throbber
Paper No.
`Filed: December 9, 2015
`
`Naveen Modi
`Paul Hastings LLP
`875 15th Street NW
`Washington, DC 20005
`Telephone: (202) 551-1990
`Facsimile: (202) 551-0490
`E-mail: naveenmodi@paulhastings.com
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`THE MANGROVE PARTNERS MASTER FUND, LTD.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`VIRNETX INC.
`Patent Owner
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-01046
`Patent 6,502,135
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Motion for Additional Discovery
`
`
`
`
`Filed on behalf of: VirnetX Inc.
`By:
`
`Joseph E. Palys
`Paul Hastings LLP
`875 15th Street NW
`Washington, DC 20005
`Telephone: (202) 551-1996
`Facsimile: (202) 551-0496
`E-mail: josephpalys@paulhastings.com
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2015-01046
`
`Table of Contents
`
`Introduction and Precise Relief Requested ...................................................... 1
`
`Background ...................................................................................................... 1
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`The Mangrove Entities .......................................................................... 1
`
`Petitioner’s Acknowledgements ............................................................ 3
`
`III. Reasons for the Requested Relief .................................................................... 4
`
`IV. Conclusion ....................................................................................................... 8
`
`
`
`
`
`i
`
`

`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2015-01046
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
` Page(s)
`
`Cases
`Garmin Int’l, Inc. v. Cuozzo Speed Techs. LLC,
`IPR2012-00001, Paper No. 26 (Mar. 5, 2013) ............................................. 5, 6, 8
`
`In re Guan, Control No. 95/001,045,
`Decision Vacating Filing Date (Aug. 25, 2008) ................................................... 5
`
`Reflectix, Inc. v. Promethean Insulation Tech. LLC,
`IPR2015-00039, Paper No. 18 (Apr. 24, 2015) .................................................... 5
`
`Federal Statutes
`
`35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(2) ................................................................................................. 5
`
`Federal Rules
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.51(b)(2) .............................................................................................. 1
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.52(a) ................................................................................................... 1
`
`Other Authorities
`
`77 Fed. Reg. 157 ........................................................................................................ 5
`
`
`
`ii
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`I.
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2015-01046
`
`Introduction and Precise Relief Requested
`
`Patent Owner requests that the Board authorize the discovery contained in
`
`Exhibits 2039-2040. See 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.51(b)(2), 42.52(a). The Board
`
`authorized this motion in an email to the parties on December 4, 2015.
`
`II. Background
`The Mangrove Partners Master Fund, Ltd. is an entity set up in the Cayman
`
`Islands that has no control over its own actions. By design, it receives funding,
`
`operates, and pays out profits entirely at the discretion of others, including (1)
`
`Mangrove Partners (“the Mangrove Partners Hedge Fund”); (2) Nathaniel August
`
`(President and majority owner of the Mangrove Partners Hedge Fund); (3) The
`
`Mangrove Partners Fund, L.P. (“the US Feeder”); (4) The Mangrove Partners Fund
`
`(Cayman), Ltd. (“the Cayman Feeder”); (5) Mangrove Capital (the General Partner
`
`of the US Feeder); and (6) the investors in the US Feeder and the Cayman Feeder,
`
`as explained below.
`
`The Board previously found that there were insufficient facts to show that
`
`these entities were real-parties-in-interest (“RPIs”). See generally Paper No. 19.
`
`While Patent Owner respectfully disagrees, the underlying facts do show at a
`
`minimum that there is more than a possibility and mere allegation that each of
`
`these entities is a RPI, thus supporting the requested discovery.
