Case 1:23-cv-00758-JLH-SRF Document 141-1 Filed 09/10/24 Page 1 of 9 PageID #: 3162
`Case 1:23-cv-00758-JLH-SRF Document 141-1 Filed 09/10/24 Page 1 of 9 PagelD #: 3162
`
`EXHIBIT 1
`
` EXHIBIT 1
`
`

`

`Case 1:23-cv-00758-JLH-SRF Document 141-1 Filed 09/10/24 Page 2 of 9 PageID #: 3163
`
`
`
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`
`
`ORCA SECURITY LTD.,
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`WIZ, INC.,
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`
`
`
`
`C.A. No. 23-758 (JLH)
`
`CONFIDENTIAL –
`ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY
`
`
`
`ORCA SECURITY LTD.’S SIXTH SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS
`TO DEFENDANT WIZ INC.’S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES (NOS. 1-13)
`
`Pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 26 and 33 and the District of Delaware’s Civil
`
`Local Rule 26, Plaintiff Orca Security Ltd. (“Orca” or “Plaintiff”) hereby provides its responses
`
`and objections to Wiz, Inc.’s (“Defendant” or “Wiz”) First Set of Interrogatories (“Interrogatories”
`
`or “Interrogatory”) as set forth below.
`
`GENERAL OBJECTIONS
`
`
`
`The following general objections are incorporated by reference into Plaintiff’s responses
`
`to each and every Interrogatory.
`
`1.
`
`Orca’s responses are based upon information currently known to it through
`
`reasonable investigation thus far, and are subject to amendment, supplementation, and/or other
`
`modification. Discovery in this matter is ongoing, and during the course of subsequent discovery,
`
`Orca may become aware of additional information that may be responsive to these Interrogatories.
`
`As a result, Orca may update, amend, supplement, or otherwise modify these responses. By
`
`providing these responses, Orca does not, and does not intend to, waive its right to rely on evidence
`
`or information that is subsequently discovered through its continuing investigation and/or included
`
`in an amended or supplemental response. In addition, these responses are made without prejudice
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:23-cv-00758-JLH-SRF Document 141-1 Filed 09/10/24 Page 3 of 9 PageID #: 3164
`
`CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY
`
`
`
`Appendix H; https://www.wiz.io/; https://www.wiz.io/product; https://www.wiz.io/solutions
`
`/cnapp; https://www.wiz.io/blog/detect-and-prioritize-cisa-known-exploited-vulnerabilities-kev-
`
`with-wiz; https://www.wiz.io/solutions/vulnerability-management.
`
`Orca will amend and/or supplement its response to this Interrogatory in accordance with
`
`the initial and final infringement contention deadlines set forth in the Scheduling Order (D.I. 33),
`
`or at other reasonable times. Discovery in this case is ongoing, including significant relevant
`
`discovery that remains outstanding from Wiz, including for example Wiz’s production of core
`
`technical documents and source code, and claim construction has not yet occurred. That additional
`
`information may additionally bear on Orca’s response to this interrogatory, and Orca may
`
`supplement or amend its response above further in the time and manner as appropriate.
`
`Orca may supplement, amend, and/or modify this response as discovery proceeds and at a
`
`reasonable time in accordance with the Scheduling Order in this case.
`
`FIRST SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 1 (May 10, 2024):
`
`Subject to and without waiving the foregoing General and Specific Objections, Orca
`
`answers as follows:
`
`Pursuant to the Court’s Scheduling Order (D.I. 33), Orca provides its initial infringement
`
`contentions for each of the Asserted Patents, attached hereto as Exhibits A-F.
`
`Discovery in this case continues to be ongoing, including significant relevant discovery
`
`that remains outstanding from Wiz. Orca may supplement, amend, and/or modify this response as
`
`discovery proceeds and at a reasonable time in accordance with the Scheduling Order in this case.
`
`INTERROGATORY NO. 2:
`
`Describe with specificity and precision the evidence, facts and circumstances concerning
`Your contentions in paragraph 14 of the Second Amended Complaint, including but not limited to
`what specific information Mr. Shua shared during the May 2019 Microsoft presentation, whether
`any of that information was confidential, and whether a non-disclosure agreement had been entered
`
`98
`
`

`

`Case 1:23-cv-00758-JLH-SRF Document 141-1 Filed 09/10/24 Page 4 of 9 PageID #: 3165
`
`CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY
`
`
`
`into before the presentation. The requested description shall include an identification and
`description of all bases for Your contentions, identification, and description of all documents and
`things that support Your contentions with citations or quotations of the specific portions of such
`documents that support Your contentions, and identification of all persons knowledgeable
`regarding the subject matter of this interrogatory and the nature and extent of their knowledge.
`
`RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 2:
`
`Orca incorporates all of its General Objections as if specifically set forth herein. Orca
`
`further objects to this Interrogatory as overly broad, unduly burdensome, and not proportional to
`
`the needs of the case, including because it requests identification and description of “all documents
`
`and things” that support Orca’s contentions and identification of “all persons” knowledgeable
`
`regarding the subject matter of this interrogatory Orca further objects to this Interrogatory to the
`
`extent it seeks information protected by the attorney-client privilege, work-product immunity,
`
`and/or any other applicable exception or privilege. Orca further objects to this Interrogatory to the
`
`extent it seeks information that is equally available to Wiz as to Orca.
`
`Subject to and without waiving the foregoing General and Specific Objections, Orca
`
`answers as follows:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Orca identifies Avi Shua as being knowledgeable of information that may be responsive to
`
`
`
`this interrogatory.
`
`99
`
`

