10-Q

UNITED STATES

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20549

FORM 10-Q

(Mark One)

ý Quarterly report pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934

For the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016

or

¨ Transition report pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934

For the transition period from to

Commission File Number: 001-33304

FINJAN HOLDINGS, INC.
(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)
Delaware	20-4075963
(State or other jurisdiction of incorporation or organization)	(I.R.S. Employer Identification No.)
2000 University Ave., Suite 600
East Palo Alto, CA 94303
(Address, including zip code, and telephone number, including area code, of registrant’s principal executive offices)

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant (1) has filed all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to file such reports), and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days.    Yes ý    No¨

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant has submitted electronically and posted on its corporate Web site, if any, every Interactive Data File required to be submitted and posted pursuant to Rule 405 of Regulation S-T during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to submit and post such files).    Yes ý    No ¨

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a large accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, a non-accelerated filer, or a smaller reporting company. See the definitions of “large accelerated filer,” “accelerated filer” and “smaller reporting company” in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act.

Large accelerated filer	¨	Accelerated filer	¨
Non-accelerated filer	¨(Do not check if a smaller reporting company)	Smaller reporting company	ý

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a shell company (as defined in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act).    Yes¨Noý

As of August 2, 2016, 22,862,907 shares of the registrant’s common stock, par value $0.0001 per share, were outstanding.

FINJAN HOLDINGS, INC.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PART I – FINANCIAL INFORMATION
Item 1.	Financial Statements:
	Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets as of June 30, 2016 (unaudited) and December 31, 2015 (audited)	1
	Condensed Consolidated Statements of Operations for the three and six months ended June 30, 2016 and June 30, 2015 (unaudited)	2
	Condensed Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows for the six months ended June 30, 2016 and June 30, 2015 (unaudited)	3
	Notes to Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements (unaudited)	4
Item 2.	Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations	21
Item 3.	Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures About Market Risk	27
Item 4.	Controls and Procedures	27
PART II – OTHER INFORMATION
Item 1.	Legal Proceedings	29
Item 1A	Risk Factors	29
Item 2.	Unregistered Sales of Equity Securities and Use of Proceeds	29
Item 3.	Defaults upon Senior Securities	29
Item 4.	Mine Safety Disclosures	29
Item 5.	Other Information	29
Item 6.	Exhibits	29

Exhibit Index

PART I - FINANCIAL INFORMATION

Item 1. Financial Information

FINJAN HOLDINGS, INC.

CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS

(In thousands, except shares and par value)

	June 30, 2016			December 31, 2015
	(Unaudited)
Assets
Current assets:
Cash and cash equivalents	$	17,229		$	6,101
Prepaid expenses and other current assets	189			322
Total current assets	17,418			6,423
Property and equipment, net	230			257
Investment	2,445			2,195
Other long-term assets	324			325
Total assets	$	20,417		$	9,200
Liabilities and Stockholders' Equity
Current liabilities:
Accounts payable	$	1,196		$	2,220
Accounts payable - related parties	18			17
Accrued expenses	2,963			450
Accrued income taxes	9			9
Other liabilities, current	—			32
Total current liabilities	4,186			2,728
Other liabilities, non-current	134			130
Total liabilities	4,320			2,858
Commitments and contingencies (Note 2)
Redeemable Preferred Stock
Series A Preferred Stock - $0.0001 par value, 102,000 and no shares issued and outstanding at June 30, 2016 and December 31, 2015, respectively (Liquidation preference of $15,300 at June 30, 2016)	14,970			—
Stockholders' equity
Preferred stock - $0.0001 par value; 10,000,000 shares authorized; no shares issued and outstanding (which excludes 102,000 Series A Redeemable Preferred Stock) at June 30, 2016 and December 31, 2015, respectively	—			—
Common stock - $0.0001 par value; 80,000,000 shares authorized; 22,806,609 and 22,640,611 shares issued and outstanding at June 30, 2016 and December 31, 2015, respectively	2			2
Additional paid-in capital	18,995			23,946
Accumulated deficit	(17,870		)	(17,606		)
Total stockholders' equity	1,127			6,342
Total liabilities and stockholders' equity	$	20,417		$	9,200

The accompanying notes are an integral part of the condensed consolidated financial statements

1

FINJAN HOLDINGS, INC.

CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS

(In thousands, except per share amount)

(Unaudited)

	Three Months Ended June 30,						Six Months Ended June 30,
	2016			2015			2016			2015
Revenues	$	6,528		$	700		$	8,847		$	700
Cost of revenues	2,237			60			2,237			60
Gross profit	4,291			640			6,610			640
Research and development expense	54			—			105			—
Selling, general and administrative expenses	3,339			4,559			6,769			8,764
Income (loss) from operations	898			(3,919		)	(264		)	(8,124		)
Return on investment	—			1,271			—			1,271
Other income (expense), net	—			7			—			15
Income (loss) before income taxes	898			(2,641		)	(264		)	(6,838		)
Provision for income taxes	—			—			—			—
Net income (loss)	898			(2,641		)	(264		)	(6,838		)
Accretion of Series A Preferred stock	(5,480		)	—			(5,480		)	—
Net loss to common stockholders	$	(4,582	)	$	(2,641	)	$	(5,744	)	$	(6,838	)
Net loss per share applicable to common stockholders, basic and diluted	$	(0.20	)	$	(0.12	)	$	(0.25	)	$	(0.30	)
Weighted-average common shares outstanding, basic and diluted	22,764,322			22,519,493			22,736,505			22,503,171

The accompanying notes are an integral part of the condensed consolidated financial statements

2

FINJAN HOLDINGS, INC.

CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOWS

(In thousands)

(Unaudited)

	Six Months Ended June 30,
	2016			2015
Cash flows from operating activities:
Net loss	$	(264	)	$	(6,843	)
Adjustments to reconcile net loss to net cash provided by (used in) operating activities:
Return on Investment	—			(1,271		)
Depreciation and amortization	27			26
Stock-based compensation	453			455
Changes in operating assets and liabilities:
Accounts receivable	—			2,016
Prepaid expenses and other current assets	133			(106		)
Other long-term assets	1			(231		)
Accrued expenses	2,513			(2		)
Accounts payable	(1,024		)	(196		)
Accounts payable - related parties	1			(92		)
Other liabilities	(28		)	—
Accrued income taxes	—			8
Net cash provided by (used in) operating activities	1,812			(6,236		)
Cash flows from investing activities:
Purchases of property and equipment	—			(210		)
Proceeds from investment	—			826
Purchase of additional investment	(250		)	—
Net cash (used in) provided by investing activities	(250		)	616
Cash flows from financing activities:
Proceeds from the sale of Series A preferred shares, net of issuance costs	9,490			—
Proceeds from exercise of stock options	76			20
Net cash provided by financing activities	9,566			20
Net increase (decrease) in cash and cash equivalents	11,128			(5,600		)
Cash and cash equivalents - beginning	6,101			17,505
Cash and cash equivalents - ending	$	17,229		$	11,905

Supplemental Disclosures of Cash Flow Information
Additional investment held by investee	—		445
Accretion of preferred stock to redemption value	$	5,480	$	—

The accompanying notes are an integral part of the condensed consolidated financial statements

3

NOTES TO CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

(UNAUDITED)

NOTE 1 – THE COMPANY AND SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES

Finjan Holdings, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the “Company” or “Finjan Holdings”), is a cybersecurity company focused on licensing and enforcement, providing consulting services, developing mobile security applications and investing in cybersecurity technologies and intellectual property.  Licensing and enforcement of its cybersecurity technology patent portfolio is operated by its wholly-owned subsidiary Finjan, Inc. (“Finjan”).  The consulting services business is operated by its wholly-owned subsidiary, CybeRisk Security Solutions LLC ("CybeRisk"), and the mobile security business is operated by its wholly owned subsidiary Finjan Mobile, Inc., ("Finjan Mobile"). Revenues and operations from the Company's CybeRisk advisory services and the Company's Finjan Mobile security business were deemed immaterial for the three and six months ended June 30, 2016 and 2015.

BASIS OF PRESENTATION

These unaudited condensed consolidated financial statements have been prepared following the requirements of the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”), for interim reporting. As permitted under those rules, certain footnotes and other financial information that are normally required by accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America (“U.S. GAAP”) can be condensed or omitted. The December 31, 2015 condensed consolidated balance sheet was derived from audited financial statements, but does not include all disclosures required by U.S. GAAP.  The information included in this quarterly report on Form 10-Q should be read in conjunction with the consolidated financial statements and notes thereto of the Company for the year ended December 31, 2015 which were included in the annual report on Form 10-K filed by the Company on March 25, 2016.

In the opinion of management, these condensed consolidated financial statements have been prepared on the same basis as the annual consolidated financial statements and notes thereto of the Company and include all adjustments, consisting only of normal recurring adjustments, considered necessary for the fair presentation of the Company’s financial position and operating results. The results for the three and six months ended June 30, 2016 are not necessarily indicative of the operating results for the year ending December 31, 2016, or any other interim or future periods.

USE OF ESTIMATES

The preparation of financial statements in conformity with U.S. GAAP requires management to make estimates and assumptions that affect the reported amounts of assets and liabilities and disclosure of contingent assets and liabilities at the date of the financial statements and the reported amounts of revenues and expenses during the reporting period. On an ongoing basis, the Company evaluates its estimates, including those related to stock-based compensation, investments, the determination of the economic useful life of property and equipment, income taxes and valuation allowances against net deferred tax assets. Management bases its estimates on historical experience or on various other assumptions that it believes to be reasonable under the circumstances. Actual results could differ from those estimates.

PRINCIPLES OF CONSOLIDATION

The condensed consolidated financial statements include the accounts of Finjan Holdings and its wholly-owned subsidiaries. All intercompany transactions and balances have been eliminated in consolidation.

REVENUE RECOGNITION

Revenue is recognized when persuasive evidence of an arrangement exists, delivery of the product or service has occurred, all obligations have been performed pursuant to the terms of the agreement, the sales price is fixed or determinable, and collectability is reasonably assured.

Revenue from the Company’s cybersecurity business results from grants of licenses to its patented cybersecurity technology and settlements reached from legal enforcement of the Company’s patent right. Revenue is recognized when the arrangement with the licensee has been signed and the license has been delivered and made effective, provided the license fees are fixed or determinable and collectability is reasonably assured.

The total amount of the consideration received upon any settlement or judgment is allocated to each element based on the fair value of each element. Elements provided in either settlement agreements or judgments include, the value of a license, legal release and interest. Fair value of licensing agreements and royalty revenues, are recognized as revenues in the condensed consolidated statement of operations. Elements not related to license agreements and royalty revenue in nature will be reflected

4

in other income (expense), net in the condensed consolidated statements of operations. Legal release as part of a settlement agreement is recognized as a separate line item in the condensed consolidated statements of operations when value can be allocated to the legal release. When the Company reaches a settlement with a defendant, no value is allocated to the legal release since the existence of a settlement removes legal standing to bring a claim of infringement, and without a legal claim, the legal release has no economic value. The element that is applicable to interest income will be recorded in other income (expense), net.

When settlements or judgments are achieved at discounts to the fair value of a license, the Company allocates the full settlement or judgment, excluding specifically named elements as mentioned above, to the value of the license agreement or royalty revenue under the residual method relative to full license fair value prior to the discount.

FOREIGN CURRENCY

Foreign currency denominated assets and liabilities of foreign subsidiaries, where the local currency is the functional currency, are translated into U.S. dollars using the exchange rates in effect at the balance sheet dates, and income and expenses are translated using average exchange rates during the period. The resulting foreign currency translation adjustments were deemed immaterial for the periods presented.

Gains and losses from foreign currency transactions are included in other income (expense), net in the accompanying condensed consolidated statements of operations. Foreign currency transaction gains (losses) were immaterial for the periods presented, and are included as general and administrative expense, in the accompanying condensed consolidated financial statements.

CONCENTRATIONS OF CREDIT RISK

The Company maintains substantially all of its cash and cash equivalents in financial institutions located in the United States. At times, the Company’s cash and cash equivalent balances may be uninsured or in deposit accounts that exceed the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation insurance limits. The Company has not experienced any losses in such accounts. As of June 30, 2016 and December 31, 2015, substantially all of the Company’s cash and cash equivalents are uninsured.

SERIES A PREFERRED STOCK

The Company accounts for the redemption premium and issuance costs on its Series A Preferred stock by recognizing changes in the redemption value immediately as they occur and adjusting the carrying value of the security to equal the redemption value at the end of each reporting period. This method views the end of the reporting period as if it were also the redemption date for the security.

NET LOSS PER COMMON SHARE

Basic net loss per common share is based upon the weighted-average number of common shares outstanding. Diluted net loss per common share is based on the weighted-average number of common shares outstanding and potentially dilutive common shares outstanding.

Potentially dilutive common shares from employee equity plans are determined by applying the treasury stock method to the assumed exercise of warrants and share options and were excluded from the computation of diluted net loss per share because their inclusion would be anti-dilutive and consist of the following:

	Three and Six months ended June 30,
	2016	2015
Stock options	1,738,642	1,398,332
Restricted Stock Units	469,902	517,926
Total	2,208,544	1,916,258

5

RECENTLY ISSUED ACCOUNTING PRONOUNCEMENTS NOT YET ADOPTED

In August 2015, the FASB issued ASU No. 2014-15 “Disclosure of Uncertainties about an Entity's Ability to continue as a Going Concern”, which provides guidance on determining when and how to disclose going-concern uncertainties in the financial statements. The new standard requires management to perform interim and annual assessments of an entity's ability to continue as a going concern within one year of the date the financial statements are issued. An entity must provide certain disclosures if conditions or events raise substantial doubt about the entity's ability to continue as a going concern. The ASU applies to all entities and is effective for annual periods ending after December 15, 2016, and interim periods thereafter, with early adoption permitted. The Company is currently evaluating the effect of the standard on its consolidated financial statements and related disclosures.

In February, 2016, FASB issued ASU No. 2016-02 “Leases” that requires a lessee to recognize the assets and liabilities that arise from operating leases. A lessee should recognize in the statement of financial position a liability to make lease payments (the lease liability) and a right-of-use asset representing its right to use the underlying asset for the lease term. For leases with a term of 12 months or less, a lessee is permitted to make an accounting policy election by class of underlying asset not to recognize lease assets and lease liabilities. The new guidance is effective for fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2018, including interim periods within those fiscal years. Early adoption is permitted. The Company is currently evaluating the effect of the standard on its consolidated financial statements and related disclosures.

In March 2016, FASB issued ASU No. 2016-07 "Investments - Equity Method and Joint Ventures (Topic 323): Simplifying the Transition to the Equity Method of Accounting". The amendments require upon qualifying for the equity method of accounting that no retroactive adjustment of the investment be made. In addition, the amendments require that an entity that has an available-for-sale equity security that becomes qualified for the equity method of accounting, recognize through earnings the unrealized holding gain or loss in accumulated other comprehensive income at the date the investment becomes qualified for use of the equity method. The amendments are effective for all entities for fiscal years, and interim periods within those fiscal years, beginning after December 15, 2016. The amendments should be applied prospectively upon their effective date to increases in the level of ownership interest or degree of influence that result in the adoption of the equity method. Early Adoption is permitted. The Company is currently evaluating the effect of the standard on its consolidated financial statements and related disclosures.

In March 2016, the FASB issued ASU No. 2016-08 "Revenue from Contracts with Customers (Topic 606): Principal versus Agent Considerations (Reporting Revenue Gross versus Net)". The amendments are intended to improve the operability and understandability of the implementation guidance on principal versus agent considerations by amending certain existing illustrative examples and adding additional illustrative examples to assist in the application of the guidance. The effective date and transition of these amendments is the same as the effective date and transition of ASU 2014-09, “Revenue from Contracts with Customers (Topic 606)”. Public entities should apply the amendments in ASU 2014-09 for annual reporting periods beginning after December 15, 2017, including interim reporting periods therein. Early adoption is permitted commencing January 1, 2017. The Company is currently evaluating the effect of the new revenue standard on its consolidated financial statements and related disclosures.

In March 2016, the FASB issued ASU No. 2016-09 “Compensation - Stock Compensation (Topic 718): Improvements to Employee Share-Based Payment Accounting”. Several aspects of the accounting for share-based payment award transactions are simplified, including: (a) income tax consequences; (b) classification of awards as either equity or liabilities; and (c) classification on the statement of cash flows. The amendments are effective for public companies for annual periods beginning after December 15, 2016, and interim periods within those annual periods. Early adoption is permitted for any interim or annual period. The Company is currently evaluating the effect of this standard on its consolidated financial statements and related disclosures.

In April 2016, the FASB issued ASU No. 2016-10 ‘’Revenue from Contracts with Customers (Topic 606) (“ASU 2016-10”): identifying Performance Obligations and Licensing”. The amendments add further guidance on identifying performance obligations and also improve the operability and understandability of the licensing implementation guidance. The amendments do not change the core principle of the guidance in Topic 606. The effective date and transition requirements for the amendments are the same as the effective date and transition requirements in Topic 606. Public entities should apply the amendments for annual reporting periods beginning after December 15, 2017, including interim reporting periods therein. Early application for public entities is permitted only as of annual reporting periods beginning after December 15, 2016, including interim reporting periods within that reporting period. The Company is currently evaluating the effect of this standard on its consolidated financial statements and related disclosures.        

6

Other recent accounting standards that have been issued or proposed by FASB or other standards-setting bodies that do not require adoption until a future date are not expected to have a material impact the Company's consolidated financial statements upon adoption.

NOTE 2 – COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

Operating Leases

The following table sets forth the Company’s aggregate future minimum payments under its operating lease commitments as of June 30, 2016 (in thousands):

For the year ending December 31,
2016, (remaining six months)	396
2017	781
2018	459
	$	1,636

The Company accounts for its leases under the straight-line method of accounting. Deferred rent payable was $84,000 and $80,000 as of June 30, 2016 and December 31, 2015, respectively, and is included in long term liabilities on the condensed consolidated balance sheets.

Rent expense was $202,000 and $398,000 for the three and six months ended June 30, 2016, respectively, and $175,000 and $287,000 for the three and six months ended June 30, 2015, respectively.

Rental income for the three and six months ended June 30, 2016 was $86,000 and $172,000, respectively, and $0 for the same periods in 2015.

Sublease income is recorded as a reduction in rental expense. Future minimum lease payments to be received under the sublease agreements as of June 30, 2016 are as follows (in thousands):

For the year ending December 31,	New York		Menlo Park		Total
2016, (remaining six months)	81		95		176
2017	165		178		343
2018	127		—		127
	$	373	$	273	646

Capital Commitments

On November 21, 2013, the Company made a $5.0 million commitment to invest in JVP VII Cyber Strategic Partners, L.P. (the “JVP Fund”), an Israel-based limited partnership venture capital fund seeking to invest in early-stage cyber technology companies. If and when the Company funds the entire amount of the investment, it will be less than a 10% limited partnership interest in which the Company will not be able to exercise control over the fund. Accordingly, the Company has accounted for this investment under the cost method of accounting.

On June 8, 2015, the Company received a cash distribution of $0.8 million as a portion of a gross entitlement of $1.3 million from its investment in the JVP Fund, the remainder $0.5 million was reinvested in the fund. Along with its cash investments of $2 million, it represents a total investment of $2.5 million. The distribution is a portion of the gross proceeds allocated to the Company's investment. The retained proceeds did not reduce the Company's future capital commitment to the venture capital fund. The Company made a $0.3 million contribution to the fund in May, 2016, as of June 30, 2016, the Company had a $3.0 million outstanding capital commitment to the venture capital fund, which can be called any time until 2018.

7

NOTE 3 - ACCRUED EXPENSES

The components of accrued expenses are as below:

	June 30, 2016		December 31, 2015
	(in thousands)
Legal - Litigation / Licensing	2,530		100
Legal - Other	113		146
Compensation	255		204
Other	65		—
	$	2,963	$	450

NOTE 4 - LICENSE, SETTLEMENT AND RELEASE AGREEMENT

On June 30, 2016, Finjan announced that Finjan and a European cloud-based network security firm (“European Licensee”) had entered into a Confidential Patent License Agreement (the “License Agreement”) effective as of June 30, 2016. Under the License Agreement, European Licensee obtains a nonexclusive, term license in the United States under Finjan’s U.S. patents to make, have made, use, sell (directly or indirectly), offer to sell, import, distribute and otherwise dispose of Licensee’s covered products. European Licensee paid Finjan $565,000 in cash on June 30, 2016.

On June 3, 2016, Finjan entered into a Patent License, Settlement and Release Agreement with Proofpoint, Inc. and Amorize Technologies (collectively, “Proofpoint”). The Proofpoint license provides for licensee to pay Finjan the sum of $10.9 million in cash, in which $4.3 million was received on June 6, 2016, $3.3 million is payable on or before January 4, 2017, and $3.3 million is payable on or before January 3, 2018. The Company recognized $4.3 million of the $10.9 million license as revenues as of June 30, 2016, as such amount was determined to be fixed and determinable, in accordance with the Company’s revenue recognition policy as described in Note 1. The remaining balance of $6.6 million under the terms of the June 3, 2016 License will be recognized as revenues when the payments are due. In exchange for the foregoing and other valuable consideration, Finjan agreed to, subject to certain restrictions, limits and other conditions, grant Proofpoint a non-exclusive, irrevocable (except in the case of non-payment by Proofpoint or other material breach), worldwide license under Finjan Patents during the Term as specified in the June 3, 2016 License.

On December 30, 2015, Finjan entered into a Confidential Patent License, Settlement and Release Agreement (“December 30, 2015 License”), effective December 29, 2015, with a United States-based third party (“U.S. Licensee”). The December 30, 2015 License provides for U.S. Licensee to pay Finjan the sum of $3.65 million in cash, in which $1.0 million was received on December 30, 2015, $1.65 million was received on June 27, 2016, and $1.0 million is payable on or before September 30, 2016. The Company recognized $1.0 million of the $3.65 million license as revenues as of December 31, 2015, as such amount was determined to be fixed and determinable, in accordance with the Company’s revenue recognition policy as described in Note 1. The Company received and recognized $1.65 million as revenues during the quarter ended June 30, 2016. The remaining balance of $1 million under the terms of the December 30, 2015 License will be recognized as revenue when the payment is due. In exchange for the foregoing and other valuable consideration, Finjan agreed to, subject to certain restrictions, limits and other conditions, grant U.S. Licensee a non-exclusive, irrevocable (except in the case of non-payment by U.S Licensee or other material breach), worldwide license under Finjan Patents during the Term as specified in the December 30, 2015 License.

On September 24, 2014, Finjan entered into a Confidential Patent License, Settlement and Release Agreement (the “September 24, 2014 License”) with a third party against whom Finjan had filed a patent infringement lawsuit.  Pursuant to this September 24, 2014 License, the third party and Finjan also agreed to dismiss the infringement litigation, and each party gave the other a general release for all claims that it might have against the other, known or unknown, based on the actions of either party on or before the date of the settlement. Under the September 24, 2014 License, the third party will pay Finjan a license fee of $8.0 million payable in four installments.  The first installment of $3.0 million was paid upon execution of the agreement and filing of the dismissal with prejudice, the second installment of $2.0 million was received on January 16, 2015, the third installment of $2.0 million was payable on or before January 15, 2016, and received on January 14, 2016. The fourth and final installment of $1.0 million is payable on or before January 13, 2017.  

8

NOTE 5 - SERIES A PREFERRED STOCK

On May 6, 2016, Finjan entered into a Series A Preferred Stock Purchase Agreement with Halcyon LDRII, pursuant to which the Company agreed to issue to Halcyon LDRII in a private placement an aggregate of 102,000 shares of the Company’s Series A Preferred Stock Shares at a purchase price of $100.00 per share, for aggregate proceeds of $10.2 million. The closing of the Private Placement occurred on May 20, 2016. The Company incurred issuance costs of $710,000 which are recorded as an offset to the redeemable preferred stock.

The Series A Preferred Stock was accounted under Section 480-10-S99 - Distinguishing Liabilities from Equity (FASB Accounting Standards Codification 480) as amended by ASU 2009-04 - Accounting for Redeemable Equity Instruments (“ASU 2009-04”). Under ASU 2009-04, a redeemable equity security is to be classified as temporary equity if it is conditionally redeemable a) at a fixed or determinable price on a fixed or determinable date, b) at the option of the holder, or c) upon the occurrence of an event that is not solely within the control of the issuer. The Company’s financing is redeemable at the option of the holder. Therefore, the Company classified the Series A Preferred Stock as temporary equity in the condensed consolidated balance sheet.

The Series A Preferred Stock have redemption features that have a determinable price and determinable date based on the following liquidation preferences:

The lesser of:

• 2.8x the original purchase price (OPP); or the following:

•1.5x the OPP if redeemed within 90 days of closing; or

•1.65x the OPP if redeemed between 90 and 360 days of closing; or

•1.75x the OPP if redeemed between 360 days and 720 days of closing; or

•Thereafter, 1.75x the OPP plus 0.1x the OPP for every 90 day period the preferred remains outstanding.

The redemption feature is at the option of the holder and is defined in the Certificate of Designation as a percentage of certain revenues, which varies by type of revenue as well as date received. These revenues include monetary awards, damages, fees, recoveries, judgments in a suit, as well as monies received from gross licensing, royalty or similar revenue recovered from JVP related to Finjan’s investment in JVP. Such monetary awards are not solely within the control of Finjan.

The increase in the redemption value is a deemed dividend that increases the carrying value of the Series A Preferred Stock to equal the redemption value at the end of each reporting period with an offsetting decrease to additional paid-in-capital. During the second quarter of 2016, the Company accreted a dividend of $5.1 million, and proportionally accreted the issuance cost, increasing the Preferred A stock to $15.0 million at June 30, 2016; the redemption (liquidation) value is $15.3 million (1.5x the $10.2 million private placement) at June 30, 2016.

Subsequent to quarter end, the Company redeemed $2.592 million or 17,286 shares of the Series A Preferred stock; $1.728 million reduced the value of the Series A Preferred stock and $0.864 million reduced the accretive value of the Series A Preferred stock.

NOTE 6 – STOCKHOLDERS’ EQUITY

Stock-based Compensation

On July 10, 2014, the Company’s stockholders approved the Finjan Holdings, Inc. 2014 Incentive Compensation Plan (the "2014 Plan") at the annual meeting of stockholders, pursuant to which 2,196,836 shares of common stock were authorized for issuance.  On June 24, 2015, the Company adopted the 2015 Israeli Sub-plan (the “2015 Israeli Sub-plan”) to the Company’s 2014 Plan, which enables the Company to grant options, and issue shares of common stock to employees and non-employees, who are employed by the Company or any of its affiliates, who are residents of the State of Israel.

The Company has issued a total of 836,872 Restricted Stock Units ("RSUs") of which 469,902 remain outstanding as of June 30, 2016.  RSUs generally vest over three or four years, with one-third or one-fourth, respectively, vesting on the one-year anniversary followed by quarterly vesting thereafter.  

9

Upon shareholder approval of the 2014 Plan, the 2013 Global Share Option Plan and Israeli Sub-Plan were terminated, other than respect to options outstanding under such plans. 1,738,642 options remain outstanding under the 2013 and 2014 plans as of June 30, 2016.

Stock-based compensation to employees and non-employees are recognized as expense in the condensed consolidated statement of operations. The compensation cost for all stock-based awards is measured at the grant date, based on the fair value of the award (determined using Black-Scholes option pricing model for stock options and intrinsic value for RSUs), and is recognized as an expense over the requisite service period (generally the vesting of the equity awards). Determining the fair value of stock-based awards at the grant date requires significant estimates and judgments, including future employee stock option exercise behavior and requisite service periods.

During the three and six months ended June 30, 2016, the Company expensed $311,000 and $453,000, respectively, and $100,000 and $455,000 for three and six months ended June 30, 2015, respectively, of stock-based compensation in the condensed consolidated statements of operations. The aggregate intrinsic value of stock options outstanding and exercisable as of June 30, 2016 was $0.

During the three and six months ended June 30, 2016, the Company granted options to purchase 287,501 and 295,001 shares of common stock, respectively. During the three and six months ended June 30, 2016, the Company granted 200,000 and zero RSUs of common stock, respectively. During the three and six months ended June 30, 2016, zero and 20,000 RSUs were forfeited, respectively. During the three and six months ended June 30, 2016, 20,000 and zero options were forfeited, respectively.

The Company estimates the fair values of stock options using the Black-Scholes option-pricing model. The assumptions used in the Black-Scholes option-pricing model and the weighted-average grant date fair value of the option awards for the periods presented were as follows:

	Three Months Ended June 30,							Six Months Ended June 30,
	2016			2015				2016			2015
Volatility	149		%	112		%		149% - 152%			94% - 112%
Expected term (in years)	7			6				7			6
Risk-free rate	1.26		%	1.54		%		1.22% - 1.26%			1.54% - 1.64%
Expected dividend yield	—		%	—		%		—	%		—	%
Weighted-average grant date fair value	$	1.15		$	1.16		$	0.96 - 1.15		$	1.16 - 2.42

The risk-free interest rate is based on the U.S. Treasury rates with maturities similar to the expected term of the option. The volatility is a measure of the amount by which the Company’s share price has fluctuated or is expected to fluctuate and was based on historical volatility of comparative companies that are similar to the Company. For the six months ended June 30, 2016, the Company updated its volatility assumptions to reflect the increased trading history in the Company’s stock.The expected term was estimated using the simplified method. The simplified method calculates the expected term as the average of the time to vesting and the contractual life of the option. The dividend yield is 0% as the Company has never declared or paid any cash dividends and does not anticipate paying dividends in the future.

NOTE 7 – RELATED PARTY TRANSACTIONS

In the course of business, the Company obtains legal services from a firm in which the Company’s Chairman is a partner. The Company incurred approximately $38,000 and $76,000 in legal fees to the firm during the three and six months ended June 30, 2016 and 2015, respectively. As of June 30, 2016 and December 31, 2015, the Company has balances due to this firm of $13,000 at both dates.

The Company obtains social media and investor related services from a firm in which the Company’s Chief Financial Officer holds a 50% interest.  The Company incurred approximately $10,000 and $22,000 in fees to the firm during the three and six months ended June 30, 2016, respectively and $22,000 and $38,000 for the three and six months ended June 30, 2015, respectively. As of June 30, 2016 and December 31, 2015, the Company has balances due to this firm of $5,000 at both dates. Effective June 30, 2016, the Company has canceled this agreement.

10

NOTE 8 - LITIGATION, CLAIMS AND ASSESSMENTS

A. United States District Court Actions

Finjan, Inc. v. FireEye, Inc., 4:13-cv-03133SBA, (N.D. Cal):

Finjan filed a patent infringement lawsuit against FireEye, Inc. in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on July 8, 2013, asserting that FireEye, Inc. is directly and indirectly infringing certain claims of Finjan’s U.S. Patent Nos. 6,804,780, 7,058,822, 7,647,633, 7,975,305, 8,079,086, and 8,225,408, through the manufacture, use, importation, sale, and/or offer for sale of its products and services, including but not limited to FireEye’s Threat Protection Platform, including the FireEye Malware Protection System, the FireEye Dynamic Threat  Intelligence, and the FireEye Central Management System. Finjan amended its Complaint on August 16, 2013, to add U.S. Patent No. 6,154,844 to the list of asserted patents. The principal parties in this proceeding are Finjan, Inc. and FireEye, Inc. Finjan seeks entry of judgment that FireEye, Inc. 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 of no less than a reasonable 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. FireEye, Inc. answered Finjan's Amended Complaint on September 3, 2013, by denying Finjan's allegations of infringement and counterclaiming that the asserted patents are invalid under 35 U.S.C. §§ 101, 102, 103 and/or 112. Both parties have demanded a jury trial. On June 2, 2014, the Honorable Saundra Brown Armstrong entered an Order Granting Motion to Stay Pending Reexamination of U.S. Patent Nos. 7,058,822 (“the ‘822 Patent”) and 7,647,633 (“the ‘633 Patent”). Accordingly, this action is off calendar until the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO") completes its administrative reexamination proceedings. On May 31, 2016, pursuant to the Court’s Order Granting Motion to Stay Pending Reexamination, the parties filed a joint status report regarding the status of reexamination proceedings of the ‘822 and ‘633 Patents. There can be no assurance that Finjan will be successful in settling or litigating these claims.

