throbber
Paper No.
`Filed: January 4, 2016
`
`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
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`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 IPR2015-01047
`Patent No. 7,490,151
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Request for Rehearing Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d)(1)
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2015-01047
`
`Table of Contents
`
`INTRODUCTION AND PRECISE RELIEF REQUESTED ......................... 1
`
`LEGAL STANDARD ..................................................................................... 2
`
`III. STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR RELIEF REQUESTED ........................ 2
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`The Decision Overlooked the Requirements of an RPI Inquiry ........... 2
`
`The Decision Overlooked Several Important Facts and
`Arguments That Should Have Compelled a Finding in Favor of
`Discovery ............................................................................................... 6
`
`IV. PATENT OWNER REQUESTS REHEARING BY AN EXPANDED
`PANEL THAT INCLUDES THE CHIEF JUDGE ......................................... 8
`
`V.
`
`CONCLUSION ................................................................................................ 9
`
`
`
`
`
`i
`
`

`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2015-01047
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
` Page(s)
`
`Federal Cases
`Atlanta Gas Light Co. v. Bennett Regulator Guards, Inc.,
`IPR2013-00453, Paper No. 88 (Jan. 6, 2015) ....................................................... 4
`
`Galderma S.A. v. Allergan Industrie, SAS,
`IPR2014-01422, Paper No. 14 (Mar. 5, 2015) ............................................. 4, 5, 9
`
`Garmin Int’l, Inc. v. Cuozzo Speed Techs. LLC,
`IPR2012-00001, Paper No. 26 (Mar. 5, 2013) ......................................... 2, 5, 7, 9
`
`Google Inc. v. SimpleAir, Inc.,
`CBM2015-00019, Paper No. 15 (Aug. 19, 2015) ................................................ 8
`
`Reflectix, Inc. v. Promethean Insulation Tech. LLC,
`IPR2015-00039, Paper No. 18 (Apr. 24, 2015) .................................................... 4
`
`RPX Corp. v. ParkerVision, Inc.,
`IPR2014-00946, Paper No. 25 (Feb. 20, 2015) .................................................... 5
`
`Unified Patents, Inc. v. Clouding IP, LLC,
`IPR2013-00586, Paper No. 12 (Apr. 22, 2014) .................................................... 2
`
`ZOLL Lifecor Corp. v. Philips Elec. N. Am. Corp.,
`IPR2013-00606, Paper No. 13 (Mar. 20, 2014) ................................................... 4
`
`Rules and Regulations
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d) .................................................................................................. 2
`
`Standard Operating Procedure 1, Rev. 14 (May 8, 2015) ..................................... 1, 8
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`
`
`
`I.
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2015-01047
`
`INTRODUCTION AND PRECISE RELIEF REQUESTED
`
`Patent Owner VirnetX Inc. requests rehearing of the Patent Trial and Appeal
`
`Board’s Decision entered December 21, 2015 (“Decision”), denying Patent
`
`Owner’s Motion For Additional Discovery filed December 9, 2015 (Paper No. 22,
`
`“Motion”). The Decision denied the Motion because Patent Owner allegedly did
`
`not provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate “more than a mere possibility that
`
`something useful will be discovered” with respect to various issues. (See, e.g.,
`
`Decision at 2, 4, 5.) The Decision should be reversed for at least two reasons.
`
`First, the Decision overlooked several important points of law as to a real-party-in-
`
`interest (“RPI”) determination in finding the Motion to be speculative. Indeed,
`
`certain facts that the Decision found to be so speculative as to not even warrant
`
`discovery have been found to be determinative of RPI issues by other panels.
`
`Second, the Decision overlooked several important facts and arguments.
`
`Patent Owner requests rehearing by an expanded panel that includes the
`
`Chief Judge in deciding this request. Standard Operating Procedure 1, Rev. 14,
`
`Section III.D (“When a judge, a merits panel, or an interlocutory panel . . . receives
`
`a suggestion for an expanded panel, the judge, merits panel, or interlocutory panel
`
`shall notify the Chief Judge, Deputy Chief Judge, and the Vice Chief Judges of the
`
`suggestion, in writing.”). An expanded panel that includes the Chief Judge is
`
`1
`
`

