Exhibit 2

Case 2:24-cv-00093-JRG Document 102-2 Filed 11/05/24 Page 1 of 19 PageID #: 4990
1 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

MARSHALL DIVISION 

Case No. 2:24-cv-00093-JRG 

(LEAD CASE) 

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED 

Case No. 2:24-cv-00064-JRG 

(Member case) 

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED 

DEFENDANT HEWLETT PACKARD ENTERPRISE COMPANY’S 

SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL INITIAL AND ADDITIONAL DISCLOSURES 

Hewlett Packard Enterprise Company (“HPE”) provides the following Second 

Supplemental Initial and Additional Disclosures specified in paragraphs 1 and 3 of the Discovery 

Order. The following disclosures are provided based on information reasonably available to HPE 

to date. 

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT 

These disclosures are based upon information reasonably and presently available to HPE, 

without the benefit of formal discovery, production of documents, or any meaningful disclosure 

from Plaintiff. In particular, HPE’s ability to provide these disclosures is significantly prejudiced 

because HPE is not able to identify what specific functionality or instrumentalities are accused in 

VIRTAMOVE, CORP., 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

HEWLETT PACKARD ENTERPRISE 

COMPANY, 

Defendant. 

VIRTAMOVE, CORP., 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINES 

CORP., 

Defendant. 

Case 2:24-cv-00093-JRG Document 102-2 Filed 11/05/24 Page 2 of 19 PageID #: 4991
2 

this case due to the vague and deficient nature of Plaintiff’s Complaint and P.R. 3-1 Infringement 

Contentions. HPE reserves the right to supplement its disclosures after it has had an adequate 

opportunity to review any amended and/or supplemental contentions served by Plaintiff, to the 

extent Plaintiff is allowed to serve any amendment and/or supplementation. 

The case is in the preliminary stages of discovery, and HPE is continuing to develop its 

case through discovery and other means. HPE reserves the right to supplement, correct, or amend 

these disclosures under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(e). HPE also reserves the right to call 

any witness or present any document at trial that is identified through further investigation or 

discovery. HPE also reserves the right to rely on any document that any VirtaMove entity identifies 

or produces and any person or company that VirtaMove identifies on its disclosures. 

By making these disclosures, HPE does not represent that it is identifying every document, 

tangible thing, or witness possibly relevant to this lawsuit. These disclosures do not limit HPE’s 

discovery in this case or waive HPE’s right to object to any testimony, document, or tangible thing 

disclosed herein on the basis of privilege, the work product doctrine, relevance, materiality, undue 

burden, or any other valid objection to its discoverability or use. Specifically, HPE’s disclosures 

are made without in any way waiving any of the following rights: (1) the right to object on the 

grounds of competency, privilege, relevance and materiality, hearsay, or any other proper ground, 

to the use of any such information, for any purpose, in whole or in part, in any subsequent 

proceeding in this action or any other action; (2) the right to object on any and all grounds, at any 

time, to any other discovery request or proceeding involving or relating to the subject matter of 

these disclosures; and (3) the right to seek protection under a suitable protective order agreed to 

by the parties or issued by the Court pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c) of any 

information to be provided in discovery in this case. 

Case 2:24-cv-00093-JRG Document 102-2 Filed 11/05/24 Page 3 of 19 PageID #: 4992
3 

All of the disclosures set forth below are made subject to the above qualifications. 

I. Initial Disclosures 

A. The correct names of the parties to the lawsuit. 

Hewlett Packard Enterprise Company is the correct name of the disclosing party. HPE is 

without sufficient knowledge to know whether the name of the other party to this lawsuit is correct. 

B. The name, address, and telephone number of any potential party. 

HPE is not presently aware of any additional parties to this lawsuit. If and when HPE 

identifies any potential party, HPE will timely supplement its disclosures. 

C. The legal theories and, in general, the factual bases of the disclosing party’s 

claims or defenses. 

HPE states its current understanding of the legal theories for HPE’s defenses and factual 

bases for these defenses as follows. Discovery in this case is ongoing and in its preliminary stages, 

and HPE specifically reserves the right to identify additional defenses as discovery proceeds. 