`
`A. The Mangrove Entities
`Nathaniel August is President and majority owner of the Mangrove Partners
`
` 1
`
`
`
`

`
`
`Hedge Fund. (See Ex. 2002 at 1-2; Ex. 2001 at 3.) In its role as “investment
`
`Case No. IPR2015-01046
`
`manager,” the Mangrove Partners Hedge Fund has “complete discretion” to control
`
`the investments of the US Feeder, the Cayman Feeder, and Petitioner. (Ex. 2001 at
`
`3, 17.) The Mangrove Partners Hedge Fund requires investors to provide a
`
`“minimum initial investment of $1,000,000,” (Ex. 2001 at 6). Pursuant to a
`
`master-feeder structure, the investments would be fed into the US Feeder or the
`
`Cayman Feeder, and in turn funneled to Petitioner. (Ex. 2001 at 3-4; Ex. 2041 at
`
`6-10; Ex. 2015 at 34-35.) Petitioner has not disputed that the funds from its
`
`investors were used for this proceeding.
`
`The Mangrove Partners Hedge Fund and Nathaniel August have repeatedly
`
`signed documents on behalf of Petitioner, the US Feeder, the Cayman Feeder, and
`
`Mangrove Capital.1 (See, e.g., Ex. 2007 at 11-12; Ex. 2008 at 12; Ex. 2009 at 11;
`
`Ex. 2010 at 11; Ex. 2011 at 11; Ex. Ex. 2012 at 11; Ex. 2013 at 5, 11.) These
`
`entities have also in the past publicly acted as a collective, referring to themselves
`
`as “Mangrove.” (Ex. 2014 at 1, 3, 4.) Thus, it is likely that these entities also
`
`acted collectively in controlling and funding this proceeding, including preparing
`
`1 Mangrove Capital is an “affiliate” of the Mangrove Partners Hedge Fund and
`
`“serves as the general partner of the US Feeder.” (Id. at 3.) The Mangrove
`
`Partners Hedge Fund and Mangrove Capital are “under common control.” (Ex.
`
`2041 at 5.)
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`
`
`and filing the petition here.
`
`Case No. IPR2015-01046
`
`Indicative of this collective effort in the petition, Ward Dietrich held himself
`
`out as an “authorized person” to sign the Power of Attorney on behalf of Petitioner.
`
`See Paper No. 2 at 2. Ward Dietrich is Chief Operating Officer of the Mangrove
`
`Partners Master Fund. (See Ex. 2002 at 2.) However, he has no public role in
`
`Petitioner, with only Nathaniel August, Kevin Phillip, and David Bree listed as
`
`Petitioner’s Directors in SEC filings. (Ex. 2041 at 6.)
`
`Petitioner’s Acknowledgements
`
`B.
`Petitioner has never denied involvement of the other Mangrove entities in
`
`this proceeding. To the contrary, Petitioner appears to have conceded as much.
`
`For example, when Patent Owner raised the RPI issue in a Request for Rehearing,
`
`Petitioner offered to file a “contingent motion to amend the real parties in interest.”
`
`Paper No. 18 at 2. Given that the determination of whether “a party who is not
`
`named as a participant in a given proceeding constitutes an RPI is a highly fact
`
`dependent question,” see Paper No. 19 at 3, Petitioner’s willingness to change RPI
`
`demonstrates that there is more than a possibility and mere allegation that it
`
`incorrectly identified the RPIs in this proceeding.
`
`During a meet-and-confer process suggested by the Board (see Ex. 2042 at
`
`27:3-12), Petitioner’s counsel indicated that Petitioner was willing to name all of
`
`the entities discussed in Section II.A, other than the investors, as RPIs, and was
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`
`
`also willing to provide additional discovery. In fact, Petitioner’s counsel indicated
`
`Case No. IPR2015-01046
`
`that Petitioner had already collected certain material responsive to draft discovery
`
`requests provided by Patent Owner. Petitioner’s counsel further conceded an
`
`individual named Jeffrey Kalicka (the Mangrove Partners Hedge Fund’s Senior
`
`Analyst) was involved in the preparation of the petition here, despite the fact that,
`
`like Ward Dietrich, he has no public role in Petitioner. (Ex. 2041 at 6.)