Finjan, Inc. v. Blue Coat Systems, Inc., Case 5:13-cv-03999-BLF, (N.D. Cal.):

Finjan filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Blue Coat Systems, Inc., in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on August 28, 2013, asserting that Blue Coat is directly and indirectly infringing certain claims of Finjan’s U.S. Patent Nos. 6,154,844, 6,804,780, 6,965,968, 7,058,822, 7,418,731, and 7,647,333 patents. The principal parties in this proceeding are Finjan and Blue Coat. This action is before the Honorable Judge Beth Labson Freeman. The Court held a claim construction, or Markman Hearing, for this matter on August 22, 2014. The Court entered its Markman Order entitled “Order Construing Claims in U.S. Patent Nos. 6,154,844, 7,058,822, 7,418,731, and 7,647,633, on October 20, 2014, which is available on PACER (www.pacer.gov), as Docket No. 118.  Trial for this action took place from July 20, 2015 through August 4, 2015. On August 4, 2015, the jury returned a unanimous verdict that each of the Finjan asserted patents are valid and enforceable.  Further, the jury returned a unanimous verdict that Finjan’s U.S. Patent Nos. 6,154,844, 6,804,780, 6,965,968, and 7,418,731 were literally infringed by Blue Coat, and that U.S. Patent No. 7,647,633 was infringed by Blue Coat under the Doctrine of Equivalents.  Upon the findings of infringement, the jury also awarded Finjan approximately $39.5 million in damages as reasonable royalties for Blue Coat's infringement. On September 9, 2015, the Court held a bench trial on non-jury legal issues, and issued findings of fact and conclusions of law on November 20, 2015. On November 20, 2015, the Court entered Judgment in favor of Finjan. On January 29, 2016, the Court taxed costs against Blue Coat. A hearing for the parties’ post-trial motions was held on April 28, 2016. On July 18, 2016, the Court issued an order upholding the jury’s verdict of infringement, validity, and damages, and denying Blue Coat’s motion to amend the Court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law, denying Blue Coat’s motion for judgment as a matter of law, granting Blue Coat’s motion to amend the judgment to show infringement under the doctrine of equivalents is moot for the ‘844, ‘968, and ‘780 patents, denying Blue Coat’s motion for a new trial, denying Finjan’s motion for enhanced damages, granting Finjan’s motion for pre-and post-judgment interest, and denying Finjan’s motion for attorneys’ fees. Finjan has not received any revenue from Blue Coat with respect to this lawsuit. There can be no assurance that Finjan will be successful in collecting the full amount of the jury award.

Finjan, Inc. v. Proofpoint, and Armorize Technologies, Inc., Case 3:13-cv-05808-HSG (N.D. Cal.):

Finjan filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Proofpoint, Inc. and its wholly-owned subsidiary, Armorize Technologies, Inc., in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on December 16, 2013, asserting that Proofpoint and Armorize collectively and separately are directly and indirectly infringing one or more claims of Finjan’s U.S. Patent Nos. 6,154,844, 7,058,822, 7,613,918, 7,647,633, 7,975,305, 8,079,086, 8,141,154, and 8,225,408, through the manufacture, use, importation, sale, and/or offer for sale of its products and services, including but not limited to Proofpoint Enterprise Protection, Proofpoint’s Malvertising Protection, Proofpoint’s SafeImpressions, Proofpoint’s Targeted Attack Protection, Proofpoint Essentials, Proofpoint Protection Server, Proofpoint Messaging Security Gateway, HackAlert Anti-Malware, Codesecure, SmartWAF, Safelmpressions, and Malvertising Protection. The principal parties in this proceeding are Finjan, Proofpoint, and

11

Armorize. Finjan seeks entry of judgment that Proofpoint and Armorize have infringed and are infringing the above-listed patents, a judgment that they 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 of no less than a reasonable royalty and consistent with proof, enhanced damages, and costs, interest, and reasonable attorneys’ fees under 35 U.S.C. §285. This matter is assigned to the Honorable Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr., United States District Judge.  A claim construction or Markman Hearing was heard on June 24, 2015, and the Court issued a Claim Construction Order on December 3, 2015. On April 12, 2016, the Court granted-in-part and denied-in-part each party’s motion for summary judgment, denying the parties’ motions for summary judgment of infringement and non-infringement for the ‘844, ‘822, ‘633, ‘408, and ‘086 Patents, and finding non-infringement of the ‘154 and ‘918 Patents. The Court also granted Finjan’s motion for summary judgment that Defendants did not have sufficient evidence that the ‘918 Patent was invalid, and denied all other motions for summary judgment that were filed by the parties with respect to validity. The Court also granted Defendants’ motion for summary judgment as to the priority date of the ‘822 patent, and denied all other motions for summary judgment regarding priority or invention date. A trial date was set for June 13, 2016. On June 7, 2016, pursuant to the parties’ Confidential Patent License, Settlement and Release Agreement, the Court dismissed the action with prejudice. On June 3, 2016, Finjan entered into a Patent License, Settlement and Release Agreement with Proofpoint, Inc. and Amorize Technologies. See "NOTE 4 - License, Settlement and Release Agreement"

Finjan, Inc. v. Sophos Inc., Case 3:14-cv-01197-WHO (N.D. Cal.):

Finjan filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Sophos Inc. in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on March 14, 2014, asserting that Sophos is directly and indirectly infringing certain claims of Finjan’s U.S. Patent Nos. 6,154,844, 6,804,780, 7,613,918, 7,613,926, 7,757,289, and 8,141,154.  Finjan amended the Complaint on April 8, 2014, to add U.S. Patent Nos. 8,677,494 and 8,566,580 to the list of asserted patents.   Finjan asserts infringement against Sophos through the manufacture, use, importation, sale, and/or offer for sale of its products and services, including but not limited to End User Protection Suites, Endpoint Antivirus, Endpoint Antivirus - Cloud, Sophos Cloud, Unified Threat Management, Next-Gen Firewall, Secure Web Gateway, Secure Email Gateway, Web Application Firewall, Network Storage Antivirus, Virtualization Security, SharePoint Security, Secure VPN, Secure Wi-Fi and Server Security.  The principal parties in this proceeding are Finjan and Sophos.  This action is before the Honorable William H. Orrick.  Finjan seeks entry of judgment that Sophos has infringed and is infringing the above-listed 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 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 of no less than a reasonable royalty and consistent with proof, enhanced damages, costs, interest, and reasonable attorneys’ fees under 35 U.S.C. §285.  Sophos filed its Answer to Finjan’s First Amended Complaint on May 9, 2014. Both parties demanded a jury trial. Sophos filed its Amended Answer to the Complaint on May 30, 2014. Mediation pursuant to the Court's ADR Program occurred on January 13, 2015 and it has not yet resulted in resolution between the parties. Further, a Technology Tutorial took place in this matter on February 9, 2015.  A claim construction or Markman Hearing occurred on February 13, 2015.  The Court entered its Markman Order entitled “Claim Construction Order” on March 2, 2015, which is available on PACER (www.pacer.gov), as Docket No. 73.  On April 9, 2015, Finjan filed a Second Amended Complaint that included a certificate of correction for the ‘154 Patent. On November 17, 2015, Finjan filed a Third Amended Complaint to add claims of Sophos’s willful infringement. Sophos filed an Answer to Finjan’s Third Amended Complaint on December 4, 2015. On May 24, 2016, the Court issued an order on the parties’ motions to strike, motions for summary judgment, and discovery matters. In its Order, the Court granted Sophos’ motion for summary judgment of non-infringement for the ‘289 and ‘918 Patents, denied the remainder of Sophos’ motion for summary judgment, denied Finjan’s motion for summary judgment of infringement for the ‘926 and ‘494 Patents, granted Finjan’s motion for summary judgment that certain prior art references were not publicly accessible, granted Finjan’s motion to strike in part to exclude certain prior art, granted Sophos’s motion to strike in part to exclude portions of Finjan’s expert reports on infringement, and deferred ruling on Finjan’s motion for summary judgment of validity for the ‘154, ‘494, ‘780, ‘844, and ‘926 patents after reviewing supplemental filings to be submitted with the parties’ pre-trial filings. The Court also precluded Sophos from relying on documents that were produced after the close of fact discovery. Currently, a mandatory settlement conference was held on July 25, 2016 with no settlement, a pretrial conference is scheduled for August 8, 2016, and a trial date is scheduled for September 6, 2016.  There can be no assurance that Finjan will be successful in settling or litigating these claims.

Finjan, Inc. v. Symantec Corporation., Case 3:14-cv-02998-HSG (N.D. Cal.):

Finjan filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Symantec Corporation in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on June 30, 2014, asserting that Symantec is directly and indirectly infringing certain claims of Finjan’s U.S. Patent Nos. 7,756,996, 7,757,289, 7,930,299, 8,015,182, and 8,141,154, through the manufacture, use, importation, sale, and/or offer for sale of certain products and services. Finjan amended the Complaint on September 11, 2014 to add U.S. Patent Nos. 6,154,844, 7,613,926 and 8,677,494 (collectively the "asserted patents").  The accused products and services include Symantec

12

Endpoint Protection, Symantec Endpoint Protection Small Business Edition, Network Access Control, Norton Internet Security, Norton Anti-Virus, Norton 360, Safe-Web Lite, Norton Safe Web, Messaging Gateway, Messaging Gateway for Service Providers, Messaging Gateway Small Business Edition Managed Security Services-Advance Threat Protection, Advanced Threat Protection Solution, Symantec Protection Engine for Cloud Services, Symantec Protection Engine for Network Attached Storage, Symantec Mail Security for Domino, Symantec Mail Security for Microsoft Exchange, Symantec Scan Engine for Windows, Web Security.cloud, Email Security.cloud, AntiVirus/Filtering for Domino, AntiVirus for Linux, Mail Security for SMTP, Scan Engine for Linux/Solaris, AntiVirus for Caching/Messaging/NAS for Linux/Solaris, Protection Engine for Linux/Solaris, AntiVirus for Caching/Messaging/NAS for Windows, Web Gateway and Norton Security.  The principal parties in this proceeding are Finjan and Symantec. Finjan seeks entry of judgment that Symantec has infringed and is infringing the asserted patents, has contributorily infringed and is contributorily infringing U.S. Patent No. 8,015,182, and has induced infringement, and/or is inducing infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,154,844, 7,613,926, 7,756,996, 7,757,289, 7,930,299, and 8,677,494, a preliminary and permanent injunction from infringing, contributorily infringing, or inducing the infringement of the same patents, an accounting of all infringing sales and revenues, damages of no less than a reasonable 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. Symantec answered the Amended Complaint on September 25, 2014, by denying Finjan’s allegations of infringement and counterclaiming that the asserted patents are invalid under 35 U.S.C. §§ 101, 102, 103 and/or 112.  Symantec filed an Amended Answer on October 31, 2014, removing its Fourteenth Affirmative Defense of unenforceability. Both parties have demanded a jury trial.  This matter is assigned to the Honorable Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr., United States District Judge.  A claim construction or Markman Hearing was heard on June 29, 2015. On July 3, 2015, Symantec filed petitions for Inter Partes Review (“IPR”) before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) for all asserted claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 8,015,182, 8,141,154, 7,757,289, 7,930,299, and 7,756,996. On September 10, 2015, Symantec filed a total of 11 IPR petitions for all asserted claims of asserted patents. On August 20, 2015, Symantec filed a motion to stay the case pending completion of these eight IPR petitions. The motion was heard on October 1, 2015 and on October 9, 2015, the Court stayed the case pending the PTAB’s decision on whether to institute IPR of the claims that are the subject of Symantec’s petitions. On January 14, 2016, the PTAB denied institution of six IPRs of five asserted patents. On January 21, 2016, the parties filed a joint status report giving the Court an update regarding the status of the IPR petitions. On February 26, 2016 the PTAB denied institution of an additional two IPRs filed on separate patents, denying a total of eight petitions as of February 26, 2016. On March 11, 2016 the PTAB denied two more IPR's on patents against Symantec, denying a total of 10 petitions to date. On March 18, 2016, the PTAB granted institution on the 11th Petition by Symantec, relating to the ‘494 Patent (IPR2015-01892). On March 29, 2016, the parties jointly requested the Court lift the stay, and on March 30, 2016, the Court lifted the stay. On April 15, 2016, the parties jointly submitted a proposed schedule to the Court for the remainder of the case. On August 1, 2016 the Court issued a Scheduling Order indicating a timeline to trial but without specifically identifying a trial date. There can be no assurance that Finjan will be successful in settling or litigating these claims.

Finjan, Inc. v. Palo Alto Networks, Inc., Case 3:14-cv-04908 EMC (N.D. Cal.):

Finjan filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Palo Alto Networks, Inc., in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on November 4, 2014, asserting that Palo Alto Networks is directly and indirectly infringing certain claims of Finjan’s U.S. Patent Nos. 6,804,780, 6,965,968, 7,058,822, 7,418,731, 7,613,918, 7,613,926, 7,647,633, 8,141,154, 8,225,408, and 8,677,494, through the manufacture, use, importation, sale, and/or offer for sale of its products and services, including but not limited to  Next-Generation Security Platform, Next-Generation Firewall, Virtualized Firewall, WildFire Subscription, WildFire Platform, URL Filtering Subscription, Threat Prevention Subscription, and Advanced EndPoint Protection. Palo Alto Networks failed to timely respond to the Complaint and Finjan submitted an application for Entry of Default.  On Palo Alto Networks’ request, Finjan stipulated to an extension of time for Palo Alto Networks to respond. The principal parties in this proceeding are Finjan and Palo Alto Networks. Finjan seeks entry of judgment that Palo Alto Networks has infringed and is infringing the above-listed patents, and has induced infringement and is inducing infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,804,780, 6,965,968, 7,058,822, 7,418,731, 7613,918, 7,613,926, 7,647,633, 8,141,154, 8,225,408, and 8,677,494, a preliminary and permanent injunction from infringing, or inducing the infringement the same patents, an accounting of all infringing sales and revenues, damages of no less than a reasonable royalty consistent with proof, and enhanced damages for willful infringement, costs, interest, and reasonable attorneys’ fees under 35 U.S.C. §285.  Palo Alto Networks filed its Answer and Counterclaims on December 31, 2015, by denying Finjan's allegations of infringement and counterclaiming that the asserted patents are invalid under 35 U.S.C. §§ 101, 102, 103 and/or 112. Both parties have demanded a jury trial.  On October 8, 2015, the Honorable Edward M. Chen recused himself from the case and requested the case be reassigned to another judge. Also on October 8, 2015, the case was reassigned to the Honorable Phyllis J. Hamilton in the Oakland division of the District Court for the Northern District of California. On September 25, 2015, Palo Alto Networks filed a petition for IPR before the PTAB of U.S. Patent No. 8,141,154. On September 30, 2015, Palo Alto Networks filed petitions for IPR of U.S. Patent Nos. 7,058,822, 7,418,731, 7,647,633 and 8,225,408. On November 4, 2015, Palo Alto Networks filed a IPR petition of U.S. Patent Nos. 7,613,926. On November 5, 2015, Palo Alto Networks filed IPR petitions of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,965,968 and 8,141,154. On November 6, 2015, Palo Alto Networks filed IPR petitions of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,804,780, 7,613,918, 8,225,408 and 8,667,494. On December 10, 2015, the matter was stayed pending a decision by the PTAB on whether to institute IPR of Finjan's claims of its ten patents asserted against Palo Alto

13

Networks. On March 21, 2016, the PTAB instituted trial on claims 1-8, 10 and 11 of the ‘154 Patent, and on April 20, 2016, the PTAB instituted trial on the same claims from a separate petition. On March 29, 2016, the PTAB instituted trial on the ‘408 Patent, claims 14 and 19 of the ‘633 Patent, and denied institution of trial on all other challenged claims of the ‘633 Patent, and all challenged claims of the ‘822 Patent and the ‘731 Patent. On May 9, 2016, the PTAB denied institution of trial on the ‘926 Patent, the ‘968 Patent, the ‘780 Patent, and the ‘918 Patent. On May 13, 2016, the PTAB instituted trial on the ‘494 Patent. On May 26, 2016, the Court ordered the stay to remain in effect until the PTAB’s final determination of the instituted IPRs. There can be no assurance that Finjan will be successful in settling or litigating these claims.

Finjan, Inc. v. Blue Coat Systems, Inc., Case 5:15-cv-03295-BLF (N.D. Cal.):

Finjan filed a second patent infringement lawsuit against Blue Coat Systems, Inc. in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on July 15, 2015, asserting that Blue Coat is directly infringing certain claims of Finjan’s U.S. Patent Nos. 6,154,844, 6,965,968, 7,418,731, 8,079,086, 8,225,408, 8,677,494, and 8,566,580, through the manufacture, use, importation, sale, and/or offer for sale of its products and services, including but not limited to the Web Security Service, WebPulse Cloud Service, ProxySG Appliances and Software, Blue Coat Systems SV2800 and SV3800, Malware Analysis Appliances and Software, Security Analytics Platform, Content Analysis System, and Mail Threat Defense, S400-10 and S400-20. Finjan seeks entry of judgment that Blue Coat has infringed and is infringing the above-listed patents, a preliminary and permanent injunction from the infringement of the same patents, an accounting of all infringing sales and revenues, damages of no less than a reasonable royalty consistent with proof, and enhanced damages for willful infringement, costs, interest, and reasonable attorneys’ fees under 35 U.S.C. §285. Blue Coat filed its Answer to the Complaint with Jury Demand and Counterclaim with Jury Demand against Finjan on September 8, 2015. On September 29, 2015, Finjan filed its Answer to Blue Coat’s Counterclaim. This second Blue Coat action is also assigned to the Honorable Beth Labson Freeman. On December 15, 2015, Blue Coat filed a Motion to Stay the case pending final resolution of Case 5:13-cv-03999-BLF, and Motions for Joinder of several Petitions for IPR on five of seven asserted patents, and Ex Parte Reexamination requests for two asserted patents, filed previously by other defendants. A Case Management Conference (CMC) was held on December 17, 2015. A claim construction tutorial is scheduled for December 2, 2016, and a claim construction hearing is scheduled for December 9, 2016. A pretrial conference is scheduled for October 5, 2017, and trial is scheduled for October 30, 2017. On March 1, 2016 Finjan filed an amended Complaint to add existing Finjan patent 9,141,786 and two newly issued Finjan patents 9,189,621 (issued November 17, 2015) and 9,219,755 (issued December 22, 2015). On March 18, 2016, Blue Coat filed its Answer to the Amended Complaint and Counterclaims with Jury Demand. On April 8, 2016, Finjan filed its Answer to Blue Coat’s Counterclaims. On April 28, 2016, the Court held a hearing on Blue Coat’s motion to stay. On June 10, 2016, Finjan notified the Court on the status of the IPR and ex parte reexamination proceedings for the asserted patents. On June 27, 2016, Finjan filed an Amended Answer to Blue Coat’s counterclaims, adding an affirmative defense of collateral estoppel. On June 27, 2016, Blue Coat filed an Amended Answer to Finjan’s Amended Complaint. On July 11, 2016, Finjan filed a motion to strike certain affirmative defenses in Blue Coat’s Amended Answer, and a reply to Blue Coat’s counterclaims.

On July 26, 2016 the Court denied Blue Coat's motion to stay the second case pending proceedings before the USPTO and the PTAB. On July 28, 2016 Finjan filed a motion for preliminary injunction against Blue Coat. The preliminary injunction would prohibit Blue Coat from making, using, offering to sell or selling within the U.S. or import into the U.S. the Dynamic Real-Time Rating component of Blue Coat’s WebPulse product. A court date has been reserved so this matter may be heard by the Honorable Beth Labson Freeman on November 10, 2016. There can be no assurance that Finjan will be successful in settling or litigating these claims.

Finjan, Inc. v ESET, LLC et al., Case 3:16-cv-03731-JD (N.D. Cal.):

Finjan filed a patent infringement lawsuit against ESET, LLC and ESET SPOL S.R.O. (“ESET”) in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on July 1, 2016, asserting that ESET infringes Finjan’s U.S. Patent Nos. 6,154,844, 6,804,780, 7,975,305, 8,079,086, 9,189,621, and 9,219,755, through the manufacture, use, importation, sale, and/or offer for sale of its products and services, including but not limited to, ESET ThreatSense, ESET Advanced Heuristic, ESET DNA Signature, Host-based Intrusion Prevention System (HIPS), and ESET LiveGrid technologies including ESET’S Home Protection, Small Office, and Business product lines and ESET Services. Finjan seeks entry of a judgment that ESET has infringed and is infringing the asserted patents, a preliminary and permanent injunction from the infringement of the same patents, an accounting of all infringing sales and revenues, damages of no less than a reasonable royalty consistent with proof, and enhanced damages for willful infringement, costs, interest, and reasonable attorneys’ fees under 35 U.S.C. § 285. An initial case management conference has been scheduled for September 29, 2016. ESET has not yet filed an Answer to the Complaint. There can be no assurance that Finjan will be successful in settling or litigating these claims.

14

Finjan, Inc. v. ESET SPOL S.R.O.. et al., Docket No. 4c O 33/16 (Düsseldorf District Court)

Finjan filed a patent infringement lawsuit against ESET SPOL. S.R.O., a Slovak Republic Corporation, and ESET Deutschland GmbH (“ESET”) in the Düsseldorf District Court of Germany on July 1, 2016, asserting that ESET infringes Finjan’s European Patent No. 0 965 094 B1 (“the ‘094 Patent”), through the offering and/or delivering to customers in the Federal Republic of Germany software covered by the ‘094 Patent, including but not limited to ESET’s ThreatSense, ESET Advanced Heuristic, ESET DNA Signature, ESET LiveGrid technologies, including ESET’s Home Users, Small Office, and Business product lines and ESET services. Finjan seeks a judgment sentencing ESET to a fine for each violation of patent infringement or, alternatively imprisonment of ESET directors, cease and desist orders for offering or delivering infringing software, providing Finjan with profit information for offering or delivering infringing software, damages, which Finjan has suffered or shall suffer as a result of ESET offering or delivering infringing software since November 1, 2008. The Düsseldorf District Court is in the process of effective service to ESET SPOL. S.R.O. in Slovakia. ESET has yet to inform the court whether it will respond to Finjan’s complaint. There can be no assurance that Finjan will be successful in settling or litigating these claims.

ESET, LLC v. Finjan, Inc., Case No. 16-cv-01704 (S.D. Cal.)

ESET, LLC (“ESET”) filed a Complaint for Declaratory Judgment against Finjan, Inc. (“Finjan”) in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California on July 1, 2016, asserting that there is an actual controversy between the parties to declare that ESET does not infringe any claim of U.S. Patent No. 7,975,305 (“the ‘305 Patent”). ESET sought an entry of judgment that it has not infringed any claim of the ’305 Patent, an injunction against Finjan from asserting any of the claims in the ‘305 Patent against ESET or any of its customers or suppliers, and a finding that the case is exceptional and an award of fees and costs under 35 U.S.C. § 285. On July 11, 2016, ESET filed an Amended Complaint for Declaratory Judgment, asserting that there is an actual controversy between the parties to declare that ESET does not infringe any claim of the U.S. Patent Nos. 6,154,844 (“the ‘844 Patent”), 6,804,780 (“the ‘780 Patent”), 7,975,305 (“the ‘305 Patent”), 8,079,086 (“the ‘086 Patent”), 9,189,621 (“the ‘621 Patent”), and 9,219,755 (“the ‘755 Patent”). ESET seeks an entry of judgment that it has not infringed any claim of the ‘844, ‘780, ’305, ‘086, ‘621, and ‘755 Patents, an injunction against Finjan from asserting any of the claims of the ‘844, ‘780, ‘305, ‘086, ‘621, and ‘755 Patents against ESET or any of its customers or suppliers, and a finding that the case is exceptional and an award of fees and costs under 35 U.S.C. § 285. Finjan has not yet filed an Answer to the Complaint. There can be no assurance that Finjan will be successful in settling or litigating these claims.

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

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.”

U.S. Patent No. 8,079,086 (Assignee, Finjan, Inc.):

A first third-party request for Ex Parte Reexamination of U.S. Patent No. 8,079,086 was filed on October 7, 2013, on behalf of FireEye, Inc. and assigned Reexamination Control Number 90/013,015. The USPTO denied FireEye’s request on November 19, 2013, and the reexamination proceedings terminated on January 14, 2014.

A second third-party request by FireEye, Inc., for Ex Parte Reexamination of U.S. Patent No. 8,079,086 was filed on February 7, 2014, and assigned Reexamination Control Number 90/013,147. The USPTO denied FireEye’s second request on March 27, 2014, and the reexamination proceedings terminated on April 29, 2014.

A third third-party request for Ex Parte Reexamination of Claims 17 and 24 of U.S. Patent No. 8,079,086 was filed on December 9, 2015 by Proofpoint, Inc. and assigned Reexamination Control Number 90/013,654. The reexamination request was partially granted on February 2, 2016. Requester’s petitioned the Director to reconsider the partial denial and the petition was granted on March 21, 2016. A response to non-final Office Action is due August 6, 2016. There can be no assurance that Finjan will be successful in rebutting the patentability challenge before the USPTO.

U.S. Patent No. 7,975,305 (Assignee, Finjan, Inc.):

A third-party request for Ex Parte Reexamination of Claims 1, 2, 5 and 13 of U.S. Patent No. 7,975,305 was filed on December 11, 2015 by Proofpoint, Inc. and assigned Reexamination Control Number 90/013,660. The request for reexamination was granted on January 19, 2016 and a non-final Office Action was mailed on April 12, 2016. A response to non-final Office Action was filed on June 13, 2016. There can be no assurance that Finjan will be successful in rebutting the patentability challenge before the USPTO.

15

U.S. Patent No. 7,647,633 (Assignee, Finjan, Inc.):

A third-party request for Ex Parte Reexamination of Claims 1-7 and 28-33 of U.S. Patent No. 7,647,633 was filed on October 7, 2013, on behalf of FireEye, Inc. and assigned Reexamination Control Number 90/013,016. 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 (including previously considered and disclosed prior art) under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and/or 103. 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. The response to non-final Office Action included arguments and a supporting declaration by Finjan showing commercial success, industry praise, and copying by others of products covered by pending claims; a declaration by a technology expert rebutting improper technical interpretations of the prior art and the invention; and additional new claims for consideration. Additionally, a renewed petition to accept an unintentionally delayed priority claim was also submitted and the petition was granted on January 23, 2015.  An updated filing receipt reflecting the priority claim was issued. A final Office Action was issued May 22, 2015, and a Notice of Appeal was filed by Finjan on May 22, 2015. Finjan’s appeal brief was filed August 24, 2015, appealing the rejections of Claims 1-7, 28-33 and 42-52. An Examiner’s Answer was received on December 18, 2015. Finjan filed its Reply Brief requesting reversal of the rejections and a Request for Oral Hearing February 18, 2016. An Oral Hearing was conducted on June 22, 2016 and a decision reversing the Examiner’s rejections of claim 1-7, 28-33, 42, 44, 48 and 49 was mailed on June 29, 2016. An amendment cancelling rejected claims 43, 45-47 and 50-52 was filed on July 5, 2016 to move the application to Notice of Intent to Issue Reexamination Certificate (NIRC).

A second third-party request for Ex Parte Reexamination of Claims 8 and 12 of U.S. Patent No. 7,647,633 was filed on December 9, 2015 by Proofpoint, Inc. and assigned Reexamination Control Number 90/013,652. The reexamination request was granted on February 3, 2016. On May 10, 2016, the USPTO terminated the reexamination and mailed a Notice of Intent to Issue a Reexamination Certificate and on May 26, 2016, a Reexamination Certificate was issued confirming the patentability of all claims.

U.S. Patent No. 7,058,822 (Assignee, Finjan, Inc.):

A third-party request for Ex Parte Reexamination of Claims 1-8 and 16-27 of U.S. Patent No. 7,058,822 was filed on October 7, 2013, on behalf of FireEye, Inc. and assigned Reexamination Control Number 90/013,017. 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 (including previously considered and disclosed prior art) under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and/or 103. 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. A final Office Action was mailed on September 8, 2014 and a response thereto was filed on October 8, 2014, which included proposed claims amendments and arguments rebutting the various prior rejections. On October 23, 2014, an Advisory Action was issued by the Patent Office maintaining the rejections from the final Office Action and indicating that Finjan’s proposed claims amendments would not be entered.  On December 8, 2014, Finjan: (1) filed a petition to the Director of the Central Reexamination Unit (CRU) under 37 CFR 1.181 challenging the Examiner’s failure to enter the amendments and requesting entry; and (2) a notice of appeal to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Finjan filed an appeal brief on February 8, 2015.  The Examiner filed a brief on March 30, 2015.  Finjan filed a Reply Brief and a Request for Oral Hearing on June 1, 2015, and the Appeal was docketed at the PTAB and assigned Appeal No. 2015-006304. An oral hearing before the PTAB took place on November 3, 2015. On December 30, 2015, the PTAB issue a decision reversing the Examiner’s rejection of Claims 1-8 and 16-27 and new claims 37 and 40 added during prosecution of the reexamination. On February 16, 2016, an Ex Parte Reexamination Certificate (Certificate No. US 7,058,822 C1) was issued to Finjan by the USPTO. Finjan was granted U.S. Patent Nos. 9,141,786 and 9,219,755 containing additional claims on September 22, 2015 and December 2, 2015, respectively. A Track 1 (accelerated examination) continuation application was filed on November 16, 2015, seeking yet additional claim coverage.

U.S. Patent No. 6,154,844 (Assignee, Finjan, Inc.):

A third-party request for ex parte reexamination of claims 32 and 42 of U.S. Patent No. 6,154,844 was filed on December 9, 2015 by Proofpoint, Inc. and assigned Reexamination Control Number 90/013,653. The request for reexamination was granted on January 13, 2016. On March 30, 2016, the Patent Office terminated the reexamination and mailed a Notice of Intent to Issue a Reexamination Certificate.

Inter Partes Reexamination Proceedings:

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 estopped 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.” Effective September 16, 2012, the American Invents Act (AIA) replaced Inter Partes Reexaminations with proceedings referred to as post-grant review and InterPartes Review (IPR). Post-grant proceedings are generally available immediately after patent issuance.  For patents filed under the pre-AIA first to invent rules (i.e., applications filed prior to March 16, 2013, IPRs can be initiated immediately following issuance of patent.  For patents

16

examined under the AIA first-to-file rules (i.e., applications filed on or after March 16, 2013), IPRs can be initiated after the nine-month window of eligibility for post-grant review.

U.S. Patent No. 6,480,962 (Assignee, Finjan, Inc.):

A third-party request for Inter Partes Reexamination of all Claims 1-55 of U.S. Patent No. 6,480,962 was filed on November 29, 2011, on behalf of Symantec Corporation, and assigned Reexamination Control Number 95/001,836. 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 (including previously considered and disclosed prior art) under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and/or 103. Finjan filed a response to non-final Office Action and the USPTO mailed an Action Closing Prosecution (ACP) on October 2, 2013. Finjan responded to the ACP on December 2, 2013, which included proposed claim amendments for consideration. Symantec 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, Finjan filed a Notice of Appeal of the rejection of Claims 1-55 followed by an Appeal Brief on September 2, 2014.  The Requester Symantec filed a respondent brief on October 2, 2014.  The Examiner filed a brief on March 25, 2015.  Finjan filed a Rebuttal Brief on April 27, 2015 and a Request for Oral Hearing on May 26, 2015. The Rebuttal Brief maintained Finjan’s request to review the rejections of Claims 2-4, 7-11, 13-14, 16-20, 22-32, 34-36, 39-44, 46-51, 53 and 54. Claims 1, 5, 6, 12, 15, 21, 33, 37, 38, 45, 52 and 55 were withdrawn from appeal in view the final invalidity decision issued on September 15, 2014 by the Federal Circuit. The Appeal was forwarded to the PTAB in accordance with the Notice mailed June 2, 2015. Finjan also sought examination of additional claims through multiple Track I expedited continuation applications. Finjan was granted U.S. Patent Nos. 9,189,621 and 9,291,755 containing those additional claims on November 17, 2015 and December 22, 2015, respectively. Oral argument was heard on February 17, 1016. On February 29, 2016, the PTAB issued a decision affirming the rejections of the Examiner. On March 29, 2016, Finjan filed a request for rehearing regarding the rejection of claims 22-32 and 46 and the Requester filed comments on April 28, 2016. We are awaiting the PTAB’s decision on the Request for Rehearing. There can be no assurance that Finjan will be successful in rebutting the patentability challenge to Claims 22-32 and 46 before the USPTO.

Inter Partes Review Proceedings:

As defined by the USPTO, Inter Partes Review (IPR) is a trial proceeding conducted at the Patent and Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB or Board) to review the patentability of one or more claims in a patent only on a ground that could be raised under §§ 102 or 103, and only on the basis of prior art consisting of patents or printed publications. For first-inventor-to-file patents IPR process begins with a third party (a person who is not the owner of the patent) filing a petition after the later of either: (1) nine months after the grant of the patent or issuance of a reissue patent; or (2) if a post grant review is instituted, the termination of the post grant review. These deadlines do not apply to first-to-invent patents. The patent owner may file a preliminary response to the petition. An IPR may be instituted upon a showing that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least one claim challenged. If the proceeding is instituted and not dismissed, a final determination by the Board will be issued within one year (extendable for good cause by six months). The procedure for conducting IPRtook effect on September 16, 2012, and applies to any patent issued before, on, or after September 16, 2012.

U.S. Patent No. 7,613,926 (the “’926 Patent”)

On March 19, 2015, Sophos, Inc. filed a petition for IPR of U.S. Patent No. 7,613,926 (IPR2015-00907).  Finjan filed a Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response (POPR) to the petition on June 26, 2015.  The PTAB denied Sophos’ petition to institute the IPR proceeding on the ‘926 Patent on September 24, 2015. On October 26, 2015, Sophos filed a Request for Rehearing, and on December 4, 2015, the PTAB denied Sophos’ Request for Rehearing.

U.S. Patent No. 8,677,494 (the “’494 Patent”)

On April 8, 2015, Sophos, Inc. filed a petition for IPR of U.S. Patent No. 8,677,494 (IPR2015-01022).  Finjan filed a POPR to the petition on July 15, 2015. The PTAB denied Sophos’ petition to institute the IPR proceeding on the ‘494 Patent on September 24, 2015. On October 26, 2015, Sophos filed a Request for Rehearing, and on January 28, 2016, the PTAB denied Sophos’ Request for Rehearing.

