`
` Case IPR2014-00172
`
`
`
`Paper No.
`Filed: February 11, 2014
`
`
`Filed on behalf of: VirnetX Inc.
`By:
`Joseph E. Palys
`
`Naveen Modi
`Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow,
` Garrett & Dunner, L.L.P.
`11955 Freedom Drive
`Reston, VA 20190-5675
`Telephone: 571-203-2700
`Facsimile: 202-408-4400
`E-mail: joseph.palys@finnegan.com
`
` naveen.modi@finnegan.com
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`RPX CORPORATION
`Petitioner
`v.
`VIRNETX INC.
`Patent Owner
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00172
`Patent 6,502,135
`
`
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Response to Board’s Order Regarding Discovery
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00172
`
`
`I.
`
`Introduction
`In accordance with the Board’s order during the February 7, 2014,
`
`teleconference, and Order entered on February 10, 2014 (Paper No. 23)
`
`(collectively referred to herein as “Board’s Order”), VirnetX, RPX, and Apple
`
`conferred regarding VirnetX’s discovery contained in Exhibits 2002-2005.
`
`Although the parties were able to reach agreement with respect to certain issues,
`
`the parties were not able to completely resolve all the issues. This paper describes
`
`the agreement the parties were able to reach, discovery that VirnetX continues to
`
`seek, and other related issues discussed by the parties.
`
`II. Agreement Between the Parties
`The parties agreed that RPX will respond to the following requests for
`
`production that were contained in Exhibit 2002, and RPX will produce the
`
`documents under seal in accordance with the provisions of the Default Protective
`
`Order. The parties also agreed that production of agreements in response to
`
`request (b) below shall not constitute waiver of any privilege with respect to those
`
`agreements.
`
`Requests for Production to RPX
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00172
`
`(b) Engagement agreements or retainer agreements and corresponding
`
`
`
`termination agreements between RPX and Sidley Austin relating to the RPX IPRs.
`
`Other Agreement
`
`In addition, to reduce redundancy, the parties agreed that in response to
`
`requests for production to Apple, Apple would not need to produce any documents
`
`that have been already produced by RPX. Accordingly, VirnetX has modified its
`
`discovery requests to Apple appropriately. See Section III.
`
`III. Revised Discovery Sought By VirnetX
`
`The parties discussed VirnetX’s remaining requests and were not able to
`
`reach an agreement. In accordance with the Board’s Order regarding the scope of
`
`discovery that the Board will allow, VirnetX has narrowed the discovery it is
`
`seeking.1 First, VirnetX withdraws Request for Production No. 5 and Interrogatory
`
`Nos. 2 and 4 directed to RPX, and Request for Production No. 3 directed to Apple.
`
`Second, VirnetX requests that the Board order RPX and Apple to provide the
`
`following discovery, which has been narrowed. VirnetX’s original instructions
`
`and definitions contained in Exhibits 2002-2005 would apply to these requests.
`
`
`1 VirnetX continues to believe that the discovery contained in Exhibits 2002-
`
`2005 is proper and in the interests of justice. Nonetheless, VirnetX has narrowed
`
`the discovery it seeks in accordance with the Board’s Order.
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00172
`
`
`Requests for Production to RPX
`
`(a) Communications between you and Apple regarding the RPX IPRs,
`
`including communications relating to challenging U.S. Patent Nos. 6,502,135;
`
`7,418,504; 7,490,151; and 7,921,211 at the United States Patent and Trademark
`
`Office and assistance with, filing, and/or preparation of any papers related to the
`
`RPX IPRs. Please note that in response to this request, you do not need to produce
`
`any communications that include VirnetX or its counsel.
`
`(b) Communications through November 22, 2013 (the date of filing of
`
`corrected petitions in IPR2014-00176 and -00177) between you and Apple
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Interrogatories to RPX
`
`(a) Identify communications and/or agreements called for in the Requests
`
`for Production to RPX that were not reduced to writing.
`
`(b) Identify communications through January 16, 2014 (the date the Board
`
`authorized VirnetX to file a motion for additional discovery) between you and
`
`Sidley Austin regarding the RPX IPRs, including communications relating to the
`
`challenging of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,502,135; 7,418,504; 7,490,151; and 7,921,211 at
`
`the United States Patent and Trademark Office and assistance with, filing, and/or
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00172
`
`preparation of any papers related to the RPX IPRs. Please note that in response to
`
`
`
`this interrogatory, you do not need to identify any communications that include
`
`VirnetX or its counsel.
`
`Requests for Production to Apple
`
`(a) Communications between you and RPX or Sidley Austin regarding the
`
`RPX IPRs (other than those produced by RPX), including communications relating
`
`to assisting with, filing, and/or preparing any papers related to the RPX IPRs. For
`
`the communications between Apple and Sidley Austin, VirnetX only seeks
`
`communications
`
`through
`
`the alleged termination date of Sidley Austin’s
`
`representation of RPX.
`
`(b) Communications through November 22, 2013 (the date of filing of
`
`corrected petitions in IPR2014-00176 and -00177) between you and RPX
`
`
`
`
`
`Deposition Topic to Apple
`
`
`
`Communications in the Requests for Production to Apple that were not
`
`reduced to writing, including identifying those communications.
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00172
`
`
`IV. Other Issues
`In addition to the scope of the requests, the parties discussed whether in lieu
`
`of the interrogatories to RPX, RPX will provide written witness statement(s)
`
`followed by written questions or cross examination by VirnetX. The parties were
`
`not able to reach an agreement. VirnetX noted that the witness statement(s) are not
`
`appropriate but that it is amenable to conducting deposition(s) covering the scope
`
`of the topics in the interrogatories.
`
`V. Conclusion
`VirnetX understands from the Board’s Order that in this paper, the Board
`
`wants the parties to solely identify the discovery and not argue about its scope.
`
`(See Exhibit 2027 at 12:8-15, 16:14-17:2.) If, however, Apple or RPX argue about
`
`the scope, VirnetX requests that the Board either not consider their arguments or
`
`allow VirnetX to respond before the Board decides the scope of the discovery.
`
`Dated: February 11, 2014
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`By: /Joseph E. Palys/
`Joseph E. Palys
`Reg. No. 46,508
`
`Counsel for VirnetX Inc.
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`
` Case IPR2014-00172
`
`Certificate of Service
`I certify that I caused to be served on the counsel identified below a true and
`
`correct copy of the foregoing Patent Owner’s Response to Board’s Order
`
`Regarding Discovery by electronic means on February 11, 2014:
`
`Oliver R. Ashe, Jr.
`Ashe, P.C.
`11440 Isaac Newton Sq. North, Suite 210
`Reston, VA 20190
`
`Gregory M. Howison
`Howison & Arnott, LLP
`Lincoln Centre II
`5420 LBJ Freeway, Suite 660
`Dallas, TX 75240
`
`Jeffrey P. Kushan
`Joseph A. Micallef
`Sidley Austin LLP
`1501 K Street NW
`Washington, DC 20005
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`By: /Joseph E. Palys/
`Joseph E. Palys
`Reg. No. 46,508
`
`Counsel for VirnetX Inc.
`
`
`
`
`Dated: February 11, 2014
`
`
`
`