Case 1:23-cv-00758-JLH-SRF Document 209 Filed 12/05/24 Page 1 of 12 PageID #:
`5657
`
`REDACTED - PUBLIC VERSION
`
`

`

`Case 1:23-cv-00758-JLH-SRF Document 209 Filed 12/05/24 Page 2 of 12 PageID #:
`5658
`
`Joint Appendix
`Exhibit 35
`
`

`

`Case 1:23-cv-00758-JLH-SRF Document 209 Filed 12/05/24 Page 3 of 12 PageID #:
`5659
`
`

`

`Case 1:23-cv-00758-JLH-SRF Document 209 Filed 12/05/24 Page 4 of 12 PageID #:
`5660
`
`Blake R. Davis
`
`LATHAM & WATKINS LLP
`505 Montgomery Street
`Suite 2000
`San Francisco, CA 94111-6538
`Direct Dial: +1.415.395.8033
`Email: blake.davis@lw.com
`https://www.lw.com
`
`From: Jaffe, Jordan <jjaffe@wsgr.com>
`Sent: Monday, October 28, 2024 3:00 PM
`To: Davis, Blake (Bay Area) <Blake.Davis@lw.com>; rhoy@morrisnichols.com; Miller, Alex <alex.miller@wsgr.com>;
`JBlumenfeld@morrisnichols.com; Davidson, Callie <cdavidson@wsgr.com>; Lacey, Catherine <clacey@wsgr.com>;
`haynes@rlf.com; cclark@morrisnichols.com; cottrell@rlf.com; farnan@rlf.com; Zang, Lisa <lzang@wsgr.com>; Prasad,
`Praatika <pprasad@wsgr.com>; RSmith@morrisnichols.com; WSGR - Orca Wiz <WSGR-Orca-Wiz@wsgr.com>
`Cc: #C-M ORCA SECURITY - WIZ - LW TEAM <orcasecuritywiz.lwteam@lw.com>
`Subject: RE: Orca Security / Wiz 23-758 -- CONFIDENTIAL Orca 9th Supp. Responses to 1st ROGs (Nos. 1-13) and Notice
`of Service D.I. 176
`
`Blake,
`
`I write in response to your email below. As an initial matter, the rhetoric and insinuations are not helpful and
`improper. Wiz began this email thread by asking if certain functionality was accused in Orca’s just-served supplemental
`infringement contentions and noting it was relevant to ongoing claim construction disputes. Without any basis, Orca
`has now levied suggestions of inadvertently omitting Orca’s national counsel from emails, that the original question
`“smacks of gamesmanship” and that Wiz is “withholding” relevant documents based on the basic caveat of only
`producing things “to the extent they are responsive”— the same caveat is present in almost every RFP response the
`parties have served in this litigation. We hope that Orca will reconsider this unnecessary rhetoric and work productively
`in discovery, rather than make accusations without any good faith basis.
`
`Addressing each point in turn:
`
`Orca’s “counsel of record” did not receive your email because you did not send it to anyone from Latham, which
`is Orca’s national counsel of record. It’s not clear to us why Wiz keeps raising its failure to email anyone from
`Latham as if it’s an issue that needs Court resolution. Our understanding is that Wiz made a mistake when it sent
`its first two emails, which Wiz noticed and then remedied by adding Latham a few days later. Despite receiving
`that email on a Saturday morning, Orca’s counsel responded on Monday (the next business day), and Orca
`agreed to discuss it on the meet and confer that occurred hours later. Orca has and continues to be timely in
`responding to Wiz’s questions.
`
`On the other hand, if Wiz intentionally omitted Latham from its original emails for any reason, including to
`misrepresent that Orca’s counsel does not promptly respond to discovery correspondence, then we do have an
`issue and we should have a meet and confer to discuss it. As Orca asked at the outset of discovery, please copy
`the Latham list serve on your emails to ensure that you get timely responses to your questions. We provided that
`list serve to Wiz specifically to make it easier to send emails to Orca’s counsel of record.
`
`As noted previously, we view this issue as resolved and not worth further discussion. Orca’s suggestion of
`“intentionally” omitting Latham from emails is entirely without basis.
`
`Regarding the meaning of “snapshot,” both parties have already provided proposed constructions for the term,
`as Wiz knows. We still have not received a response why Wiz waited five months to raise any question about the
`scope and meaning of “snapshot” as applied in Orca’s infringement contentions. If this issue was critical to claim
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 1:23-cv-00758-JLH-SRF Document 209 Filed 12/05/24 Page 5 of 12 PageID #:
`5661
`construction, as Wiz suggests, we would have expected Wiz to raise it before the parties had exchanged their
`constructions and Orca submitted its claim construction brief. Wiz waiting to raise these questions
`until after Orca had set forth its positions and opening brief—and demanding a response in two days—smacks of
`gamesmanship.
`
`
`
`This is incorrect. Wiz did raise “snapshot” as a disputed term for claim construction. See e.g., D.I. 151 at 3 (identifying
`“snapshot” as a term identified by Wiz for construction). That is why the parties are briefing it as a disputed term. Wiz
`has similarly consistently raised it as an issue for purposes of noninfringement, including in its interrogatory
`responses. See Wiz’s 6/7/24 Supplement to Interrogatory No. 5 (identifying, among other limitations “snapshots” being
`absent from Wiz’s products) . Wiz’s email simply asked whether certain Wiz functionality is accused or not based on
`Orca’s recently served infringement contentions. The accusations of gamesmanship are belied by the record.
`
`
`On the parties’ meet and confer earlier this week, Wiz refused—as the email below refuses—to provide any
`answers to Orca’s questions, which would help Orca expedite its responses. Again, it is Wiz who has a sense of
`urgency regarding what Wiz’s documents refer to as “disk cloning,” not Orca. Wiz’s refusal to provide basic
`information, e.g., documents or source code, that are directed to your question suggests Wiz is trying to misuse
`the discovery process to elicit answers based on incomplete information. This was also reflected during the
`parties’ meet and confer earlier this week, where Wiz indicated that Orca should have known about “disk
`cloning” because Wiz had served an interrogatory response setting out its noninfringement positions. We asked
`on the meet and confer for Wiz to identify where in Wiz’s interrogatory responses “disk cloning” was mentioned,
`and Wiz could not provide that information. Indeed, we see that Wiz’s response to Orca’s Interrogatory No. 5,
`which asks Wiz to set forth its position regarding noninfringement, and Wiz’s response to Orca’s Interrogatory
`No. 9, which asks Wiz to identify non-infringing alternatives or design arounds, never refers to any feature called
`“disk cloning.”
`
`
`
`This repeats the point Orca raised before, which is asking Wiz to explain what Orca accuses. That is Orca’s burden, not
`Wiz’s. Regardless, Orca is factually incorrect. Wiz identified “snapshots” (among other limitations) as absent in its June
`7 interrogatory responses to Interrogatory No. 5 (e.g., “[analyze / analyzing] the at least one snapshot to detect
`vulnerabilities, wherein during the detection of the vulnerabilities by analyzing the at least one snapshot, the virtual
`machine is inactive”). This is the same level of detail that Orca has provided in its noninfringement interrogatory
`responses, contradicting any argument Wiz’s responses are somehow insufficient. In addition, the documents cited in
`Wiz’s Oct. 16 email were produced in July of this year and Wiz’s source code has similarly been available for
`months. Regarding Interrogatory No. 9, again incorrect. Wiz stated in its June 21st supplement that “Wiz contends that
`its products and services do not infringe any asserted claim of the Orca Asserted Patents.” That is, its own products are
`non-infringing alternatives. This is entirely consistent with this discussion and similar to what Orca has itself provided
`when responding to Wiz’s similar interrogatory, where it has provided no substantive response other than pointing to its
`noninfringement contentions. See Orca Response to Interrogatory No. 17. Does Orca’s failure to provide any additional
`information to date in its response to Wiz’s Interrogatory No. 17 regarding noninfringing alternatives “smack of
`gamesmanship”? I suspect Orca would not agree.
`
`
`Based on information presently available to Orca, Orca understands that Wiz’s “disk cloning” falls within the
`scope of the functionality Orca asserts infringes each of the Orca asserted patents.
`
`
`
`Wiz appreciates Orca’s providing its contention that “clones” comprise “snapshots” on Friday, October 25, 2024. Will
`Orca agree to provide supplemental infringement contentions addressing this contention, and if yes by what date.
`
`
`Considering that Wiz has not identified “disk cloning” as noninfringing or as a noninfringing alternative, Orca
`understands Wiz to agree. To the extent that Wiz disagrees, we expect Wiz will provide a supplemental response
`to interrogatory nos. 5 or 9 to identify any such basis.
`
`
`
`This is incorrect as shown above. Without conceding anything from prior responses, we are amenable to further
`supplementation to the extent that would avoid a dispute. Let us know.
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 1:23-cv-00758-JLH-SRF Document 209 Filed 12/05/24 Page 6 of 12 PageID #:
`5662
`
`
`
`We would also like to meet and confer with Wiz regarding the statement in the below email that “Wiz is not
`withholding other such flow charts to the extent they are responsive.” Wiz has either produced the flow charts
`that correspond to the source code that has already been produced for inspection, or it has not. If Wiz is
`unilaterally producing some flow charts it selectively deems “responsive,” while withholding other similar
`documents as “non-responsive” for presumptively relevant source code Wiz already produced, that is improper
`and we intend to raise that issue with the Court. Orca is available Tuesday, October 29 between 1-4 eastern for a
`meet and confer. Please let us know times in that window that work for Wiz.
`
`
`
`Consistent with its improper approach here, Orca makes accusations based on a basic limitation that Orca itself repeats
`in its own RFP responses—that only responsive information need be produced. The point is simply that if there are
`flowcharts that are not responsive (e.g., about something completely unrelated) they would not be produced. We can
`confirm separately, but we are not aware of any other similar flowcharts for the source code we’ve produced for
`inspection.
`
`
`Best regards,
`
`
`Jordan R. Jaffe | Partner | Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati
`One Market Plaza, Spear Tower, Suite 3300 | San Francisco, CA 94105
`415.498.0556 | jjaffe@wsgr.com | LinkedIn
`
`
`From: Blake.Davis@lw.com <Blake.Davis@lw.com>
`Sent: Friday, October 25, 2024 7:38 PM
`To: Jaffe, Jordan <jjaffe@wsgr.com>; rhoy@morrisnichols.com; Miller, Alex <alex.miller@wsgr.com>;
`JBlumenfeld@morrisnichols.com; Davidson, Callie <cdavidson@wsgr.com>; Lacey, Catherine <clacey@wsgr.com>;
`haynes@rlf.com; cclark@morrisnichols.com; cottrell@rlf.com; farnan@rlf.com; Zang, Lisa <lzang@wsgr.com>; Prasad,
`Praatika <pprasad@wsgr.com>; RSmith@morrisnichols.com; WSGR - Orca Wiz <WSGR-Orca-Wiz@wsgr.com>
`Cc: orcasecuritywiz.lwteam@lw.com
`Subject: RE: Orca Security / Wiz 23-758 -- CONFIDENTIAL Orca 9th Supp. Responses to 1st ROGs (Nos. 1-13) and Notice
`of Service D.I. 176
`
`
`EXT - blake.davis@lw.com
`
`
`Jordan,
`
`
`Orca’s “counsel of record” did not receive your email because you did not send it to anyone from Latham, which is
`Orca’s national counsel of record. It’s not clear to us why Wiz keeps raising its failure to email anyone from Latham as if
`it’s an issue that needs Court resolution. Our understanding is that Wiz made a mistake when it sent its first two emails,
`which Wiz noticed and then remedied by adding Latham a few days later. Despite receiving that email on a Saturday
`morning, Orca’s counsel responded on Monday (the next business day), and Orca agreed to discuss it on the meet and
`confer that occurred hours later. Orca has and continues to be timely in responding to Wiz’s questions.
`
`
`On the other hand, if Wiz intentionally omitted Latham from its original emails for any reason, including to misrepresent
`that Orca’s counsel does not promptly respond to discovery correspondence, then we do have an issue and we should
`have a meet and confer to discuss it. As Orca asked at the outset of discovery, please copy the Latham list serve on your
`emails to ensure that you get timely responses to your questions. We provided that list serve to Wiz specifically to make
`it easier to send emails to Orca’s counsel of record.