U.S. Patent No. 7,756,996 (the “’996 Patent”)

On July 3, 2015, Symantec Corporation filed two (2) separate petitions for IPR of U.S. Patent No. 7,756,996 (IPR2015-01545/01546). Finjan filed POPRs to the petitions October 19, 2015. The PTAB denied both of Symantec’s petitions to institute IPR proceedings on the ‘996 Patent on January 14, 2016. On February 16, 2016, Symantec filed a Request for Rehearing, and on February 25, 2016, the PTAB denied Symantec’s Request for Rehearing.

U.S. Patent No. 7,757,289 (the “’289 Patent”)

On July 3, 2015, Symantec Corporation filed a petition for IPR of U.S. Patent No. 7,757,289 (IPR2015-01552). Finjan filed a POPR to the petition on October 19, 2015. The PTAB denied Symantec’s petition to institute IPR proceedings on the ‘289 Patent on January 14, 2016.

17

U.S. Patent No. 7,930,299 (the “’299 Patent”)

On July 3, 2015, Symantec Corporation filed a petition for IPRof U.S. Patent No. 7,930,299 (IPR2015-01549).  Finjan filed a POPR to the petition October 20, 2015. The PTAB denied Symantec’s petition to institute IPR proceedings on the ‘299 Patent on January 14, 2016.

U.S. Patent No. 8,015,182 (the “’182 Patent”)

On July 3, 2015, Symantec Corporation filed a petition for IPRof U.S. Patent No. 8,015,182 (IPR2015-01548).  Finjan filed a POPR to the petition on October 20, 2015. The PTAB denied Symantec’s petition to institute IPR proceedings on the ‘182 Patent on January 14, 2016.

U.S. Patent No. 8,141,154 (the “’154 Patent”)

On July 3, 2015, April 19, 2016, and May 26, 2016, Symantec Corporation filed three (3) separate petitions for IPR of U.S. Patent No. 8,141,154 (IPR2015-01547; IPR2016-00919; IPR2016-01071), and moved to join the petition for IPR filed by Palo Alto Networks with respect to the ‘154 Patent (IPR2016-00151).  Finjan filed a POPR to the petition in IPR2015-01547 on October 19, 2015. The PTAB denied Symantec’s petition to institute IPR proceedings in IPR2015-01547 on January 14, 2016. On February 16, 2016, Symantec filed a Request for Rehearing with respect to IPR2015-01547, and on February 25, 2016, the PTAB denied Symantec’s Request for Rehearing. With respect to IPR2016-00919 and IPR2016-01071 on the ‘154 Patent, the PTAB’s decision is pending.

U.S. Patent No. 8,677,494 (the “’494 Patent”)

On September 10, 2015, Symantec Corporation filed two (2) separate petitions for IPRof U.S. Patent No. 8,677,494 (IPR2015-01892/01897). Finjan filed POPRs to the petitions on December 28, 2015. With respect to IPR 2015-01897, the PTAB denied institution of IPR proceedings on the ‘494 Patent on February 26, 2016. On March 18, 2016, the PTAB granted institution of IPR proceedings on the ‘494 Patent (IPR2015-01892). On April 1, 2016, Finjan filed a partial request for rehearing. On May 23, 2016, the PTAB denied Finjan’s Request for Rehearing. On June 21, 2016, Finjan filed its Patent Owner Response to Symantec’s Petition in IPR 2015-01892.

U.S. Patent No. 6,154,844 (the “’844 Patent”)

On September 10, 2015, Symantec Corporation filed a petition for IPRof U.S. Patent No. 6,154,844 (IPR2015-01894). Finjan filed a POPR to the petition on December 17, 2015. The PTAB denied institution of IPR proceedings on the ‘844 Patent on March 11, 2016.

U.S. Patent No. 7,613,926 (the “’926 Patent”)

On September 10, 2015, Symantec Corporation filed two (2) separate petitions for IPR of U.S. Patent No. 7,613,926 (IPR2015-01893/01895). Finjan filed POPRs to the petitions on December 17, 2015. With respect to IPR2015-01895, the PTAB denied institution of IPR proceedings on the ‘926 Patent on February 26, 1016. With respect to IPR2015-01893, the PTAB denied institution of IPR proceedings on the ‘926 Patent on March 11, 2016.

U.S. Patent No. 8,141,154 (the “’154 Patent”)

On September 25, 2015 and November 5, 2015, Palo Alto Networks Inc. filed two (2) separate petitions for IPRof U.S. Patent No. 8,141,154 and a Motion for Joinder to Symantec’s Petition for IPR of the ‘154 Patent (IPR2015-01547). (IPR2015-01979; IPR2016-00151). Finjan filed a POPR to the first petition in IPR2015-01979 on December 29, 2015. With respect to IPR2015-01979, the PTAB granted institution of IPR proceedings on the ‘154 Patent on March 21, 2016. On April 5, 2016, Finjan filed a partial request for rehearing, and on April 19, 2016, the PTAB denied Finjan’s partial request for rehearing. On July 12, 2016, Finjan submitted a Patent Owner Response to the Petition. With respect to IPR2016-00151 on the ‘154 Patent, Finjan filed a POPR on February 17, 2016, and on April 20, 2016, the PTAB instituted trial on claims 1-8, 10, and 11, denied institution on the remaining claims and denied Palo Alto Network’s Motion for Joinder. On May 4, 2016, Finjan filed a partial request for rehearing, and on June 2, 2016, the PTAB denied Finjan’s Request for Rehearing. On June 16, 2016, the parties filed a joint notice to amend the Scheduling Order.

U.S. Patent No. 7,647,633 (the “’633 Patent”)

On September 30, 2015, Palo Alto Networks, Inc. filed a petition for IPR of U.S. Patent No. 7,647,633 (IPR2015-01974). Finjan filed a POPR to the petition on January 7, 2016. On March 29, 2016, the PTAB granted institution of IPR proceedings with respect to claims 14 and 19 of the ‘633 Patent, and denied institution with respect to all other challenged claims. On April 12, 2016, Palo Alto Networks filed a request for rehearing. On May 18, 2016, the PTAB denied Palo Alto Networks’ Request for Rehearing. On June 1, 2016, the parties filed a joint notice to amend the Scheduling Order.

18

U.S. Patent No. 7,058,822 (the “’822 Patent”)

On September 30, 2015, Palo Alto Networks Inc. filed a petition for IPR of United States Patent No. 7,058,822 (IPR2015-01999). Finjan filed a POPR to the petition on January 6, 2016. The PTAB denied institution of IPR proceedings on the ‘822 Patent on March 29, 2016. On April 28, 2016, Palo Alto Networks filed a Request for Rehearing, and on May 18, 2016, the PTAB granted Palo Alto Networks’ Request for Rehearing but did not alter its Decision denying institution.

U.S. Patent No. 7,418,731 (the “’731 Patent”)

On September 30, 2015, Palo Alto Networks Inc. filed a petition for IPR of United States Patent No. 7,418,731 (IPR2015-02000). Finjan filed a POPR to the petition on January 8, 2016. The PTAB denied institution of IPR proceedings on the ‘731 Patent on March 23, 2016. On April 22, 2016, Palo Alto Networks filed a Request for Rehearing.

U.S. Patent No. 8,225,408 (the “’408 Patent”)

On September 30, 2015 and November 6, 2015, Palo Alto Networks Inc. filed two (2) separate petitions for IPRs of United States Patent No. 8,225,408 (IPR2015-02001; IPR2016-00157). Finjan filed POPRs to the petitions on January 6, 2016, and February 17, 2016 respectively. On March 29, 2016, the PTAB granted institution of IPR proceedings in IPR2015-02001 and IPR2016-00157. On April 12, 2016, Finjan filed requests for rehearing. On May 16, 2016, the PTAB denied Finjan’s Requests for Rehearing. On June 27, 2016, the parties filed a joint notice to amend the Scheduling Order.

U.S. Patent No. 7,613,926 (the “’926 Patent”)

On November 4, 2015, Palo Alto Networks Inc. filed a petition for IPR of United States Patent No. 7,613,926 (IPR 2016-00145). Finjan filed a POPR to the petition on February 17, 2016. On May 9, 2016, the PTAB denied institution of IPR.

U.S. Patent No. 6,965,968 (the “’968 Patent”)

On November 5, 2015, Palo Alto Networks Inc. filed two (2) separate petitions for IPRs of United States Patent No. 6,965,968 (IPR 2016-00149, IPR2016-00150). Finjan filed POPRs to the petitions on February 17, 2016. On May 16, 2016, the PTAB denied institution of IPR proceedings on both petitions.

U.S. Patent No. 6,804,780 (the “’780 Patent”)

On November 6, 2015, Palo Alto Networks Inc. filed a petition for IPR of United States Patent No. 6,804,780 (IPR 2016-00165). Finjan filed a POPR to the petition on February 17, 2016. On April 21, 2016, the PTAB denied institution of IPR.

U.S. Patent No. 7,613,918 (the “’918 Patent”)

On November 6, 2015, Palo Alto Networks Inc. filed a petition for IPR of United States Patent No. 7,613,918 (IPR 2016-00164). Finjan filed a POPR to the petition on February 17, 2016. On May 5, 2016, the PTAB denied institution of IPR.

U.S. Patent No. 8,677,494 (the “'494 Patent”)

On November 6, 2015, Palo Alto Networks Inc. filed a petition for IPR of United States Patent No. 8,677,494 (IPR 2016-00159). Finjan filed a POPR to the petition on February 17, 2016. On May 13, 2016, the PTAB granted institution of IPR. On May 27, 2016, Finjan filed a Request for Rehearing, and on June 23, 2016 the PTAB denied Finjan’s Request for Rehearing. On June 27, 2016, the parties filed a joint notice to amend the Scheduling Order.

U.S. Patent No. 6,965,968 (the “’968 Patent”)

On January 19, 2016, Blue Coat Systems, Inc. filed two Petitions for IPR of U.S. Patent No. 6,965,968 (“the ‘968 Patent”) (IPR2016-00478; IPR2016-00479) and a Motion for Joinder to Palo Alto Networks’ Petition for IPR of the ‘968 Patent (IPR2015-00149; IPR2015-00150). On April 22, 2016, Finjan filed a POPR to the petitions. On June 20, 2016, the PTAB denied institution of IPR proceedings on both petitions.

U.S. Patent No. 7,647,633 (the “’633 Patent”)

On January 20, 2016, Blue Coat Systems, Inc. filed a Petition for IPR of U.S. Patent No. 7,647,633 (“the ‘633 Patent”) (IPR2016-00480) and a Motion for Joinder to Palo Alto Networks’ Petition for IPR of the ‘633 Patent (IPR2015-01974). On April 22, 2016, Finjan filed a POPR to the petition. On June 24, 2016, the PTAB instituted IPR, and granted Blue Coat’s Motion for Joinder.

U.S. Patent No. 7,418,731 (the “’731 Patent”)

On January 21, 2016, Blue Coat Systems, Inc. filed a Petition for IPR of U.S. Patent No. 7,418,731 (“the ‘731 Patent”) (IPR2016-00493) and a Motion for Joinder to Palo Alto Networks’ Petition for IPR of the ‘731 Patent (IPR2015-0200). On April 29, 2016, Finjan filed a POPR to the petition. On June 8, 2016, the PTAB denied institution of IPR.

19

U.S. Patent No. 6,804,780 (the “’780 Patent”)

On January 21, 2016, Blue Coat Systems, Inc. filed a Petition for IPR of U.S. Patent No. 6,804,780 (“the ‘780 Patent”) (IPR2016-00492) and a Motion for Joinder to Palo Alto Networks’ Petition for IPR of the ‘780 Patent (IPR2016-00165). On April 29, 2016, Finjan filed a POPR to the petition. On June 8, 2016, the PTAB denied institution of IPR.

U.S. Patent No. 6,154,844 (the “’844 Patent”)

On January 25, 2016, Blue Coat Systems, Inc. filed a Petition for IPR of U.S. Patent No. 6,154,844 (“the ‘844 Patent”) (IPR2016-00498) and a Motion for Joinder to Symantec Corp.’s Petition for IPR of the ‘844 Patent (IPR2015-01894). On April 29, 2016, Finjan filed a POPR to the petition. On June 20, 2016, the PTAB dismissed the Petition and motion for joinder pursuant to Blue Coat’s motion to dismiss.

U.S. Patent No. 8,225,408 (the “’408 Patent”)

On May 2, 2016, Blue Coat Systems, Inc. filed two (2) separate petitions for IPRs of United States Patent No. 8,225,408 (IPR2016-00955; IPR2016-00956), and Motion for Joinder to Palo Alto Networks, Inc.’s Petitions for IPR of the ‘408 Patent (IPR2015-02001 and IPR2016-00157).

U.S. Patent No. 8,677,494 (the “494 Patent”)

On April 14, 2016 and on June 10, 2016, Blue Coat Systems, Inc. filed two Petitions for IPR of United States Patent No. 8,677,494 (IPR2016-00890; IPR2016-01174) and a Motion for Joinder to Symantec Corp.’s Petition for IPR of the ‘494 Patent (IPR2015-01892) and Palo Alto Networks, Inc.’s Petition for IPR of the ‘494 Patent (IPR2016-00159).

U.S. Patent No. 8,141,154 (the “’154 Patent”)

On April 21, 2016, Proofpoint, Inc. and Armorize Technologies, Inc. filed a Petition for IPR of U.S. Patent No. 8,141,154 (IPR2016-00937) and a Motion for Joinder to Palo Alto Networks, Inc.’s Petition for IPR of the ‘154 Patent (IPR2015-01979). On June 24, 2016, the PTAB terminated the IPR proceedings pursuant to a joint motion.

U.S. Patent No. 7,647,633 (the “’633 Patent”)

On April 29, 2016, Proofpoint, Inc. and Armorize Technologies, Inc. filed a Petition for IPR of U.S. Patent No. 7,647,633 (“the ‘633 Patent”) (IPR2016-00966) and a Motion for Joinder to Palo Alto Networks’ Petition for IPR of the ‘633 Patent (IPR2015-01974). On June 24, 2016, the PTAB terminated the IPR proceedings pursuant to a joint motion.

U.S. Patent No. 8,225,408 (the “’408 Patent”)

On April 29, 2016, Proofpoint, Inc. and Armorize Technologies, Inc. filed two separate Petitions for IPR of U.S. Patent No. 8,225,408 (the “’408 Patent”) (IPR2016-00967; IPR2016-00970) and a Motion for Joinder to Palo Alto Networks’ Petition for IPR of the ‘408 Patent (IPR2015-02001; IPR2016-00157). On June 24, 2016, the PTAB terminated the IPR proceedings pursuant to a joint motion.

U.S. Patent No. 8,079,086 (the “’086 Patent”)

On July 15, 2016, Blue Coat Systems, Inc. filed a Petition for IPR of U.S. Patent No. 8,079,086 (the “’086 Patent”) (IPR2016-01444).

U.S. Patent No. 8,225,408 (the “’408 Patent”)

On July 15, 2016, Blue Coat Systems, Inc. filed a Petition for IPR of U.S. Patent No. 8,225,408 (the “’408 Patent”) (IPR2016-01441).

U.S. Patent No. 8,677,494 (the “’494 Patent”)

On July 15, 2016, Blue Coat Systems, Inc. filed a Petition for IPR of U.S. Patent No. 8,677,494 (the “’494 Patent”) (IPR2016-01443).

Except for the foregoing disclosures, Finjan is not presently aware of any other material pending legal proceedings, to which Finjan or any of its subsidiaries are a party or of which any of its property is the subject.

Litigation, including patent litigation, is inherently subject to uncertainties. As such, there can be no assurance that Finjan will be successful in litigating and/or settling any of these claims.

20

Item 2.  Management’s discussion and analysis of financial condition and results of operations

The following discussion 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, about Finjan Holdings, Inc., (the “Company” or “Finjan Holdings”), financial condition and results of operations, including discussions about management’s expectations for the business. These 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,” and 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 report 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 technologies in the market, the development of products and services for the consumer and enterprise market, the sufficiency of our existing cash and investments to meet our cash needs for at least the next 12 months, the development or continuation of a liquid trading market for our securities, regulatory developments and other factors described under Item 1A. “Risk Factors,” as set forth in our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015 and any subsequent quarterly or current reports. The following discussion should also be read in conjunction with the audited and unaudited consolidated financial statements and notes thereto, as set forth in our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015 and any subsequent quarterly or current reports, including this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q.

The Company will continue to file annual, quarterly and current reports, proxy statements and other information with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”). Forward-looking statements speak only as of the dates specified in such filings. Except as expressly required under federal securities laws and the rules and regulations of the SEC, 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 report 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.

21

Overview

We operate a cybersecurity business, focused on licensing and enforcement, providing advisory services, developing mobile security applications, and investing in emerging cybersecurity technologies and intellectual property.

Continuing Operations

We operate our cybersecurity business through wholly-owned subsidiaries including, Finjan, Finjan Mobile and CybeRisk.

Through Finjan, we own a portfolio of patents, related to software and hardware technologies that proactively detect malicious code and thereby protect end users from identity and data theft, spyware, malware, phishing, trojans and other web and network threats. Founded in 1997, Finjan developed and patented technologies that are 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. The older signature-based methods, were standard in the web and network security industry during the 1990s. As the web and endpoint security industries - known as cybersecurity - have transitioned to behavior-based detection of malicious code, we believe that our patented technologies continue to be widely used by third parties in a number of market segments. We intend to maximize the economic benefits of our technologies through further licensing and to broaden our technologies and patent holdings through acquisitions and strategic partnerships.

As a core element of our continued patent licensing and enforcement business, our management team, having expertise with technology and intellectual property ("IP") monetization, monitors a number of markets and assesses and observes the adoption of our patented technologies in these markets.  Our management team, in conjunction with outside legal, technical, and financial experts concludes on a case-by-case basis whether or not they believe that Finjan’s patented technologies are being used.  Based on these observations, we continue to believe our patented technologies are highly relevant in specific cybersecurity technology areas including, but not limited to, endpoint/cloud software, web gateway/internet infrastructure, and networking equipment markets. From that basis, the Company pursues unlicensed entities through licensing, assertion of claims or both to preserve the value of our portfolio in general. This also reinforces the value to existing licensees of the Finjan patent portfolio.

Since the sale of its hardware and software operations in 2009, Finjan’s primary source of income and related cash flows has been the enforcement of its patent rights against unauthorized use and, to a lesser extent, income derived from intellectual property licenses granted to third parties for the use of patented technologies that are owned by Finjan.

Finjan Mobile was founded to ensure that mobile devices are protected against spies, phishing and malware attacks. Given the uptrend in mobile device usage coupled with the amount of transient corporate data, the average mobile user presents and represents higher risks of data loss through hacking. The consumer mobile device has become so convenient that consumers often ignore online security and download apps and blindly agree to terms of service, purchase products, pay bills, connect to free Wi-Fi, and not think twice about personal data and photos stored on their devices. As such, in June of 2015, the Company returned to the research and development world with the creation of security products for mobile devices.

CybeRisk was founded in 2015 to deliver global advanced cyber risk and cyber security advisory services. Through a team of employees and consultants, based in North America, Europe and the Middle East, CybeRisk assesses corporate risk exposure and delivers appropriate mitigation strategies. Its unique and focused offering positions CybeRisk as the piece that interconnects the "server room to the board room".

As of June 30, 2016, we had 12 employees. We intend to hire or engage additional full-time professionals, employees, and/or consultants in alignment with our growth strategy. Although the market is highly competitive for attracting and retaining highly qualified professionals in our industry, we continue our endeavor to find such candidates for our Company. Our management team and additional personnel that we may hire in the future will be primarily responsible for executing and implementing our licensing and enforcement strategy, including analyzing licensing and enforcement opportunities, making tactical decisions related to our strategy, identifying new applications for our existing cybersecurity technologies and pursuing opportunities to invest in new technologies through strategic partnerships and acquisitions.

22

Industry Trends and Outlook

We believe that 2016 may again be an active year for patent law reform although intellectual property does not seem to be a key issue during the presidential election cycle.  We believe that proponents of patent law reform, largely made up of individual or coalitions of powerful technology corporations continue to seek severe statutory limitations on how companies - specifically those who own patents and do not make product covered by such patents - can enforce their patents against companies who make products.  The U.S. Congress is considering proposals from all constituents. In an effort to ensure fair and balanced protections for all good faith patent owners, our executives have dedicated time and resources to actively educate our lawmakers and existing and prospective stakeholders on how certain proposed reforms could harm individual inventors, startups, small companies, the licensing industry and therefore, U.S. innovation and the U.S. economy as a whole.

Further, since the enactment of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act ("AIA") on September 16, 2011, several aspects of the patent law have been interpreted by the courts, including what constitutes patentable subject matter, inducement of infringement, and (attorney) fee-shifting to the non-prevailing party in the context of litigation, among other issues.  Moreover, under AIA, patents previously granted by the USPTO may be reviewed through post-patent grant proceedings such as reexamination or IPR.  It is becoming a trend, if not a practice, for accused infringers to petition for reexaminations or IPRs of asserted patents as these proceedings may give the petitioner “two bites at the apple.”  The outcome of the proceedings can range from decisions favorable to the patent holder, favorable to both parties, or favorable to the petitioner.  If the outcome is the latter, the value of the challenged patent can be materially reduced or extinguished.  Thus, patent rights, including enforcement of such rights against unauthorized use is inherently subject to uncertainties.

We also believe cybersecurity issues will again be a very active sector in 2016.  Cybersecurity is not just another technology but a critical business issue that intersects government, corporations and individual citizens.  We have recently seen a number of devastatingly successful cybersecurity breaches targeting high profile government offices and corporations. The full extent of the cost and damage associated with these attacks may not be known for some time. Nonetheless, these attacks are expected to continue, along with their associated and sometimes unprecedented costs.  In many cases, it is not just the government or corporation that suffers losses or damages but their clients and customers, who can also fall victim by the breach of their personal and otherwise confidential data.  These issues have forced both government and corporations to take a serious look at their vulnerabilities, which will lead to increased spending on cybersecurity infrastructure, including hardware and software, as well as cybersecurity consulting services.

Future Growth Strategy

Our mission, for the foreseeable future, is to build a diversified cybersecurity company benefiting from historical investments in technology and patents while expanding into new product and services offerings. We believe our patented technologies continue to hold significant value and we intend to vigorously protect our investment, the value of our existing licensees’ investments, and the value that technology and intellectual property represents for our shareholders. We are pursuing and will continue to pursue our growth through the following strategies:

• Develop and Expand Existing Patent Portfolio - We have obtained and endeavor to continue to obtain new patents relating to security technologies through research and development and/or acquisition in the cybersecurity space. For example, on:

• September 22, 2015 Finjan was issued U.S. Patent No. 9,141,786 (‘786 Patent) covering our new secure mobile browser application;

• November 17, 2015 Finjan was issued U.S. Patent No. 9,189,621 (‘621 Patent) covering malicious mobile code runtime monitoring system and methods;

• December 22, 2015 Finjan was issued U.S. Patent No. 9,219,755 (‘755 Patent) covering malicious mobile code runtime monitoring system and methods;

• March 22, 2016 Finjan was issued U.S. Patent No. 9,294,493 (‘493 Patent) covering computer security method and system with input parameter validation;

• Additionally, as part of the consideration for granting a patent license to F-Secure in April 2015, we acquired two of F-Secure’s patents (U.S. Patent Nos. 8,474,048 and 7,769,991, including among other things, all progeny applications or patents, foreign counterparts and reissues) that are complementary to our existing patent portfolio.

23

• Continue to Develop and Invest in CybeRisk - CybeRisk provides services to enterprise customers on a wide variety of threats, current and future issues, and prevention. CybeRisk's advisory services enable customers to accelerate the maturity of their cyber security posture and are intended to augment a company's own security and risk capabilities. We intend to further invest in CybeRisk and grow our cybersecurity advisory services business. This could include one or more of the following: the hiring of additional qualified personnel, and the expansion of the business globally from its current headquarters in Tel Aviv.

• Invest in Internal Research & Development through Finjan Mobile - We continue to pursue internal research and development of security technologies that both relate to Finjan's existing patented inventions as well as new concepts to meet an ever expanding market need.  Since we do not yet have sufficient internal personnel to engage in large-scale research and development, we currently operate this business with limited internal staff focused on strategy and market development while software development is completed under contract with external developers. Products currently available and in development include Finjan Mobile Secure Browser and next generation multi-factor authentication security applications utilizing geo-location techniques on mobile devices. The Company continues to explore inorganic growth and acquisition opportunities to complement the vision for Finjan Mobile.

• Expand our IP Assets through Acquisitions and Strategic Partnerships - We intend to acquire and develop new technologies and invest in intellectual property through strategic partnerships, acquisitions of technology-focused companies, IP portfolios or other assets and other initiatives. We endeavor to identify 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 (i.e., licensing or litigation) and other expertise. We may also broaden our technology and patent holdings by working with inventors and universities, acquiring technology companies, investing in research laboratories, start-ups, and by creating strategic partnerships with companies, large and small, seeking to effectively and efficiently monetize their technology and patent assets. While we anticipate that we will initially focus on acquisitions and strategic partnerships involving technologies relating to network, web and endpoint cybersecurity, we may seek to diversify to a broader market in the future. Our experience with monetizing both technologies and patents may be considered valuable by potential acquisition candidates and strategic partners who may lack resources or know-how to effectively and efficiently generate a return for those investments.

• Continue to Demonstrate Best Practices in Pursuing Licensing Relationships and Enforcing our Patent Rights - In March 2014, we adopted Licensing Best Practices to demonstrate our commitment to ethical, transparent and consistent business practices for intellectual property licensing. We called upon and continue to promote industry-wide adoption of a set of licensing best practices, through leadership organizations such as the Licensing Executive Society and the Open Register of Patent Owners that support technological advancements, investments in innovation, and continued job creation while protected by a robust patent system.  We intend to continue pursuing a proactive licensing campaign that adheres to our best practices guidelines while rigorously protecting our intellectual property rights. We have entered into preliminary discussions with numerous potential licensees in accordance with these Licensing Best Practices, but acknowledge that it takes many discussions and many months for preliminary discussions to culminate in a license agreement, if at all.  While it is our preference to resolve our patent-related disputes through amicable business solutions, protecting the value of our patented technology is paramount.

Although we currently pursue growth initiatives through the above strategies, unforeseen market and industry conditions and new developments may necessitate changes in our strategies. We intend to remain resilient, flexible, and open to new opportunities that benefit our shareholders.

Recent Accounting Pronouncements

See "NOTE 1 - The Company and summary of significant accounting policies, - Recently issued accounting pronouncements not yet adopted"

24

Comparability to Future Results

We have set forth below selected factors that we believe have had, or can be expected to have, a significant effect on the comparability of our recent or future results. In addition to the factors described below, please see Item 1A. “Risk Factors” for additional factors that may affect our operating results.

Fluctuations of Income, Expenses and Cash Flows Related to Licensing and Enforcement

Our licenses and Judgments may not be recurring, and are not necessarily indicative of the income or cash flows that we expect to generate in the future from our existing technology portfolio or otherwise. We expect income, expenses and cash flows related to patent enforcement to be unpredictable and to fluctuate significantly from period to period. A number of factors, many of which are beyond our control, may affect the timing and amount of our income and cash flows related to patent licensing and enforcement actions, including, but not limited to, trial dates, the strength of our claims and likelihood of achieving an acceptable license on settlement, the timing and nature of any appeals and our ability to collect on any favorable Judgments. Significant fluctuations in our income and cash flows may make our business difficult to manage and adversely affect our business and operating results. We do not recognize income from our licensing and enforcement actions until the terms are fixed and determinable or litigation is finalized (whether resolved at trial or in a settlement).

Our expenses, principally with respect to litigation costs, may also vary significantly from period to period depending upon a number of factors, including, but not limited to, whether fees of outside legal counsel are paid on an hourly, contingent or other basis, the timing of depositions, discovery and other elements of litigation, costs of expert witnesses and other consultants, and other costs incurred in support of enforcement actions.

As a result of the factors described above and other known and unknown risks affecting our business, our historical operating performance may not be indicative of our future results.

Stock-Based and Other Executive Compensation

Our Board of Directors has adopted the Finjan Holdings 2014 Incentive Plan (“2014 Plan”), which our shareholders approved at our 2014 annual meeting of stockholders on July 10, 2014, pursuant to which 2,196,836 shares of common stock are authorized for issuance. A total of 469,902 restricted stock units and 1,738,642 options remain outstanding as of June 30, 2016, under the 2014 Plan. We expect that future equity-based awards will continue to be made under the 2014 Plan to our directors, officers and other employees and consultants. As a result, to the extent relevant, we may incur non-cash, stock-based compensation expenses in future periods that may not be comparable to past periods.

We continue to increase the number of our employees to help execute our strategy in the cybersecurity business and support our public company functions, and expect to hire additional employees in both capacities.  Accordingly, we will continue to incur compensation expenses in future periods that we did not incur during the historical period presented in our financial statements.

Results of Operations

The Company's revenues for the three and six months ended June 30, 2016 increased by 829% or $5.8 million to $6.5 million, and 1,157% or $8.1 million to $8.8 million, compared to $0.7 million and $0.7 million for the same periods ended June 30, 2015. Revenue of $8.8 million is comprised of $2 million from a September 2014 license agreement, $0.3 million from an April 2015 license agreement, $4.3 million from a license agreement from June 2016, $1.6 million from a license agreement from December 2015 and $0.6 million from a license agreement from June 2016. Revenue is determined by the timing of licensing agreements or litigation settlements and can vary period to period. In the quarter ended June 30, 2016, we reached a licensing agreement with a licensee and recorded the first portion of a multi-year agreement which accounted for over half the period revenues. Along with this revenue, we also received funds from existing agreements reached in prior periods. At this time we recognize revenue as future payments become fixed and determinable. For outstanding license agreements, the Company has not yet received $8.6 million in fees. Such revenue is currently expected to be considered fixed and determinable and recognized as follows; approximately $1.0 million in revenue in 2016, $4.3 million in 2017 and $3.3 million in 2018. 

The Company's costs of goods sold for the three and six months ended June 30, 2016 increased $2.1 million or 3,500% each, compared to the same periods ended June 30, 2015. The Company accrues and/or recognizes cost of goods sold upfront when initially recognizing a new agreement, while revenues are recognized when they become fixed and determinable, often over several quarters. As a result, margin percentages were lower in 2016 despite higher revenues.

25

Research and development expenses were $0.05 million and $0.1 million during the three and six months ended June 30, 2016. There were no research and development expenses in the same periods ended June 30, 2015. The Company’s recent focus on research and development consisted primarily of professional services associated with the development of mobile security application products. The Company plans to accelerate its efforts in security application products, including mobile.

During the three and six months ended June 30, 2016, selling, general and administrative expenses decreased by 28% or $1.3 million to $3.3 million, and 23% or $2.0 million to $6.8 million, respectively, as compared to the same periods ended June 30, 2015. These expenses consist primarily of stock-based compensation, accounting, legal and other professional fees. For the three and six months ended June 30, 2016, litigation expenses decreased $1.8 million to $1.1 million, and $2.7 million to $2.1 million, respectively, the decrease is primarily due to reduced litigation expenses which will vary based on the timing of the various outstanding actions as discussed in Note 8 of our condensed consolidated financial statements. For the three months ended June 30, 2016, headcount expense increased $0.05 million to $1.1 million compared to the same period ended June 30, 2015. Headcount expense decreased for the six months ended June 30, 2016, by $0.3 million to $2.1 million, as compared to the same period ended June 30, 2015, primarily due to the reduction of two employees. Included in these expenses is stock based compensation of $0.3 million and $0.5 million for the three and six months ended June 30, 2016, respectively, compared to $0.1 million and $0.5 million in the same periods ended June 30, 2015, respectively. Operations related expenses increased $0.3 million to $1.0 million, and $0.5 million to $2.1 million, respectively, for the three and six months ended June 30, 2016, as compared to the same periods ended June 30, 2015.

Return on investment for the three and six months ended June 30, 2016 was $0, down from $1.3 million in the same periods ended June 30, 2015 and was due to a distribution from our investment in the JVP Fund in 2015, which represents a portion of the gross proceeds allocated to the Company’s investment.

Liquidity and Capital Resources

Overview

Our cash requirements are, and will continue to be, dependent upon a variety of factors. We expect to continue devoting significant capital resources to the litigations in process and any other litigation we pursue.  We also expect to require significant capital resources to maintain our issued patents, prosecute our patent applications, acquire new technologies as part of our growth strategy, and attract and retain qualified personnel on a full-time basis.

In addition, on November 21, 2013, we made a $5 million commitment to invest in an innovation fund through JVP to invest in early-stage cyber technology companies, of which $3.0 million of the commitment remains unfunded. The fund can make a call on our remaining $3.0 million commitment at any time until 2018.  We expect to make payments to honor this commitment if and when capital calls are made by the fund. We have sufficient cash on hand to fund such obligations.

The Company leases its corporate headquarters office in Silicon Valley, and offices in New York, New York, Menlo Park, California and Tel Aviv, Israel. Under the terms of the four leases, the Company owes minimum lease obligations of $1.6 million over the remaining life of the leases, of which $1.0 million is for the Silicon Valley headquarters lease. During 2015 the Company entered into subleases for each of the Menlo Park and New York offices for essentially the remaining duration of the leases. As of June 30, 2016, the total future minimum lease payments to be received under the Menlo Park and New York subleases was $273,000 and $373,000, respectively.

Our primary sources of liquidity are cash flows from operations, principally historical and future proceeds from licenses, settlements and judgments in connection with our patent enforcement and licensing activities, as well as the current quarter's equity financing. On September 24, 2014, and during 2015 and 2016, Finjan entered into licensing agreements that provides for installment payments through January, 2018.  The amount and timing of cash flows from our licensing and enforcement activities are subject to uncertainties stemming primarily from uncertainties regarding the rates of adoption of our patented technologies, the success of our licensing efforts and the outcome of enforcement actions. As a result, our income and cash flows may vary significantly from period to period. We also raised approximately $9.5 million from the Preferred Stock financing, net of issuance costs.