`
`
`necessary to secure and maintain uniformity given the large discrepancy in
`
`Case No. IPR2015-01047
`
`considering RPI issues between the Decision and numerous other panel decisions.
`
`II. LEGAL STANDARD
`“A party dissatisfied with a decision may file a request for rehearing.”
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d). “The request must specifically identify all matters the party
`
`believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked, and the place where each
`
`matter was previously addressed in a motion, an opposition, or a reply.” Id.
`
`III. STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR RELIEF REQUESTED
`A. The Decision Overlooked the Requirements of an RPI Inquiry
`In Garmin Int’l, Inc. v. Cuozzo Speed Techs. LLC, IPR2012-00001, Paper
`
`No. 26 at 6 (Mar. 5, 2013), the Board explained that “[t]he mere possibility of
`
`finding something useful, and mere allegation that something useful will be found,
`
`are insufficient to demonstrate that the requested discovery is necessary in the
`
`interest of justice.” It stated that “[t]he party requesting discovery should already
`
`be in possession of evidence tending to show beyond speculation that in fact
`
`something useful will be uncovered.” Garmin, IPR2012-00001, Paper No. 26 at 6
`
`(emphasis added). Thus, in the Motion, Patent Owner was only required to present
`
`evidence that can serve “as the foundation for taking Patent Owner’s belief out of
`
`the realm of mere speculation.” Unified Patents, Inc. v. Clouding IP, LLC,
`
`IPR2013-00586, Paper No. 12 at 3 (Apr. 22, 2014). Since the Motion was directed
`
`to improperly omitted RPIs in particular, the evidence presented in the Motion only
`
`2
`
`

`
`
`needed to show beyond speculation that something useful would be uncovered as
`
`Case No. IPR2015-01047
`
`to RPI issues. The Motion certainly met this standard.
`
`The Decision found that “[e]ven assuming that ‘Mangrove Partners Hedge
`
`Fund has ‘complete discretion’ to control the investments of’ [the US Feeder, the
`
`Cayman Feeder, and Petitioner] to be true, as asserted by Patent Owner, Patent
`
`Owner does not assert or provide a sufficient showing that Mangrove Partners
`
`hedge fund also has ‘complete discretion’ and control over the preparation or filing
`
`of the Petition.” (Decision at 2.)1 At the outset, the Decision overlooks that the
`
`Petition itself was an investment. As explained in the Motion (and other papers
`
`throughout this proceeding), Petitioner is a shell entity that exists for the sole
`
`purpose of receiving funding from investors via the US Feeder and Cayman
`
`Feeder, making investments directed by the Mangrove Partners Hedge Fund (its
`
`investment manager), and paying out profits to investors via the US Feeder and
`
`Cayman Feeder. (See, e.g., Motion at 1-4.) Petitioner exists for the purpose of
`
`
`1 The Decision refers to the Mangrove Partners Hedge Fund’s “complete
`
`discretion” as only an assertion by Patent Owner. (Decision at 2.) But it is more
`
`than an assertion. It is a statement by Mangrove Partners Hedge Fund filed with
`
`the United States Securities and Exchange Commission. (Motion at 2 (citing Ex.
`
`2001 at 3, 17).)
`
`3
`
`