`
`
`Regarding the meaning of “snapshot,” both parties have already provided proposed constructions for the term, as Wiz
`knows. We still have not received a response why Wiz waited five months to raise any question about the scope and
`meaning of “snapshot” as applied in Orca’s infringement contentions. If this issue was critical to claim construction, as
`4
`
`

`

`Case 1:23-cv-00758-JLH-SRF Document 209 Filed 12/05/24 Page 7 of 12 PageID #:
`5663
`Wiz suggests, we would have expected Wiz to raise it before the parties had exchanged their constructions and Orca
`submitted its claim construction brief. Wiz waiting to raise these questions until after Orca had set forth its positions and
`opening brief—and demanding a response in two days—smacks of gamesmanship.
`
`
`On the parties’ meet and confer earlier this week, Wiz refused—as the email below refuses—to provide any answers to
`Orca’s questions, which would help Orca expedite its responses. Again, it is Wiz who has a sense of urgency regarding
`what Wiz’s documents refer to as “disk cloning,” not Orca. Wiz’s refusal to provide basic information, e.g., documents or
`source code, that are directed to your question suggests Wiz is trying to misuse the discovery process to elicit answers
`based on incomplete information. This was also reflected during the parties’ meet and confer earlier this week, where
`Wiz indicated that Orca should have known about “disk cloning” because Wiz had served an interrogatory response
`setting out its noninfringement positions. We asked on the meet and confer for Wiz to identify where in Wiz’s
`interrogatory responses “disk cloning” was mentioned, and Wiz could not provide that information. Indeed, we see that
`Wiz’s response to Orca’s Interrogatory No. 5, which asks Wiz to set forth its position regarding noninfringement, and
`Wiz’s response to Orca’s Interrogatory No. 9, which asks Wiz to identify non-infringing alternatives or design arounds,
`never refers to any feature called “disk cloning.”
`
`
`Based on information presently available to Orca, Orca understands that Wiz’s “disk cloning” falls within the scope of
`the functionality Orca asserts infringes each of the Orca asserted patents. Considering that Wiz has not identified “disk
`cloning” as noninfringing or as a noninfringing alternative, Orca understands Wiz to agree. To the extent that Wiz
`disagrees, we expect Wiz will provide a supplemental response to interrogatory nos. 5 or 9 to identify any such basis.
`We would also like to meet and confer with Wiz regarding the statement in the below email that “Wiz is not withholding
`other such flow charts to the extent they are responsive.” Wiz has either produced the flow charts that correspond to
`the source code that has already been produced for inspection, or it has not. If Wiz is unilaterally producing some flow
`charts it selectively deems “responsive,” while withholding other similar documents as “non-responsive” for
`presumptively relevant source code Wiz already produced, that is improper and we intend to raise that issue with the
`Court. Orca is available Tuesday, October 29 between 1-4 eastern for a meet and confer. Please let us know times in that
`window that work for Wiz.
`
`
`Best,
`Blake
`
`
`
`From: Jaffe, Jordan <jjaffe@wsgr.com>
`Date: Friday, Oct 25, 2024 at 2:01 PM
`To: Davis, Blake (Bay Area) <Blake.Davis@lw.com>, rhoy@morrisnichols.com <rhoy@morrisnichols.com>, Miller, Alex
`<alex.miller@wsgr.com>, JBlumenfeld@morrisnichols.com <JBlumenfeld@morrisnichols.com>, Davidson, Callie
`<cdavidson@wsgr.com>, Lacey, Catherine <clacey@wsgr.com>, haynes@rlf.com <haynes@rlf.com>,
`cclark@morrisnichols.com <cclark@morrisnichols.com>, cottrell@rlf.com <cottrell@rlf.com>, farnan@rlf.com
`<farnan@rlf.com>, Zang, Lisa <lzang@wsgr.com>, Prasad, Praatika <pprasad@wsgr.com>, RSmith@morrisnichols.com
`<RSmith@morrisnichols.com>, WSGR - Orca Wiz <WSGR-Orca-Wiz@wsgr.com>
`Cc: #C-M ORCA SECURITY - WIZ - LW TEAM <orcasecuritywiz.lwteam@lw.com>
`Subject: RE: Orca Security / Wiz 23-758 -- CONFIDENTIAL Orca 9th Supp. Responses to 1st ROGs (Nos. 1-13) and Notice of
`Service D.I. 176
`
`
`Blake,
`
`I’m following up on our emails below and the meet and confer that occurred on Monday of this week. As an initial
`matter, there is no dispute that counsel of record for Orca received the initial email. It replied to a service email from
`Orca’s counsel. If Orca is contending its counsel of record did not receive the email, please so state. Otherwise we
`consider that issue resolved.