As of June 30, 2016, we had approximately $17.2 million of cash and cash equivalents and $13.2 million of working capital. The increase in our cash and cash equivalents of approximately $11.1 million to $17.2 million at June 30, 2016 from $6.1 million at December 31, 2015, is primarily attributable to $9.5 million received from financing activities and $8.9 million received from licensing agreements, offset by $7.0 million used in operations and $0.3 million used in investing activities. The $9.5 million of the monies received from financing activities is from the Series A Preferred Stock financing.  Redemptions are tied, at the option of the holder, to future proceeds and are subject to dividends accreted to the investors over time, both as defined in the Certificate of Designation.  The first redemption occurred subsequent to quarter end, when we redeemed $2.6 million or 17,286 shares of the

26

Series A Preferred Stock; $1.7 million reduced the value of the Series A Preferred stock and $0.9 million reduced the accretive value of the Series A Preferred Stock. Based on expected revenue to be received from outstanding license agreements, we would have to make redemption payments of $0.2 million, $2.2 million and $1.7 million, for the remainder of 2016, in 2017 and in 2018, respectively.

Based on current forecasts and assumptions, management believes that our cash and cash equivalents will be sufficient to meet our anticipated cash needs for working capital and capital expenditures for at least the next 12 months from the date of filing this quarterly report. Such forecasts include approximately $5.3 million of licensing revenue to be received by January 13, 2017 under existing contracts. We may, however, encounter unforeseen difficulties that may deplete our capital resources more rapidly than anticipated. To insure against any such difficulties, we may raise additional capital to fund licensing and enforcement actions, planned research and development activities and to better solidify our financial position. Any efforts to seek additional funding could be made through issuances of equity or debt, or other external financing. However, additional funding may not be available on favorable terms, or at all. Further, if the Company is unable to obtain additional funding on a timely basis, the Company may be required to curtail or terminate some or all of its business plans.

Cash flows fromOperating Activities:

Net cash provided by Finjan’s operating activities of $1.8 million during the six months ended June 30, 2016, is primarily due to $8.8 million in revenue from licensing agreements entered into during 2014, 2015 and 2016, offset by $7.0 million used in operations. Net cash used in operating activities of $6.2 million during the six months ended June 30, 2015 is primarily due to our loss of $6.8 million and the non-cash return on investment of $1.3 million, offset by changes on accounts receivable collection and other working capital of $1.9 million.

Cash used in Investing Activities:

Cash used in investing activities was $0.3 million during the six months ended June 30, 2016. Cash provided by investing activities was $0.8 million during the six months ended June 30, 2015, offset by $0.2 million in the purchase of property and equipment.

Cash provided by Financing Activities:

Cash provided by financing activities was $9.6 million during the six months ended June 30, 2016 versus $0.0 during the six months ended June 30, 2015.  Cash provided by financing activities for the six months ended June 30, 2016 primarily resulted from the Series A Preferred Stock Financing in May, 2016. Redemptions are tied, at the option of the holder, to future proceeds and are subject to dividends accreted to the investors over time, both as defined in the Certificate of Designation.  The first redemption occurred subsequent to quarter end. We redeemed $2.6 million or 17,286 shares of the Series A Preferred stock; $1.7 million reduced the value of the Series A Preferred stock and $0.9 million reduced the accretive value of the Series A Preferred stock.

Off-Balance Sheet Arrangements

We do not have any material off-balance sheet arrangements.

Item 3. Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures about Market Risk

Our exposure to market risk for changes in interest rates relates primarily to our holdings of cash and cash equivalents. Our cash and cash equivalents as of June 30, 2016, totaled $17.2 million and consisted primarily of cash and money market funds with original maturities of three months or less from the date of purchase. Our primary exposure to market risk is interest income sensitivity, which is affected by changes in the general level of the interest rates in the United States. However, because of the short-term nature of the instruments in our portfolio, a sudden change in market interest rates of 10% would not be expected to have a material impact on our financial condition or results of operations. We do not have any foreign currency or other derivative financial instruments.

Item 4. Controls and Procedures

Evaluation of Disclosure Controls and Procedures

Our management evaluated, with the participation of our President and Chief Executive Officer, Philip Hartstein, and our Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer, Michael D. Noonan, the effectiveness of the design and operation of our disclosure

27

controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this quarterly report. Based on our evaluation, our Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer concluded that our disclosure controls and procedures were effective, as of June 30, 2016, to provide reasonable assurance that information required to be disclosed in reports that we file or submit under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, is recorded, processed, summarized and reported accurately and within the time periods specified in the Securities and Exchange Commission rules and forms and accumulated and communicated to our management, including our chief executive officer and chief financial officer, as appropriate, to allow timely decisions regarding required disclosure.

Changes in Internal Control over Financial Reporting

During the quarter ended June 30, 2016, there were no changes in our internal control over financial reporting that have materially affected, or are reasonably likely to materially affect, our internal control over financial reporting.

Inherent Limitations on Effectiveness of Controls

Our management, including our President and Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer, has designed our disclosure controls and procedures and our internal control over financial reporting to provide reasonable assurances that the controls’ objectives will be met. However, management does not expect that disclosure controls and procedures or our internal control over financial reporting will prevent or detect all error and all fraud. A control system, no matter how well designed and operated, can provide only reasonable, not absolute, assurance that the control system’s objectives will be met. The design of a control system must reflect the fact that there are resource constraints, and the benefits of controls must be considered relative to their costs. Further, because of the inherent limitations in all control systems, no evaluation of controls can provide absolute assurance that misstatements due to error or fraud will not occur or that all control issues and instances of fraud, if any, within Finjan Holdings, Inc. have been detected. These inherent limitations include the realities that judgments in decision-making can be faulty and that breakdowns can occur because of simple error or mistake. Controls can also be circumvented by the individual acts of some persons, by collusion of two or more people, or by management override of the controls. The design of any system of controls is based in part on certain assumptions about the likelihood of future events, and there can be no assurance that any system’s design will succeed in achieving its stated goals under all potential future conditions. Projections of any evaluation of a system’s control effectiveness into future periods are subject to risks. Over time, controls may become inadequate because of changes in conditions or deterioration in the degree of compliance with policies or procedures.

28

PART II—OTHER INFORMATION

Item 1. Legal Proceedings

See "NOTE 8 - Litigation, Claims, and Assessments"

Item 1A. Risk Factors

There have been no material changes to the factors disclosed in Item 1A. Risk Factors in the Company's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2015.

Item 2. Unregistered Sales of Equity Securities and Use of Proceeds

All unregistered sales of equity securities during the quarter ended June 30, 2016 have been reported by the Company on Form 8-K filed with the SEC

Item 3. Defaults upon Senior Securities

Not Applicable

Item 4. Mine Safety Disclosures

Not Applicable

Item 5. Other Information

Not Applicable

Item 6. Exhibits

The exhibits listed in the accompanying Exhibit Index are filed as part of this report.

29

SIGNATURES

Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the registrant has duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned thereunto duly authorized.

Dated:  August 9, 2016

Finjan Holdings, Inc.

(Registrant)

/s/    Philip Hartstein        

Philip Hartstein

President and Chief Executive Officer

(Principal Executive Officer)

/s/    Michael Noonan        

Michael Noonan

Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer

(Principal Financial Officer)

30

INDEX TO EXHIBITS

Exhibit Number	Exhibit Description
3.1	Certificate of Designation of Series A Preferred Stock dated May 20, 2016 (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 3.1 to our current report on Form 8-K/A filed on May 24, 2016)
10.1	Series A Preferred Stock Purchase Agreement, dated May 6, 2016, between Finjan Holdings, Inc. and Halcyon Long Duration Recoveries Investments I LLC (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.1 to our current report on Form 8-K filed on May 12, 2016)
10.2	Patent License, Settlement and Release Agreement, dated June 3, 2016, between Finjan, Inc. and Proofpoint, Inc. and Armorize Technologies*%
31.1	Certification of Principal Executive Officer pursuant to Exchange Act Rules 13a-14(a) and 15d-14(a), as adopted pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002*
31.2	Certification of Principal Financial Officer pursuant to Exchange Act Rules 13a-14(a) and 15d-14(a), as adopted pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002*
32.1	Certifications of Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002†*
101.INS	XBRL Instance Document***
101.SCH	XBRL Taxonomy Extension Schema Document***
101.CAL	XBRL Taxonomy Extension Calculation Linkbase Document***
101.DEF	XBRL Taxonomy Extension Definition Linkbase Document***
101.LAB	XBRL Taxonomy Extension Label Linkbase Document***
101.PRE	XBRL Taxonomy Extension Presentation Linkbase Document***
*	Filed herewith.
%	Confidential treatment has been requested with respect to certain omitted portions of this exhibit. Omitted portions have been filed separately with the Securities and Exchange Commission.
†	This certification is being furnished and shall not be deemed “filed” with the SEC for purposes of Section 18 of the Exchange Act, or otherwise subject to the liability of that section, and shall not be deemed to be incorporated by reference into any filing under the Securities Act or the Exchange Act, except to the extent that the registrant specifically incorporates it by reference.
***	Pursuant to Rule 406T of Regulation S-T, the Interactive Data Files in Exhibit 101 hereto are deemed not filed or part of a registration statement or prospectus for purposes of Sections 11 or 12 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, are deemed not filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and otherwise are not subject to liability under those sections.
#	Management contract or compensatory plan or arrangement.

31

EX-10.2

Exhibit 10.2

CONFIDENTIAL PATENT LICENSE, SETTLEMENT AND RELEASE AGREEMENT

THIS CONFIDENTIAL PATENT LICENSE, SETTLEMENT AND RELEASE AGREEMENT("Agreement") is made and effective as of June 3, 2016 (the "Effective Date''), is entered into by and between FINJAN, INC., a corporation organized and existing under the laws of Delaware, signing on its own behalf and on behalf of its Affiliates on the one hand, and PROOFPOINT, INC. and ARMORIZE TECHNOLOGIES, INC. and their respective Affiliates on the other hand. In consideration of the licenses, terms, conditions and recitals set forth below, and for other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, the Parties (as defined below) agree as follows:

A. On or around December 16, 2013, Finjan, Inc. sued Proofpoint, Inc. and Armorize Technologies, Inc. in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, asserting infringement of U.S. Patent No. 7,058,822, U.S. Patent No. 7,647,633, U.S. Patent No.

6,1544,844, U.S. Patent No. 7,975,305, U.S. Patent No. 8,225,408, U.S. Patent No. 8,079,086, U.S. Patent No. 8,141,154, and U.S. Patent No. 7,613,918 in a case styled Finjan, Inc. v.

Proofpoint, Inc. and Armorize Technologies, Inc., Case No. 3:13-CV-05808-HSG.

B. In the Action, the Parties have asserted various claims and defenses regarding the enforceability, validity and infringement of the asserted Finjan Patents.

C. Proofpoint has filed four petitions for or to join inter partes review ("IPR Requests") before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board ("PTAB") of the United States Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO") in connection with Finjan's Patents, bearing IPR Nos. IPR2016-

00937, IPR2016-00966, IPR2016-00967 and IPR2016-00970.

D. Proofpoint has filed four ex parte reexamination requests with the USPTO in connection with Finjan's Patents, bearing Reexamination Nos. 90/013,652, 09/013,653,

09/013,654, and 90/013,660.

To avoid the time and expense of litigation, and without any admission of liability or fault, Finjan and Proofpoint wish to resolve and settle all current and potential future claims between them, known and unknown, and enter into this Agreement, on the terms and conditions set forth below.

TERMS AND CONDITIONS

1.     DEFINITIONS

1.1     "Action" shall mean the lawsuit Finjan, Inc. v. Proofpoint, Inc. and Armorize

Technologies, Inc., Case No. 3:13-CV-05808-HSG (N.D. Cal.).

Confidential Treatment has been requested for portions of this document marked as “[***]”. A complete version of this document has been filed separately with the Securities and Exchange Commission. 1

1.2 "Affiliate" means, in relation to a specified Person, (i) any Person that, now or hereafter, directly or indirectly through one or more entities, Controls or is Controlled by, or is under common Control with, such specified Person, including without limitation any past, present, or future subsidiary, parent, or sister company of the specified Person, or (ii) any other Person, now or hereafter, that is deemed to be an affiliate of such specified Person under interpretations of the Exchange Act.

1.3 "Assert" means, with respect to any Patent Right, the (i) filing of a Claim of direct or indirect infringement (including inducement of infringement or contributory infringement) under such Patent Right against a subject Person or (ii) the filing of a Claim for declaratory judgment that any Patent Right is invalid, unenforceable, not infringed or has been misused, in any court or before any tribunal with authority to adjudicate patent disputes, or (iii) any threat related to the filing of a Claim, including any demand letter or offer to license or engage in a licensing discussion. The term "Assertion" shall have a correlative meaning.

1.4 "Claim" means any judicial, administrative or other proceeding, or hearing of any kind in any jurisdiction or before any government agency, as well as any and all actions, causes of action, costs, damages, debts, demands, expenses, liabilities, losses, obligations, proceedings, and suits of every kind and nature, liquidated or unliquidated, fixed or contingent, in Jaw, equity, or otherwise, and whether presently known or unknown.

1.5 "Control" means the possession, directly or indirectly, solely or jointly, of the power to direct or cause the direction of management, actions or policies of an entity, whether through the ownership of voting shares of the entity, by contract, or otherwise. "Change of Control" shall mean any change in the foregoing such that Control of the entity is no longer with the same entity or entities as on the Effective Date.

1.6 "End User" means a Person that uses Licensed Products for such Person's own internal purpose and not for distribution to others.

1.7     "Exchange Act" means the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

1.8     "Excluded Entity" means any Person,_ other than a Party, that is identified in Exhibit B to this Agreement or that is in active litigation with Finjan regarding Finjan's Patents for so long as such Person is in such litigation, including the entities in active litigation with Finjan regarding Finjan's Patents as of the Effective Date (i.e., Palo Alto Networks, Inc., Symantec Corp., Sophos, Inc., Blue Coat Systems, Inc., and FireEye, Inc.), as well as any Person other than a Party that enters into active litigation with Finjan regarding Finjan's Patents after the Effective Date, provided that (a) Finjan has contacted such Person regarding Finjan's Patents at least 60 days prior to commencing litigation, and (b) Finjan commences such litigation before (i) there is a definitive merger/acquisition term sheet executed or (ii) a public announcement or disclosure that such entity will (I) be acquired by Proofpoint or (II) acquires Proofpoint, provided that such entity is still in litigation with Finjan at the point in time as it would otherwise be covered by the license grant in Section 3.1.

Confidential Treatment has been requested for portions of this document marked as “[***]”. A complete version of this document has been filed separately with the Securities and Exchange Commission. 2

1.9 "Finjan" means Finjan, Inc. and its Affiliates, predecessors, successors and assigns, and any Affiliates thereof.

1.10 "Finjan's Patents" means all Patent Rights that are owned or controlled by Finjan or to which Finjan has the right to grant licenses, at any time on or after the Effective Date. Finjan's Patents include but are not limited to the patents and applications specifically listed in Exhibit A, and any divisionals, continuations, continuations-in-part, renewals, extensions, reissues, or reexaminations thereof, and foreign counterparts thereof. For purposes of this definition, a Patent Right is deemed to be owned or controlled by Finjan if Finjan is the applicant or assignee of the Patent Right, or otherwise has the right to assert a claim of infringement or grant a license under such Patent Right.

1.11     "License and Subsequent Release Fee" shall have the meaning set forth in Section 2.1.

1.12     "Licensed Products" means any past, present and future products and services that are made, used, sold, offered for sale, imported, or distributed by or on behalf of Proofpoint that, in the absence of the license granted pursuant to Section 3.1, would infringe, either directly or indirectly, in whole or in part, any of Finjan's Patents.

1.13     "Proofpoint Partners" means any customer, buyer, seller, user, end user, agent, consultant, contractor, vendor, reseller, value-added reseller, OEM, manufacturer, distributor, or developer of one or more Licensed Products, whether direct or indirect, and any other Person other than a Party that makes, uses, sells, offers to sell, imports, distributes, or otherwise disposes of a Licensed Product, and shall include the direct and indirect customers, buyers, sellers, users, end users, agents, consultants, contractors, vendors, resellers, value-added resellers, OEMs, manufacturers, distributors, developers and Affiliates of any of the foregoing.

1.14 "Proofpoint" means Proofpoint, Inc. and its Affiliates, predecessors, successors and assigns, and any Affiliates thereof.

1.15 "Patent Rights" means all classes or types of patents (including without limitation applications, originals, divisionals, continuations, continuations-in-part, renewals, extensions, reissues or reexaminations), and applications for these classes or types of patents, throughout the world.

1.16 ''Party" means Finjan, Inc., Proofpoint, Inc., or Armorize Technologies, Inc., as applicable.

1.17 "Parties" means Finjan, Inc., Proofpoint, Inc., and Armorize Technologies, Inc., collectively.

1.18 "Person"means any natural person, and any corporation, partnership, limited liability company, joint venture, trust or other legal entity or organization recognized in any jurisdiction in the world.

1.19 "Related Excluded Entity"means with respect to an Excluded Entity, (a) any Person that directly or indirectly through one or more entities Controls, is Controlled by or is under common Control with an Excluded Entity, or (b) any other Person that is an Affiliate of an Excluded Entity.

Confidential Treatment has been requested for portions of this document marked as “[***]”. A complete version of this document has been filed separately with the Securities and Exchange Commission. 3

2. SETTLEMENT PAYMENT, DISMISSAL OF THE ACTION AND TERMINATION AND WITHDRAWAL FROM PATENT OFFICE PROCEEDINGS

2.1     License Fee. Proofpoint shall pay to Finjan the sum of USD $10,900,000 in cash

("License and Subsequent Release Fee"), which will be paid in three installments: (a)

$4,300,000 shall be paid within three (3) business days of the mutual execution of this

Agreement, (b) $3,300,000 shall be paid on or before January 4, 2017, and (c) $3,300,000 shall be paid on or before January 3, 2018.

Such License and Subsequent Release Fee installment payments shall be made via wire transfer in immediately available funds to the following account for the benefit of Finjan, Inc.:

Bank: Silicon Valley Bank

Bank Address: 3003 Tasman Drive, Santa Clara, CA 94303

Account Name: Finjan, Inc. Routing & Transit No.:

Account Number:

Finjan hereby designates the following contact as someone that Proofpoint or its Affiliates may contact to verify the above information in relation to completing the wiring of the consideration to Finjan, Inc.:

In no event shall any delay in payment caused by circumstances outside of the Parties' control, or failure by Finjan to timely provide updated payment instructions as may become necessary, affect the Parties' rights and obligations under the Agreement.

2.2 Taxes. Each Party is responsible for reporting and paying its own income taxes, corporate taxes and applicable franchise taxes imposed on such Party as a result of the payment or transactions contemplated by this Agreement. The payment specified in Section 2.1 shall be the total amount paid by Proofpoint to Finjan, without any additional amounts due or paid as a result of any present and future taxes (including any income taxes, sales taxes, use taxes, stamp taxes, value added taxes, property taxes and all other taxes, duties or imposts) that may be imposed by any taxing authority on Finjan in relation to this Agreement. Payment of any and all such taxes shall be the sole responsibility of Finjan, Inc.

2.3 No Admissions. This Agreement is the result of a compromise and resolution to avoid the expense and risk of resolving any dispute through any litigation. Nothing in this Agreement shall be deemed as an admission to any party of any fact, wrongdoing, liability, infringement or non-infringement, of the validity or invalidity, or enforceability or non­ enforceability of any of Finjan's Patents or any position taken or proposed to be taken in any proceeding. The Parties agree on their behalf and on behalf of their Affiliates that the settlement of the Action is intended solely as a compromise of disputed Claims and each Party expressly denies any liability or wrongdoing on its behalf and on behalf of its Affiliates. A Party's participation in this Agreement, its agreement to any term of this Agreement, and any action taken by Finjan or Proofpoint pursuant to this Agreement:

Confidential Treatment has been requested for portions of this document marked as “[***]”. A complete version of this document has been filed separately with the Securities and Exchange Commission. 4

(a) does not constitute and shall not be construed as an admission of liability or as a concession that any Claim or defense asserted by Finjan, Inc., Proofpoint, Inc., or Armorize Technologies, Inc. is valid; and

(b) shall not be offered or admitted in evidence in any legal proceeding between Finjan and Proofpoint other than a proceeding to enforce rights and obligations arising out of this Agreement or as permitted pursuant to Section 9.

2.4 Termination and Withdrawal from Patent Office Proceedings. Within 15 (fifteen) business days from the Effective Date, the Parties shall take all necessary steps to file with the USPTO requests to withdraw or terminate any pending inter partes review proceedings relating to Finjan's Patents in which Proofpoint is the petitioner or joined petitioner. In so doing, the Parties shall ensure that any copies of this Agreement that are submitted to the USPTO are done so as confidential business information in accordance with 37 C.F.R. § 42.74(c). For the avoidance of doubt, the Parties' rights and obligations under this Agreement shall not be affected by any decision of the USPTO with respect to any such inter partes review proceedings or Proofpoint's request(s) to withdraw and/or terminate.

2.5 Dismissal of the Action. Within three (3) business days from the Effective Date, the Parties shall file, in the Action, the dismissal papers in Exhibit C dismissing the Action with prejudice. Within five (5) business days from the dismissal of the Action, Finjan's counsel in the Action shall (i) return to Proofpoint's counsel in the Action via courier all of Proofpoint, Inc.'s and Armorize Technologies, Inc.'s highly confidential source code materials produced throughout the Action, including all original printouts of Proofpoint, Inc. and Armorize Technologies, Inc. source code and any copies thereof, along with a log of any and all such copies generated, and (ii) destroy all derivative documents and materials containing any such highly confidential source code materials, and serve on Proofpoint's counsel in the Action a certificate of destruction thereof. The Parties' counsel in the Action shall otherwise return or destroy all other confidential and highly confidential materials produced in the Action in accordance with the provisions of the Protective Order entered in the Action. Each Party will bear its own costs and attorneys' fees related to the Action.

2.6     Validity, Enforceability and Infringement. Subject to Section 2.4, Proofpoint covenants, represents, and warrants that it shall not assist in any manner, contest, or participate in a contest of the validity and/or enforceability of any of Finjan's Patents in any forum, domestic or foreign, including the Federal Trade Commission, the USPTO and/or the International Trade Commission and their foreign equivalents; provided, however, that this Section 2.6 shall not apply: (i) to actions taken by Proofpoint in response to a subpoena, court order, government directive, or an equivalent of the foregoing, provided Proofpoint notifies Finjan of such subpoena court order, government directive, or an equivalent of the foregoing to the extent permitted by law, and allows Finjan the opportunity to oppose the subpoena if it so desires; (ii) in the event of any effort to enforce any of Finjan's Patents in contravention of the licenses, covenants, or releases granted hereunder, including any such effort to enforce against Proofpoint or Proofpoint Partners with respect to the manufacture, use, sale, offer for sale, import, distribution, or other disposition of Licensed Product or Combined Licensed Product; and (iii) in the event of any effort to enforce any of Finjan's Patents against an entity acquiring Proofpoint or an entity that is acquired by either Proofpoint or a Proofpoint Affiliate, or that otherwise becomes an Affiliate after the Effective Date. For clarity, if

Confidential Treatment has been requested for portions of this document marked as “[***]”. A complete version of this document has been filed separately with the Securities and Exchange Commission. 5

Proofpoint takes action under either sub-section (ii) or (iii), above, Finjan shall retain the right to defend the validity and/or enforceability of Finjan's Patents.

3. LICENSES

3.1 License Grant. Finjan hereby grants to Proofpoint (including its respective executives, directors, employees, contractors, agents and representatives acting with the scope of their service to Proofpoint) a worldwide, non-royalty bearing, fully paid-up (as of the final payment in Section 2.1), nonexclusive, perpetual, irrevocable license under Finjan's Patents (effective for each patent from its issuance to its expiration) to make, have made, use, sell (directly and/or indirectly), offer to sell, import, distribute, and otherwise dispose of any and all Licensed Products alone or in combination with other Proofpoint products, methods, processes, software, systems and/or services or the products, methods, processes, software, systems and/or services of others (collectively, "Combined Licensed Products"), and to practice any and all methods claimed under Finjan's Patents.

For clarity:

(a) the licenses granted under this Section 3.1 shall include the right of Proofpoint Partners (including their respective executives, directors, employees, contractors, agents and representatives acting within the scope of their service to a Proofpoint Partner) to: make, use, sell, offer to sell, import, distribute, and otherwise dispose of any and all Licensed Products and Combined Licensed Products worldwide, regardless of the jurisdiction in which such Licensed Products and Combined Licensed Products were first sold or manufactured; and to practice any and all methods claimed under Finjan's Patents in connection with the manufacture, use, sale, offer for sale, importation, distribution, or other disposition of a Licensed Product or Combined Licensed Product worldwide; provided, however, that any such Combined Licensed Product would not infringe any claim of Finjan's Patents but for the inclusion of a Licensed Product.

(b) no right is granted to transfer, or to sub-license, or to grant any rights under this Agreement to any third party, except as specifically set forth herein;

(c) the license granted under this Section 3.1 includes and applies without limitation to Licensed Products that consist of licensed software, including where such software is distributed to end users by providing a single master copy of such software to a distributor or other agent and authorizing such agent to reproduce such software in substantially identical form and distribute it as a product of Proofpoint; and

(d) the license granted under this Section 3.1 shall not extend to the products, methods, processes, software, systems and/or services of a third party or Proofpoint Partner that are not part of a Combined Licensed Product or sold with a Licensed Product, and that would infringe Finjan's Patents without the combination, inclusion, or use of one or more Licensed Products or Combined Licensed Products.

3.2 Acquisition of Proofpoint. Subject to Section 3.3, in the event that Proofpoint, Inc. merges with or is acquired by another entity (an "Acquiring Entity"), the license grant under Section

Confidential Treatment has been requested for portions of this document marked as “[***]”. A complete version of this document has been filed separately with the Securities and Exchange Commission. 6

3.1 for Finjan's Patents shall extend to products, methods, processes, software, systems, and/or services of the Acquiring Entity combined, included, or used with one or more Licensed Products, but shall not extend to the products, methods, processes, software, systems, and/or services of the Acquiring Entity that would infringe Finjan's Patents without the combination, inclusion or use of the one or more Licensed Products.

(a) Following any such merger or acquisition of Proofpoint, Inc., the license grant under Section 3.1and the covenant not to sue under Section 4 shall continue to apply to Licensed Products that are made, sold, licensed, or offered at the time of the acquisition or merger, including updates, upgrades, changes, and improvements (including new models of existing Licensed Products) thereto, as well as any new product lines arising out of the Licensed Products' product lines existing as of the date of the acquisition or merger ("Existing Licensed Products"), but will not extend to (a) any new products or services offered by the Acquiring Entity that are not Existing Licensed Products, or (b) the Acquiring Entity's products or services, that in the absence of a license directly from Finjan, would infringe, either directly or indirectly, in whole or in part, any of Finjan's Patents ((a) and (b) collectively referred to as "New Products"). If, however, after the acquisition or merger, there is a desire to extend Proofpoint's license to include New Products, upon request Finjan will negotiate such extension in good faith. For avoidance of doubt, until the parties reach agreement, New Products are not Licensed Products.

3.3 New Affiliate License. If (a) an entity is acquired by Proofpoint or a Proofpoint Affiliate or otherwise becomes an Affiliate after the Effective Date (a "New Affiliate"), and (b) this New Affiliate is not an Excluded Entity, then the license granted under Section 3.1 shall extend to the New Affiliate after said acquisition. In the event that a New Affiliate is an Excluded Entity, then Proofpoint may, at its sole option, extend the licenses, covenants, and releases granted herein to such Excluded Entity and its products, methods, processes, software, systems and/or services that would infringe Finjan's Patents without the combination, inclusion or use of one or more Licensed Products upon payment to Finjan of an "Extension Fee" that is

[***]

3.4 Third Party Beneficiaries. The Parties agree and acknowledge that all Proofpoint Partners and Proofpoint Affiliates (including their respective executives, directors, employees, contractors, agents and representatives acting within the scope of their service to a Proofpoint Partner or Proofpoint Affiliate) are intended to be third party beneficiaries of this Agreement. For clarity, Proofpoint Partners (including their respective executives, directors, employees, contractors, agents and representatives acting within the scope of their service to a Proofpoint Partner) are third party beneficiaries under this Agreement only with respect to their activities arising out of or relating to the Licensed Products and Combined Licensed Products.

3.5 Reservation of Rights. Any and all rights not expressly granted to Proofpoint, a Proofpoint Affiliate or direct and indirect customers of Proofpoint in this Agreement with respect to Finjan's Patents, including, without limitation, the right to enforce Finjan's Patents against third

Confidential Treatment has been requested for portions of this document marked as “[***]”. A complete version of this document has been filed separately with the Securities and Exchange Commission. 7

parties and collect royalties and/or damages in connection therewith, are hereby reserved and retained exclusively by Finjan.

3.6 All Patent Rights. Finjan agrees to take all steps that are reasonable and in good faith under the circumstances to ensure that all Patent Rights that would otherwise qualify as "Finjan's Patents" as defined in Section 1.9 directed to inventions that are (i) made by Finjan employees, and/or all Patent Rights directed to inventions that are made by its contractors during performance of work paid for by Finjan, in each case, either alone or in conjunction with the employees and/or contractors of third Persons (to the extent legally possible), or (ii) purchased or otherwise acquired by Finjan, are licensed under this Agreement, under the terms hereof

3.7 Ownership of Patent Rights. Finjan hereby represents and warrants that as of the Effective Date of this Agreement, it owns Finjan's Patents, or otherwise has the right to grant the rights, licenses, covenants and releases with respect to Finjan's Patents of the full scope set forth herein.

3.8 Scope Savings Clause. In the event that Finjan does not have the right to grant a license, covenant or release under any particular Patent Right of the scope of the licenses, covenants, and releases set forth in this Agreement, then the license, covenant, or release granted herein under such Patent Rights shall be of the broadest scope within the scope of the rights set forth herein that Finjan has the right to grant.

4.    COVENANT NOT TO SUE

4.1 Finjan covenants and agrees that it will not assert any Claim against Proofpoint or any Proofpoint Partner for direct, induced, indirect, or contributory infringement of any of Finjan's Patents with respect to the Licensed Products or Combined Licensed Products. For clarity, the covenant not to sue granted in this Section 4.1 shall include and apply to any methods and processes claimed under Finjan's Patents that are performed by Proofpoint or any Proofpoint Partner relating to the Licensed Products or Combined Licensed Products. For clarity,Finjan's defense of the validity and/or enforceability of Finjan's Patents, if Proofpoint is in breach of Section 2.6, does not constitute a breach of this covenant.

4.2 The foregoing covenants are personal to Proofpoint, Proofpoint Affiliates and Proofpoint Partners (including their respective executives, directors, employees, contractors, agents and representatives acting within the scope of their service to Proofpoint, a Proofpoint Affiliate or a Proofpoint Partner) and are not transferable or assignable except as expressly set forth in this Agreement.

5.     RELEASES

5.1     Release by Finjan.

(a) Release of Proofpoint. Finjan does hereby irrevocably and permanently release and forever discharge Proofpoint, its Affiliates, and each of their respective officers, directors, employees, agents, predecessors, successors, assigns and attorneys from any and all actions, claims, demands, losses, liabilities, or causes of action of any nature whatsoever, at law

Confidential Treatment has been requested for portions of this document marked as “[***]”. A complete version of this document has been filed separately with the Securities and Exchange Commission. 8

or in equity, whether asserted or unasserted, whether known or unknown, on account of any action, inaction, matter, thing, or event, that occurred or failed to occur at any time in the past, from the beginning of time through and including the Effective Date, including relating to alleged infringement of Finjan's Patents.

(b) Release of Proofpoint Partners. Finjan does hereby irrevocably and permanently release and forever discharge Proofpoint Partners and each of their respective officers, directors, employees, agents, predecessors, successors, assigns and attorneys with respect to the Licensed Products and Combined Licensed Products from any and all actions, claims, demands, losses, liabilities, or causes of action of any nature whatsoever, at law or in equity, whether asserted or unasserted, whether known or unknown, on account of any action, inaction, matter, thing or event, that occurred or failed to occur at any time in the past, from the beginning of time through and including the Effective Date, that are based in any way on any acts that would have been licensed under this Agreement had it previously been in effect.

5.2 Release by Proofpoint. Proofpoint does hereby irrevocably and permanently release and forever discharge Finjan and each of its officers, directors, employees, agents, predecessors, successors, assigns and attorneys from any and all actions, claims, demands, losses, liabilities, or causes of action of any nature whatsoever, at law or in equity, whether asserted or unasserted, whether known or unknown, on account of any action, inaction, matter, thing, or event, that occurred or failed to occur at any time in the past, from the beginning of time through and including the Effective Date, arising out of or relating to Finjan's Patents, including any claim or contention that any of Finjan's Patents is invalid, unenforceable, infringed or has been misused.

5.3 Statutory Acknowledgement. Each Party expressly waives the benefits of any statutory provision or common law rule that provides, in sum or substance, that a release does not extend to claims that the party does not know or expect to exist in its favor at the time of executing the release, which if known by it, would have materially affected its settlement with the other party. In particular, but without limitation, each Party expressly waives the provisions of California Civil Code § 1542, which reads:

A GENERAL RELEASE DOES NOT EXTEND TO CLAIMS WHICH THE CREDITOR DOES NOT KNOW OR SUSPECT TO EXIST IN HIS OR HER FAVOR AT THE TIME OF EXECUTING THE RELEASE, WHICH IF KNOWN BY HIM OR HER MUST HAVE MATERIALLY AFFECTED HIS OR HER SETTLEMENT WITH THE DEBTOR.

5.4 Attorneys' Fees. Except for the rights and obligations. expressly created or reserved by this Agreement, Finjan and Proofpoint do hereby release, acquit, and forever discharge each other from all Claims for attorneys' fees, contribution, costs, expenses, and/or indemnity based on or arising out of, in whole or in part, the Action.

5.5 Indirect Claims. The Parties expressly understand that both direct and indirect breaches of this Section 5 are proscribed provided that a Party alleging any such breach must notify the other Party in writing of such alleged breach and provide such Party thirty (30) calendar days to cure any such breach so that, for clarity, if any such alleged breach is so cured, it shall be deemed not to have occurred. Finjan and Proofpoint each covenants and agrees that it will not institute or prosecute, against

Confidential Treatment has been requested for portions of this document marked as “[***]”. A complete version of this document has been filed separately with the Securities and Exchange Commission. 9

the other, any action or other proceeding based in whole or in part upon any Claims released by this Agreement. Further, Finjan and Proofpoint each agrees that it will not authorize or solicit the commencement or prosecution against the other or any other Person released hereunder of any action or other proceeding based in whole or in part upon any Claims released by this Agreement.

5.6 WARRANTY DISCLAIMERS AND LIMITATIONS OF LIABILITY. EXCEPT FOR THE EXPRESS REPRESENTATIONS AND WARRANTIES SET FORTH IN THIS AGREEMENT, THE PARTIES MAKE NO EXPRESS REPRESENTATIONS AND GRANT NO WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, EITHER IN FACT OR BY OPERATION OF LAW, BY STATUTE OR OTHERWISE.

5.7 Any warranty made by Proofpoint to its customers, users of its products or any third parties are made by Proofpoint alone and shall not bind Finjan or be deemed or treated as having been made by Finjan, and service of any such warranty shall be the sole responsibility of Proofpoint.

5.8 FINJAN SHALL NOT BE LIABLE TO PROOFPOINT, THEIR SUPPLIERS, DISTRIBUTORS, CUSTOMERS, THE USERS OF ANY PROOFPOINT PRODUCT, OR ANY OTHER THIRD PARTIES, FOR INDIRECT, SPECIAL OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY DAMAGE OR INJURY TO BUSINESS EARNINGS, PROFITS OR GOODWILL SUFFERED BY ANY PERSON OR ENTITY ARISING FROM ANY USE OF FINJAN'S PATENTS, EVEN IF FINJAN IS ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES.

6. ASSIGNMENT AND TRANSFERS

6.1 Transfers by Both Parties. Neither Party shall have the right to assign or transfer this Agreement or the rights, entitlements or protections granted to it hereunder, including by operation of law, without the prior written consent of the other Party, which shall not be unreasonably withheld or delayed, except that no such consent shall be required in connection with a merger or acquisition of a Party, or the assignment and delegation of all the rights and duties under this Agreement to a Successor that acquires substantially all the assets and business of a Party and expressly agrees in writing to assume and perform all of the Party's obligations under this Agreement. The terms of this Agreement shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the Parties hereto and their respective permitted successors and assigns. Notwithstanding the foregoing, a Party shall provide written notification to the other Party of such assignment or transfer as promptly as possible based upon any governing legal or securities based regulatory body's regulations or requirements.

6.2 Transfers by Proofpoint. If Proofpoint or its Affiliates transfers a line of its business, including by an asset transaction, to a third person, or by spin-off of an Affiliate, or by formation of a joint venture (each, a "Transferred Business"), the licenses granted in Section 3 for Licensed Products or Combined Licensed Products and covenants set forth inSection 4 shall survive as to such Transferred Business, as a sub-licensee, only with respect to such Transferred Business's product lines as of the date of the transfer, spin-off or formation (including any changes or improvements thereto, and any new product lines arising out of the Transferred Business's product lines existing as of the date of the transfer, spin-off or formation), but in the case of transfer to an Excluded Entity shall not extend to the products, methods, processes, software, systems, and/or services or methods of the Excluded

Confidential Treatment has been requested for portions of this document marked as “[***]”. A complete version of this document has been filed separately with the Securities and Exchange Commission. 10

Entity that would infringe Finjan's Patents without the combination, inclusion or use of one or more Licensed Products.

6.3 Successor and Assigns. Finjan's Patents shall be burdened by the licenses, releases and covenants contained in this Agreement and such licenses, releases and covenants shall apply to any successor of Finjan, and any assignee or transferee of such Patent Rights in Finjan's Patents. Finjan shall not assign, transfer or grant any right under any of its Patent Rights that would conflict with the license rights and covenants granted hereunder, unless the applicable assignee, transferee or grantee agrees in writing, on or prior to the date of such assignment, transfer or grant, to be bound by the terms and conditions of this Agreement. Any assignee, transferee or grantee of such Patent Rights shall agree in writing to be bound by the terms and conditions of this Agreement, and include as Finjan's Patents any patents, patent applications, continuations, continuations-in-part, divisionals and reissues for which it applies and/or is granted Patent Rights therein that are related to, based on, or enhancements of Finjan's Patents.

7. CONFIDENTIALITY

7.1 The Parties hereto may disclose the fact that they have settled the Action, which will be a matter of public record, that payment liabilities have been made or accrued for under the Agreement, and may issue the mutually agreed-upon language of the press release attached hereto as Exhibit D. However, neither Finjan nor Proofpoint shall issue any other press release or provide any public comment concerning the terms of this Agreement or the Parties' negotiation thereof. The Parties shall keep the terms of this Agreement confidential and shall not now or hereafter divulge these terms to any third party except:

(i)     with the prior written consent of the other Party;

(ii) as otherwise may be required by applicable law, regulation or order of a governmental authority of competent jurisdiction or to legal counsel, insurers, accountants, banks, and financial sources and advisors as is reasonably required in connection with compliance with such law, regulation or order; provided it is disclosed subject to an ethical obligation of confidentiality or pursuant to a confidentiality agreement;

(iii) without limiting Section 7.1(vi) and Section 9.1, as may be required in litigation so long as the disclosure is subject to a court-entered protective order limiting disclosure to outside counsel only for use in the subject litigation and such disclosing Party provides the other Party written notice of at least ten (10) business days prior to such disclosure or other such time as necessary to allow the other Party to seek a protective order as necessary;

(iv) to counterparties, legal counsel, insurers, accountants, banks, and financing sources and their advisors, if reasonably required in connection with undertaking corporate or financial transactions, provided it is disclosed subject to an ethical obligation of confidentiality or pursuant to a confidentiality agreement;

(v) the Parties may disclose the nature and scope of this Agreement to any actual or potential, direct or indirect customer or distributor, purchaser, user, reseller, system integrator,

Confidential Treatment has been requested for portions of this document marked as “[***]”. A complete version of this document has been filed separately with the Securities and Exchange Commission. 11

licensee, third party manufacturer or supplier of product for the Parties, provided that, as to the disclosure of confidential portions of this Agreement that have not already been publicly disclosed, the Party seeking to make the disclosure advises such Person in advance to maintain the information in confidence and also secures such recipient's written agreement not to disclose to others without prior approval from the Parties to this Agreement; or

(vi)     as required to enforce the terms of this Agreement in a legal proceeding.

7.2 Notwithstanding the confidentiality obligations in this Agreement, each Party acknowledges and agrees that the other Party may comply with its securities disclosure obligations under applicable laws and regulations including referencing or disclosing this Agreement and any of its statements as required (each such disclosure as to this Agreement or any of its Exhibits, a "Securities Disclosure") subject to the provisions of this Section 7.2. In making a Securities Disclosure, each Party agrees to act in good faith to maintain the confidentiality of this Agreement, each provision hereof, and each Exhibit hereto, to the extent reasonably possible, consistent with all legal and regulatory obligations. In all instances, the Party making a Securities Disclosure shall consult with the other Party to the extent practicable at least five (5) business days prior to releasing or filing the Securities Disclosure and respond to any related request for confidential treatment ("CTR"). Following its response, the disclosing Party shall provide reasonable opportunity for discussion at the request of the other Party regarding the CTR and the scope of the Securities Disclosure. Any disclosing Party agrees to work in good faith with the other Party regarding any Securities Disclosure and any CTR to implement the foregoing, with the understanding that the disclosing Party maintains full authority to determine in good faith, consistent with the foregoing obligations, the extent of disclosure that is required to be made to comply with all applicable laws and regulations and whether it is appropriate to file a CTR. For clarity, the Parties agree that if a Party's Securities Disclosure contains materially similar information to previously-filed Securities Disclosures or other publicly filed disclosure, then the Party will not have to consult with the other Party in advance of filing. Further, the Parties agree that a Party will not be required to seek a CTR with respect to information which has previously been publicly disclosed.

8. REPRESENTATIONS TRANSACTIONS AND WARRANTIES; COVENANTS; SHAM TRANSACTIONS

8.1 Representations and Warranties. Each Party represents, warrants and covenants that it is duly existing; that it has the full power and authority to enter into this Agreement and bind its Affiliates hereto; that there are no other persons or entities whose consent to this Agreement or whose joinder herein is necessary to make fully effective the provisions of this Agreement; that this Agreement does not and will not interfere with any other agreement to which it is a party; and that it will not enter into any agreement the execution or performance of which would violate or interfere with this Agreement. Each natural person executing this Agreement represents, warrants, and acknowledges that he or she is authorized and legally empowered to execute this Agreement on behalf of every Person for whom he or she purports to act.

8.2 Representation and Warranty Related to Releases. Finjan represents and warrants that it has not sold, assigned, transferred, hypothecated, pledged, or encumbered, or otherwise

Confidential Treatment has been requested for portions of this document marked as “[***]”. A complete version of this document has been filed separately with the Securities and Exchange Commission. 12

disposed of, in whole or in part, voluntarily or involuntarily, any Claims purported to be released by this Agreement.

8.3 Representations, Warranties and Covenants by Finjan. Finjan represents, warrants and covenants that: (a) Finjan, Inc. is the sole and exclusive owner of all rights, title, and interest in Finjan's Patents, including all rights to recover for alleged infringement of the same; (b) ithas the full right and authority to enter into this Agreement and make representations on behalf of itself and its Affiliates and shall comply with and grant, and cause its Affiliates to comply with and grant, all necessary rights, licenses, and releases to effect this Agreement, and all other terms and conditions of this Agreement, and shall be directly liable to Proofpoint for any breach of this Agreement; (c) no other Person has a community property or any other right, title, or interest in or to any of Finjan's Patents; and (d) Finjan has not entered into and shall not enter into any agreement that would interfere with, prevent, or otherwise impair the full exercise of all rights granted in this Agreement.

8.4 Limitations. Nothing in this Agreement is or shall be construed as: (a) a warranty or representation by Finjan as to the validity, scope or enforceability of Finjan's Patents; (b) any warranty or representation by Finjan that anything made, used, sold, licensed, offered for sale, offered for license or otherwise disposed of under any license granted in this Agreement is or will be free from infringement of patents, copyrights, and other rights of third parties; (c) an obligation on the part of Finjan to bring or prosecute actions or suits against third parties for infringement; (d) an obligation to proceed with the prosecution of any pending patent application or maintenance of any patent; or (e) granting by implication, estoppel or otherwise any licenses under patents owned by Finjan except as specifically defined in Section 3.1 and Section 4 of this Agreement.

8.5 No Rescission ifAny of Finjan's Patents Determined Invalid or Unenforceable. In the event that any or all claims of Finjan's Patents are materially limited or declared invalid, Proofpoint shall not be entitled to any return of any payment made or due under this Agreement.

8.6    No Sham Transactions.

(a) Finjan represents and warrants to Proofpoint that Finjan has not, in anticipation of this Agreement or one of a similar nature, participated in, or agreed or planned to participate in, any transaction or series of transactions where a substantial purpose or result of such transaction(s) is (or was) to avoid, with respect to one or more of Finjan's Patents, extending to Proofpoint the licenses and other benefits of this Agreement that Proofpoint otherwise would have enjoyed with respect to such Finjan Patents. Furthermore, Finjan shall not participate in, or agree or plan to participate in, any such transaction following the Effective Date.

(b) Proofpoint represents and warrants to Finjan that Proofpoint, in anticipation of this Agreement or one of a similar nature has not participated in, or agreed or planned to participate in, any transaction or series of transactions where a substantial purpose and result of such transaction(s) is (or was) to avoid extending to Finjan the benefits of this Agreement that Finjan otherwise would have enjoyed. Furthermore, Proofpoint shall not participate in, or agree or plan to participate in, any such transaction following the Effective Date.

Confidential Treatment has been requested for portions of this document marked as “[***]”. A complete version of this document has been filed separately with the Securities and Exchange Commission. 13

9. ENFORCEMENT OF AGREEMENT

9.1 Pleading Agreement; Recovery of Attorneys' Fees. This Agreement may be offered in evidence and pleaded as a full and complete defense to any Claims that may be instituted, prosecuted, or attempted in breach of this Agreement. In any such action for breach of any obligations, licenses or covenants granted hereunder and to enforce this Agreement, the prevailing Party shall recover its reasonable attorneys' fees and costs.

9.2 Injunctive Relief. The Parties acknowledge and agree that: (a) any breach of this Agreement may result in immediate and irreparable injury for which there is no adequate remedy available at law; and (b) in addition to any other remedies available, specific performance and injunctive relief are appropriate remedies to compel performance of this Agreement, without the necessity of posting a bond or making a showing of irreparable harm.

9.3 Dispute Resolution. Any dispute arising out of or related to this Agreement, including any dispute relating to the assertion of Finjan's Patents against Proofpoint, Proofpoint's Partners, or any other Person concerning Licensed Products or Combined Licensed Products, but excluding the failure to make payment under Section 2.1, shall be resolved as follows: Senior executives of all Parties shall meet within thirty (30) calendar days of any Party providing written notice in accordance with Section 10 to the other Party of a dispute to attempt to resolve such dispute. If the senior executives cannot resolve the dispute, any Party may make a written demand for formal dispute resolution by tendering to the other Party notice of the dispute and its intent to invoke the terms of this Section 9.3. The Parties agree to meet within ninety (90) calendar days of such a demand with an impartial mediator selected by mutual agreement for a one-day non-binding mediation of the dispute. In the event the Parties cannot agree on a mediator, they shall each select one independent nominator, who shall not at any time have been employed or engaged by any Party, and the two nominators shall agree on and appoint the mediator. If the Parties have not agreed on resolution of the dispute within thirty (30) calendar days after the one-day mediation, or if the independent nominators have not been appointed or failed to appoint a mediator within one-hundred twenty (120) calendar days of the original demand, any Party may begin litigation proceedings.

10. NOTICES

Notices under this Agreement shall be sent by overnight mail, return receipt or other proof of delivery requested, overnight courier, fax or E-mail to the following:

If to Proofpoint:

Attention: General Counsel

Proofpoint, Inc.

892 Ross Drive

Sunnyvale, CA 94089

With copies to:

[***]

Confidential Treatment has been requested for portions of this document marked as “[***]”. A complete version of this document has been filed separately with the Securities and Exchange Commission. 14

If to Finjan, Inc.: Finjan, Inc.

Phil Hartstein

President, Finjan, Inc.

2000 University Avenue, Suite 600

East Palo Alto, CA 94303

Email:

With copies to:

[***]

Confidential Treatment has been requested for portions of this document marked as “[***]”. A complete version of this document has been filed separately with the Securities and Exchange Commission. 15

11.     GENERAL PROVISIONS

11.1 Independent Counsel. Each Party warrants to the other Parties that it has carefully read this Agreement, knows its contents, and has freely executed it. Each Party, by execution of this Agreement, represents that such Party has reviewed each term of this Agreement with that Party's legal counsel and that such Party will not deny the validity of any term of this Agreement on lack of advice of counsel. Each Party acknowledges that such Party has been represented by independent counsel of that Party's choice throughout all negotiations preceding the execution of this Agreement, and that such Party has executed this Agreement with the consent, and upon the advice, of such independent counsel.

11.2 Entire Agreement. Each Party warrants that no promise, inducement, or agreement not expressed herein has been made in connection with this Agreement. This Agreement is an integrated document representing the entire understanding between the Parties with respect to the subject matter of this Agreement. The Parties agree that this Agreement supersedes and supplants all prior or contemporaneous agreements, proposals, or understandings, whether written or oral, between them with respect to the same subject matter.

11.3 Amendments. This Agreement may not be modified, amended, supplemented, or repealed except by written agreement executed by duly authorized representatives of the Parties, expressly stating that it is the intention of the Parties to modify this Agreement.

11.4 Governing Law. This Agreement shall be interpreted in accordance with and governed by federal law or, where applicable, the laws of the State of California, without giving effect to the choice-of-law rules of California. All disputes and litigation regarding this Agreement and matters connected with its performance shall be subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California.

11.5 Construction. This Agreement shall be construed in all respects as jointly drafted and shall not be construed, in any way, against any Party on the ground that the Party or its counsel drafted this Agreement. As used in this Agreement, the term "including" and terms of like import shall be interpreted as terms of explication as if followed by the words "without limitation". The term "such as" means "such as without limiting the generality of the foregoing." The division of this Agreement into Articles and Sections and the insertion of headings are for convenience or reference only and shall not affect the construction or interpretation of this Agreement, and in no way limit, alter, or affect the meaning of this Agreement. The terms "hereof, "hereunder", "herein", and similar expressions refer to this Agreement and not to any particular Article, Section or other portion hereof. Unless something in the subject matter or context is inconsistent therewith, references herein to Articles, Sections and Schedules are to Articles and Sections of, and Schedules to, this Agreement.

11.6 No Waiver. No waiver of, failure of a Party to object to, or failure of a Party to take affirmative action with respect to any default, term, or condition of this Agreement, or any breach thereof, shall be deemed to imply or constitute a waiver of any other like default, term, or condition of this Agreement or subsequent breach thereof.

Confidential Treatment has been requested for portions of this document marked as “[***]”. A complete version of this document has been filed separately with the Securities and Exchange Commission. 16

11.7 Counterparts. This Agreement may be signed in counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original, but all of which together shall constitute one and the same instrument. If the signature of any person is provided by facsimile, the facsimile signature shall be deemed effective as and when provided, but the original of that signature shall be provided as soon as practical thereafter, to be included with the original instrument.

11.8 United States Bankruptcy Code Section 365(n). All rights and licenses granted under or pursuant to this Agreement by Finjan are, and will otherwise be deemed to be, for purposes of Section 365(n) of the United States Bankruptcy Code, licenses of rights to "intellectual property'' as defined under Section 101of the United States Bankruptcy Code or any applicable foreign equivalent. Finjan agrees that Proofpoint, as a licensee of rights under this Agreement, will retain and fully exercise all of its respective rights and elections under the United States Bankruptcy Code or the applicable foreign equivalent.

11.9 Patent Inquiries. Finjan shall, upon a written request from Proofpoint sufficiently identifying any patent or patent application, inform Proofpoint as to the extent to which said patent or patent application is subject to the licenses and other rights granted under this Agreement.

11.10 Remedies for Breach. Subject to the provisions set forth in Section 9.3 first being satisfied, in the event of a breach or material breach by a Party to this Agreement, any other Party that suffers an injury by said breach may bring an action in contract for any and all remedies available to it, including fair and reasonable compensation for any and all losses and damages sustained as a result of the breach. For clarity, this provision includes but is not limited to any breach of Proofpoint's obligations under Section 2.6, Finjan's obligations under Section

4.1, and the Parties' mutual obligations under Section 2.4.

11.11 Severability. If any provision or portion of a provision of this Agreement is held by a court of competent jurisdiction to be unenforceable or invalid under any applicable statute or rule of law, such court is authorized to modify such provision to the minimum extent necessary to make it enforceable and valid, and the remaining provisions or portions of provisions of this Agreement shall in no way be affected or impaired thereby.

[Signature Page Follows]

Confidential Treatment has been requested for portions of this document marked as “[***]”. A complete version of this document has been filed separately with the Securities and Exchange Commission. 17

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Finjan, Inc., and Proofpoint Inc. have executed this Agreement effective as of the Effective Date.

FINJAN, INC.
By:		Date:
	Name:
	Title:
PROOFPOINT, INC.
By:		Date:
	Name:
	Title:

Confidential Treatment has been requested for portions of this document marked as “[***]”. A complete version of this document has been filed separately with the Securities and Exchange Commission. 18

Exhibit A

Finjan'sPatents

United States Patents

U.S. Patent No.	Title
6,092,194	System And Method For Protecting A Computer And A Network From Hostile Downloadables
6,154,844	System And Method For Attaching A Downloadable Security Profile To A Downloadable
6,480,962	System And Method For Protecting A Client During Runtime From Hostile Downloadables
6,804,780	System And Method For Protecting A Computer And A Network From Hostile Downloadables
6,965,968	Policy-Based Caching
7,058,822	Malicious Mobile Code Runtime Monitoring System And Methods
7,418,731	Method And System For Caching At Secure Gateways
7,613,918	System And Method For Enforcing A Security Context On A Downloadable
7,613,926	Method And System For Protecting A Computer And A Network From Hostile Downloadables
7,647,633	Malicious Mobile Code Runtime Monitoring System And Methods
7,756,996	Embedding Management Data Within Http Messages
7,757,289	System And Method For Inspecting Dynamically Generated Executable Code
7,769,991	Automatically Executing An Anti-Virus Application On A Mobile Communication Device
7,930,299	System And Method For Appending Security Information To Search Engine Results
7,975,305	Method And System For Adaptive Rule-Based Content Scanners For Desktop Computers
8,015,182	System And Method For Appending Security Information To Search Engine Results
8,079,086	Malicious Mobile Code Runtime Monitoring System And Methods
8,087,079	Byte-Distribution Analysis Of File Security
8,141,154	System And Method For Inspecting Dynamically Generated

Confidential Treatment has been requested for portions of this document marked as “[***]”. A complete version of this document has been filed separately with the Securities and Exchange Commission. 19

U.S. Patent No.	Title
	Executable Code
8,225,408	Method And System For Adaptive Rule-Based Content Scanners
8,474,048	Website Content Regulation
8,566,580	Splitting An SSL Connection Between Gateways
8,677,494	Malicious Mobile Code Runtime Monitoring System And Methods
9,141,786	Malicious Mobile Code Runtime Monitoring System and Methods
9,189,621	Malicious Mobile Code Runtime Monitoring System and Methods
9,219,755	Malicious Mobile Code Runtime Monitoring System and Methods
9,294,493	Malicious Mobile Code Runtime Monitoring System and Methods

Pending United States Applications

Application No.	Title
14/044,543	Splitting an SSL Connection Between Gateways
14/155,835	Malicious Mobile Code Runtime Monitoring System and Methods
14,941,911	Malicious Mobile Code Runtime Monitoring System and Methods

Confidential Treatment has been requested for portions of this document marked as “[***]”. A complete version of this document has been filed separately with the Securities and Exchange Commission. 20

International Patents

Patent Number	Title
CA 2275771	System And Method For Protecting A Computer And A Network From Hostile Downloadables
DE 602006044746.9	System and Method for Appending Security Infonnation to Search Engine Results
DE 602006045671.9	System and Method for Appending Security lnfonnation to Search Engine Results
EP 0965094	System And Method For Protecting A Computer And A Network From Hostile Downloadables
EP 1958119	System and Method for Appending Security Infonnation to Search Engine Results
EP 2634709	System and Method for Appending Security Infonnation to Search Engine Results
IL 129729	System And Method For Protecting A Computer And A Network From Hostile Downloadables
IL 147712	Malicious Mobile Code Runtime Monitoring System And Methods
IL I 81611	Method And System For Adaptive Rule-Based Content Scanners
IL 190518	Malicious Mobile Code Runtime Monitoring System And Methods
JP 3952315	System And Method For Protecting A Computer And A Network From Hostile Downloadables

Pending International Patents

Application No.	Title
CA2578792	Method And System For Adaptive Rule-Based Content Scanners
CA2842218	Method and System for Adaptive Rule-Based Content Scanners
EP 1810152	Method And System For Adaptive Rule-Based Content Scanners

Confidential Treatment has been requested for portions of this document marked as “[***]”. A complete version of this document has been filed separately with the Securities and Exchange Commission. 21

Exhibit B

Excluded Entities

The following Persons shall be deemed as ''Excluded Entities" The following Excluded Entities (as defined in Section 1.8):

[***]

Confidential Treatment has been requested for portions of this document marked as “[***]”. A complete version of this document has been filed separately with the Securities and Exchange Commission. 22

Exhibit C

IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED, by and between Plaintiff Finjan, Inc., and Defendants Proofpoint, Inc. and Armorize Technologies, Inc., by and through their respective undersigned counsel, that pursuant to a confidential settlement agreement, all claims in the above-captioned action may be dismissed with prejudice according to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4I(a)(I)(A)(ii), with each party to bear its own costs, expenses and attorneys' fees.

Confidential Treatment has been requested for portions of this document marked as “[***]”. A complete version of this document has been filed separately with the Securities and Exchange Commission. 23

Exhibit D

Finjan, Inc. and Proofpoint, Inc. today announced that the companies have reached a mutually agreed patent license, settlement and release agreement. The settlement will result in Finjan dismissing with prejudice the litigation entitled Finjan, Inc. v. Proofpoint, Inc. and Arrnorize Technologies, Inc., Case No. 3:15-cv-5808-HSG, pending in the Northern District of California, and will provide Proofpoint a worldwide, fully paid up license to the Finjan patent portfolio. As part of the settlement, Proofpoint will pay an aggregate of $10.9 million in cash as follows: (A)

$4.3 million within three (3) business days of execution of the definitive agreement, (B) $3.3 million on or before January 4, 2017, and (C) $3.3 million on or before January 3, 2018. The terms of the agreement are confidential.

ABOUT FINJAN

Established nearly 20 years ago, Finjan is a globally recognized leader in cybersecurity. Finjan's inventions are embedded within a strong portfolio of patents focusing on software and hardware technologies capable of proactively detecting previously unknown and emerging threats on a

real-time, behavior-based basis. Finjan continues to grow through investments in innovation,

strategic acquisitions, and partnerships promoting economic advancement and job creation. For more information, please visit www.finjan.com.

Cautionary Note Regarding Forward-Looking Statements

Except for historical information, the matters set forth herein that are forward-looking statements involve certain risks and uncertainties that could cause actual results to differ. Potential risks and uncertainties include, but are not limited to, Finjan's expectations and beliefs regarding Finjan's licensing program, the outcome of pending or future enforcement actions, the granting of Inter Partes Review (/PRJ of our patents or an unfavorable determination pursuant to an IPR or other challenges at the USPTO of our patenls, the enforceability of our patents, the cost of litigation, the unpredictability of our cash flows, our ability to expand our technology and patent portfolio, the continued use of our technologies in the market, our stock price, changes in the trading market for our securities, regulatory developments, general economic and market conditions, the market acceptance and successful business, technical and economic implementation of Finjan Holdings' intended operational plan; and the other risk factors set forth from time to time in our filings with the SEC, including our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2015, and the Company's periodic filings with the SEC, copies of which are available free of charge at the SEC's website at www.sec.govor upon request from Finjan Holdings, Inc. All forward-looking statements herein reflect our opinions only as of the date of this release. These statements are not guarantees of future performance and actual results could differ materially from our current expectations. Finjan Holdings undertakes no obligation, and expressly disclaims any obligation, to update forward-looking statements herein in light of new information or future events.

Investor Contact:

Vanessa Winter IFinjan Holdings, Inc.

Alan Sheinwald or Vatter Pinto ICapital Markets Group LLC

(650) 282-3245 investors@finjan.com

Confidential Treatment has been requested for portions of this document marked as “[***]”. A complete version of this document has been filed separately with the Securities and Exchange Commission. 24

EX-31.1

Exhibit 31.1

CERTIFICATION

I, Philip Hartstein, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Finjan Holdings, Inc.;

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the registrant and have:

a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

b) Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal control over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles;

c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

d) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and

5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.

August 9, 2016	By:	/s/    Philip Hartstein
		Philip Hartstein
		President and Chief Executive Officer

EX-31.2

Exhibit 31.2

CERTIFICATION

I, Michael Noonan, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Finjan Holdings, Inc.;

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the registrant and have:

a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

b) Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal control over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles;

c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

d) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and

5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.

Date:  August 9, 2016	By:	/s/    Michael Noonan
		Michael Noonan
		Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer

EX-32.1

Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to the requirement set forth in Rule 13a-14(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”), and Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code (18 U.S.C. Section 1350), Philip Hartstein, President and Chief Executive Officer of Finjan Holdings, Inc. (the “Company”), and Michael Noonan, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer of the Company, each hereby certifies that, to the best of his or her knowledge:

1. The Company’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2016, to which this Certification is attached as Exhibit 32.1 (the “Periodic Report”), fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and

2. The information contained in the Periodic Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

Dated:  August 9, 2016

By:	/s/ Philip Hartstein
	Philip Hartstein
	President and Chief Executive Officer
By:	/s/   Michael Noonan
	Michael Noonan
	Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer

XML

Document and Entity Information - shares	6 Months Ended
	Jun. 30, 2016	Aug. 02, 2016
Document And Entity Information [Abstract]
Entity Registrant Name	FINJAN HOLDINGS, INC.
Entity Central Index Key	0001366340
Document Type	10-Q
Amendment Flag	false
Document Period End Date	Jun. 30, 2016
Trading Symbol	FNJN
Current Fiscal Year End Date	--12-31
Entity Filer Category	Smaller Reporting Company
Entity Common Stock, Shares Outstanding		22,862,907
Document Fiscal Period Focus	Q2
Document Fiscal Year Focus	2016

XML

CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET - USD ($) $ in Thousands	Jun. 30, 2016	Dec. 31, 2015
Current assets:
Cash and cash equivalents	$ 17,229	$ 6,101
Prepaid expenses and other current assets	189	322
Total current assets	17,418	6,423
Property and equipment, net	230	257
Investment	2,445	2,195
Other long-term assets	324	325
Total assets	20,417	9,200
Current liabilities:
Accounts payable	1,196	2,220
Accounts payable - related parties	18	17
Accrued expenses	2,963	450
Accrued income taxes	9	9
Other liabilities, current	0	32
Total current liabilities	4,186	2,728
Other liabilities, non-current	134	130
Total liabilities	4,320	2,858
Commitments and contingencies (Note 2)
Stockholders' equity
Preferred stock	0	0
Common stock - $0.0001 par value; 80,000,000 shares authorized; 22,806,609 and 22,640,611 shares issued and outstanding at June 30, 2016 and December 31, 2015, respectively	2	2
Additional paid-in capital	18,995	23,946
Accumulated deficit	(17,870)	(17,606)
Total stockholders' equity	1,127	6,342
Total liabilities and stockholders' equity	20,417	9,200
Series A Preferred Stock
Stockholders' equity
Preferred stock	$ 14,970	$ 0

XML

CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET (Parenthetical) - USD ($) $ in Thousands	Jun. 30, 2016	Dec. 31, 2015
Preferred stock, par value (in dollars per share)	$ 0.0001	$ 0.0001
Preferred stock, shares authorized (in shares)	10,000,000	10,000,000
Preferred stock, shares issued (in shares)	0	0
Preferred stock, shares outstanding (in shares)	0	0
Common stock, par value (in dollars per share)	$ 0.0001	$ 0.0001
Common stock, shares authorized (in shares)	80,000,000	80,000,000
Common stock, shares issued (in shares)	22,806,609	22,640,611
Common stock, shares outstanding (in shares)	22,806,609	22,640,611
Series A Preferred Stock
Preferred stock, par value (in dollars per share)	$ 0.0001	$ 0.0001
Preferred stock, shares issued (in shares)	102,000	0
Preferred stock, shares outstanding (in shares)	102,000	0
Preferred stock, liquidation preference	$ 15,300

XML

CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS (Unaudited) - USD ($) $ in Thousands	3 Months Ended		6 Months Ended
	Jun. 30, 2016	Jun. 30, 2015	Jun. 30, 2016	Jun. 30, 2015
Income Statement [Abstract]
Revenues	$ 6,528	$ 700	$ 8,847	$ 700
Cost of revenues	2,237	60	2,237	60
Gross profit	4,291	640	6,610	640
Research and development expense	54	0	105	0
Selling, general and administrative expenses	3,339	4,559	6,769	8,764
Income (loss) from operations	898	(3,919)	(264)	(8,124)
Return on investment	0	1,271	0	1,271
Other income (expense), net	0	7	0	15
Income (loss) before income taxes	898	(2,641)	(264)	(6,838)
Provision for income taxes	0	0	0	0
Net income (loss)	898	(2,641)	(264)	(6,838)
Accretion of Series A Preferred stock	(5,480)	0	(5,480)	0
Net loss to common stockholders	$ (4,582)	$ (2,641)	$ (5,744)	$ (6,838)
Net loss per share applicable to common stockholders, basic and diluted (in dollars per share)	$ (0.20)	$ (0.12)	$ (0.25)	$ (0.30)
Weighted-average common shares outstanding, basic and diluted	22,764,322	22,519,493	22,736,505	22,503,171

XML

CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOWS (Unaudited) - USD ($) $ in Thousands	6 Months Ended
	Jun. 30, 2016	Jun. 30, 2015
Cash flows from operating activities:
Net loss	$ (264)	$ (6,843)
Adjustments to reconcile net loss to net cash provided by (used in) operating activities:
Return on Investment	0	(1,271)
Depreciation and amortization	27	26
Stock-based compensation	453	455
Changes in operating assets and liabilities:
Accounts receivable	0	2,016
Prepaid expenses and other current assets	133	(106)
Other long-term assets	1	(231)
Accrued expenses	2,513	(2)
Accounts payable	(1,024)	(196)
Accounts payable - related parties	1	(92)
Other liabilities	(28)	0
Accrued income taxes	0	8
Net cash provided by (used in) operating activities	1,812	(6,236)
Cash flows from investing activities:
Purchases of property and equipment	0	(210)
Proceeds from investment	0	826
Purchase of additional investment	(250)	0
Net cash (used in) provided by investing activities	(250)	616
Cash flows from financing activities:
Proceeds from the sale of Series A preferred shares, net of issuance costs	9,490	0
Proceeds from exercise of stock options	76	20
Net cash provided by financing activities	9,566	20
Net increase (decrease) in cash and cash equivalents	11,128	(5,600)
Cash and cash equivalents - beginning	6,101	17,505
Cash and cash equivalents - ending	17,229	11,905
Supplemental Disclosures of Cash Flow Information
Additional investment held by investee	0	445
Accretion of preferred stock to redemption value	$ 5,480	$ 0

XML

THE COMPANY AND SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES

6 Months Ended

Jun. 30, 2016

Accounting Policies [Abstract]

THE COMPANY AND SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES

THE COMPANY AND SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES

Finjan Holdings, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the “Company” or “Finjan Holdings”), is a cybersecurity company focused on licensing and enforcement, providing consulting services, developing mobile security applications and investing in cybersecurity technologies and intellectual property.  Licensing and enforcement of its cybersecurity technology patent portfolio is operated by its wholly-owned subsidiary Finjan, Inc. (“Finjan”).  The consulting services business is operated by its wholly-owned subsidiary, CybeRisk Security Solutions LLC ("CybeRisk"), and the mobile security business is operated by its wholly owned subsidiary Finjan Mobile, Inc., ("Finjan Mobile"). Revenues and operations from the Company's CybeRisk advisory services and the Company's Finjan Mobile security business were deemed immaterial for the three and six months ended June 30, 2016 and 2015.

