invest in early-stage cyber technology companies. During the quarter ended June 30, 2014, the fund made a capital call of $0.5 million. As of June 30, 2014, we had a $4 million outstanding capital commitment to the venture capital fund.

LICENSING AND ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES

As a pioneer in cybersecurity technologies, Finjan developed and patented technology generally deployed across the endpoint, web, and networking markets that is capable of detecting previously unknown and emerging threats on a real-time, behavior-based, basis. As the network, web and endpoint security industries have transitioned from signature-based methods of intercepting only known threats to computers, which were standard in the online security industry during the 1990s, to behavior-based detection of malicious code, we believe that our technology is widely used by third parties. We are committed to preserving and enhancing the value of our proprietary inventions, as well as protecting our existing licensing partners' investments in our portfolio, by offering fair value licenses to currently unlicensed companies.

Following is a brief summary of Finjan's patent rights enforcement activities. For additional information, please review the "Legal Proceedings" portion in the "Part II—Other Information" section of our most recent Form 10-Q filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 8, 2014, accessible from Finjan's website at www.finjan.com

A.     United States District Court Actions

1.      Finjan, Inc. v. FireEye, Inc., 4:13-cv-03133-SBA, (N.D. Cal):
We filed a patent infringement lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California against FireEye on July 8, 2013, asserting that FireEye is infringing certain claims of six of Finjan's U.S. patents.

• We amended our Complaint on August 16, 2013 to add a seventh U.S. patent to the list of asserted patents.
• We are seeking, among other things, a preliminary and permanent injunction against FireEye from infringing, and/or inducing the infringement of our asserted patents, an accounting of all infringing sales and revenues of the accused products, damages no less than a reasonable royalty and, consistent with proof, enhanced damages for willful infringement, costs, interest and reasonable attorneys' fees under 35 U.S.C. §285.
• FireEye answered our Amended Complaint on September 3, 2013, by denying our allegations of infringement and counterclaiming that the asserted patents are invalid.
• Both parties have demanded a jury trial.
• On June 6, 2014, the Honorable Saundra Brown Armstrong entered an Order Granting Motion to Stay Pending Reexamination of certain Finjan patents.
• Accordingly, this action is off calendar until the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) completes its administrative reexamination proceedings.

2.      Finjan, Inc. v. Blue Coat, Inc., Case 5:13-cv-03999-BLF, (N.D. Cal.):
We filed a patent infringement lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California against Blue Coat on August 28, 2013, asserting that Blue Coat is infringing certain claims of six of Finjan's U.S. patents.

• Blue Coat answered our Complaint on November 26, 2013, by denying our allegations of infringement and counterclaiming that the asserted patents are invalid.
• We seek, among other things, entry of judgment that Blue Coat has infringed, is infringing, has induced infringement of the above-listed patents, and contributorily infringes the above-listed patents, a preliminary and permanent injunction from infringing, or inducing the infringement of our asserted patents, an accounting of all infringing sales and revenues, damages no less than a reasonably royalty and consistent with proof, enhanced damages, and enhanced damages for willful infringement, costs, interest, and reasonable attorneys' fees under 35 U.S.C. §285.
• Both parties have demanded a jury trial.
• The Court has scheduled a claim construction or "Markman" Hearing in this matter on August 22, 2014.
• Trial for this action is scheduled for July 20, 2015.

3.      Finjan, Inc. v. Websense, Inc., Case 5:13-cv-04398-BLF, (N.D. Cal., consolidated):
We filed two patent infringement matters in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California against Websense on September 23, 2013 (5:13-cv-04398-BLF (N.D. Cal.)), and March 24, 2014 (5:14-cv-01353-BLF (N.D. Cal.)), which were consolidated into one matter on June 23, 2014 (5:13-cv-04398-BLF, (N.D. Cal.)), asserting that Websense is infringing certain claims of five of Finjan's U.S. patents.