`

`Case 1:23-cv-00758-JLH-SRF Document 141-1 Filed 09/10/24 Page 5 of 9 PageID #: 3166
`
`CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY
`
`
`
`
`Orca is continuing its investigation of the facts and may supplement, amend, and/or modify
`
`this response as further information becomes available. Orca may supplement, amend, and/or
`
`modify this response as discovery proceeds and at a reasonable time in accordance with the
`
`Scheduling Order in this case.
`
`FIRST SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 2 (April 26, 2024):
`
`Subject to and without waiving the foregoing General and Specific Objections, Orca further
`
`responds as follows:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Orca is continuing its investigation of the facts and may supplement, amend, and/or modify
`
`
`
`this response as further information becomes available.
`
`INTERROGATORY NO. 3:
`
`For each Accused Product and Asserted Claim, describe with specificity and precision the
`factual and legal bases for Your claim for damages to which You contend You are entitled as a
`result of Wiz’s alleged infringement, including without limitation, the damages theories You
`contend are applicable, the amount of damages under each theory, the calculation of such damages,
`and all basis for the manner in which You contend such damages should be calculated, including
`an identification of all facts, all Documents, and all Persons that support such contentions. To the
`extent You contend that You are entitled to lost profits damages, Your response should include
`without limitation a detailed explanation of Your contentions with respect to whether and how
`Your products and the accused products are allegedly interchangeable in the marketplace, the basis
`for such lost profits claim (e.g., lost sales, price erosion, etc.), and each Panduit factor. See Panduit
`Corp. v. Stahlin Brothers Fibre Works, Inc., 575 F.2d 1152, 1156 (6th Cir. 1978). To the extent
`You contend that You are entitled to reasonable royalty damages, Your response should include
`
`100
`
`

`

`Case 1:23-cv-00758-JLH-SRF Document 141-1 Filed 09/10/24 Page 6 of 9 PageID #: 3167
`
`CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY
`
`
`
`
`Orca’s investigations into the extent of the damages to which Orca is entitled as a result of
`
`Wiz’s infringement is ongoing. Discovery is in its earliest stages, including significant outstanding
`
`discovery from Wiz that has not yet produced any information or documents. Orca expects to
`
`present expert testimony regarding damages in accordance with the date set forth in the Court’s
`
`Scheduling Order, and incorporates by reference such forthcoming expert testimony.
`
`Orca is continuing its investigation of the facts and may supplement, amend, and/or modify
`
`this response as further information becomes available. Orca may supplement, amend, and/or
`
`modify this response as discovery proceeds and at a reasonable time in accordance with the
`
`Scheduling Order.
`
`INTERROGATORY NO. 4:
`
`For each Asserted Claim of the Asserted Patents, on a claim-by-claim and element-by-
`element basis, describe with specificity and precision the development of the alleged invention of
`each claim, including the identity of the alleged Inventor(s) of each Claim and facts, acts,
`circumstances, and corroborating evidence concerning the alleged invention of the subject matter
`of the Claim, including a description with specificity and precision and without limitation, the
`events of conception, actual reduction to practice, constructive reduction to practice, and diligence
`leading to reduction to practice, and identification of the Date(s) on which these events occurred
`and an identification of at least three persons most knowledgeable regarding the facts requested by
`this interrogatory.
`
`RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 4:
`
`Orca incorporates all of its General Objections as if specifically set forth herein. Orca
`
`further objects to this Interrogatory as overly broad, unduly burdensome, and not proportional to
`
`the needs of the case, including to the extent it requests claim-by-claim and element-by-element
`
`descriptions of the “development of the alleged invention of each claim.” Orca further objects to
`
`this Interrogatory as overly broad, unduly burdensome, and not proportional to the needs of the
`
`case as to its request for information regarding the “events of conception, actual reduction to
`
`practice, constructive reduction to practice, and diligence leading to reduction to practice, and
`
`103
`
`