BASIS OF PRESENTATION

These unaudited condensed consolidated financial statements have been prepared following the requirements of the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”), for interim reporting. As permitted under those rules, certain footnotes and other financial information that are normally required by accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America (“U.S. GAAP”) can be condensed or omitted. The December 31, 2015 condensed consolidated balance sheet was derived from audited financial statements, but does not include all disclosures required by U.S. GAAP.  The information included in this quarterly report on Form 10-Q should be read in conjunction with the consolidated financial statements and notes thereto of the Company for the year ended December 31, 2015 which were included in the annual report on Form 10-K filed by the Company on March 25, 2016.

In the opinion of management, these condensed consolidated financial statements have been prepared on the same basis as the annual consolidated financial statements and notes thereto of the Company and include all adjustments, consisting only of normal recurring adjustments, considered necessary for the fair presentation of the Company’s financial position and operating results. The results for the three and six months ended June 30, 2016 are not necessarily indicative of the operating results for the year ending December 31, 2016, or any other interim or future periods.

USE OF ESTIMATES

The preparation of financial statements in conformity with U.S. GAAP requires management to make estimates and assumptions that affect the reported amounts of assets and liabilities and disclosure of contingent assets and liabilities at the date of the financial statements and the reported amounts of revenues and expenses during the reporting period. On an ongoing basis, the Company evaluates its estimates, including those related to stock-based compensation, investments, the determination of the economic useful life of property and equipment, income taxes and valuation allowances against net deferred tax assets. Management bases its estimates on historical experience or on various other assumptions that it believes to be reasonable under the circumstances. Actual results could differ from those estimates.

PRINCIPLES OF CONSOLIDATION

The condensed consolidated financial statements include the accounts of Finjan Holdings and its wholly-owned subsidiaries. All intercompany transactions and balances have been eliminated in consolidation.

REVENUE RECOGNITION

Revenue is recognized when persuasive evidence of an arrangement exists, delivery of the product or service has occurred, all obligations have been performed pursuant to the terms of the agreement, the sales price is fixed or determinable, and collectability is reasonably assured.

Revenue from the Company’s cybersecurity business results from grants of licenses to its patented cybersecurity technology and settlements reached from legal enforcement of the Company’s patent right. Revenue is recognized when the arrangement with the licensee has been signed and the license has been delivered and made effective, provided the license fees are fixed or determinable and collectability is reasonably assured.

The total amount of the consideration received upon any settlement or judgment is allocated to each element based on the fair value of each element. Elements provided in either settlement agreements or judgments include, the value of a license, legal release and interest. Fair value of licensing agreements and royalty revenues, are recognized as revenues in the condensed consolidated statement of operations. Elements not related to license agreements and royalty revenue in nature will be reflected in other income (expense), net in the condensed consolidated statements of operations. Legal release as part of a settlement agreement is recognized as a separate line item in the condensed consolidated statements of operations when value can be allocated to the legal release. When the Company reaches a settlement with a defendant, no value is allocated to the legal release since the existence of a settlement removes legal standing to bring a claim of infringement, and without a legal claim, the legal release has no economic value. The element that is applicable to interest income will be recorded in other income (expense), net.

When settlements or judgments are achieved at discounts to the fair value of a license, the Company allocates the full settlement or judgment, excluding specifically named elements as mentioned above, to the value of the license agreement or royalty revenue under the residual method relative to full license fair value prior to the discount.

FOREIGN CURRENCY

Foreign currency denominated assets and liabilities of foreign subsidiaries, where the local currency is the functional currency, are translated into U.S. dollars using the exchange rates in effect at the balance sheet dates, and income and expenses are translated using average exchange rates during the period. The resulting foreign currency translation adjustments were deemed immaterial for the periods presented.

Gains and losses from foreign currency transactions are included in other income (expense), net in the accompanying condensed consolidated statements of operations. Foreign currency transaction gains (losses) were immaterial for the periods presented, and are included as general and administrative expense, in the accompanying condensed consolidated financial statements.

CONCENTRATIONS OF CREDIT RISK

The Company maintains substantially all of its cash and cash equivalents in financial institutions located in the United States. At times, the Company’s cash and cash equivalent balances may be uninsured or in deposit accounts that exceed the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation insurance limits. The Company has not experienced any losses in such accounts. As of June 30, 2016 and December 31, 2015, substantially all of the Company’s cash and cash equivalents are uninsured.

SERIES A PREFERRED STOCK

The Company accounts for the redemption premium and issuance costs on its Series A Preferred stock by recognizing changes in the redemption value immediately as they occur and adjusting the carrying value of the security to equal the redemption value at the end of each reporting period. This method views the end of the reporting period as if it were also the redemption date for the security.

NET LOSS PER COMMON SHARE

Basic net loss per common share is based upon the weighted-average number of common shares outstanding. Diluted net loss per common share is based on the weighted-average number of common shares outstanding and potentially dilutive common shares outstanding.

Potentially dilutive common shares from employee equity plans are determined by applying the treasury stock method to the assumed exercise of warrants and share options and were excluded from the computation of diluted net loss per share because their inclusion would be anti-dilutive and consist of the following:

	Three and Six months ended June 30,
	2016	2015
Stock options	1,738,642	1,398,332
Restricted Stock Units	469,902	517,926
Total	2,208,544	1,916,258

RECENTLY ISSUED ACCOUNTING PRONOUNCEMENTS NOT YET ADOPTED

In August 2015, the FASB issued ASU No. 2014-15 “Disclosure of Uncertainties about an Entity's Ability to continue as a Going Concern”, which provides guidance on determining when and how to disclose going-concern uncertainties in the financial statements. The new standard requires management to perform interim and annual assessments of an entity's ability to continue as a going concern within one year of the date the financial statements are issued. An entity must provide certain disclosures if conditions or events raise substantial doubt about the entity's ability to continue as a going concern. The ASU applies to all entities and is effective for annual periods ending after December 15, 2016, and interim periods thereafter, with early adoption permitted. The Company is currently evaluating the effect of the standard on its consolidated financial statements and related disclosures.

In February, 2016, FASB issued ASU No. 2016-02 “Leases” that requires a lessee to recognize the assets and liabilities that arise from operating leases. A lessee should recognize in the statement of financial position a liability to make lease payments (the lease liability) and a right-of-use asset representing its right to use the underlying asset for the lease term. For leases with a term of 12 months or less, a lessee is permitted to make an accounting policy election by class of underlying asset not to recognize lease assets and lease liabilities. The new guidance is effective for fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2018, including interim periods within those fiscal years. Early adoption is permitted. The Company is currently evaluating the effect of the standard on its consolidated financial statements and related disclosures.

In March 2016, FASB issued ASU No. 2016-07 "Investments - Equity Method and Joint Ventures (Topic 323): Simplifying the Transition to the Equity Method of Accounting". The amendments require upon qualifying for the equity method of accounting that no retroactive adjustment of the investment be made. In addition, the amendments require that an entity that has an available-for-sale equity security that becomes qualified for the equity method of accounting, recognize through earnings the unrealized holding gain or loss in accumulated other comprehensive income at the date the investment becomes qualified for use of the equity method. The amendments are effective for all entities for fiscal years, and interim periods within those fiscal years, beginning after December 15, 2016. The amendments should be applied prospectively upon their effective date to increases in the level of ownership interest or degree of influence that result in the adoption of the equity method. Early Adoption is permitted. The Company is currently evaluating the effect of the standard on its consolidated financial statements and related disclosures.

In March 2016, the FASB issued ASU No. 2016-08 "Revenue from Contracts with Customers (Topic 606): Principal versus Agent Considerations (Reporting Revenue Gross versus Net)". The amendments are intended to improve the operability and understandability of the implementation guidance on principal versus agent considerations by amending certain existing illustrative examples and adding additional illustrative examples to assist in the application of the guidance. The effective date and transition of these amendments is the same as the effective date and transition of ASU 2014-09, “Revenue from Contracts with Customers (Topic 606)”. Public entities should apply the amendments in ASU 2014-09 for annual reporting periods beginning after December 15, 2017, including interim reporting periods therein. Early adoption is permitted commencing January 1, 2017. The Company is currently evaluating the effect of the new revenue standard on its consolidated financial statements and related disclosures.

In March 2016, the FASB issued ASU No. 2016-09 “Compensation - Stock Compensation (Topic 718): Improvements to Employee Share-Based Payment Accounting”. Several aspects of the accounting for share-based payment award transactions are simplified, including: (a) income tax consequences; (b) classification of awards as either equity or liabilities; and (c) classification on the statement of cash flows. The amendments are effective for public companies for annual periods beginning after December 15, 2016, and interim periods within those annual periods. Early adoption is permitted for any interim or annual period. The Company is currently evaluating the effect of this standard on its consolidated financial statements and related disclosures.

In April 2016, the FASB issued ASU No. 2016-10 ‘’Revenue from Contracts with Customers (Topic 606) (“ASU 2016-10”): identifying Performance Obligations and Licensing”. The amendments add further guidance on identifying performance obligations and also improve the operability and understandability of the licensing implementation guidance. The amendments do not change the core principle of the guidance in Topic 606. The effective date and transition requirements for the amendments are the same as the effective date and transition requirements in Topic 606. Public entities should apply the amendments for annual reporting periods beginning after December 15, 2017, including interim reporting periods therein. Early application for public entities is permitted only as of annual reporting periods beginning after December 15, 2016, including interim reporting periods within that reporting period. The Company is currently evaluating the effect of this standard on its consolidated financial statements and related disclosures.        

Other recent accounting standards that have been issued or proposed by FASB or other standards-setting bodies that do not require adoption until a future date are not expected to have a material impact the Company's consolidated financial statements upon adoption.

XML

COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

6 Months Ended

Jun. 30, 2016

Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]

COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

Operating Leases

The following table sets forth the Company’s aggregate future minimum payments under its operating lease commitments as of June 30, 2016 (in thousands):

For the year ending December 31,
2016, (remaining six months)	396
2017	781
2018	459
	$	1,636

The Company accounts for its leases under the straight-line method of accounting. Deferred rent payable was $84,000 and $80,000 as of June 30, 2016 and December 31, 2015, respectively, and is included in long term liabilities on the condensed consolidated balance sheets.

Rent expense was $202,000 and $398,000 for the three and six months ended June 30, 2016, respectively, and $175,000 and $287,000 for the three and six months ended June 30, 2015, respectively.

Rental income for the three and six months ended June 30, 2016 was $86,000 and $172,000, respectively, and $0 for the same periods in 2015.

Sublease income is recorded as a reduction in rental expense. Future minimum lease payments to be received under the sublease agreements as of June 30, 2016 are as follows (in thousands):

For the year ending December 31,	New York		Menlo Park		Total
2016, (remaining six months)	81		95		176
2017	165		178		343
2018	127		—		127
	$	373	$	273	646

Capital Commitments

On November 21, 2013, the Company made a $5.0 million commitment to invest in JVP VII Cyber Strategic Partners, L.P. (the “JVP Fund”), an Israel-based limited partnership venture capital fund seeking to invest in early-stage cyber technology companies. If and when the Company funds the entire amount of the investment, it will be less than a 10% limited partnership interest in which the Company will not be able to exercise control over the fund. Accordingly, the Company has accounted for this investment under the cost method of accounting.

On June 8, 2015, the Company received a cash distribution of $0.8 million as a portion of a gross entitlement of $1.3 million from its investment in the JVP Fund, the remainder $0.5 million was reinvested in the fund. Along with its cash investments of $2 million, it represents a total investment of $2.5 million. The distribution is a portion of the gross proceeds allocated to the Company's investment. The retained proceeds did not reduce the Company's future capital commitment to the venture capital fund. The Company made a $0.3 million contribution to the fund in May, 2016, as of June 30, 2016, the Company had a $3.0 million outstanding capital commitment to the venture capital fund, which can be called any time until 2018.

XML

ACCRUED EXPENSES

6 Months Ended

Jun. 30, 2016

Payables and Accruals [Abstract]

ACCRUED EXPENSES

ACCRUED EXPENSES

The components of accrued expenses are as below:

	June 30, 2016		December 31, 2015
	(in thousands)
Legal - Litigation / Licensing	2,530		100
Legal - Other	113		146
Compensation	255		204
Other	65		—
	$	2,963	$	450

XML

LICENSE, SETTLEMENT AND RELEASE AGREEMENT

6 Months Ended

Jun. 30, 2016

License Settlement And Release Agreement [Abstract]

LICENSE, SETTLEMENT AND RELEASE AGREEMENT

LICENSE, SETTLEMENT AND RELEASE AGREEMENT

On June 30, 2016, Finjan announced that Finjan and a European cloud-based network security firm (“European Licensee”) had entered into a Confidential Patent License Agreement (the “License Agreement”) effective as of June 30, 2016. Under the License Agreement, European Licensee obtains a nonexclusive, term license in the United States under Finjan’s U.S. patents to make, have made, use, sell (directly or indirectly), offer to sell, import, distribute and otherwise dispose of Licensee’s covered products. European Licensee paid Finjan $565,000 in cash on June 30, 2016.

On June 3, 2016, Finjan entered into a Patent License, Settlement and Release Agreement with Proofpoint, Inc. and Amorize Technologies (collectively, “Proofpoint”). The Proofpoint license provides for licensee to pay Finjan the sum of $10.9 million in cash, in which $4.3 million was received on June 6, 2016, $3.3 million is payable on or before January 4, 2017, and $3.3 million is payable on or before January 3, 2018. The Company recognized $4.3 million of the $10.9 million license as revenues as of June 30, 2016, as such amount was determined to be fixed and determinable, in accordance with the Company’s revenue recognition policy as described in Note 1. The remaining balance of $6.6 million under the terms of the June 3, 2016 License will be recognized as revenues when the payments are due. In exchange for the foregoing and other valuable consideration, Finjan agreed to, subject to certain restrictions, limits and other conditions, grant Proofpoint a non-exclusive, irrevocable (except in the case of non-payment by Proofpoint or other material breach), worldwide license under Finjan Patents during the Term as specified in the June 3, 2016 License.

On December 30, 2015, Finjan entered into a Confidential Patent License, Settlement and Release Agreement (“December 30, 2015 License”), effective December 29, 2015, with a United States-based third party (“U.S. Licensee”). The December 30, 2015 License provides for U.S. Licensee to pay Finjan the sum of $3.65 million in cash, in which $1.0 million was received on December 30, 2015, $1.65 million was received on June 27, 2016, and $1.0 million is payable on or before September 30, 2016. The Company recognized $1.0 million of the $3.65 million license as revenues as of December 31, 2015, as such amount was determined to be fixed and determinable, in accordance with the Company’s revenue recognition policy as described in Note 1. The Company received and recognized $1.65 million as revenues during the quarter ended June 30, 2016. The remaining balance of $1 million under the terms of the December 30, 2015 License will be recognized as revenue when the payment is due. In exchange for the foregoing and other valuable consideration, Finjan agreed to, subject to certain restrictions, limits and other conditions, grant U.S. Licensee a non-exclusive, irrevocable (except in the case of non-payment by U.S Licensee or other material breach), worldwide license under Finjan Patents during the Term as specified in the December 30, 2015 License.

On September 24, 2014, Finjan entered into a Confidential Patent License, Settlement and Release Agreement (the “September 24, 2014 License”) with a third party against whom Finjan had filed a patent infringement lawsuit.  Pursuant to this September 24, 2014 License, the third party and Finjan also agreed to dismiss the infringement litigation, and each party gave the other a general release for all claims that it might have against the other, known or unknown, based on the actions of either party on or before the date of the settlement. Under the September 24, 2014 License, the third party will pay Finjan a license fee of $8.0 million payable in four installments.  The first installment of $3.0 million was paid upon execution of the agreement and filing of the dismissal with prejudice, the second installment of $2.0 million was received on January 16, 2015, the third installment of $2.0 million was payable on or before January 15, 2016, and received on January 14, 2016. The fourth and final installment of $1.0 million is payable on or before January 13, 2017.

XML

SERIES A PREFERRED STOCK

6 Months Ended

Jun. 30, 2016

Temporary Equity Disclosure [Abstract]

SERIES A PREFERRED STOCK

SERIES A PREFERRED STOCK

On May 6, 2016, Finjan entered into a Series A Preferred Stock Purchase Agreement with Halcyon LDRII, pursuant to which the Company agreed to issue to Halcyon LDRII in a private placement an aggregate of 102,000 shares of the Company’s Series A Preferred Stock Shares at a purchase price of $100.00 per share, for aggregate proceeds of $10.2 million. The closing of the Private Placement occurred on May 20, 2016. The Company incurred issuance costs of $710,000 which are recorded as an offset to the redeemable preferred stock.

The Series A Preferred Stock was accounted under Section 480-10-S99 - Distinguishing Liabilities from Equity (FASB Accounting Standards Codification 480) as amended by ASU 2009-04 - Accounting for Redeemable Equity Instruments (“ASU 2009-04”). Under ASU 2009-04, a redeemable equity security is to be classified as temporary equity if it is conditionally redeemable a) at a fixed or determinable price on a fixed or determinable date, b) at the option of the holder, or c) upon the occurrence of an event that is not solely within the control of the issuer. The Company’s financing is redeemable at the option of the holder. Therefore, the Company classified the Series A Preferred Stock as temporary equity in the condensed consolidated balance sheet.

The Series A Preferred Stock have redemption features that have a determinable price and determinable date based on the following liquidation preferences:

The lesser of:

• 2.8x the original purchase price (OPP); or the following:

•1.5x the OPP if redeemed within 90 days of closing; or

•1.65x the OPP if redeemed between 90 and 360 days of closing; or

•1.75x the OPP if redeemed between 360 days and 720 days of closing; or

•Thereafter, 1.75x the OPP plus 0.1x the OPP for every 90 day period the preferred remains outstanding.

The redemption feature is at the option of the holder and is defined in the Certificate of Designation as a percentage of certain revenues, which varies by type of revenue as well as date received. These revenues include monetary awards, damages, fees, recoveries, judgments in a suit, as well as monies received from gross licensing, royalty or similar revenue recovered from JVP related to Finjan’s investment in JVP. Such monetary awards are not solely within the control of Finjan.

The increase in the redemption value is a deemed dividend that increases the carrying value of the Series A Preferred Stock to equal the redemption value at the end of each reporting period with an offsetting decrease to additional paid-in-capital. During the second quarter of 2016, the Company accreted a dividend of $5.1 million, and proportionally accreted the issuance cost, increasing the Preferred A stock to $15.0 million at June 30, 2016; the redemption (liquidation) value is $15.3 million (1.5x the $10.2 million private placement) at June 30, 2016.

Subsequent to quarter end, the Company redeemed $2.592 million or 17,286 shares of the Series A Preferred stock; $1.728 million reduced the value of the Series A Preferred stock and $0.864 million reduced the accretive value of the Series A Preferred stock.

XML

STOCKHOLDERS' EQUITY

6 Months Ended

Jun. 30, 2016

Equity [Abstract]

STOCKHOLDERS' EQUITY

STOCKHOLDERS’ EQUITY

Stock-based Compensation

On July 10, 2014, the Company’s stockholders approved the Finjan Holdings, Inc. 2014 Incentive Compensation Plan (the "2014 Plan") at the annual meeting of stockholders, pursuant to which 2,196,836 shares of common stock were authorized for issuance.  On June 24, 2015, the Company adopted the 2015 Israeli Sub-plan (the “2015 Israeli Sub-plan”) to the Company’s 2014 Plan, which enables the Company to grant options, and issue shares of common stock to employees and non-employees, who are employed by the Company or any of its affiliates, who are residents of the State of Israel.

The Company has issued a total of 836,872 Restricted Stock Units ("RSUs") of which 469,902 remain outstanding as of June 30, 2016.  RSUs generally vest over three or four years, with one-third or one-fourth, respectively, vesting on the one-year anniversary followed by quarterly vesting thereafter.  

Upon shareholder approval of the 2014 Plan, the 2013 Global Share Option Plan and Israeli Sub-Plan were terminated, other than respect to options outstanding under such plans. 1,738,642 options remain outstanding under the 2013 and 2014 plans as of June 30, 2016.

Stock-based compensation to employees and non-employees are recognized as expense in the condensed consolidated statement of operations. The compensation cost for all stock-based awards is measured at the grant date, based on the fair value of the award (determined using Black-Scholes option pricing model for stock options and intrinsic value for RSUs), and is recognized as an expense over the requisite service period (generally the vesting of the equity awards). Determining the fair value of stock-based awards at the grant date requires significant estimates and judgments, including future employee stock option exercise behavior and requisite service periods.

During the three and six months ended June 30, 2016, the Company expensed $311,000 and $453,000, respectively, and $100,000 and $455,000 for three and six months ended June 30, 2015, respectively, of stock-based compensation in the condensed consolidated statements of operations. The aggregate intrinsic value of stock options outstanding and exercisable as of June 30, 2016 was $0.

During the three and six months ended June 30, 2016, the Company granted options to purchase 287,501 and 295,001 shares of common stock, respectively. During the three and six months ended June 30, 2016, the Company granted 200,000 and zero RSUs of common stock, respectively. During the three and six months ended June 30, 2016, zero and 20,000 RSUs were forfeited, respectively. During the three and six months ended June 30, 2016, 20,000 and zero options were forfeited, respectively.

The Company estimates the fair values of stock options using the Black-Scholes option-pricing model. The assumptions used in the Black-Scholes option-pricing model and the weighted-average grant date fair value of the option awards for the periods presented were as follows:

	Three Months Ended June 30,							Six Months Ended June 30,
	2016			2015				2016			2015
Volatility	149		%	112		%		149% - 152%			94% - 112%
Expected term (in years)	7			6				7			6
Risk-free rate	1.26		%	1.54		%		1.22% - 1.26%			1.54% - 1.64%
Expected dividend yield	—		%	—		%		—	%		—	%
Weighted-average grant date fair value	$	1.15		$	1.16		$	0.96 - 1.15		$	1.16 - 2.42

The risk-free interest rate is based on the U.S. Treasury rates with maturities similar to the expected term of the option. The volatility is a measure of the amount by which the Company’s share price has fluctuated or is expected to fluctuate and was based on historical volatility of comparative companies that are similar to the Company. For the six months ended June 30, 2016, the Company updated its volatility assumptions to reflect the increased trading history in the Company’s stock.The expected term was estimated using the simplified method. The simplified method calculates the expected term as the average of the time to vesting and the contractual life of the option. The dividend yield is 0% as the Company has never declared or paid any cash dividends and does not anticipate paying dividends in the future.

XML

RELATED PARTY TRANSACTIONS

6 Months Ended

Jun. 30, 2016

Related Party Transactions [Abstract]

RELATED PARTY TRANSACTIONS

RELATED PARTY TRANSACTIONS

In the course of business, the Company obtains legal services from a firm in which the Company’s Chairman is a partner. The Company incurred approximately $38,000 and $76,000 in legal fees to the firm during the three and six months ended June 30, 2016 and 2015, respectively. As of June 30, 2016 and December 31, 2015, the Company has balances due to this firm of $13,000 at both dates.

The Company obtains social media and investor related services from a firm in which the Company’s Chief Financial Officer holds a 50% interest.  The Company incurred approximately $10,000 and $22,000 in fees to the firm during the three and six months ended June 30, 2016, respectively and $22,000 and $38,000 for the three and six months ended June 30, 2015, respectively. As of June 30, 2016 and December 31, 2015, the Company has balances due to this firm of $5,000 at both dates. Effective June 30, 2016, the Company has canceled this agreement.

XML

LITIGATION, CLAIMS AND ASSESSMENTS

6 Months Ended

Jun. 30, 2016

Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]

LITIGATION, CLAIMS AND ASSESSMENTS

LITIGATION, CLAIMS AND ASSESSMENTS

A. United States District Court Actions

Finjan, Inc. v. FireEye, Inc., 4:13-cv-03133SBA, (N.D. Cal):

Finjan filed a patent infringement lawsuit against FireEye, Inc. in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on July 8, 2013, asserting that FireEye, Inc. is directly and indirectly infringing certain claims of Finjan’s U.S. Patent Nos. 6,804,780, 7,058,822, 7,647,633, 7,975,305, 8,079,086, and 8,225,408, through the manufacture, use, importation, sale, and/or offer for sale of its products and services, including but not limited to FireEye’s Threat Protection Platform, including the FireEye Malware Protection System, the FireEye Dynamic Threat  Intelligence, and the FireEye Central Management System. Finjan amended its Complaint on August 16, 2013, to add U.S. Patent No. 6,154,844 to the list of asserted patents. The principal parties in this proceeding are Finjan, Inc. and FireEye, Inc. Finjan seeks entry of judgment that FireEye, Inc. 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 of no less than a reasonable 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. FireEye, Inc. answered Finjan's Amended Complaint on September 3, 2013, by denying Finjan's allegations of infringement and counterclaiming that the asserted patents are invalid under 35 U.S.C. §§ 101, 102, 103 and/or 112. Both parties have demanded a jury trial. On June 2, 2014, the Honorable Saundra Brown Armstrong entered an Order Granting Motion to Stay Pending Reexamination of U.S. Patent Nos. 7,058,822 (“the ‘822 Patent”) and 7,647,633 (“the ‘633 Patent”). Accordingly, this action is off calendar until the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO") completes its administrative reexamination proceedings. On May 31, 2016, pursuant to the Court’s Order Granting Motion to Stay Pending Reexamination, the parties filed a joint status report regarding the status of reexamination proceedings of the ‘822 and ‘633 Patents. There can be no assurance that Finjan will be successful in settling or litigating these claims.

Finjan, Inc. v. Blue Coat Systems, Inc., Case 5:13-cv-03999-BLF, (N.D. Cal.):

Finjan filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Blue Coat Systems, Inc., in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on August 28, 2013, asserting that Blue Coat is directly and indirectly infringing certain claims of Finjan’s U.S. Patent Nos. 6,154,844, 6,804,780, 6,965,968, 7,058,822, 7,418,731, and 7,647,333 patents. The principal parties in this proceeding are Finjan and Blue Coat. This action is before the Honorable Judge Beth Labson Freeman. The Court held a claim construction, or Markman Hearing, for this matter on August 22, 2014. The Court entered its Markman Order entitled “Order Construing Claims in U.S. Patent Nos. 6,154,844, 7,058,822, 7,418,731, and 7,647,633, on October 20, 2014, which is available on PACER (www.pacer.gov), as Docket No. 118.  Trial for this action took place from July 20, 2015 through August 4, 2015. On August 4, 2015, the jury returned a unanimous verdict that each of the Finjan asserted patents are valid and enforceable.  Further, the jury returned a unanimous verdict that Finjan’s U.S. Patent Nos. 6,154,844, 6,804,780, 6,965,968, and 7,418,731 were literally infringed by Blue Coat, and that U.S. Patent No. 7,647,633 was infringed by Blue Coat under the Doctrine of Equivalents.  Upon the findings of infringement, the jury also awarded Finjan approximately $39.5 million in damages as reasonable royalties for Blue Coat's infringement. On September 9, 2015, the Court held a bench trial on non-jury legal issues, and issued findings of fact and conclusions of law on November 20, 2015. On November 20, 2015, the Court entered Judgment in favor of Finjan. On January 29, 2016, the Court taxed costs against Blue Coat. A hearing for the parties’ post-trial motions was held on April 28, 2016. On July 18, 2016, the Court issued an order upholding the jury’s verdict of infringement, validity, and damages, and denying Blue Coat’s motion to amend the Court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law, denying Blue Coat’s motion for judgment as a matter of law, granting Blue Coat’s motion to amend the judgment to show infringement under the doctrine of equivalents is moot for the ‘844, ‘968, and ‘780 patents, denying Blue Coat’s motion for a new trial, denying Finjan’s motion for enhanced damages, granting Finjan’s motion for pre-and post-judgment interest, and denying Finjan’s motion for attorneys’ fees. Finjan has not received any revenue from Blue Coat with respect to this lawsuit. There can be no assurance that Finjan will be successful in collecting the full amount of the jury award.

Finjan, Inc. v. Proofpoint, and Armorize Technologies, Inc., Case 3:13-cv-05808-HSG (N.D. Cal.):

Finjan filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Proofpoint, Inc. and its wholly-owned subsidiary, Armorize Technologies, Inc., in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on December 16, 2013, asserting that Proofpoint and Armorize collectively and separately are directly and indirectly infringing one or more claims of Finjan’s U.S. Patent Nos. 6,154,844, 7,058,822, 7,613,918, 7,647,633, 7,975,305, 8,079,086, 8,141,154, and 8,225,408, through the manufacture, use, importation, sale, and/or offer for sale of its products and services, including but not limited to Proofpoint Enterprise Protection, Proofpoint’s Malvertising Protection, Proofpoint’s SafeImpressions, Proofpoint’s Targeted Attack Protection, Proofpoint Essentials, Proofpoint Protection Server, Proofpoint Messaging Security Gateway, HackAlert Anti-Malware, Codesecure, SmartWAF, Safelmpressions, and Malvertising Protection. The principal parties in this proceeding are Finjan, Proofpoint, and Armorize. Finjan seeks entry of judgment that Proofpoint and Armorize have infringed and are infringing the above-listed patents, a judgment that they 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 of no less than a reasonable royalty and consistent with proof, enhanced damages, and costs, interest, and reasonable attorneys’ fees under 35 U.S.C. §285. This matter is assigned to the Honorable Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr., United States District Judge.  A claim construction or Markman Hearing was heard on June 24, 2015, and the Court issued a Claim Construction Order on December 3, 2015. On April 12, 2016, the Court granted-in-part and denied-in-part each party’s motion for summary judgment, denying the parties’ motions for summary judgment of infringement and non-infringement for the ‘844, ‘822, ‘633, ‘408, and ‘086 Patents, and finding non-infringement of the ‘154 and ‘918 Patents. The Court also granted Finjan’s motion for summary judgment that Defendants did not have sufficient evidence that the ‘918 Patent was invalid, and denied all other motions for summary judgment that were filed by the parties with respect to validity. The Court also granted Defendants’ motion for summary judgment as to the priority date of the ‘822 patent, and denied all other motions for summary judgment regarding priority or invention date. A trial date was set for June 13, 2016. On June 7, 2016, pursuant to the parties’ Confidential Patent License, Settlement and Release Agreement, the Court dismissed the action with prejudice. On June 3, 2016, Finjan entered into a Patent License, Settlement and Release Agreement with Proofpoint, Inc. and Amorize Technologies. See "NOTE 4 - License, Settlement and Release Agreement"

Finjan, Inc. v. Sophos Inc., Case 3:14-cv-01197-WHO (N.D. Cal.):

Finjan filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Sophos Inc. in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on March 14, 2014, asserting that Sophos is directly and indirectly infringing certain claims of Finjan’s U.S. Patent Nos. 6,154,844, 6,804,780, 7,613,918, 7,613,926, 7,757,289, and 8,141,154.  Finjan amended the Complaint on April 8, 2014, to add U.S. Patent Nos. 8,677,494 and 8,566,580 to the list of asserted patents.   Finjan asserts infringement against Sophos through the manufacture, use, importation, sale, and/or offer for sale of its products and services, including but not limited to End User Protection Suites, Endpoint Antivirus, Endpoint Antivirus - Cloud, Sophos Cloud, Unified Threat Management, Next-Gen Firewall, Secure Web Gateway, Secure Email Gateway, Web Application Firewall, Network Storage Antivirus, Virtualization Security, SharePoint Security, Secure VPN, Secure Wi-Fi and Server Security.  The principal parties in this proceeding are Finjan and Sophos.  This action is before the Honorable William H. Orrick.  Finjan seeks entry of judgment that Sophos has infringed and is infringing the above-listed 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 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 of no less than a reasonable royalty and consistent with proof, enhanced damages, costs, interest, and reasonable attorneys’ fees under 35 U.S.C. §285.  Sophos filed its Answer to Finjan’s First Amended Complaint on May 9, 2014. Both parties demanded a jury trial. Sophos filed its Amended Answer to the Complaint on May 30, 2014. Mediation pursuant to the Court's ADR Program occurred on January 13, 2015 and it has not yet resulted in resolution between the parties. Further, a Technology Tutorial took place in this matter on February 9, 2015.  A claim construction or Markman Hearing occurred on February 13, 2015.  The Court entered its Markman Order entitled “Claim Construction Order” on March 2, 2015, which is available on PACER (www.pacer.gov), as Docket No. 73.  On April 9, 2015, Finjan filed a Second Amended Complaint that included a certificate of correction for the ‘154 Patent. On November 17, 2015, Finjan filed a Third Amended Complaint to add claims of Sophos’s willful infringement. Sophos filed an Answer to Finjan’s Third Amended Complaint on December 4, 2015. On May 24, 2016, the Court issued an order on the parties’ motions to strike, motions for summary judgment, and discovery matters. In its Order, the Court granted Sophos’ motion for summary judgment of non-infringement for the ‘289 and ‘918 Patents, denied the remainder of Sophos’ motion for summary judgment, denied Finjan’s motion for summary judgment of infringement for the ‘926 and ‘494 Patents, granted Finjan’s motion for summary judgment that certain prior art references were not publicly accessible, granted Finjan’s motion to strike in part to exclude certain prior art, granted Sophos’s motion to strike in part to exclude portions of Finjan’s expert reports on infringement, and deferred ruling on Finjan’s motion for summary judgment of validity for the ‘154, ‘494, ‘780, ‘844, and ‘926 patents after reviewing supplemental filings to be submitted with the parties’ pre-trial filings. The Court also precluded Sophos from relying on documents that were produced after the close of fact discovery. Currently, a mandatory settlement conference was held on July 25, 2016 with no settlement, a pretrial conference is scheduled for August 8, 2016, and a trial date is scheduled for September 6, 2016.  There can be no assurance that Finjan will be successful in settling or litigating these claims.