• We seek, among other things, entry of judgment that Websense has infringed, is infringing, and has induced infringement of the above-listed patents, a preliminary and permanent injunction from infringing, or inducing the infringement of the above-listed patents, an accounting of all infringing sales and revenues, damages no less than a reasonably royalty and consistent with proof, enhanced damages, and enhanced damages for willful infringement, costs, interest, and reasonable attorneys' fees under 35 U.S.C. §285.
• Websense answered our Complaints, filed on November 26, 2013 and April 21, 2014, respectively, by denying our allegations of infringement and asserting various "Defenses," including non-infringement and invalidity of the asserted patents.
• We have demanded a jury trial.
• The Court has scheduled a claim construction or "Markman" Hearing for this matter on November 21, 2014.
• Trial for this action is scheduled for October 5, 2015.

4.      Finjan, Inc. v. Proofpoint, Inc. and Armorize Technologies, Inc., Case 5:13-cv-05808-BLF, (N.D. Cal.):
We filed a patent infringement lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California against Proofpoint and its wholly-owned subsidiary, Armorize Technologies, (collectively "Proofpoint") on December 16, 2013, asserting that Proofpoint and Armorize Technologies are infringing one or more claims of eight of Finjan's U.S. patents.

• We seek entry of judgment that Proofpoint and Armorize Technologies have infringed and are infringing our asserted patents, a judgment that Proofpoint and Armorize Technologies have induced infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,154,844, 7,058,822, 7,613,918, 7,647,633, 7,975,305, 8,079,086, and 8,225,408, a preliminary and permanent injunction from infringing, or inducing the infringement of the same patents, an accounting of all infringing sales and revenues, damages no less than a reasonably royalty and consistent with proof, enhanced damages, and enhanced damages for willful infringement, costs, interest, and reasonable attorneys' fees under 35 U.S.C. §285.
• On April 27, 2014, this matter was reassigned to the Honorable Beth Labson Freeman.
• On June 30, 2014, Proofpoint filed a Motion to Stay pending reexamination of two of eight of our asserted patents by the USPTO.
• The parties' briefs have been submitted and a Hearing on the Motion to Stay is set for August 21, 2014.
• The Court has scheduled a claim construction or "Markman" Hearing for this matter on May 8, 2015.
• Trial for this action is scheduled for January 11, 2016.

5.      Finjan, Inc. v. Sophos Inc., Case 3:14-cv-01197-WHO (N.D. Cal.):
We filed a patent infringement lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California against Sophos on March 14, 2014, asserting that Sophos is infringing certain claims of six of Finjan's U.S. patents.

• We amended our Complaint on April 8, 2014, to add a seventh U.S. patent to the list of asserted patents.
• We seek, among other things, entry of judgment that Sophos has infringed and is infringing our asserted patents, a judgment that Sophos has induced infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,804,780, 7,613,918, 7,613,926, 7,757,289, 6,154,844, and 8,667,494, a judgment that Sophos Inc. has contributorily infringed U.S. Patent No. 8,566,580, a preliminary and permanent injunction from infringing, inducing, or contributorily infringing the same patents, an accounting of all infringing sales and revenues, damages no less than a reasonably royalty and consistent with proof, enhanced damages, and enhanced damages for willful infringement, costs, interest, and reasonable attorneys' fees under 35 U.S.C. §285.
• This matter was reassigned to the Honorable William H. Orrick on April 10, 2014.
• Sophos filed its Answer to our First Amended Complaint on May 9, 2014.
• Both parties demanded a jury trial.
• Sophos filed a Motion to Transfer Venue to Delaware on May 9, 2014.
• After considering the parties' briefs and oral arguments on the Motion to Transfer Venue to Delaware at a hearing on June 18, 2014, the Delaware Court entered its Order Denying Sophos Motion to Transfer Venue on June 20, 2014.
• Judge Orrick has scheduled a claim construction or "Markman" Hearing for this matter on February 13, 2015.
• The Court has not yet calendared a trial date.

