⚖ Oral Arguments, with Context

The Federal Circuit hears Finjan versus Palo Alto Networks, a dispute over patents for detecting malicious software. Finjan holds cybersecurity patents and sued Palo Alto Networks in California in twenty fourteen, alleging that its security products used patented inventions without permission. The accused products include a next generation firewall and WildFire, a system for examining potentially dangerous files. The dispute is not simply whether those products detect threats: it is whether they satisfy the specific requirements written into the patent claims. In March twenty twenty-five, the district judge granted summary judgment of non-infringement on the three patents remaining at issue. That ended those claims without a jury trial, because the judge found no genuine factual issue requiring one. Finjan is appealing that ruling. Two technical questions will help you follow the discussion. For the patent called the four-oh-eight patent, the claimed method determines the programming language of incoming code, then instantiates a scanner for that language. Here, instantiating means calling up or creating an instance of a scanner. Finjan will argue that its expert evidence raises a factual dispute about how the accused software works; Palo Alto will rely on the expert's testimony identifying a single scanner that handles multiple languages. For the six-thirty-three patent, listen for downloadable-information destination and user device: the question includes whether WildFire servers meet the required meaning of those terms. Claim construction means deciding what the patent language means; infringement then asks whether the accused product meets those requirements. Keep that distinction in mind when the judges move between interpreting words and evaluating the expert evidence.

Finjan LLC v. Palo Alto Networks, Inc. (No. 25-1702) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, argued November 4, 2026.