`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`___________________
`
`
`RPX, INC.
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`VIRNETX, INC. AND SCIENCE APPLICATION INTERNATIONAL
`CORPORATION,
`Patent Owner
`
`Patent No. 6,502,135
`Issued: December 31, 2002
`Filed: November 29, 1999
`Inventors: Victor Larson, et al.
`Title: Agile Network Protocol For Secure Communications
`With Assured System Availability
`____________________
`
`Inter Partes Review No. IPR2014-00171
`__________________________________________________________________
`
`THIRD PARTY APPLE’S OPPOSITION TO PATENT OWNER’S
`MOTION FOR ADDITIONAL DISCOVERY
`
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 24
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00171 – Apple’s Opposition to Additional Discovery
`
`VirnetX’s requested discovery should be denied. First, VirnetX presents no
`
`basis, beyond its own speculation, to support its discovery demands. It identifies
`
`no evidence to suggest Apple exercised any control over RPX’s decision to prepare
`
`or file the RPX petitions, and mischaracterizes what it seeks, stating its discovery
`
`“narrowly target[s non-public] information about
`
`,”
`
`when, in reality; it seeks any information “regarding the RPX IPRs” to be used in
`
`both this IPR and related district court proceedings. VirnetX also improperly
`
`dismisses the burden of its discovery, ignoring that its requested discovery of
`
`Apple, by its very nature, is duplicative of what it demands from RPX. It similarly
`
`dismisses legitimate concerns about forcing Apple to reveal its litigation strategies
`
`and positions, including privileged communications. And, throughout its motion,
`
`VirnetX fails to show how the discovery it seeks relates specifically to the RPX
`
`petitions – the necessary focus of the privity inquiry.
`
`I.
`
`VirnetX Has Not Shown that Relevant Evidence Actually Exists
`
`Although it argues its discovery “seek[s] only a small set of materials
`
`directly related to the RPX IPRs,” Mot. at 7, VirnetX’s actual requests seek any
`
`evidence “regarding the RPX IPRs,” regardless when that evidence might have
`
`come into existence, whether it is privileged or whether it is even relevant to the
`
`issue of privity or these IPR proceedings. Ex. 2004 at 4; Ex. 2005 at 1. Given
`
`VirnetX’s admission they would seek to use whatever they discover in their district
`
`1
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00171 – Apple’s Opposition to Additional Discovery
`
`court discovery efforts here (Ex. 1074 at 30:21-31:17; Ex. 1077 at 14:8-15:10), one
`
`can assume they will use this discovery to aid their district court litigation.
`
`But even if the discovery were limited to interactions between Apple and
`
`RPX before the RPX petitions were filed, it should be denied. VirnetX has
`
`produced nothing to show the evidence they seek exists, much less that it
`
`specifically concerns the preparation or filing of the RPX petitions, and ignores the
`
`substantial evidence to the contrary. For example, it presents nothing to counter
`
`the unequivocal statements in the RPX petitions that RPX was solely responsible
`
`for (i) its decision to contest the VirnetX patents, (ii) picking which claims to
`
`contest, (iii) selecting the grounds to raise, and (iv) paying the costs of preparing
`
`the petitions and conducting the proceedings (Pet. at 6), statements which counsel
`
`for RPX expressly confirmed in response to questions from the panel. Ex. 2001 at
`
`63:12-65:6.
`
`. In three Board calls and in its motion,
`
`.
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00171 – Apple’s Opposition to Additional Discovery
`
`Instead, VirnetX presents only irrelevant speculation. First, it theorizes that
`
`if RPX successfully establishes that VirnetX’s patent claims are unpatentable, it
`
`will have “advanced Apple’s interests.” Mot. at 2. But the Board has recognized
`
`that is irrelevant to privity. See IPR2013-00215, Paper 10 at 4. Indeed, any of the
`
`companies VirnetX has sued under these patents would equally benefit if RPX
`
`prevails. And VirnetX cites nothing to support its contention that
`
`
`
`
`
` (Mot. at 1). VirnetX also does not address the evidence in its
`
`own exhibits that shows that RPX pursues a wide variety of activities (only one of
`
`which is initiating PTO proceedings) to advance its openly stated corporate
`
`mission of mitigating risks from patents of questionable validity. See Ex. 2006 at
`
`1; Ex. 2007 at 6-7.