6.      Finjan, Inc. v. Symantec Corp., Case 3:14-cv-02998-RS (N.D. Cal.):
We filed a patent infringement lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California against Symantec on June 30, 2014, asserting that Symantec is infringing certain claims of five of Finjan's U.S. patents.

• We seek, among other things, entry of judgment that Symantec has infringed and is infringing our asserted patents, a judgment that Symantec has induced infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 7,756,996, 7,757,289, and 7,930,299, a judgment that Symantec has contributorily infringed U.S. Patent No. 8,015,182, a preliminary and permanent injunction from infringing, inducing, or contributorily infringing the same patents, an accounting of all infringing sales and revenues, damages no less than a reasonably royalty and consistent with proof, enhanced damages, and enhanced damages for willful infringement, costs, interest, and reasonable attorneys' fees under 35 U.S.C. §285.
• On July 7, 2014, this action was reassigned to the Honorable Richard Seeborg.
• Symantec has not yet filed its Answer to our Complaint.
• We demanded a jury trial.

B.                 Appellate Court Actions:

7.      Finjan, Inc. v. Symantec Corp., Websense, Inc., Sophos Inc., No. 2013-1682, United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit:
On December 10, 2013, we appealed to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ("Federal Circuit") the final judgment entered by the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, Case No. 10-CV-593-GMS, in favor of Symantec, Websense, and Sophos, where there was a finding of no liability for U.S. Patent Nos. 6,092,194 and 6,480,962. The issue presented by us on appeal was whether the Delaware District Court erred in allowing to stand the jury's verdict that the patents-in-suit are invalid, whether the District Court erred in not granting our request for a new trial.

• Symantec, Websense, and Sophos filed their brief on February 24, 2014.
• We filed our Reply Brief thereto on April 9, 2014.
• Subject to revision of the calendar by the Federal Circuit, oral argument has been scheduled for September 9, 2014.

C.     Proceedings before the United States Patent & Trademark Office (USPTO)

1.      Ex Parte Reexamination Proceedings
As defined by the USPTO, an "Ex Parte Reexamination is a "proceeding in which any person may request reexamination of a U.S. patent based on one or more prior patents or printed publications. A requester who is not the patent owner has limited participation rights in the proceedings."

a.      U.S. Patent No. 8,079,086

• FireEye filed a first third party request for ex parte reexamination of Finjan's U.S. Patent No. 8,079,086 on October 7, 2013.
• USPTO denied FireEye's request on November 19, 2013, and the reexamination proceedings terminated on January 14, 2014.
• FireEye filed second third party request for ex parte reexamination of the patent was filed on February 7, 2014.
• The USPTO denied FireEye's second request on March 27, 2014, and the reexamination proceedings terminated on April 29, 2014.

b.      U.S. Patent No. 7,647,633

• FireEye filed a third party request for ex parte reexamination of claims 1-7 and 28-33 of Finjan's U.S. Patent No. 7,647,633 on October 7, 2013.
• The request for reexamination was granted and a non-final Office Action was mailed November 19, 2013. The non-final Office Action included rejections of claims 1-7 and 28-33 under various prior art.
• An in-person Examiner interview was conducted at the USPTO on February 4, 2014, and a timely response to non-final Office Action was filed on February 19, 2014. Additionally, a petition to accept an unintentionally delayed priority claim was also submitted.
• The case is currently awaiting USPTO action.

c.       U.S. Patent No. 7,058,822

• FireEye filed a third party request for ex parte reexamination of claims 1-8 and 16-27 of Finjan's U.S. Patent No. 7,058,822 on October 7, 2013.
• The request for reexamination was granted and a non-final Office Action was mailed December 6, 2013. The non-final Office Action included rejections of claims 1-8 and 16-27 under various prior art.
• An in-person Examiner interview was conducted at the USPTO on February 4, 2014, and a timely response to non-final Office Action was filed on March 6, 2014. Additionally, a petition to accept an unintentionally delayed priority claim was also submitted.
• The case is currently awaiting USPTO action.