`
`Despite the concessions during the meet-and-confer process, Petitioner was
`
`only willing to correct its RPI designation and/or provide additional discovery if
`
`Patent Owner agreed to waive its right to challenge Petitioner’s failure to properly
`
`identify the RPIs. Patent Owner did not agree to Petitioner’s proposal. For one,
`
`Patent Owner does not believe it is required to waive its rights so that Petitioner
`
`can meet its statutory obligation. In addition, as Patent Owner’s counsel explained
`
`to Petitioner’s counsel, RPI is a highly fact-specific inquiry that cannot be
`
`negotiated. It would be improper for some RPIs to be named and others to be
`
`omitted based on an agreement between the parties. Petitioner’s willingness to
`
`negotiate the identified RPIs shows that it failed to consider the necessary factual
`
`inquiries prior to filing its petition and now recognizes that there is an issue.
`
`III. Reasons for the Requested Relief
`Patent Owner requests discovery that will further show that Mangrove
`
`Partners, Nathaniel August, the US Feeder, the Cayman Feeder, Mangrove Capital,
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`
`
`and the investors (collectively, “the other Mangrove entities”), are RPIs, and
`
`Case No. IPR2015-01046
`
`therefore, that Petitioner violated the statutory requirements of 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 312(a)(2). Aside from being a statutory requirement, the Board relies on “RPI to
`
`determine conflicts of interest for the Office [and] the credibility of evidence
`
`presented in a proceeding,” Reflectix, Inc. v. Promethean Insulation Tech. LLC,
`
`IPR2015-00039, Paper No. 18 at 8 (Apr. 24, 2015) (citing GEA Process Eng’g Inc.
`
`v. Steuben Foods, Inc., IPR2014-00041, Paper No. 140 at 24 (Feb. 11, 2015)), and
`
`to “assure proper application of the statutory estoppel provisions.” 77 Fed. Reg.
`
`157 at 48759; see also In re Guan, Control No. 95/001,045, Decision Vacating
`
`Filing Date (Aug. 25, 2008). As discussed in turn below, Patent Owner’s
`
`discovery requests meet the factors set forth in Garmin Int’l, Inc. v. Cuozzo Speed
`
`Techs. LLC, IPR2012-00001, Paper No. 26 (Mar. 5, 2013).
`
`More Than a Possibility and Mere Allegation: Patent Owner’s discovery
`
`narrowly focuses on the nature and scope of the relationship between Petitioner
`
`and the other Mangrove entities as it pertains to this proceeding. (See Exs. 2039-
`
`2040.) The discovery is based on known aspects of the relationship between
`
`Petitioner and the other Mangrove entities discussed above (more than a possibility
`
`and mere allegation), and is calculated to render useful information that is
`
`favorable to Patent Owner’s contention that this proceeding should be dismissed
`
`under 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(2) for failing to identify the other Mangrove entities as
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`
`
`RPIs. See Garmin, IPR2012-00001, Paper No. 26 at 7.
`
`Case No. IPR2015-01046
`
`There is a strong likelihood that the requested material exists. For example,
`
`the material sought in Request For Production (“RFP”) No. 1 is likely to exist
`
`given the legal relationships between the Mangrove entities and the involvement of
`
`Ward Dietrich and Jeffrey Kalicka in the preparation and filing of the petition in
`
`this proceeding (despite the fact that neither is officially affiliated with Petitioner).
`
`The material sought in RFP No. 2 is likely to exist given that, by its very nature as
`
`a master fund, Petitioner is only intended to profit on behalf of others (i.e., the US
`
`Feeder and the Cayman Feeder, and, in turn, the investors in the US Feeder and the
`
`Cayman Feeder), and thus arrangements as to funds, stock, stock options, or other
`
`consideration are likely to exist. The material sought in RFP Nos. 3-4 is almost
`
`certain to exist given that, for example, law firms enter into engagement
`
`agreements or retainer agreements prior to commencing work, and generate
`
`invoices as work is performed, and are likely to be highly probative of whether
`
`Petitioner or the other Mangrove entities engaged the counsel listed in the petition
`
`for this proceeding and who is funding the proceeding.