`

`Case 1:23-cv-00758-JLH-SRF Document 141-1 Filed 09/10/24 Page 7 of 9 PageID #: 3168
`
`CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY
`
`
`
`identification of the Date(s) on which these events occurred” for the Asserted Patents, which are
`
`subject to the America Invents Act (AIA). Orca objects to this Interrogatory because it seeks
`
`expert discovery prior to the scheduled time to exchange said information under the Scheduling
`
`Order. Orca objects to this Interrogatory to the extent it calls for a legal conclusion. Orca further
`
`objects to this Interrogatory to the extent it seeks information protected by the attorney-client
`
`privilege, work-product immunity, and/or any other applicable exception or privilege. Orca further
`
`objects to this Interrogatory to the extent it seeks information that is publicly available and equally
`
`available to Wiz as to Orca.
`
`Subject to and without waiving the foregoing General and Specific Objections, Orca
`
`answers as follows:
`
`The sole inventor of each Asserted Patent is Avi Shua. Each of the Asserted Patents are
`
`post-AIA patents, and the provisional and/or parent applications to which each Asserted Patent
`
`claims priority, as well as the application issuing as each Asserted Patent, is evidence of the
`
`conception and constructive reduction to practice of the subject matter of the Asserted Claims.
`
`Orca identifies Mr. Shua as having knowledge responsive to this Interrogatory.
`
`Orca is continuing its investigation of the facts and may supplement, amend, and/or modify
`
`this response as further information becomes available. Orca may supplement, amend, and/or
`
`modify this response as discovery proceeds and at a reasonable time in accordance with the
`
`Scheduling Order.
`
`FIRST SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 4 (May 29, 2024):
`
`Subject to and without waiving the foregoing General and Specific Objections, Orca further
`
`responds as follows:
`
`104
`
`

`

`Case 1:23-cv-00758-JLH-SRF Document 141-1 Filed 09/10/24 Page 8 of 9 PageID #: 3169
`
`CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY
`
`
`
`
`Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(d), further information responsive to this interrogatory may
`
`be derived from documents and materials that have been or will be produced in this action,
`
`including ORCA_0011806-ORCA_0011814.
`
`Orca is continuing its investigation of the facts and may supplement, amend, and/or modify
`
`this response as further information becomes available.
`
`INTERROGATORY NO. 5:
`
`For each Asserted Claim of the Asserted Patents, state the priority date to which You
`contend the claim is entitled, and on a limitation-by-limitation basis in chart or table format,
`explain and identify by column and line number(s) (or by page and paragraph number if the
`Document does not include line numbers) the portion(s) of the Asserted Patents and any priority
`applications that You contend show that each claim limitation meets the written description and
`enablement requirements (separately addressing each requirement) of 35 U.S.C. § 112, and is
`entitled to the stated priority date, and identify all Documents supporting, contradicting, or
`otherwise relating to Your contentions.
`
`RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 5:
`
`Orca incorporates all of its General Objections as if specifically set forth herein. Orca
`
`further objects to this Interrogatory as overly broad, unduly burdensome, and not proportional to
`
`the needs of the case, including because it requests identification of “all Documents” supporting
`
`Orca’s contentions. Orca objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that the Asserted Patents are
`
`presumed valid under 35 U.S.C. § 282, and the burden of establishing invalidity including written
`
`description and enablement of a patent or any claim thereof shall rest on the party asserting such
`
`invalidity. Orca objects to this Interrogatory because it seeks expert discovery prior to the
`
`scheduled time to exchange said information under the Scheduling Order. Orca objects to this
`
`Interrogatory to the extent it calls for a legal conclusion. Orca further objects to this Interrogatory
`
`to the extent it seeks information protected by the attorney-client privilege, work-product
`
`immunity, and/or any other applicable exception or privilege. Orca further objects to this
`
`Interrogatory to the extent it seeks information that is publicly available and equally available to
`
`105
`
`

`

`Case 1:23-cv-00758-JLH-SRF Document 141-1 Filed 09/10/24 Page 9 of 9 PageID #: 3170
`
`CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY
`
`
`
`
`Orca incorporates by reference its responses, including supplements thereto, to
`
`Interrogatory No. 12.
`
`Orca is continuing its investigation of the facts and may supplement, amend, and/or modify
`
`this response as further information becomes available.
`
`OF COUNSEL:
`Douglas E. Lumish
`Lucas Lonergan
`LATHAM & WATKINS LLP
`140 Scott Drive
`Menlo Park, CA 94025
`(650) 328-4600
`
`Blake R. Davis
`Peter Hoffman
`LATHAM & WATKINS LLP
`505 Montgomery Street, Suite 2000
`San Francisco, CA 94111
`(415) 391-0600
`
`Kristina D. McKenna
`Christopher Henry
`LATHAM & WATKINS LLP
`200 Clarendon Street
`Boston, MA 02116
`(617) 948-6000
`
`Ryan Thomas Banks
`LATHAM & WATKINS LLP
`650 Town Center Drive, 20th Floor
`Costa Mesa, CA 92626
`(714) 540-1235
`
`Nicole Elena Bruner
`LATHAM & WATKINS LLP
`555 Eleventh Street, NW, Suite 1000
`Washington, DC 20004
`(202) 637-2200
`
`July 12, 2024
`
`MORRIS, NICHOLS, ARSHT &TUNNELL LLP
`
`/s/ Rodger D. Smith II
`___________________________________
`Jack B. Blumenfeld (#1014)
`Rodger D. Smith II (#3778)
`Cameron P. Clark (#6647)
`1201 North Market Street
`P.O. Box 1347
`Wilmington, DE 19899-1347
`(302) 658-9200
`jblumenfeld@morrisnichols.com
`rsmith@morrisnichols.com
`cclark@morrisnichols.com
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff Orca Security Ltd.
`
`
`137
`
`