2.      Inter Partes Reexamination Proceedings before the USPTO:
As defined by the USPTO, an "Inter Partes Reexamination" is a "proceeding in which any person who is not the patent owner and is not otherwise stopped may request examination of a U.S. Patent issued from an original application filed on or after November 29, 1999, based on one or more prior patents or printed publications. Both patent owner and third party requester have participation rights throughout the proceeding, including appeal rights."

a.      U.S. Patent No. 6,480,962

• Symantec filed a third party request for Inter Partes Reexamination of all claims 1-55 of U.S. Patent No. 6,480,962 on November 29, 2011.
• The request for reexamination was granted and a non-final Office Action was mailed January 25, 2012. The non-final Office Action included rejections of claims 1-55 under numerous prior art references and combinations of such references.
• We timely filed a response to non-final Office Action, as did Symantec and the USPTO mailed an Action Closing Prosecution (ACP) on October 2, 2013.
• We timely responded to the ACP on December 2, 2013, which included proposed claim amendments for consideration.
• Symantec subsequently responded on January 2, 2014.
• On June 27, 2014, the USPTO stated that the proposed claim amendments would not be entered and issued a Right of Appeal Notice.
• On July 1, 2014, we filed a notice of appeal of the rejection of Claims 1-55.

Please note there can be no assurance that the Company will be successful in settling or litigating these claims referenced above.

ABOUT FINJAN HOLDINGS
Through our subsidiary, Finjan, Inc., we own a portfolio of patents, related to software that proactively detects malicious code and thereby protects end users from identity and data theft, spyware, malware, phishing, trojans and other online threats. Finjan's mission is to invest in innovation and encourage the development of core intellectual property. Founded in 1997, Finjan developed and patented technology that is capable of detecting previously unknown and emerging threats on a real-time, behavior-based, basis, in contrast to signature-based methods of intercepting only known threats to computers, which were standard in the online security industry during the 1990's. For more information about Finjan, please visit www.finjan.com.

Follow Finjan Holdings on LinkedIn or on Twitter @FinjanHoldings.

Cautionary Note Regarding Forward-Looking Statements
This press release includes "forward-looking statements" within the meaning of Section 27A of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and Section 21E of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. These statements include statements regarding our expectations, intentions, beliefs, and projections about our future results, performance, prospects and opportunities. These statements can be identified by the fact that they do not relate strictly to historical or current facts or by the use of words such as "anticipate," "believe," "could," "estimate," "expect," "intend," "may," "plan," "project," "potential," "should," "will," "will be," "would," the negative of these terms and similar expressions, but this is not an exclusive way of identifying such statements. Readers are cautioned that forward-looking statements are not guarantees of future performance. Our actual results, performance and achievements may differ materially from those expressed in, or implied by, the forward-looking statements contained in this press release as a result of various risks, uncertainties and other factors. Important factors that could cause our actual results to differ materially from our expectations include, without limitation, our ability to execute our business plan, the outcome of pending or future enforcement actions, our ability to expand our technology portfolio, the enforceability of our patents, the continued use of our technology in the market, the development of a liquid trading market for our securities and other factors described under Item 1A, "Risk Factors," as set forth in the Company's Annual Report on form 10-K filed with the SEC on March 14, 2014, and any subsequent quarterly or current reports.

The Company will continue to file annual, quarterly, and current reports, proxy statements and other information with the SEC. Forward-looking statements speak only as of the dates specified in such filings or releases. Except as expressly required under federal securities laws and the rules and regulations of the Securities and Exchange Commission, we do not undertake any obligation to update any forward-looking statements to reflect events or circumstances arising after any such date, whether as a result of new information or future events or otherwise. You should not place undue reliance on the forward-looking statements included in this release or that may be made elsewhere from time to time by us, or on our behalf. All forward-looking statements attributable to us are expressly qualified by these cautionary statements.

SOURCE Finjan Holdings, Inc.