`Date: November 12, 2015
`
`Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`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 7,490,151 B2
`____________
`
`Before MICHAEL P. TIERNEY, KARL D. EASTHOM, and STEPHEN C. SIU,
`Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`SIU, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`ORDER
`Conduct of the Proceeding
`37 C.F.R. § 42.5
`
` A
`
` conference call in the above proceeding was held on November 10, 2015,
`among respective counsel for The Mangrove Partners Master Fund, Ltd.
`(“Petitioner”) and VirnetX Inc. (“Patent Owner”), and Judges Siu and Easthom.
`Petitioner requested the conference call for authorization to file a reply to Patent
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01047
`Patent 7,490,151 B2
`
`
`Owner’s Request for Rehearing and to amend the real parties in interest, if
`determined to be necessary. Patent Owner also requested the conference call to
`request authorization to file a motion for additional discovery with respect to the
`real parties in interest. Paper 16. As we explained during the conference call, we
`deny Petitioner’s motion to file a reply to Patent Owner’s Request for Rehearing
`because the record contains sufficient information to render a decision and we
`defer Petitioner’s contingent motion to amend the real parties in interest pending
`our decision on Patent Owner’s request for rehearing.
`Patent Owner requested authorization to file a motion for additional
`discovery under 37 C.F.R. § 42.51(b)(2) regarding whether or not Petitioner failed
`to identify RPX as a real parties in interest. We deny Patent Owner’s request
`because Patent Owner’s request amounts to no more than a mere allegation of
`some kind of general association between Petitioner and RPX. For example,
`Patent Owner argues that Petitioner has an equity stake in RPX, that counsel for
`Petitioner allegedly represents RPX, and that publicly available documents
`supposedly imply a connection between Petitioner and RPX. The alleged facts
`presented by Patent Owner during the conference call do not show more than a
`mere possibility that something useful will be discovered and are therefore
`insufficient to show beyond mere speculation that discovery would be in the
`interests of justice. See Garmin Int’l, Inc. v. Cuozzo Speed Techs. LLC, IPR 2012-
`00001, Paper 26 (Mar. 5, 2013).
`
`ORDERED that Petitioner’s request to file a reply to Patent Owner’s
`Request for Rehearing is denied;
`FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioners request to amend the real parties in
`interest is deferred; and
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01047
`Patent 7,490,151 B2
`
`
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that Patent Owner’s request for authorization to file
`a motion for additional discovery is denied.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`PETITIONER:
`Abraham Kasdan
`James T. Bailey
`WIGGIN AND DANA LLP
`akasdan@wiggin.com
`jtb@jtbaileylaw.com
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`
`Joseph E. Palys
`Naveen Modi
`PAUL HASTINGS LLP
`josephpalys@paulhastings.com
`naveenmodi@paulhastings.com