`
`
`making investments. Thus, the statement in the Decision regarding “complete
`
`Case No. IPR2015-01047
`
`discretion” is incorrect.
`
`At a minimum, the complete discretion of the Mangrove Partners Hedge
`
`Fund to control the investments of the US Feeder, the Cayman Feeder, and
`
`Petitioner highly suggests that the Mangrove Partners Hedge Fund had actual
`
`control over the Petition. Indeed, countless other panels have relied on similar
`
`evidence of control by a parent entity (i.e., even where there was no evidence
`
`specific to a particular proceeding) to be determinative of RPI. See, e.g., Reflectix,
`
`Inc. v. Promethean Insulation Tech. LLC, IPR2015-00039, Paper No. 18 at 9 (Apr.
`
`24, 2015); Galderma S.A. v. Allergan Industrie, SAS, IPR2014-01422, Paper No.
`
`14 at 9–13 (Mar. 5, 2015); Atlanta Gas Light Co. v. Bennett Regulator Guards,
`
`Inc., IPR2013-00453, Paper No. 88 at 2–6 (Jan. 6, 2015); ZOLL Lifecor Corp. v.
`
`Philips Elec. N. Am. Corp., IPR2013-00606, Paper No. 13 at 8-11 (Mar. 20, 2014).
`
`For instance, in Galderma, the Board found that where a President of a parent
`
`entity was also at the helm of the parent entity’s subsidiary, this “strongly implies
`
`‘an involved and controlling parent corporation representing the unified interests of
`
`itself and Petitioner.” Galderma S.A., IPR2014-01422, Paper No. 14 at 12 (citing
`
`Zoll Lifecor Corp. v. Philips Elecs. N. Am. Corp., IPR2013-00606, Paper No. 13 at
`
`10 (Mar. 20, 2015)). The Board explained in Galderma that it “need not consider
`
`whether [a party] did or did not, directly or indirectly, exercise [its] control.” Id.
`
`4
`
`

`
`
`Rather, for purposes of finding that a party is an RPI, it is sufficient that the party
`
`Case No. IPR2015-01047
`
`had the power “to call the shots.” Id. (citing Gonzalez v. Banco Cent. Corp., 27
`
`F.3d 751, 758 (1st Cir. 1994)). The Board in Galderma thus found a parent entity
`
`with control over its subsidiary to be an improperly omitted RPI. Id. at 13.
`
`Evidence that some panels have found to be determinative of RPI issues should, at
`
`a minimum, be viewed as “tending to show beyond speculation that in fact
`
`something useful will be uncovered.” Garmin, IPR2012-00001, Paper No. 26 at 6.
`
`The Decision’s strict standard for discovery not only contradicts Garmin’s
`
`holding that a party seeking additional discovery need only “be in possession of
`
`evidence tending to show beyond speculation that in fact something useful will be
`
`uncovered,” Garmin, IPR2012-00001, Paper No. 26 at 6, it also contradicts how
`
`other panels have applied Garmin. For instance, in RPX Corp. v. ParkerVision,
`
`Inc., IPR2014-00946, Paper No. 25 at 3-4 (Feb. 20, 2015), the Board found that
`
`evidence regarding a party’s business model (akin to the evidence presented in the
`
`Motion regarding the business model of the Mangrove entities) and a formal
`
`relationship between a non-party and a party (akin to the evidence presented in the
`
`Motion regarding the formal relationship between the Mangrove entities), were
`
`important in finding that the “whether something useful will be found” factor of
`
`Garmin weighed in favor of granting additional discovery. The Decision thus
`
`represents a marked departure from Garmin and its progeny.
`
`5
`
`

`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2015-01047
`
`B.
`
`The Decision Overlooked Several Important Facts and
`Arguments That Should Have Compelled a Finding in Favor of
`Discovery
`
`The Decision overlooked several facts further demonstrating that discovery
`
`as to RPI is warranted. For one, the Decision overlooked that “Petitioner’s counsel
`
`indicated that Petitioner had already collected certain material responsive to draft
`
`discovery requests provided by Patent Owner.” (Motion at 4.) The existence of
`
`those materials is not speculative given that Petitioner has admitted the materials
`
`exist.
`
`In addition, the Decision overlooked that Ward Dietrich, who has no public
`
`role in Petitioner, “held himself out as an ‘authorized person’ to sign the Power of
`
`Attorney on behalf of Petitioner” (Motion at 3), and that “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” (Motion at 4). When taken together with the fact that the Mangrove
`
`Partners Hedge Fund has complete discretion to control the investments of the US
`
`Feeder, the Cayman Feeder, and Petitioner, this further suggests that the Mangrove
`
`Partners Hedge Fund had actual control over the Petition, at least beyond “mere
`
`speculation.” (Motion at 6.) Stated another way, even if the Board is of the
`
`opinion that a parent entity can have complete control over the investments of an
`
`entity that only exists to invest, with the parent entity having its employees
`
`6
`
`