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 1:23-cv-00758-JLH-SRF Document 209 Filed 12/05/24 Page 8 of 12 PageID #:
`5664
`Regardless, Orca’s refusal to provide this information is prejudicial to Wiz, especially as the parties are in the midst of
`claim construction briefing. Specifically, what Orca does and does not contend is a “snapshot” is highly relevant to
`claim construction. As Orca is aware, “snapshot” is a disputed claim term. Orca’s refusal to disclose that information
`continues to prejudice Wiz. Orca suggests some sort of delay, but it is not Wiz’s obligation to correct Orca’s
`infringement contentions. Orca said it would be supplementing its contentions with source code citations and Wiz
`responded hours later.
`
`
`Orca’s next question:
`
`
`Can Wiz please identify any technical documents Wiz has produced that describe the operation of the alleged
`disk cloning implementation(s) that you reference in your email, and/or the most relevant source code modules
`that Wiz has made available for inspection? That identification will help us expedite our responses to your
`question.
`
`
`
`This has it backwards. It is Orca’s obligation to identify what it accuses of infringement. If Orca does not know what it is
`accusing, we will need to raise that issue with the Court.
`
`
`Finally, Orca raises discovery issues that again do not answer the relevant question. Regardless we can look into
`producing a higher resolution version of the documents to the extent they exist. Based on our current investigation to
`date, Wiz is not withholding other such flow charts to the extent they are responsive.
`
`
`Please provide Orca’s response by Wednesday, October 30, 2024.
`
`Best regards,
`
`
`
`Jordan R. Jaffe | Partner | Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati
`One Market Plaza, Spear Tower, Suite 3300 | San Francisco, CA 94105
`415.498.0556 | jjaffe@wsgr.com | LinkedIn
`
`
`From: Blake.Davis@lw.com <Blake.Davis@lw.com>
`Sent: Monday, October 21, 2024 12:04 PM
`To: Jaffe, Jordan <jjaffe@wsgr.com>; rhoy@morrisnichols.com; Miller, Alex <alex.miller@wsgr.com>;
`JBlumenfeld@morrisnichols.com; Davidson, Callie <cdavidson@wsgr.com>; Lacey, Catherine <clacey@wsgr.com>;
`haynes@rlf.com; cclark@morrisnichols.com; cottrell@rlf.com; farnan@rlf.com; Zang, Lisa <lzang@wsgr.com>; Prasad,
`Praatika <pprasad@wsgr.com>; RSmith@morrisnichols.com; WSGR - Orca Wiz <WSGR-Orca-Wiz@wsgr.com>
`Cc: orcasecuritywiz.lwteam@lw.com
`Subject: RE: Orca Security / Wiz 23-758 -- CONFIDENTIAL Orca 9th Supp. Responses to 1st ROGs (Nos. 1-13) and Notice
`of Service D.I. 176
`
`
`EXT - blake.davis@lw.com
`
`
`Jordan,
`
`It is obviously not possible for Orca to respond to Wiz’s emails in a timely manner when Wiz does not copy anyone from
`Latham (Orca’s national counsel) on them. In any event, can you please explain how your questions are relevant to
`ongoing claim construction briefing, and why responses are urgently needed considering Wiz’s delay in raising them? In
`particular, Orca served its initial infringement contentions five months ago and this is the first time Wiz has identified
`any purported inaccuracies regarding a footnote in Orca’s infringement contentions, a footnote supported by Wiz’s
`internal documents that Orca cited in the same footnote, or asked anything of us regarding a “disk cloning”
`implementation.