Finjan, Inc. v. Symantec Corporation., Case 3:14-cv-02998-HSG (N.D. Cal.):

Finjan filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Symantec Corporation in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on June 30, 2014, asserting that Symantec is directly and indirectly infringing certain claims of Finjan’s U.S. Patent Nos. 7,756,996, 7,757,289, 7,930,299, 8,015,182, and 8,141,154, through the manufacture, use, importation, sale, and/or offer for sale of certain products and services. Finjan amended the Complaint on September 11, 2014 to add U.S. Patent Nos. 6,154,844, 7,613,926 and 8,677,494 (collectively the "asserted patents").  The accused products and services include Symantec Endpoint Protection, Symantec Endpoint Protection Small Business Edition, Network Access Control, Norton Internet Security, Norton Anti-Virus, Norton 360, Safe-Web Lite, Norton Safe Web, Messaging Gateway, Messaging Gateway for Service Providers, Messaging Gateway Small Business Edition Managed Security Services-Advance Threat Protection, Advanced Threat Protection Solution, Symantec Protection Engine for Cloud Services, Symantec Protection Engine for Network Attached Storage, Symantec Mail Security for Domino, Symantec Mail Security for Microsoft Exchange, Symantec Scan Engine for Windows, Web Security.cloud, Email Security.cloud, AntiVirus/Filtering for Domino, AntiVirus for Linux, Mail Security for SMTP, Scan Engine for Linux/Solaris, AntiVirus for Caching/Messaging/NAS for Linux/Solaris, Protection Engine for Linux/Solaris, AntiVirus for Caching/Messaging/NAS for Windows, Web Gateway and Norton Security.  The principal parties in this proceeding are Finjan and Symantec. Finjan seeks entry of judgment that Symantec has infringed and is infringing the asserted patents, has contributorily infringed and is contributorily infringing U.S. Patent No. 8,015,182, and has induced infringement, and/or is inducing infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,154,844, 7,613,926, 7,756,996, 7,757,289, 7,930,299, and 8,677,494, a preliminary and permanent injunction from infringing, contributorily infringing, or inducing the infringement of the same patents, an accounting of all infringing sales and revenues, damages of no less than a reasonable 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. Symantec answered the Amended Complaint on September 25, 2014, by denying Finjan’s allegations of infringement and counterclaiming that the asserted patents are invalid under 35 U.S.C. §§ 101, 102, 103 and/or 112.  Symantec filed an Amended Answer on October 31, 2014, removing its Fourteenth Affirmative Defense of unenforceability. Both parties have demanded a jury trial.  This matter is assigned to the Honorable Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr., United States District Judge.  A claim construction or Markman Hearing was heard on June 29, 2015. On July 3, 2015, Symantec filed petitions for Inter Partes Review (“IPR”) before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) for all asserted claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 8,015,182, 8,141,154, 7,757,289, 7,930,299, and 7,756,996. On September 10, 2015, Symantec filed a total of 11 IPR petitions for all asserted claims of asserted patents. On August 20, 2015, Symantec filed a motion to stay the case pending completion of these eight IPR petitions. The motion was heard on October 1, 2015 and on October 9, 2015, the Court stayed the case pending the PTAB’s decision on whether to institute IPR of the claims that are the subject of Symantec’s petitions. On January 14, 2016, the PTAB denied institution of six IPRs of five asserted patents. On January 21, 2016, the parties filed a joint status report giving the Court an update regarding the status of the IPR petitions. On February 26, 2016 the PTAB denied institution of an additional two IPRs filed on separate patents, denying a total of eight petitions as of February 26, 2016. On March 11, 2016 the PTAB denied two more IPR's on patents against Symantec, denying a total of 10 petitions to date. On March 18, 2016, the PTAB granted institution on the 11th Petition by Symantec, relating to the ‘494 Patent (IPR2015-01892). On March 29, 2016, the parties jointly requested the Court lift the stay, and on March 30, 2016, the Court lifted the stay. On April 15, 2016, the parties jointly submitted a proposed schedule to the Court for the remainder of the case. On August 1, 2016 the Court issued a Scheduling Order indicating a timeline to trial but without specifically identifying a trial date. There can be no assurance that Finjan will be successful in settling or litigating these claims.

Finjan, Inc. v. Palo Alto Networks, Inc., Case 3:14-cv-04908 EMC (N.D. Cal.):

Finjan filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Palo Alto Networks, Inc., in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on November 4, 2014, asserting that Palo Alto Networks is directly and indirectly infringing certain claims of Finjan’s U.S. Patent Nos. 6,804,780, 6,965,968, 7,058,822, 7,418,731, 7,613,918, 7,613,926, 7,647,633, 8,141,154, 8,225,408, and 8,677,494, through the manufacture, use, importation, sale, and/or offer for sale of its products and services, including but not limited to  Next-Generation Security Platform, Next-Generation Firewall, Virtualized Firewall, WildFire Subscription, WildFire Platform, URL Filtering Subscription, Threat Prevention Subscription, and Advanced EndPoint Protection. Palo Alto Networks failed to timely respond to the Complaint and Finjan submitted an application for Entry of Default.  On Palo Alto Networks’ request, Finjan stipulated to an extension of time for Palo Alto Networks to respond. The principal parties in this proceeding are Finjan and Palo Alto Networks. Finjan seeks entry of judgment that Palo Alto Networks has infringed and is infringing the above-listed patents, and has induced infringement and is inducing infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,804,780, 6,965,968, 7,058,822, 7,418,731, 7613,918, 7,613,926, 7,647,633, 8,141,154, 8,225,408, and 8,677,494, a preliminary and permanent injunction from infringing, or inducing the infringement the same patents, an accounting of all infringing sales and revenues, damages of no less than a reasonable royalty consistent with proof, and enhanced damages for willful infringement, costs, interest, and reasonable attorneys’ fees under 35 U.S.C. §285.  Palo Alto Networks filed its Answer and Counterclaims on December 31, 2015, by denying Finjan's allegations of infringement and counterclaiming that the asserted patents are invalid under 35 U.S.C. §§ 101, 102, 103 and/or 112. Both parties have demanded a jury trial.  On October 8, 2015, the Honorable Edward M. Chen recused himself from the case and requested the case be reassigned to another judge. Also on October 8, 2015, the case was reassigned to the Honorable Phyllis J. Hamilton in the Oakland division of the District Court for the Northern District of California. On September 25, 2015, Palo Alto Networks filed a petition for IPR before the PTAB of U.S. Patent No. 8,141,154. On September 30, 2015, Palo Alto Networks filed petitions for IPR of U.S. Patent Nos. 7,058,822, 7,418,731, 7,647,633 and 8,225,408. On November 4, 2015, Palo Alto Networks filed a IPR petition of U.S. Patent Nos. 7,613,926. On November 5, 2015, Palo Alto Networks filed IPR petitions of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,965,968 and 8,141,154. On November 6, 2015, Palo Alto Networks filed IPR petitions of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,804,780, 7,613,918, 8,225,408 and 8,667,494. On December 10, 2015, the matter was stayed pending a decision by the PTAB on whether to institute IPR of Finjan's claims of its ten patents asserted against Palo Alto Networks. On March 21, 2016, the PTAB instituted trial on claims 1-8, 10 and 11 of the ‘154 Patent, and on April 20, 2016, the PTAB instituted trial on the same claims from a separate petition. On March 29, 2016, the PTAB instituted trial on the ‘408 Patent, claims 14 and 19 of the ‘633 Patent, and denied institution of trial on all other challenged claims of the ‘633 Patent, and all challenged claims of the ‘822 Patent and the ‘731 Patent. On May 9, 2016, the PTAB denied institution of trial on the ‘926 Patent, the ‘968 Patent, the ‘780 Patent, and the ‘918 Patent. On May 13, 2016, the PTAB instituted trial on the ‘494 Patent. On May 26, 2016, the Court ordered the stay to remain in effect until the PTAB’s final determination of the instituted IPRs. There can be no assurance that Finjan will be successful in settling or litigating these claims.

Finjan, Inc. v. Blue Coat Systems, Inc., Case 5:15-cv-03295-BLF (N.D. Cal.):

Finjan filed a second patent infringement lawsuit against Blue Coat Systems, Inc. in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on July 15, 2015, asserting that Blue Coat is directly infringing certain claims of Finjan’s U.S. Patent Nos. 6,154,844, 6,965,968, 7,418,731, 8,079,086, 8,225,408, 8,677,494, and 8,566,580, through the manufacture, use, importation, sale, and/or offer for sale of its products and services, including but not limited to the Web Security Service, WebPulse Cloud Service, ProxySG Appliances and Software, Blue Coat Systems SV2800 and SV3800, Malware Analysis Appliances and Software, Security Analytics Platform, Content Analysis System, and Mail Threat Defense, S400-10 and S400-20. Finjan seeks entry of judgment that Blue Coat has infringed and is infringing the above-listed patents, a preliminary and permanent injunction from the infringement of the same patents, an accounting of all infringing sales and revenues, damages of no less than a reasonable royalty consistent with proof, and enhanced damages for willful infringement, costs, interest, and reasonable attorneys’ fees under 35 U.S.C. §285. Blue Coat filed its Answer to the Complaint with Jury Demand and Counterclaim with Jury Demand against Finjan on September 8, 2015. On September 29, 2015, Finjan filed its Answer to Blue Coat’s Counterclaim. This second Blue Coat action is also assigned to the Honorable Beth Labson Freeman. On December 15, 2015, Blue Coat filed a Motion to Stay the case pending final resolution of Case 5:13-cv-03999-BLF, and Motions for Joinder of several Petitions for IPR on five of seven asserted patents, and Ex Parte Reexamination requests for two asserted patents, filed previously by other defendants. A Case Management Conference (CMC) was held on December 17, 2015. A claim construction tutorial is scheduled for December 2, 2016, and a claim construction hearing is scheduled for December 9, 2016. A pretrial conference is scheduled for October 5, 2017, and trial is scheduled for October 30, 2017. On March 1, 2016 Finjan filed an amended Complaint to add existing Finjan patent 9,141,786 and two newly issued Finjan patents 9,189,621 (issued November 17, 2015) and 9,219,755 (issued December 22, 2015). On March 18, 2016, Blue Coat filed its Answer to the Amended Complaint and Counterclaims with Jury Demand. On April 8, 2016, Finjan filed its Answer to Blue Coat’s Counterclaims. On April 28, 2016, the Court held a hearing on Blue Coat’s motion to stay. On June 10, 2016, Finjan notified the Court on the status of the IPR and ex parte reexamination proceedings for the asserted patents. On June 27, 2016, Finjan filed an Amended Answer to Blue Coat’s counterclaims, adding an affirmative defense of collateral estoppel. On June 27, 2016, Blue Coat filed an Amended Answer to Finjan’s Amended Complaint. On July 11, 2016, Finjan filed a motion to strike certain affirmative defenses in Blue Coat’s Amended Answer, and a reply to Blue Coat’s counterclaims.

On July 26, 2016 the Court denied Blue Coat's motion to stay the second case pending proceedings before the USPTO and the PTAB. On July 28, 2016 Finjan filed a motion for preliminary injunction against Blue Coat. The preliminary injunction would prohibit Blue Coat from making, using, offering to sell or selling within the U.S. or import into the U.S. the Dynamic Real-Time Rating component of Blue Coat’s WebPulse product. A court date has been reserved so this matter may be heard by the Honorable Beth Labson Freeman on November 10, 2016. There can be no assurance that Finjan will be successful in settling or litigating these claims.

Finjan, Inc. v ESET, LLC et al., Case 3:16-cv-03731-JD (N.D. Cal.):

Finjan filed a patent infringement lawsuit against ESET, LLC and ESET SPOL S.R.O. (“ESET”) in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on July 1, 2016, asserting that ESET infringes Finjan’s U.S. Patent Nos. 6,154,844, 6,804,780, 7,975,305, 8,079,086, 9,189,621, and 9,219,755, through the manufacture, use, importation, sale, and/or offer for sale of its products and services, including but not limited to, ESET ThreatSense, ESET Advanced Heuristic, ESET DNA Signature, Host-based Intrusion Prevention System (HIPS), and ESET LiveGrid technologies including ESET’S Home Protection, Small Office, and Business product lines and ESET Services. Finjan seeks entry of a judgment that ESET has infringed and is infringing the asserted patents, a preliminary and permanent injunction from the infringement of the same patents, an accounting of all infringing sales and revenues, damages of no less than a reasonable royalty consistent with proof, and enhanced damages for willful infringement, costs, interest, and reasonable attorneys’ fees under 35 U.S.C. § 285. An initial case management conference has been scheduled for September 29, 2016. ESET has not yet filed an Answer to the Complaint. There can be no assurance that Finjan will be successful in settling or litigating these claims.

Finjan, Inc. v. ESET SPOL S.R.O.. et al., Docket No. 4c O 33/16 (Düsseldorf District Court)

Finjan filed a patent infringement lawsuit against ESET SPOL. S.R.O., a Slovak Republic Corporation, and ESET Deutschland GmbH (“ESET”) in the Düsseldorf District Court of Germany on July 1, 2016, asserting that ESET infringes Finjan’s European Patent No. 0 965 094 B1 (“the ‘094 Patent”), through the offering and/or delivering to customers in the Federal Republic of Germany software covered by the ‘094 Patent, including but not limited to ESET’s ThreatSense, ESET Advanced Heuristic, ESET DNA Signature, ESET LiveGrid technologies, including ESET’s Home Users, Small Office, and Business product lines and ESET services. Finjan seeks a judgment sentencing ESET to a fine for each violation of patent infringement or, alternatively imprisonment of ESET directors, cease and desist orders for offering or delivering infringing software, providing Finjan with profit information for offering or delivering infringing software, damages, which Finjan has suffered or shall suffer as a result of ESET offering or delivering infringing software since November 1, 2008. The Düsseldorf District Court is in the process of effective service to ESET SPOL. S.R.O. in Slovakia. ESET has yet to inform the court whether it will respond to Finjan’s complaint. There can be no assurance that Finjan will be successful in settling or litigating these claims.

ESET, LLC v. Finjan, Inc., Case No. 16-cv-01704 (S.D. Cal.)

ESET, LLC (“ESET”) filed a Complaint for Declaratory Judgment against Finjan, Inc. (“Finjan”) in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California on July 1, 2016, asserting that there is an actual controversy between the parties to declare that ESET does not infringe any claim of U.S. Patent No. 7,975,305 (“the ‘305 Patent”). ESET sought an entry of judgment that it has not infringed any claim of the ’305 Patent, an injunction against Finjan from asserting any of the claims in the ‘305 Patent against ESET or any of its customers or suppliers, and a finding that the case is exceptional and an award of fees and costs under 35 U.S.C. § 285. On July 11, 2016, ESET filed an Amended Complaint for Declaratory Judgment, asserting that there is an actual controversy between the parties to declare that ESET does not infringe any claim of the U.S. Patent Nos. 6,154,844 (“the ‘844 Patent”), 6,804,780 (“the ‘780 Patent”), 7,975,305 (“the ‘305 Patent”), 8,079,086 (“the ‘086 Patent”), 9,189,621 (“the ‘621 Patent”), and 9,219,755 (“the ‘755 Patent”). ESET seeks an entry of judgment that it has not infringed any claim of the ‘844, ‘780, ’305, ‘086, ‘621, and ‘755 Patents, an injunction against Finjan from asserting any of the claims of the ‘844, ‘780, ‘305, ‘086, ‘621, and ‘755 Patents against ESET or any of its customers or suppliers, and a finding that the case is exceptional and an award of fees and costs under 35 U.S.C. § 285. Finjan has not yet filed an Answer to the Complaint. There can be no assurance that Finjan will be successful in settling or litigating these claims.

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

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.”

U.S. Patent No. 8,079,086 (Assignee, Finjan, Inc.):

A first third-party request for Ex Parte Reexamination of U.S. Patent No. 8,079,086 was filed on October 7, 2013, on behalf of FireEye, Inc. and assigned Reexamination Control Number 90/013,015. The USPTO denied FireEye’s request on November 19, 2013, and the reexamination proceedings terminated on January 14, 2014.

A second third-party request by FireEye, Inc., for Ex Parte Reexamination of U.S. Patent No. 8,079,086 was filed on February 7, 2014, and assigned Reexamination Control Number 90/013,147. The USPTO denied FireEye’s second request on March 27, 2014, and the reexamination proceedings terminated on April 29, 2014.

A third third-party request for Ex Parte Reexamination of Claims 17 and 24 of U.S. Patent No. 8,079,086 was filed on December 9, 2015 by Proofpoint, Inc. and assigned Reexamination Control Number 90/013,654. The reexamination request was partially granted on February 2, 2016. Requester’s petitioned the Director to reconsider the partial denial and the petition was granted on March 21, 2016. A response to non-final Office Action is due August 6, 2016. There can be no assurance that Finjan will be successful in rebutting the patentability challenge before the USPTO.

U.S. Patent No. 7,975,305 (Assignee, Finjan, Inc.):

A third-party request for Ex Parte Reexamination of Claims 1, 2, 5 and 13 of U.S. Patent No. 7,975,305 was filed on December 11, 2015 by Proofpoint, Inc. and assigned Reexamination Control Number 90/013,660. The request for reexamination was granted on January 19, 2016 and a non-final Office Action was mailed on April 12, 2016. A response to non-final Office Action was filed on June 13, 2016. There can be no assurance that Finjan will be successful in rebutting the patentability challenge before the USPTO.

U.S. Patent No. 7,647,633 (Assignee, Finjan, Inc.):

A third-party request for Ex Parte Reexamination of Claims 1-7 and 28-33 of U.S. Patent No. 7,647,633 was filed on October 7, 2013, on behalf of FireEye, Inc. and assigned Reexamination Control Number 90/013,016. 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 (including previously considered and disclosed prior art) under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and/or 103. 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. The response to non-final Office Action included arguments and a supporting declaration by Finjan showing commercial success, industry praise, and copying by others of products covered by pending claims; a declaration by a technology expert rebutting improper technical interpretations of the prior art and the invention; and additional new claims for consideration. Additionally, a renewed petition to accept an unintentionally delayed priority claim was also submitted and the petition was granted on January 23, 2015.  An updated filing receipt reflecting the priority claim was issued. A final Office Action was issued May 22, 2015, and a Notice of Appeal was filed by Finjan on May 22, 2015. Finjan’s appeal brief was filed August 24, 2015, appealing the rejections of Claims 1-7, 28-33 and 42-52. An Examiner’s Answer was received on December 18, 2015. Finjan filed its Reply Brief requesting reversal of the rejections and a Request for Oral Hearing February 18, 2016. An Oral Hearing was conducted on June 22, 2016 and a decision reversing the Examiner’s rejections of claim 1-7, 28-33, 42, 44, 48 and 49 was mailed on June 29, 2016. An amendment cancelling rejected claims 43, 45-47 and 50-52 was filed on July 5, 2016 to move the application to Notice of Intent to Issue Reexamination Certificate (NIRC).

A second third-party request for Ex Parte Reexamination of Claims 8 and 12 of U.S. Patent No. 7,647,633 was filed on December 9, 2015 by Proofpoint, Inc. and assigned Reexamination Control Number 90/013,652. The reexamination request was granted on February 3, 2016. On May 10, 2016, the USPTO terminated the reexamination and mailed a Notice of Intent to Issue a Reexamination Certificate and on May 26, 2016, a Reexamination Certificate was issued confirming the patentability of all claims.

U.S. Patent No. 7,058,822 (Assignee, Finjan, Inc.):

A third-party request for Ex Parte Reexamination of Claims 1-8 and 16-27 of U.S. Patent No. 7,058,822 was filed on October 7, 2013, on behalf of FireEye, Inc. and assigned Reexamination Control Number 90/013,017. 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 (including previously considered and disclosed prior art) under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and/or 103. 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. A final Office Action was mailed on September 8, 2014 and a response thereto was filed on October 8, 2014, which included proposed claims amendments and arguments rebutting the various prior rejections. On October 23, 2014, an Advisory Action was issued by the Patent Office maintaining the rejections from the final Office Action and indicating that Finjan’s proposed claims amendments would not be entered.  On December 8, 2014, Finjan: (1) filed a petition to the Director of the Central Reexamination Unit (CRU) under 37 CFR 1.181 challenging the Examiner’s failure to enter the amendments and requesting entry; and (2) a notice of appeal to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Finjan filed an appeal brief on February 8, 2015.  The Examiner filed a brief on March 30, 2015.  Finjan filed a Reply Brief and a Request for Oral Hearing on June 1, 2015, and the Appeal was docketed at the PTAB and assigned Appeal No. 2015-006304. An oral hearing before the PTAB took place on November 3, 2015. On December 30, 2015, the PTAB issue a decision reversing the Examiner’s rejection of Claims 1-8 and 16-27 and new claims 37 and 40 added during prosecution of the reexamination. On February 16, 2016, an Ex Parte Reexamination Certificate (Certificate No. US 7,058,822 C1) was issued to Finjan by the USPTO. Finjan was granted U.S. Patent Nos. 9,141,786 and 9,219,755 containing additional claims on September 22, 2015 and December 2, 2015, respectively. A Track 1 (accelerated examination) continuation application was filed on November 16, 2015, seeking yet additional claim coverage.

U.S. Patent No. 6,154,844 (Assignee, Finjan, Inc.):

A third-party request for ex parte reexamination of claims 32 and 42 of U.S. Patent No. 6,154,844 was filed on December 9, 2015 by Proofpoint, Inc. and assigned Reexamination Control Number 90/013,653. The request for reexamination was granted on January 13, 2016. On March 30, 2016, the Patent Office terminated the reexamination and mailed a Notice of Intent to Issue a Reexamination Certificate.

Inter Partes Reexamination Proceedings:

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 estopped 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.” Effective September 16, 2012, the American Invents Act (AIA) replaced Inter Partes Reexaminations with proceedings referred to as post-grant review and InterPartes Review (IPR). Post-grant proceedings are generally available immediately after patent issuance.  For patents filed under the pre-AIA first to invent rules (i.e., applications filed prior to March 16, 2013, IPRs can be initiated immediately following issuance of patent.  For patents examined under the AIA first-to-file rules (i.e., applications filed on or after March 16, 2013), IPRs can be initiated after the nine-month window of eligibility for post-grant review.

U.S. Patent No. 6,480,962 (Assignee, Finjan, Inc.):

A third-party request for Inter Partes Reexamination of all Claims 1-55 of U.S. Patent No. 6,480,962 was filed on November 29, 2011, on behalf of Symantec Corporation, and assigned Reexamination Control Number 95/001,836. 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 (including previously considered and disclosed prior art) under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and/or 103. Finjan filed a response to non-final Office Action and the USPTO mailed an Action Closing Prosecution (ACP) on October 2, 2013. Finjan responded to the ACP on December 2, 2013, which included proposed claim amendments for consideration. Symantec 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, Finjan filed a Notice of Appeal of the rejection of Claims 1-55 followed by an Appeal Brief on September 2, 2014.  The Requester Symantec filed a respondent brief on October 2, 2014.  The Examiner filed a brief on March 25, 2015.  Finjan filed a Rebuttal Brief on April 27, 2015 and a Request for Oral Hearing on May 26, 2015. The Rebuttal Brief maintained Finjan’s request to review the rejections of Claims 2-4, 7-11, 13-14, 16-20, 22-32, 34-36, 39-44, 46-51, 53 and 54. Claims 1, 5, 6, 12, 15, 21, 33, 37, 38, 45, 52 and 55 were withdrawn from appeal in view the final invalidity decision issued on September 15, 2014 by the Federal Circuit. The Appeal was forwarded to the PTAB in accordance with the Notice mailed June 2, 2015. Finjan also sought examination of additional claims through multiple Track I expedited continuation applications. Finjan was granted U.S. Patent Nos. 9,189,621 and 9,291,755 containing those additional claims on November 17, 2015 and December 22, 2015, respectively. Oral argument was heard on February 17, 1016. On February 29, 2016, the PTAB issued a decision affirming the rejections of the Examiner. On March 29, 2016, Finjan filed a request for rehearing regarding the rejection of claims 22-32 and 46 and the Requester filed comments on April 28, 2016. We are awaiting the PTAB’s decision on the Request for Rehearing. There can be no assurance that Finjan will be successful in rebutting the patentability challenge to Claims 22-32 and 46 before the USPTO.

Inter Partes Review Proceedings:

As defined by the USPTO, Inter Partes Review (IPR) is a trial proceeding conducted at the Patent and Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB or Board) to review the patentability of one or more claims in a patent only on a ground that could be raised under §§ 102 or 103, and only on the basis of prior art consisting of patents or printed publications. For first-inventor-to-file patents IPR process begins with a third party (a person who is not the owner of the patent) filing a petition after the later of either: (1) nine months after the grant of the patent or issuance of a reissue patent; or (2) if a post grant review is instituted, the termination of the post grant review. These deadlines do not apply to first-to-invent patents. The patent owner may file a preliminary response to the petition. An IPR may be instituted upon a showing that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least one claim challenged. If the proceeding is instituted and not dismissed, a final determination by the Board will be issued within one year (extendable for good cause by six months). The procedure for conducting IPRtook effect on September 16, 2012, and applies to any patent issued before, on, or after September 16, 2012.

U.S. Patent No. 7,613,926 (the “’926 Patent”)

On March 19, 2015, Sophos, Inc. filed a petition for IPR of U.S. Patent No. 7,613,926 (IPR2015-00907).  Finjan filed a Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response (POPR) to the petition on June 26, 2015.  The PTAB denied Sophos’ petition to institute the IPR proceeding on the ‘926 Patent on September 24, 2015. On October 26, 2015, Sophos filed a Request for Rehearing, and on December 4, 2015, the PTAB denied Sophos’ Request for Rehearing.

U.S. Patent No. 8,677,494 (the “’494 Patent”)

On April 8, 2015, Sophos, Inc. filed a petition for IPR of U.S. Patent No. 8,677,494 (IPR2015-01022).  Finjan filed a POPR to the petition on July 15, 2015. The PTAB denied Sophos’ petition to institute the IPR proceeding on the ‘494 Patent on September 24, 2015. On October 26, 2015, Sophos filed a Request for Rehearing, and on January 28, 2016, the PTAB denied Sophos’ Request for Rehearing.

U.S. Patent No. 7,756,996 (the “’996 Patent”)

On July 3, 2015, Symantec Corporation filed two (2) separate petitions for IPR of U.S. Patent No. 7,756,996 (IPR2015-01545/01546). Finjan filed POPRs to the petitions October 19, 2015. The PTAB denied both of Symantec’s petitions to institute IPR proceedings on the ‘996 Patent on January 14, 2016. On February 16, 2016, Symantec filed a Request for Rehearing, and on February 25, 2016, the PTAB denied Symantec’s Request for Rehearing.

U.S. Patent No. 7,757,289 (the “’289 Patent”)

On July 3, 2015, Symantec Corporation filed a petition for IPR of U.S. Patent No. 7,757,289 (IPR2015-01552). Finjan filed a POPR to the petition on October 19, 2015. The PTAB denied Symantec’s petition to institute IPR proceedings on the ‘289 Patent on January 14, 2016.

U.S. Patent No. 7,930,299 (the “’299 Patent”)

On July 3, 2015, Symantec Corporation filed a petition for IPRof U.S. Patent No. 7,930,299 (IPR2015-01549).  Finjan filed a POPR to the petition October 20, 2015. The PTAB denied Symantec’s petition to institute IPR proceedings on the ‘299 Patent on January 14, 2016.

U.S. Patent No. 8,015,182 (the “’182 Patent”)

On July 3, 2015, Symantec Corporation filed a petition for IPRof U.S. Patent No. 8,015,182 (IPR2015-01548).  Finjan filed a POPR to the petition on October 20, 2015. The PTAB denied Symantec’s petition to institute IPR proceedings on the ‘182 Patent on January 14, 2016.

U.S. Patent No. 8,141,154 (the “’154 Patent”)

On July 3, 2015, April 19, 2016, and May 26, 2016, Symantec Corporation filed three (3) separate petitions for IPR of U.S. Patent No. 8,141,154 (IPR2015-01547; IPR2016-00919; IPR2016-01071), and moved to join the petition for IPR filed by Palo Alto Networks with respect to the ‘154 Patent (IPR2016-00151).  Finjan filed a POPR to the petition in IPR2015-01547 on October 19, 2015. The PTAB denied Symantec’s petition to institute IPR proceedings in IPR2015-01547 on January 14, 2016. On February 16, 2016, Symantec filed a Request for Rehearing with respect to IPR2015-01547, and on February 25, 2016, the PTAB denied Symantec’s Request for Rehearing. With respect to IPR2016-00919 and IPR2016-01071 on the ‘154 Patent, the PTAB’s decision is pending.

U.S. Patent No. 8,677,494 (the “’494 Patent”)

On September 10, 2015, Symantec Corporation filed two (2) separate petitions for IPRof U.S. Patent No. 8,677,494 (IPR2015-01892/01897). Finjan filed POPRs to the petitions on December 28, 2015. With respect to IPR 2015-01897, the PTAB denied institution of IPR proceedings on the ‘494 Patent on February 26, 2016. On March 18, 2016, the PTAB granted institution of IPR proceedings on the ‘494 Patent (IPR2015-01892). On April 1, 2016, Finjan filed a partial request for rehearing. On May 23, 2016, the PTAB denied Finjan’s Request for Rehearing. On June 21, 2016, Finjan filed its Patent Owner Response to Symantec’s Petition in IPR 2015-01892.

U.S. Patent No. 6,154,844 (the “’844 Patent”)

On September 10, 2015, Symantec Corporation filed a petition for IPRof U.S. Patent No. 6,154,844 (IPR2015-01894). Finjan filed a POPR to the petition on December 17, 2015. The PTAB denied institution of IPR proceedings on the ‘844 Patent on March 11, 2016.

U.S. Patent No. 7,613,926 (the “’926 Patent”)

On September 10, 2015, Symantec Corporation filed two (2) separate petitions for IPR of U.S. Patent No. 7,613,926 (IPR2015-01893/01895). Finjan filed POPRs to the petitions on December 17, 2015. With respect to IPR2015-01895, the PTAB denied institution of IPR proceedings on the ‘926 Patent on February 26, 1016. With respect to IPR2015-01893, the PTAB denied institution of IPR proceedings on the ‘926 Patent on March 11, 2016.

U.S. Patent No. 8,141,154 (the “’154 Patent”)

On September 25, 2015 and November 5, 2015, Palo Alto Networks Inc. filed two (2) separate petitions for IPRof U.S. Patent No. 8,141,154 and a Motion for Joinder to Symantec’s Petition for IPR of the ‘154 Patent (IPR2015-01547). (IPR2015-01979; IPR2016-00151). Finjan filed a POPR to the first petition in IPR2015-01979 on December 29, 2015. With respect to IPR2015-01979, the PTAB granted institution of IPR proceedings on the ‘154 Patent on March 21, 2016. On April 5, 2016, Finjan filed a partial request for rehearing, and on April 19, 2016, the PTAB denied Finjan’s partial request for rehearing. On July 12, 2016, Finjan submitted a Patent Owner Response to the Petition. With respect to IPR2016-00151 on the ‘154 Patent, Finjan filed a POPR on February 17, 2016, and on April 20, 2016, the PTAB instituted trial on claims 1-8, 10, and 11, denied institution on the remaining claims and denied Palo Alto Network’s Motion for Joinder. On May 4, 2016, Finjan filed a partial request for rehearing, and on June 2, 2016, the PTAB denied Finjan’s Request for Rehearing. On June 16, 2016, the parties filed a joint notice to amend the Scheduling Order.