`
`VirnetX also speculates that Apple must have controlled the RPX petitions
`
`because “RPX contends the grounds in its petitions are ‘substantially identical’ to
`
`the time-barred non-instituted Apple petitions.” Mot. at 1. But, the Apple
`
`petitions are publicly available, as are more than 3 years of inter partes
`
`reexamination records concerning the VirnetX patent claims, Ex. 2001 at 68:16-20,
`
`and as the Board noted in a recent call, it is common practice for one party to copy
`
`publicly available material from PTAB files and use them in its own filing.
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00171 – Apple’s Opposition to Additional Discovery
`
`
`. Mot. at 2. VirnetX
`
`strains to attach significance to this fact, claiming that “RPX and Apple took care
`
`not to share with the Board the relationship between RPX and Apple’s counsel”
`
`(Id. at 2)
`
` Yet, Sidley’s
`
`representation of RPX was freely admitted, so no further discovery is necessary to
`
`establish this fact. And, while VirnetX labels
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`, much less
`
`evidence contradicting the RPX statements that it was solely responsible for
`
`preparing and filing its petitions. Ex. 2001 at 63:12-65:6; Ex. 1074 at 12:11-20.
`
`In any event, prior Board decisions refute the legal premise of this theory.
`
`For example, in IPR2013-00028, which presents facts closely analogous to this
`
`proceeding, Patent Owner contended because Petitioner’s counsel “represent[ed]
`
`some of the co-defendants in a related litigation the co-defendants have had an
`
`opportunity to exercise control” of the Petition. Id., Paper 31 at 4 (emphasis
`
`added). The Board dismissed that argument as speculation, observing that Patent
`
`Owner identified no evidence suggesting the co-defendants actually “have
`
`exercised control of [the] proceeding in any manner.” Id. Notably, the Board
`
`relied on representations from Petitioner’s counsel that the “real party-in-interest
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00171 – Apple’s Opposition to Additional Discovery
`
`information is correct and has not changed,” and that counsel understood it was
`
`“under a continuing duty of candor to update any changes in the representations
`
`they have made.” Id. The same representations were made by RPX in this
`
`proceeding. Pet. at 6; Ex. 2001 at 63:12-65:6.
`
`VirnetX cites In re Guan, Control No. 95/001,045 (Aug. 25, 2008), a case
`
`where it was established that a third party funded and directed the requestor’s
`
`conduct in connection with a specific reexamination proceeding. The evidence of
`
`record here establishes the contrary – it shows Apple had no role in these RPX
`
`petitions. The other cases VirnetX cites are simply irrelevant. In Asahi Glass Co.
`
`v. Toledo Eng’g Co., 505 F.Supp.2d 423 (N.D. Ohio 2007), the court found issue
`
`preclusion not because the lawyers shared counsel, but because they formed a joint
`
`defense group to defend a trade secret claim and had reciprocal indemnity
`
`agreements relating to that claim. Asahi at 434. In Phelps v. Hamilton, 122 F.3d
`
`1309 (10th Cir. 1997), the court found privity because the plaintiff “could be said
`
`to be directly responsible … for ‘controlling’ the entire course of the state court
`
`proceedings.” Id., 122 F.3d at 1319. These two district court cases also present
`
`facts not even remotely similar to those present in these proceedings.
`
`At bottom, VirnetX’s motion asks the Board to infer Apple control simply
`
`from the existence of
`
`. But the
`
`Board has found far closer commercial relationships between parties insufficient to
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00171 – Apple’s Opposition to Additional Discovery
`
`establish privity. For example, in IPR2013-00215, the Board found no privity
`
`despite finding: (i) petitioner a joint venture partly owned by the disputed party,
`
`(ii) directors from that disputed party served on the board of the petitioner, (iii) the
`
`petitioner and disputed party had an ongoing relationship and a mutual interest in
`
`the outcome of the proceeding. Id., Paper 10 at 3-4. The Board found no privity
`
`because, as here, there was no evidence of control of the petitioner by the disputed
`
`party in connection with the petition. Id.; see also IPR2013-00178, Paper 22 at 6-7
`
`(Sept. 4, 2013) (privity requires both parties to a joint venture to exercise control
`
`over conduct of the proceeding). Thus, absent some evidence of control, additional
`
`discovery on privity grounds is not warranted. IPR2013-00215, Paper 10 at 4.