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 1:23-cv-00758-JLH-SRF Document 209 Filed 12/05/24 Page 9 of 12 PageID #:
`5665
`
`
`
`We can confirm Wiz’s understanding is correct that Orca accuses Wiz’s products of infringing on all cloud platforms. As
`to what you refer to as
`
`
`
`
`an Wiz please identify any technical documents Wiz has produced that describe the
`operation of the alleged disk cloning implementation(s) that you reference in your email, and/or the most relevant
`source code modules that Wiz has made available for inspection? That identification will help us expedite our responses
`to your question.
`
`In addition to the above, the documents Wiz produced at WIZ_0034972, WIZ_0034975, and WIZ_0034967 are blurry
`and many parts illegible. We ask that Wiz please produce the original and/or color versions of those documents. These
`documents also appear to be flow charts that describe portions of Wiz’s source code. Please confirm that Wiz has
`collected all similar flow charts and other documents describing the operation of the source code Wiz has produced to
`date. To the extent that Wiz is withholding such flow charts or other documentation describing the code, please explain
`the basis for withholding that highly relevant information.
`
`
`Best,
`Blake
`
`
`
`Blake R. Davis
`
`
`LATHAM & WATKINS LLP
`505 Montgomery Street
`Suite 2000
`San Francisco, CA 94111-6538
`Direct Dial: +1.415.395.8033
`Email: blake.davis@lw.com
`https://www.lw.com
`
`
`From: Jaffe, Jordan <jjaffe@wsgr.com>
`Sent: Saturday, October 19, 2024 8:48 AM
`To: Hoy, Rebecca <rhoy@morrisnichols.com>; Miller, Alex <alex.miller@wsgr.com>; Blumenfeld, Jack
`<JBlumenfeld@morrisnichols.com>; Davidson, Callie <cdavidson@wsgr.com>; Lacey, Catherine <clacey@wsgr.com>;
`Christine Haynes <haynes@rlf.com>; Clark, Cameron <cclark@morrisnichols.com>; Fred Cottrell <cottrell@rlf.com>;
`Kelly Farnan <farnan@rlf.com>; Zang, Lisa <lzang@wsgr.com>; Prasad, Praatika <pprasad@wsgr.com>; Smith, Rodger
`<RSmith@morrisnichols.com>; WSGR - Orca Wiz <WSGR-Orca-Wiz@wsgr.com>
`Cc: #C-M ORCA SECURITY - WIZ - LW TEAM <orcasecuritywiz.lwteam@lw.com>
`Subject: RE: Orca Security / Wiz 23-758 -- CONFIDENTIAL Orca 9th Supp. Responses to 1st ROGs (Nos. 1-13) and Notice
`of Service D.I. 176
`
`
`Counsel,
`
`
`Without excusing the lack of response to date given this went to Orca’s counsel of record, adding the Latham email list
`serve to this email thread.
`
`
`Jordan R. Jaffe | Partner | Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati
`One Market Plaza, Spear Tower, Suite 3300 | San Francisco, CA 94105
`415.498.0556 | jjaffe@wsgr.com | LinkedIn
`
`
`From: Jaffe, Jordan <jjaffe@wsgr.com>
`Sent: Saturday, October 19, 2024 7:56 AM
`To: Hoy, Rebecca <rhoy@morrisnichols.com>; Miller, Alex <alex.miller@wsgr.com>; Blumenfeld, Jack
`7
`
`

`

`Case 1:23-cv-00758-JLH-SRF Document 209 Filed 12/05/24 Page 10 of 12 PageID
`#: 5666
`<JBlumenfeld@morrisnichols.com>; Davidson, Callie <cdavidson@wsgr.com>; Lacey, Catherine <clacey@wsgr.com>;
`Christine Haynes <haynes@rlf.com>; Clark, Cameron <cclark@morrisnichols.com>; Fred Cottrell <cottrell@rlf.com>;
`Kelly Farnan <farnan@rlf.com>; Zang, Lisa <lzang@wsgr.com>; Prasad, Praatika <pprasad@wsgr.com>; Smith, Rodger
`<RSmith@morrisnichols.com>; WSGR - Orca Wiz <WSGR-Orca-Wiz@wsgr.com>
`Subject: RE: Orca Security / Wiz 23-758 -- CONFIDENTIAL Orca 9th Supp. Responses to 1st ROGs (Nos. 1-13) and Notice
`of Service D.I. 176
`
`
`Counsel,
`
`
`We received no response to my email below. As noted this is relevant to ongoing claim construction briefing, and Wiz
`reserves all rights to seek supplemental claim construction briefing if Orca does not provide its position in a timely
`fashion.