`
`The material sought in Interrogatory No. 1 is likely to exist for the same
`
`reasons discussed above for RFP Nos. 1-4. As to Interrogatory Nos. 2-4, the
`
`persons or entities covered by the requests necessarily exist (e.g., someone
`
`necessarily was involved in the preparation and filing of the petition here), should
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`
`
`be readily identifiable as a simple factual query, and are highly probative of RPI.
`
`Case No. IPR2015-01046
`
`In addition to the requests in Exhibits 2039-2040, Patent Owner also
`
`requests that, given Nathaniel August’s role in the Mangrove entities, he be made
`
`available for a four hour deposition regarding the entities and individuals involved
`
`in the control and funding of this proceeding. Patent Owner, however, is willing to
`
`hold this request in abeyance until after Petitioner has responded to the other
`
`requests and Patent Owner determines whether a deposition is still necessary.
`
`Litigation Positions and Underlying Basis: Patent Owner, Petitioner, and
`
`the other Mangrove entities are not in district-court litigation, and none of Patent
`
`Owner’s requests implicate litigation positions or strategies of Petitioner or the
`
`other Mangrove entities. Patent Owner also does not seek to prematurely learn
`
`Petitioner’s or the other Mangrove entities’ positions in these IPRs.
`
`Ability to Generate Equivalent Information by Other Means: Patent
`
`Owner’s discovery requests narrowly target information about the relationship
`
`between Petitioner and the other Mangrove entities that is not publicly available.
`
`While public documents, including those filed with the SEC, suggest the other
`
`Mangrove entities are likely RPIs, the Board found this was not enough to show
`
`the other Mangrove entities were necessarily controlling or funding this
`
`proceeding. See generally Paper No. 19.
`
`Easily Understandable Instructions: Patent Owner’s instructions (see Exs.
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`
`
`2039-2040 at 1-2) are easily understandable and are based on the instructions
`
`Case No. IPR2015-01046
`
`already approved by the Board in Garmin. IPR2012-00001, Paper No. 26 at 14.
`
`Requests Not Overly Burdensome: The requested discovery is “sensible
`
`and responsibly tailored according to a genuine need.” See Garmin at 14-16.
`
`Petitioner’s compliance with the requested discovery will not require significant
`
`expenditure of resources or place a significant burden on meeting deadlines in this
`
`proceeding. Petitioner’s counsel in fact conceded that Petitioner had already
`
`collected certain material responsive to draft discovery requests provided by Patent
`
`Owner. Moreover, any alleged financial, human resource, or time burden merely
`
`represents the cost of an RPI factual inquiry that should have been performed
`
`before the petition in this proceeding was filed.
`
`IV. Conclusion
`Based on the above, Patent owner respectfully requests that the Board allow
`
`the discovery contained in Exhibits 2039-2040.
`
`Dated: December 9, 2015
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`By: /Joseph E. Palys/
`Joseph E. Palys
`Registration No. 46,508
`
`Counsel for VirnetX Inc.
`
`
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2015-01046
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(e), I certify that I caused to be served on the
`
`counsel for Petitioner a true and correct copy of the foregoing Patent Owner’s
`
`Preliminary Response pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.8 by electronic means on the date
`
`below at the following address of record:
`
`Abraham Kasdan (akasdan@wiggin.com)
`Wiggin and Dana LLP
`450 Lexington Avenue
`New York, NY 10017
`
`James T. Bailey (jtb@jtbaileylaw.com)
`504 W. 136th St. #1B
`New York, NY 10031
`
`IP@wiggin.com
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
` /Joseph E. Palys/
`Joseph E. Palys
`Counsel for VirnetX Inc.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated: December 9, 2015

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket