`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`THE MANGROVE PARTNERS MASTER FUND, LTD.,
`
`Petitioner,
`
`v. VIRNETX INC.,
`
`Patent Owner.
`
`Case Nos. IPR2015-01046, IPR2015-01047
`
`PETITIONER MANGROVE PARTNER’S MASTER
`FUND LTD.’S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO
`VIRNETX INTERROGATORY NO. 1
`
`VIRNETX EXHIBIT 2059
`Mangrove v. VirnetX
`Trial IPR2015-01047
`
`Page 1 of 4
`
`CONFIDENTIAL - PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL
`
`
`
`Interrogatory No. 1:
`
`Identify and describe communications and/or agreements that were not
`reduced to writing pertaining to Ward Dietrich’s involvement in the
`preparation and filing of the Petitions and/or control or ability to control the
`preparation and filing of the Petitions.
`
`Petitioner’s Response to Interrogatory No. 1:
`
`Petitioner objects to this interrogatory as unduly burdensome in that it
`
`requests a list and description of specific oral communications that occurred
`
`approximately a year ago and to the extent it calls for information covered
`
`by the attorney-client privilege and/or the work-product doctrine.
`
`Subject to its objections, Petitioner responds as follows:
`
`Based upon a diligent investigation, Petitioner is not aware of any
`
`“agreements” that were not reduced to writing pertaining to Ward Dietrich’s
`
`involvement in the preparation and filing of the Petitions and/or control or
`
`ability to control the preparation and filing of the Petitions.
`
`
`
`
`
`As to other communications, after a diligent investigation, Petitioner
`
`is unaware of any specific oral conversation that was not reduced to writing
`
`regarding Mr. Dietrich’s involvement in the preparation and filing of the
`
`Petitions and/or control or ability to control the preparation and filing of the
`
`Petitions to which both Mr. Dietrich, on the one hand, and any outside
`
`2
`
`Page 2 of 4
`
`CONFIDENTIAL - PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL
`
`REDACTED
`
`
`
`counsel for Petitioner or technical expert Dr. Roch Guerin, on the other
`
`hand, was a party.
`
`It is likely that Mr. Dietrich had one or more oral conversations that
`
`were not immediately reduced to writing with Nathaniel August and/or Jeff
`
`Kalicka pertaining to Mr. Dietrich’s involvement in the preparation and
`
`filing of the Petitions. However, after a diligent investigation, Petitioner
`
`cannot identify the parties, date, or content of any specific oral
`
`communication that occurred approximately a year ago. Petitioner generally
`
`states that Mr. Dietrich was directed by Nathaniel August to review and
`
`provide feedback on drafts related to the filing of IPR Petitions IPR2015-
`
`01046 and IPR2014-01047, and in fact did so as reflected in the written e-
`
`mail record that has been produced. Petitioner believes that any such oral
`
`communication that was not reduced to writing at the time is consistent with
`
`and largely, if not entirely, duplicative of the written e-mail record that has
`
`been produced.
`
`Dated: March 10, 2016
`
`/James T. Bailey/
`James T. Bailey
`Reg. No. 44,518
`THE LAW OFFICE OF
`JAMES T. BAILEY
`
`Abraham Kasdan
`Reg. No. 32,997
`WIGGAN & DANA LLP
`
`3
`
`Page 3 of 4
`
`CONFIDENTIAL - PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I hereby certify that on this 10th day of March, 2016, a
`copy of the foregoing PETITIONER MANGROVE
`PARTNER’S MASTER FUND LTD.’S OBJECTIONS AND
`RESPONSES TO VIRNETX INTERROGATORY NO. 1 has
`been served by e-mail on the following counsel of record for
`Patent Owner:
`
`Mr. Naveen Modi
`Mr. Joseph Palys
`
`Dated: March 10, 2016
`
`/James T. Bailey/
`James T. Bailey
`Reg. No. 44,518
`THE LAW OFFICE OF
`JAMES T. BAILEY
`
`25003\1\3433830.v1
`
`4
`
`Page 4 of 4
`
`CONFIDENTIAL - PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
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.
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.
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