`
`
`participate in the preparation of a petition, and yet still not be an RPI, there is no
`
`Case No. IPR2015-01047
`
`question that such evidence goes beyond “mere speculation.”
`
`The Decision also overlooked several arguments in the Motion—in fact, the
`
`Decision’s analysis was limited to the Background section of the Motion, not
`
`analyzing any of the discovery requests in the Motion or the arguments explaining
`
`why the Garmin factors are satisfied. (Decision at 1-5.) For example, the Decision
`
`did not consider any of the following arguments:
`
`• “[T]he 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).” (Motion at
`
`6.)
`
`• “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.” (Motion at 6.)
`
`7
`
`

`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2015-01047
`
`• “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.”
`
`(Motion at 6.)
`
`IV. PATENT OWNER REQUESTS REHEARING BY AN EXPANDED
`PANEL THAT INCLUDES THE CHIEF JUDGE
`
`Patent Owner requests that an expanded panel that includes the Chief Judge
`
`consider this request for rehearing. See Standard Operating Procedure 1, Rev. 14
`
`(May 8, 2015), Section III.C; see also Google Inc. v. SimpleAir, Inc., CBM2015-
`
`00019, Paper No. 15 at 8 (Aug. 19, 2015) (considering a request for expanded
`
`panel review under Standard Operating Procedure 1, Rev. 14). Patent Owner is
`
`making this request because “[c]onsideration by an expanded panel is necessary to
`
`secure and maintain uniformity of the Board’s decisions, such as where different
`
`panels of the Board render conflicting decisions on issues of statutory
`
`interpretation . . ., or a substantial difference of opinion among judges exists on
`
`issues of statutory interpretation.” Standard Operating Procedure 1, Rev. 14,
`
`Section III.A. In particular, as discussed above in Section III.A, numerous panels
`
`have interpreted the requirements for discovery and for an RPI determination that
`
`8
`
`

`
`
`is in significant contradiction with that of the Decision. The standard applied in
`
`Case No. IPR2015-01047
`
`the Decision contradicts Garmin’s requirement that a party seeking additional
`
`discovery need only “be in possession of evidence tending to show beyond
`
`speculation that in fact something useful will be uncovered,” Garmin, IPR2012-
`
`00001, Paper No. 26 at 6, by faulting Patent Owner for not providing certainty that
`
`something useful will be uncovered. Demonstrative of the large departure from
`
`past Board precedent, the Decision does not permit additional discovery as to RPI
`
`despite the fact that other panels have relied on similar evidence to that presented
`
`in the Motion to conclude that a party was in fact an improperly omitted RPI, like
`
`in Galderma. Therefore, an expanded panel review is necessary to resolve these
`
`differences, and clarify the standard for additional discovery.
`
`V. CONCLUSION
`The Decision found that Patent Owner allegedly did not provide sufficient
`
`evidence to warrant discovery. But in doing so, the Decision improperly analyzed
`
`the requirements for an RPI determination, and overlooked several important facts
`
`and arguments in the Motion. For these reasons, VirnetX respectfully requests
`
`rehearing of the Decision and the grant of additional discovery.
`
`9
`
`

`
`Case No. IPR2015-01047
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`By: /Joseph E. Palys/
`Joseph E. Palys
`Registration No. 46,508
`
`Counsel for VirnetX Inc.
`
`
`
`Dated: January 4, 2016
`
`10
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2015-01047
`
`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
`
`Request for Rehearing Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d)(1) 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
`
`
`
`By: /Joseph E. Palys/
`Joseph E. Palys
`Registration No. 46,508
`
`Counsel for VirnetX Inc.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated: January 4, 2016

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