U.S. Patent No. 7,647,633 (the “’633 Patent”)

On September 30, 2015, Palo Alto Networks, Inc. filed a petition for IPR of U.S. Patent No. 7,647,633 (IPR2015-01974). Finjan filed a POPR to the petition on January 7, 2016. On March 29, 2016, the PTAB granted institution of IPR proceedings with respect to claims 14 and 19 of the ‘633 Patent, and denied institution with respect to all other challenged claims. On April 12, 2016, Palo Alto Networks filed a request for rehearing. On May 18, 2016, the PTAB denied Palo Alto Networks’ Request for Rehearing. On June 1, 2016, the parties filed a joint notice to amend the Scheduling Order.

U.S. Patent No. 7,058,822 (the “’822 Patent”)

On September 30, 2015, Palo Alto Networks Inc. filed a petition for IPR of United States Patent No. 7,058,822 (IPR2015-01999). Finjan filed a POPR to the petition on January 6, 2016. The PTAB denied institution of IPR proceedings on the ‘822 Patent on March 29, 2016. On April 28, 2016, Palo Alto Networks filed a Request for Rehearing, and on May 18, 2016, the PTAB granted Palo Alto Networks’ Request for Rehearing but did not alter its Decision denying institution.

U.S. Patent No. 7,418,731 (the “’731 Patent”)

On September 30, 2015, Palo Alto Networks Inc. filed a petition for IPR of United States Patent No. 7,418,731 (IPR2015-02000). Finjan filed a POPR to the petition on January 8, 2016. The PTAB denied institution of IPR proceedings on the ‘731 Patent on March 23, 2016. On April 22, 2016, Palo Alto Networks filed a Request for Rehearing.

U.S. Patent No. 8,225,408 (the “’408 Patent”)

On September 30, 2015 and November 6, 2015, Palo Alto Networks Inc. filed two (2) separate petitions for IPRs of United States Patent No. 8,225,408 (IPR2015-02001; IPR2016-00157). Finjan filed POPRs to the petitions on January 6, 2016, and February 17, 2016 respectively. On March 29, 2016, the PTAB granted institution of IPR proceedings in IPR2015-02001 and IPR2016-00157. On April 12, 2016, Finjan filed requests for rehearing. On May 16, 2016, the PTAB denied Finjan’s Requests for Rehearing. On June 27, 2016, the parties filed a joint notice to amend the Scheduling Order.

U.S. Patent No. 7,613,926 (the “’926 Patent”)

On November 4, 2015, Palo Alto Networks Inc. filed a petition for IPR of United States Patent No. 7,613,926 (IPR 2016-00145). Finjan filed a POPR to the petition on February 17, 2016. On May 9, 2016, the PTAB denied institution of IPR.

U.S. Patent No. 6,965,968 (the “’968 Patent”)

On November 5, 2015, Palo Alto Networks Inc. filed two (2) separate petitions for IPRs of United States Patent No. 6,965,968 (IPR 2016-00149, IPR2016-00150). Finjan filed POPRs to the petitions on February 17, 2016. On May 16, 2016, the PTAB denied institution of IPR proceedings on both petitions.

U.S. Patent No. 6,804,780 (the “’780 Patent”)

On November 6, 2015, Palo Alto Networks Inc. filed a petition for IPR of United States Patent No. 6,804,780 (IPR 2016-00165). Finjan filed a POPR to the petition on February 17, 2016. On April 21, 2016, the PTAB denied institution of IPR.

U.S. Patent No. 7,613,918 (the “’918 Patent”)

On November 6, 2015, Palo Alto Networks Inc. filed a petition for IPR of United States Patent No. 7,613,918 (IPR 2016-00164). Finjan filed a POPR to the petition on February 17, 2016. On May 5, 2016, the PTAB denied institution of IPR.

U.S. Patent No. 8,677,494 (the “'494 Patent”)

On November 6, 2015, Palo Alto Networks Inc. filed a petition for IPR of United States Patent No. 8,677,494 (IPR 2016-00159). Finjan filed a POPR to the petition on February 17, 2016. On May 13, 2016, the PTAB granted institution of IPR. On May 27, 2016, Finjan filed a Request for Rehearing, and on June 23, 2016 the PTAB denied Finjan’s Request for Rehearing. On June 27, 2016, the parties filed a joint notice to amend the Scheduling Order.

U.S. Patent No. 6,965,968 (the “’968 Patent”)

On January 19, 2016, Blue Coat Systems, Inc. filed two Petitions for IPR of U.S. Patent No. 6,965,968 (“the ‘968 Patent”) (IPR2016-00478; IPR2016-00479) and a Motion for Joinder to Palo Alto Networks’ Petition for IPR of the ‘968 Patent (IPR2015-00149; IPR2015-00150). On April 22, 2016, Finjan filed a POPR to the petitions. On June 20, 2016, the PTAB denied institution of IPR proceedings on both petitions.

U.S. Patent No. 7,647,633 (the “’633 Patent”)

On January 20, 2016, Blue Coat Systems, Inc. filed a Petition for IPR of U.S. Patent No. 7,647,633 (“the ‘633 Patent”) (IPR2016-00480) and a Motion for Joinder to Palo Alto Networks’ Petition for IPR of the ‘633 Patent (IPR2015-01974). On April 22, 2016, Finjan filed a POPR to the petition. On June 24, 2016, the PTAB instituted IPR, and granted Blue Coat’s Motion for Joinder.

U.S. Patent No. 7,418,731 (the “’731 Patent”)

On January 21, 2016, Blue Coat Systems, Inc. filed a Petition for IPR of U.S. Patent No. 7,418,731 (“the ‘731 Patent”) (IPR2016-00493) and a Motion for Joinder to Palo Alto Networks’ Petition for IPR of the ‘731 Patent (IPR2015-0200). On April 29, 2016, Finjan filed a POPR to the petition. On June 8, 2016, the PTAB denied institution of IPR.

U.S. Patent No. 6,804,780 (the “’780 Patent”)

On January 21, 2016, Blue Coat Systems, Inc. filed a Petition for IPR of U.S. Patent No. 6,804,780 (“the ‘780 Patent”) (IPR2016-00492) and a Motion for Joinder to Palo Alto Networks’ Petition for IPR of the ‘780 Patent (IPR2016-00165). On April 29, 2016, Finjan filed a POPR to the petition. On June 8, 2016, the PTAB denied institution of IPR.

U.S. Patent No. 6,154,844 (the “’844 Patent”)

On January 25, 2016, Blue Coat Systems, Inc. filed a Petition for IPR of U.S. Patent No. 6,154,844 (“the ‘844 Patent”) (IPR2016-00498) and a Motion for Joinder to Symantec Corp.’s Petition for IPR of the ‘844 Patent (IPR2015-01894). On April 29, 2016, Finjan filed a POPR to the petition. On June 20, 2016, the PTAB dismissed the Petition and motion for joinder pursuant to Blue Coat’s motion to dismiss.

U.S. Patent No. 8,225,408 (the “’408 Patent”)

On May 2, 2016, Blue Coat Systems, Inc. filed two (2) separate petitions for IPRs of United States Patent No. 8,225,408 (IPR2016-00955; IPR2016-00956), and Motion for Joinder to Palo Alto Networks, Inc.’s Petitions for IPR of the ‘408 Patent (IPR2015-02001 and IPR2016-00157).

U.S. Patent No. 8,677,494 (the “494 Patent”)

On April 14, 2016 and on June 10, 2016, Blue Coat Systems, Inc. filed two Petitions for IPR of United States Patent No. 8,677,494 (IPR2016-00890; IPR2016-01174) and a Motion for Joinder to Symantec Corp.’s Petition for IPR of the ‘494 Patent (IPR2015-01892) and Palo Alto Networks, Inc.’s Petition for IPR of the ‘494 Patent (IPR2016-00159).

U.S. Patent No. 8,141,154 (the “’154 Patent”)

On April 21, 2016, Proofpoint, Inc. and Armorize Technologies, Inc. filed a Petition for IPR of U.S. Patent No. 8,141,154 (IPR2016-00937) and a Motion for Joinder to Palo Alto Networks, Inc.’s Petition for IPR of the ‘154 Patent (IPR2015-01979). On June 24, 2016, the PTAB terminated the IPR proceedings pursuant to a joint motion.

U.S. Patent No. 7,647,633 (the “’633 Patent”)

On April 29, 2016, Proofpoint, Inc. and Armorize Technologies, Inc. filed a Petition for IPR of U.S. Patent No. 7,647,633 (“the ‘633 Patent”) (IPR2016-00966) and a Motion for Joinder to Palo Alto Networks’ Petition for IPR of the ‘633 Patent (IPR2015-01974). On June 24, 2016, the PTAB terminated the IPR proceedings pursuant to a joint motion.

U.S. Patent No. 8,225,408 (the “’408 Patent”)

On April 29, 2016, Proofpoint, Inc. and Armorize Technologies, Inc. filed two separate Petitions for IPR of U.S. Patent No. 8,225,408 (the “’408 Patent”) (IPR2016-00967; IPR2016-00970) and a Motion for Joinder to Palo Alto Networks’ Petition for IPR of the ‘408 Patent (IPR2015-02001; IPR2016-00157). On June 24, 2016, the PTAB terminated the IPR proceedings pursuant to a joint motion.

U.S. Patent No. 8,079,086 (the “’086 Patent”)

On July 15, 2016, Blue Coat Systems, Inc. filed a Petition for IPR of U.S. Patent No. 8,079,086 (the “’086 Patent”) (IPR2016-01444).

U.S. Patent No. 8,225,408 (the “’408 Patent”)

On July 15, 2016, Blue Coat Systems, Inc. filed a Petition for IPR of U.S. Patent No. 8,225,408 (the “’408 Patent”) (IPR2016-01441).

U.S. Patent No. 8,677,494 (the “’494 Patent”)

On July 15, 2016, Blue Coat Systems, Inc. filed a Petition for IPR of U.S. Patent No. 8,677,494 (the “’494 Patent”) (IPR2016-01443).

Except for the foregoing disclosures, Finjan is not presently aware of any other material pending legal proceedings, to which Finjan or any of its subsidiaries are a party or of which any of its property is the subject.

Litigation, including patent litigation, is inherently subject to uncertainties. As such, there can be no assurance that Finjan will be successful in litigating and/or settling any of these claims.

XML

THE COMPANY AND SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES (Policies)

6 Months Ended

Jun. 30, 2016

Accounting Policies [Abstract]

BASIS OF PRESENTATION

BASIS OF PRESENTATION

These unaudited condensed consolidated financial statements have been prepared following the requirements of the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”), for interim reporting. As permitted under those rules, certain footnotes and other financial information that are normally required by accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America (“U.S. GAAP”) can be condensed or omitted. The December 31, 2015 condensed consolidated balance sheet was derived from audited financial statements, but does not include all disclosures required by U.S. GAAP.  The information included in this quarterly report on Form 10-Q should be read in conjunction with the consolidated financial statements and notes thereto of the Company for the year ended December 31, 2015 which were included in the annual report on Form 10-K filed by the Company on March 25, 2016.

In the opinion of management, these condensed consolidated financial statements have been prepared on the same basis as the annual consolidated financial statements and notes thereto of the Company and include all adjustments, consisting only of normal recurring adjustments, considered necessary for the fair presentation of the Company’s financial position and operating results. The results for the three and six months ended June 30, 2016 are not necessarily indicative of the operating results for the year ending December 31, 2016, or any other interim or future periods.

USE OF ESTIMATES

USE OF ESTIMATES

The preparation of financial statements in conformity with U.S. GAAP requires management to make estimates and assumptions that affect the reported amounts of assets and liabilities and disclosure of contingent assets and liabilities at the date of the financial statements and the reported amounts of revenues and expenses during the reporting period. On an ongoing basis, the Company evaluates its estimates, including those related to stock-based compensation, investments, the determination of the economic useful life of property and equipment, income taxes and valuation allowances against net deferred tax assets. Management bases its estimates on historical experience or on various other assumptions that it believes to be reasonable under the circumstances. Actual results could differ from those estimates.

PRINCIPLES OF CONSOLIDATION

PRINCIPLES OF CONSOLIDATION

The condensed consolidated financial statements include the accounts of Finjan Holdings and its wholly-owned subsidiaries. All intercompany transactions and balances have been eliminated in consolidation.

REVENUE RECOGNITION

REVENUE RECOGNITION

Revenue is recognized when persuasive evidence of an arrangement exists, delivery of the product or service has occurred, all obligations have been performed pursuant to the terms of the agreement, the sales price is fixed or determinable, and collectability is reasonably assured.

Revenue from the Company’s cybersecurity business results from grants of licenses to its patented cybersecurity technology and settlements reached from legal enforcement of the Company’s patent right. Revenue is recognized when the arrangement with the licensee has been signed and the license has been delivered and made effective, provided the license fees are fixed or determinable and collectability is reasonably assured.

The total amount of the consideration received upon any settlement or judgment is allocated to each element based on the fair value of each element. Elements provided in either settlement agreements or judgments include, the value of a license, legal release and interest. Fair value of licensing agreements and royalty revenues, are recognized as revenues in the condensed consolidated statement of operations. Elements not related to license agreements and royalty revenue in nature will be reflected in other income (expense), net in the condensed consolidated statements of operations. Legal release as part of a settlement agreement is recognized as a separate line item in the condensed consolidated statements of operations when value can be allocated to the legal release. When the Company reaches a settlement with a defendant, no value is allocated to the legal release since the existence of a settlement removes legal standing to bring a claim of infringement, and without a legal claim, the legal release has no economic value. The element that is applicable to interest income will be recorded in other income (expense), net.

When settlements or judgments are achieved at discounts to the fair value of a license, the Company allocates the full settlement or judgment, excluding specifically named elements as mentioned above, to the value of the license agreement or royalty revenue under the residual method relative to full license fair value prior to the discount.

FOREIGN CURRENCY

FOREIGN CURRENCY

Foreign currency denominated assets and liabilities of foreign subsidiaries, where the local currency is the functional currency, are translated into U.S. dollars using the exchange rates in effect at the balance sheet dates, and income and expenses are translated using average exchange rates during the period. The resulting foreign currency translation adjustments were deemed immaterial for the periods presented.

Gains and losses from foreign currency transactions are included in other income (expense), net in the accompanying condensed consolidated statements of operations. Foreign currency transaction gains (losses) were immaterial for the periods presented, and are included as general and administrative expense, in the accompanying condensed consolidated financial statements.

CONCENTRATIONS OF CREDIT RISK

CONCENTRATIONS OF CREDIT RISK

The Company maintains substantially all of its cash and cash equivalents in financial institutions located in the United States. At times, the Company’s cash and cash equivalent balances may be uninsured or in deposit accounts that exceed the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation insurance limits. The Company has not experienced any losses in such accounts.

SERIES A PREFERRED STOCK

SERIES A PREFERRED STOCK

The Company accounts for the redemption premium and issuance costs on its Series A Preferred stock by recognizing changes in the redemption value immediately as they occur and adjusting the carrying value of the security to equal the redemption value at the end of each reporting period. This method views the end of the reporting period as if it were also the redemption date for the security.

NET LOSS PER COMMON SHARE

NET LOSS PER COMMON SHARE

Basic net loss per common share is based upon the weighted-average number of common shares outstanding. Diluted net loss per common share is based on the weighted-average number of common shares outstanding and potentially dilutive common shares outstanding.

Potentially dilutive common shares from employee equity plans are determined by applying the treasury stock method to the assumed exercise of warrants and share options and were excluded from the computation of diluted net loss per share because their inclusion would be anti-dilutive and consist of the following:

RECENTLY ISSUED ACCOUNTING PRONOUNCEMENTS NOT YET ADOPTED

RECENTLY ISSUED ACCOUNTING PRONOUNCEMENTS NOT YET ADOPTED

In August 2015, the FASB issued ASU No. 2014-15 “Disclosure of Uncertainties about an Entity's Ability to continue as a Going Concern”, which provides guidance on determining when and how to disclose going-concern uncertainties in the financial statements. The new standard requires management to perform interim and annual assessments of an entity's ability to continue as a going concern within one year of the date the financial statements are issued. An entity must provide certain disclosures if conditions or events raise substantial doubt about the entity's ability to continue as a going concern. The ASU applies to all entities and is effective for annual periods ending after December 15, 2016, and interim periods thereafter, with early adoption permitted. The Company is currently evaluating the effect of the standard on its consolidated financial statements and related disclosures.

In February, 2016, FASB issued ASU No. 2016-02 “Leases” that requires a lessee to recognize the assets and liabilities that arise from operating leases. A lessee should recognize in the statement of financial position a liability to make lease payments (the lease liability) and a right-of-use asset representing its right to use the underlying asset for the lease term. For leases with a term of 12 months or less, a lessee is permitted to make an accounting policy election by class of underlying asset not to recognize lease assets and lease liabilities. The new guidance is effective for fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2018, including interim periods within those fiscal years. Early adoption is permitted. The Company is currently evaluating the effect of the standard on its consolidated financial statements and related disclosures.

In March 2016, FASB issued ASU No. 2016-07 "Investments - Equity Method and Joint Ventures (Topic 323): Simplifying the Transition to the Equity Method of Accounting". The amendments require upon qualifying for the equity method of accounting that no retroactive adjustment of the investment be made. In addition, the amendments require that an entity that has an available-for-sale equity security that becomes qualified for the equity method of accounting, recognize through earnings the unrealized holding gain or loss in accumulated other comprehensive income at the date the investment becomes qualified for use of the equity method. The amendments are effective for all entities for fiscal years, and interim periods within those fiscal years, beginning after December 15, 2016. The amendments should be applied prospectively upon their effective date to increases in the level of ownership interest or degree of influence that result in the adoption of the equity method. Early Adoption is permitted. The Company is currently evaluating the effect of the standard on its consolidated financial statements and related disclosures.

In March 2016, the FASB issued ASU No. 2016-08 "Revenue from Contracts with Customers (Topic 606): Principal versus Agent Considerations (Reporting Revenue Gross versus Net)". The amendments are intended to improve the operability and understandability of the implementation guidance on principal versus agent considerations by amending certain existing illustrative examples and adding additional illustrative examples to assist in the application of the guidance. The effective date and transition of these amendments is the same as the effective date and transition of ASU 2014-09, “Revenue from Contracts with Customers (Topic 606)”. Public entities should apply the amendments in ASU 2014-09 for annual reporting periods beginning after December 15, 2017, including interim reporting periods therein. Early adoption is permitted commencing January 1, 2017. The Company is currently evaluating the effect of the new revenue standard on its consolidated financial statements and related disclosures.

In March 2016, the FASB issued ASU No. 2016-09 “Compensation - Stock Compensation (Topic 718): Improvements to Employee Share-Based Payment Accounting”. Several aspects of the accounting for share-based payment award transactions are simplified, including: (a) income tax consequences; (b) classification of awards as either equity or liabilities; and (c) classification on the statement of cash flows. The amendments are effective for public companies for annual periods beginning after December 15, 2016, and interim periods within those annual periods. Early adoption is permitted for any interim or annual period. The Company is currently evaluating the effect of this standard on its consolidated financial statements and related disclosures.

In April 2016, the FASB issued ASU No. 2016-10 ‘’Revenue from Contracts with Customers (Topic 606) (“ASU 2016-10”): identifying Performance Obligations and Licensing”. The amendments add further guidance on identifying performance obligations and also improve the operability and understandability of the licensing implementation guidance. The amendments do not change the core principle of the guidance in Topic 606. The effective date and transition requirements for the amendments are the same as the effective date and transition requirements in Topic 606. Public entities should apply the amendments for annual reporting periods beginning after December 15, 2017, including interim reporting periods therein. Early application for public entities is permitted only as of annual reporting periods beginning after December 15, 2016, including interim reporting periods within that reporting period. The Company is currently evaluating the effect of this standard on its consolidated financial statements and related disclosures.        

Other recent accounting standards that have been issued or proposed by FASB or other standards-setting bodies that do not require adoption until a future date are not expected to have a material impact the Company's consolidated financial statements upon adoption.

XML

THE COMPANY AND SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES (Tables)

6 Months Ended

Jun. 30, 2016

Accounting Policies [Abstract]

Summary of Components Excluded from Computation of Diluted Net Loss Per Share

Potentially dilutive common shares from employee equity plans are determined by applying the treasury stock method to the assumed exercise of warrants and share options and were excluded from the computation of diluted net loss per share because their inclusion would be anti-dilutive and consist of the following:

	Three and Six months ended June 30,
	2016	2015
Stock options	1,738,642	1,398,332
Restricted Stock Units	469,902	517,926
Total	2,208,544	1,916,258

XML

COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES (Tables)

6 Months Ended

Jun. 30, 2016

Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]

Schedule of Operating Leases

Sublease income is recorded as a reduction in rental expense. Future minimum lease payments to be received under the sublease agreements as of June 30, 2016 are as follows (in thousands):

For the year ending December 31,	New York		Menlo Park		Total
2016, (remaining six months)	81		95		176
2017	165		178		343
2018	127		—		127
	$	373	$	273	646

The following table sets forth the Company’s aggregate future minimum payments under its operating lease commitments as of June 30, 2016 (in thousands):

For the year ending December 31,
2016, (remaining six months)	396
2017	781
2018	459
	$	1,636

XML

ACCRUED EXPENSES (Tables)

6 Months Ended

Jun. 30, 2016

Payables and Accruals [Abstract]

Schedule of accrued expenses

The components of accrued expenses are as below:

	June 30, 2016		December 31, 2015
	(in thousands)
Legal - Litigation / Licensing	2,530		100
Legal - Other	113		146
Compensation	255		204
Other	65		—
	$	2,963	$	450

XML

STOCKHOLDERS' EQUITY (Tables)

6 Months Ended

Jun. 30, 2016

Equity [Abstract]

Schedule of Weighted average Black-Scholes Option Pricing Model Assumptions

The Company estimates the fair values of stock options using the Black-Scholes option-pricing model. The assumptions used in the Black-Scholes option-pricing model and the weighted-average grant date fair value of the option awards for the periods presented were as follows:

	Three Months Ended June 30,							Six Months Ended June 30,
	2016			2015				2016			2015
Volatility	149		%	112		%		149% - 152%			94% - 112%
Expected term (in years)	7			6				7			6
Risk-free rate	1.26		%	1.54		%		1.22% - 1.26%			1.54% - 1.64%
Expected dividend yield	—		%	—		%		—	%		—	%
Weighted-average grant date fair value	$	1.15		$	1.16		$	0.96 - 1.15		$	1.16 - 2.42

XML

THE COMPANY AND SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES (Details) - shares	3 Months Ended		6 Months Ended
	Jun. 30, 2016	Jun. 30, 2015	Jun. 30, 2016	Jun. 30, 2015
Antidilutive Securities Excluded from Computation of Earnings Per Share [Line Items]
Antidilutive securities	2,208,544	1,916,258	2,208,544	1,916,258
Stock Options
Antidilutive Securities Excluded from Computation of Earnings Per Share [Line Items]
Antidilutive securities	1,738,642	1,398,332	1,738,642	1,398,332
Restricted Stock Units
Antidilutive Securities Excluded from Computation of Earnings Per Share [Line Items]
Antidilutive securities	469,902	517,926	469,902	517,926

XML

COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES - Future Minimum Payments (Details) $ in Thousands	Jun. 30, 2016 USD ($)
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
2016, (remaining six months)	$ 396
2017	781
2018	459
Total	$ 1,636

XML

COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES - Additional Information (Details) - USD ($) $ in Thousands			1 Months Ended	3 Months Ended		6 Months Ended		19 Months Ended
	Jun. 08, 2015	Nov. 21, 2013	May 31, 2016	Jun. 30, 2016	Jun. 30, 2015	Jun. 30, 2016	Jun. 30, 2015	Jun. 08, 2015	Dec. 31, 2015
Schedule of Investments [Line Items]
Deferred rent payable				$ 84		$ 84			$ 80
Rent expense				202	$ 175	398	$ 287
Rental income				86	$ 0	172	0
Cash investments						250	$ 0
Venture Capital Funds
Schedule of Investments [Line Items]
Capital commitment		$ 5,000		$ 3,000		$ 3,000
Percentage of limited partnership interest		10.00%
Cash distribution	$ 800
Gross entitlement	1,300
Remainder of gross entitlement reinvested	500
Cash investments			$ 300					$ 2,000
Total investment	$ 2,500							$ 2,500

XML

COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES - Sublease Income (Details) $ in Thousands	Jun. 30, 2016 USD ($)
Operating Leased Assets [Line Items]
2016, (remaining six months)	$ 176
2017	343
2018	127
Total future minimum sublease payments	646
New York, New York
Operating Leased Assets [Line Items]
2016, (remaining six months)	81
2017	165
2018	127
Total future minimum sublease payments	373
Menlo Park, California
Operating Leased Assets [Line Items]
2016, (remaining six months)	95
2017	178
2018	0
Total future minimum sublease payments	$ 273

XML

ACCRUED EXPENSES (Details) - USD ($) $ in Thousands	Jun. 30, 2016	Dec. 31, 2015
Payables and Accruals [Abstract]
Legal - Litigation / Licensing	$ 2,530	$ 100
Legal - Other	113	146
Compensation	255	204
Other	65	0
Total	$ 2,963	$ 450

XML

LICENSE, SETTLEMENT AND RELEASE AGREEMENT (Details) - Licensing Agreements - USD ($) $ in Thousands										3 Months Ended
	Jan. 13, 2017	Jun. 30, 2016	Jun. 06, 2016	Jun. 03, 2016	Jan. 15, 2016	Dec. 31, 2015	Dec. 30, 2015	Jan. 16, 2015	Sep. 24, 2014	Jun. 30, 2016	Jan. 03, 2018	Jan. 04, 2017	Sep. 30, 2016	Jun. 27, 2016
Finite-Lived Intangible Assets [Line Items]
License revenue										$ 1,650
License fee receivable									$ 8,000
License agreement installment					$ 2,000			$ 2,000	$ 3,000
Forecast
Finite-Lived Intangible Assets [Line Items]
License agreement installment	$ 1,000
European Cloud-Based Network Security Firm
Finite-Lived Intangible Assets [Line Items]
Sale of patent in license agreement		$ 565
Proofpoint and Amorize Technologies
Finite-Lived Intangible Assets [Line Items]
Sale of patent in license agreement				$ 10,900
Cash received from license agreement			$ 4,300
Receivable related to license agreement				6,600
License revenue		$ 4,300
License fee receivable				$ 10,900
Proofpoint and Amorize Technologies | Forecast
Finite-Lived Intangible Assets [Line Items]
Receivable related to license agreement											$ 3,300	$ 3,300
United States-based Third Party
Finite-Lived Intangible Assets [Line Items]
Sale of patent in license agreement							$ 3,650
Cash received from license agreement							1,000
Receivable related to license agreement							$ 1,000							$ 1,650
License revenue						$ 1,000
License fee receivable						$ 3,650
United States-based Third Party | Forecast
Finite-Lived Intangible Assets [Line Items]
Receivable related to license agreement													$ 1,000

XML

SERIES A PREFERRED STOCK (Details) $ / shares in Units, $ in Thousands		1 Months Ended	3 Months Ended
	May 06, 2016 USD ($) $ / shares shares	Aug. 09, 2016 USD ($) shares	Jun. 30, 2016 USD ($)	Dec. 31, 2015 USD ($)
Class of Stock [Line Items]
Preferred stock value			$ 0	$ 0
Series A Preferred Stock
Class of Stock [Line Items]
Multiplier of the OPP			2.8
Multiplier of the OPP if redeemed within 90 days of closing			1.5
Multiplier of the OPP if redeemed between 90 and 360 days of closing			1.65
Multiplier of the OPP if redeemed between 360 days and 720 days of closing			1.75
Multiplier thereafter OPP for every 90 day period the preferred remains outstanding			0.1
Preferred stock dividend			$ 5,100
Preferred stock value			14,970	$ 0
Redemption value			$ 15,300
Series A Preferred Stock | Subsequent Event
Class of Stock [Line Items]
Value of shares redeemed		$ 2,592
Numbers of shares redeemed (in shares) | shares		17,286
Reduction in the value of the preferred stock		$ 1,728
Reduction in the accretive value of the preferred stock		$ 864
Series A Preferred Stock | Private Placement
Class of Stock [Line Items]
Shares issued | shares	102,000
Price price per share (in dollars per share) | $ / shares	$ 100.00
Aggregate proceeds from private placement	$ 10,200
Issuance costs	$ 710

XML

STOCKHOLDERS' EQUITY - Additional Information (Details) - USD ($)	3 Months Ended		6 Months Ended
	Jun. 30, 2016	Jun. 30, 2015	Jun. 30, 2016	Jun. 30, 2015	Jul. 10, 2014
Share-based Compensation Arrangement by Share-based Payment Award [Line Items]
Aggregate intrinsic value	$ 0		$ 0
Stock-based compensation	$ 311,000	$ 100,000	$ 453,000	$ 455,000
Restricted Stock Units
Share-based Compensation Arrangement by Share-based Payment Award [Line Items]
Options granted (in shares)	200,000
Options forfeited (in shares)	0		20,000
Stock options
Share-based Compensation Arrangement by Share-based Payment Award [Line Items]
Options granted (in shares)	287,501		295,001
RSUs forfeited (in shares)	20,000			0
2014 Plan
Share-based Compensation Arrangement by Share-based Payment Award [Line Items]
Common stock authorized for issuance (in shares)					2,196,836
2014 Plan | Restricted Stock Units
Share-based Compensation Arrangement by Share-based Payment Award [Line Items]
RSUs issued (in shares)			836,872
RSUs outstanding (in shares)	469,902		469,902
2014 Plan | Restricted Stock Units | Minimum
Share-based Compensation Arrangement by Share-based Payment Award [Line Items]
Vesting period (in years)			3 years
Vesting percentage			25.00%
2014 Plan | Restricted Stock Units | Maximum
Share-based Compensation Arrangement by Share-based Payment Award [Line Items]
Vesting period (in years)			4 years
Vesting percentage			33.00%
Global Share Option Plan and Israeli Sub-Plan | Stock options
Share-based Compensation Arrangement by Share-based Payment Award [Line Items]
Options outstanding (in shares)	1,738,642		1,738,642

XML

STOCKHOLDERS' EQUITY (Details) - $ / shares	3 Months Ended		6 Months Ended
	Jun. 30, 2016	Jun. 30, 2015	Jun. 30, 2016	Jun. 30, 2015
Fair Value Inputs, Equity, Quantitative Information [Line Items]
Volatility	149.00%	112.00%
Expected term (in years)	7 years	6 years	7 years	6 years
Risk-free rate	1.26%	1.54%
Expected dividend yield	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
Weighted-average grant date fair value (in dollars per share)	$ 1.15	$ 1.16
Minimum
Fair Value Inputs, Equity, Quantitative Information [Line Items]
Volatility			149.00%	94.00%
Risk-free rate			1.22%	1.54%
Weighted-average grant date fair value (in dollars per share)			$ 0.96	$ 1.16
Maximum
Fair Value Inputs, Equity, Quantitative Information [Line Items]
Volatility			152.00%	112.00%
Risk-free rate			1.26%	1.64%
Weighted-average grant date fair value (in dollars per share)			$ 1.15	$ 2.42

XML

RELATED PARTY TRANSACTIONS (Details) - USD ($) $ in Thousands	3 Months Ended		6 Months Ended
	Jun. 30, 2016	Jun. 30, 2015	Jun. 30, 2016	Jun. 30, 2015	Dec. 31, 2015
Related Party Transaction [Line Items]
Ownership percentage	50.00%		50.00%
Legal Services | Chairman
Related Party Transaction [Line Items]
Legal fees	$ 38		$ 76
Amount Due to Firm	13		13		$ 13
Social Media and Investor Related Services | Chief Financial Officer
Related Party Transaction [Line Items]
Amount Due to Firm					$ 5
Fees related to social media and investor related services	$ 10	$ 22	$ 22	$ 38

XML

LITIGATION, CLAIMS AND ASSESSMENTS - Additional Information (Details) $ in Millions	Mar. 11, 2016 inter_parts_review patent	Feb. 26, 2016 inter_parts_review patent	Jan. 14, 2016 inter_parts_review patent	Dec. 17, 2015 inter_parts_review patent	Dec. 10, 2015 patent	Sep. 10, 2015 inter_parts_review	Aug. 20, 2015 inter_parts_review	Aug. 04, 2015 USD ($)
Blue Coat Systems, Inc
Loss Contingencies [Line Items]
Damages awarded | $								$ 39.5
Number of IPRs | inter_parts_review				5
Number of patents asserted | patent				7
Symantec Corp
Loss Contingencies [Line Items]
Number of IPRs | inter_parts_review						11	8
Symantec Corp | Denied
Loss Contingencies [Line Items]
Number of IPRs | inter_parts_review	2	2	6
Number of patents asserted | patent	10	8	5
Palo Alto Networks, Inc
Loss Contingencies [Line Items]
Number of patents asserted | patent					10