`
`And while VirnetX points to factors other than control and funding in its
`
`brief (Mot. at 4.), this is a red herring – it does not even identify any such “other”
`
`factors, and its discovery plainly targets control and funding.
`
`II. Numerous Factors Weigh Against Granting VirnetX’s Discovery
`VirnetX improperly dismisses several factors the Board has found to weigh
`
`against the grant of additional discovery. First, it ignores that its requests are
`
`unduly burdensome, demanding information without limit as to time or specific
`
`relevance to this proceeding. See Ex. 2004 at 4; Ex. 2005 at 1. Next, it dismisses
`
`concerns about requiring Apple to reveal its litigation positions on privity,
`
`asserting that “identification of RPI/privies” is proper simply because it is timely.
`
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00171 – Apple’s Opposition to Additional Discovery
`
`Mot. at 6. Timeliness is not a justification, let alone a compelling justification, to
`
`order this extraordinary discovery. VirnetX next dismisses its ability to obtain
`
`equivalent information by other means, stating it cannot use in these proceedings
`
`any information it obtains via its parallel discovery efforts in district court. This
`
`statement both contradicts what its counsel told the Panel (Ex. 1077 at 14:8-15:10)
`
`and misses the point – its proposed discovery at best would prove facts already
`
`established and, almost by definition, is duplicative of what it might obtain from
`
`RPX. Finally, VirnetX presents no justification for its unprecedented demand for
`
`production of Apple’s privileged information. Instead, VirnetX halfheartedly
`
`contends Apple has waived privilege because it has “selectively chosen to disclose
`
`certain information” (Mot. at 5), but VirnetX identifies no disclosure that presents
`
`a legally cognizable basis for finding a waiver. See, e.g., Ex. 1074 at 25:12-17;
`
`8:15-22. And Apple’s right to redact documents or produce privilege logs is not a
`
`justification for authorizing discovery – it is simply another unjustifiable burden
`
`that would be imposed on Apple.
`
`III. Conclusion
`Because VirnetX has failed to show that it is necessary in the interests of
`
`justice, the Board should deny its motion for additional discovery.
`
`
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00171 – Apple’s Opposition to Additional Discovery
`
`
`
`Respectfully Submitted,
`
`/Jeffrey P. Kushan/
`Jeffrey P. Kushan (Reg No. 43,401)
`Sidley Austin LLP
`1501 K Street NW
`Washington, DC 20005
`jkushan@sidley.com
`
`Dated: February 3, 2014
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00171 – Apple’s Opposition to Additional Discovery
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I hereby certify that on this 3rd day of February 2014, a copy of this Third
`
`Party Apple Inc.’s Opposition to Patent Owner’s Motion for Additional Discovery,
`
`has been served in its entirety by e-mail on the following counsel of record:
`
`Joseph E. Palys
`Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett
`& Dunner, L.L.P.
`11955 Freedom Drive
`Reston, VA 20190-5675
`Phone: (571) 203-2700
`Fax: (202) 408-4400
`E-mail: joseph.palys@finnegan.com
`
`Oliver R. Ashe, Jr., Esq
`Ashe, P.C.
`1140 Isaac Newton Sq. North
`Suite 210
`Reston, VA 20190
`Phone: (703) 467-9001
`Fax: (703) 467-9002
`E-mail: oashe@ashepc.com
`
`
`Naveen Modi
`Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett
`& Dunner, L.L.P.
`901 New York Avenue, NW
`Washington, DC 20001-4413
`Telephone: 202-408-4065
`Facsimile: 202-408-4400
`E-mail: naveen.modi@finnegan.com
`
`Gregory M. Howison
`Howison & Arnott, LLP
`Lincoln Centre II
`5420 LBJ Freeway, Suite 660
`Dallas, TX 75240
`Phone: (972) 680-6050
`Fax: (972) 479-0464
`E-mail: ghowison@dalpat.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated: February 3, 2014
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/Jeffrey P. Kushan/
`Jeffrey P. Kushan
`Reg. No. 43,401
`
`9
`
`