`
`
`Best regards,
`
`
`Jordan R. Jaffe | Partner | Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati
`One Market Plaza, Spear Tower, Suite 3300 | San Francisco, CA 94105
`415.498.0556 | jjaffe@wsgr.com | LinkedIn
`
`
`From: Jaffe, Jordan <jjaffe@wsgr.com>
`Sent: Wednesday, October 16, 2024 5:02 PM
`To: Hoy, Rebecca <rhoy@morrisnichols.com>; Miller, Alex <alex.miller@wsgr.com>; Blumenfeld, Jack
`<JBlumenfeld@morrisnichols.com>; Davidson, Callie <cdavidson@wsgr.com>; Lacey, Catherine <clacey@wsgr.com>;
`Christine Haynes <haynes@rlf.com>; Clark, Cameron <cclark@morrisnichols.com>; Fred Cottrell <cottrell@rlf.com>;
`Kelly Farnan <farnan@rlf.com>; Zang, Lisa <lzang@wsgr.com>; MNAT Internal <61080-0001.wilm@wcs.mnat.com>;
`Prasad, Praatika <pprasad@wsgr.com>; Smith, Rodger <RSmith@morrisnichols.com>; WSGR - Orca Wiz <WSGR-Orca-
`Wiz@wsgr.com>
`Subject: RE: Orca Security / Wiz 23-758 -- CONFIDENTIAL Orca 9th Supp. Responses to 1st ROGs (Nos. 1-13) and Notice
`of Service D.I. 176
`
`
`WIZ AEO INFORMATION / SOURCE CODE
`
`
`Counsel,
`
`
`As previewed on our meet and confer earlier today, we have a question regarding Orca’s infringement contentions. We
`understand that Orca accuses Wiz’s products of infringing on all cloud platforms. See Ex. A ‘031 Infringement Chart at n.
`2. However, that footnote is not accurate as stated. For certain platforms and for certain configurations,
`
` See e.g., WIZ 0034973 and WIZ 0034975.
`
`
`
`Please confirm whether Orca is accusing Wiz’s disk cloning implementation of infringing, including asserting that disk
`clones are “snapshots” as claimed in Orca’s asserted patents. As this is relevant to our ongoing claim construction
`briefing, please respond by Friday, October 18, 2024.
`
`
`Best regards,
`
`
`Jordan R. Jaffe | Partner | Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati
`One Market Plaza, Spear Tower, Suite 3300 | San Francisco, CA 94105
`415.498.0556 | jjaffe@wsgr.com | LinkedIn
`
`
`From: Hoy, Rebecca <rhoy@morrisnichols.com>
`Sent: Wednesday, October 16, 2024 3:22 PM
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 1:23-cv-00758-JLH-SRF Document 209 Filed 12/05/24 Page 11 of 12 PageID
`#: 5667
`
`

`

`Case 1:23-cv-00758-JLH-SRF Document 209 Filed 12/05/24 Page 12 of 12 PageID
`#: 5668
`is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies including any
`attachments.
`
`
`Latham & Watkins LLP or any of its affiliates may monitor electronic communications sent or received by our networks
`in order to protect our business and verify compliance with our policies and relevant legal requirements. Any personal
`information contained or referred to within this electronic communication will be processed in accordance with the
`firm's privacy notices and Global Privacy Standards available at www.lw.com.
`
`
`This email and any attachments thereto may contain private, confidential, and privileged material for the sole use of the
`intended recipient. Any review, copying, or distribution of this email (or any attachments thereto) by others is strictly
`prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender immediately and permanently delete the
`original and any copies of this email and any attachments thereto.
`
`
`This email and any attachments thereto may contain private, confidential, and privileged material for the sole use of the
`intended recipient. Any review, copying, or distribution of this email (or any attachments thereto) by others is strictly
`prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender immediately and permanently delete the
`original and any copies of this email and any attachments thereto.
`
`10
`
`