Failure to State a Claim 

The First Amended Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, 

including for the reasons stated in HPE’s Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. 50). 

Lack of Standing 

To the extent that VirtaMove was not the sole and total owner of all substantial rights in 

any of the Asserted Patents as of the filing date of the Complaint, VirtaMove lacks standing to 

bring one or more claims in this lawsuit. VirtaMove has failed to provide adequate evidence of 

ownership of the Asserted Patents. 

Non-Infringement, No Willful Infringement 

HPE has not infringed and does not infringe (either individually or jointly), willfully or 

otherwise, directly or indirectly, any valid and enforceable asserted claim of U.S. Patent Nos. 

Case 2:24-cv-00093-JRG Document 102-2 Filed 11/05/24 Page 4 of 19 PageID #: 4993
4 

7,519,814 (“the ’814 Patent”) or 7,784,058 (“the ’058 Patent”) (collectively, the “Asserted 

Patents”), literally or under the doctrine of equivalents. To the extent the claims at issue are 

interpreted so broadly as to read on any accused product, such claims are barred by the doctrine of 

ensnarement, and/or HPE has not infringed any such claim of the patent under the reverse doctrine 

of equivalents. 

Regarding VirtaMove’s allegations of indirect infringement, HPE does not have the 

requisite knowledge or intent for indirect infringement, and VirtaMove cannot show underlying 

direct infringement. Regarding VirtaMove’s allegations of willful infringement, HPE does not 

have the requisite knowledge of the Asserted Patents and also has not willfully, intentionally, 

recklessly, knowingly, or jointly infringed the Asserted Patents (or infringed the patents in any 

way). VirtaMove’s claims are also barred, in whole or in part, because HPE is not liable for the 

acts of others over whom HPE has no control. 

The factual bases for these defenses are found in the Asserted Patents and their file 

histories, and in the documents and other evidence that HPE has provided and/or will provide 

concerning the accused HPE products or their functionality. HPE’s non-infringement positions 

will further be set forth in its expert reports to be served. 

Invalidity/Ineligibility

HPE contends that the asserted claims disclosed by VirtaMove in the Complaint and in its 

infringement contentions are invalid because they recite ineligible subject matter, are anticipated 

and/or rendered obvious by the prior art or otherwise fail to comply with the requirements of 35 

U.S.C. §§ 100 et seq., including, without limitation, one or more of the following: 35 U.S.C. §§ 

101, 102, 103, 112, 116, 119 and/or 120, and the rules, regulations and laws pertaining thereto. 

The details of the invalidity and ineligible subject matter of the asserted claims will be set forth in 

Case 2:24-cv-00093-JRG Document 102-2 Filed 11/05/24 Page 5 of 19 PageID #: 4994
5 

HPE’s invalidity and subject matter eligibility contentions, which will be served in accordance 

with the Docket Control Order and the Discovery Order, in expert reports to be served, and in 

further discovery. 

Prosecution History Estoppel 

VirtaMove’s claims are barred, in whole or in part, by the doctrines of prosecution history 

estoppel and/or disclaimer. Based on the proceedings before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office 

during the prosecution of the applications that issued as the Asserted Patents and/or the 

application(s) to which the Asserted Patents claim priority, the full scope of any allegedly infringed 

claim of the Asserted Patents has been disclaimed and/or disavowed and, as such, VirtaMove is 

estopped from construing any such claim to cover or include, either literally or under the doctrine 

of equivalents, any product, system, or service of, or any method performed in whole or in part by, 

HPE. 

License, Implied License, Covenant Not to Sue, Exhaustion, and other Equitable Defenses

VirtaMove’s claims are barred, in whole or in part, by the doctrines of license, implied 

license, covenant not to sue, exhaustion, prosecution laches, acquiescence, waiver, estoppel, 

unclean hands, and/or any other available equitable defenses. For example, VirtaMove’s claims 

are barred to the extent that its allegations rely on the operation of any licensed product or service. 

Limitation on VirtaMove’s Claimed Damages

HPE contends that VirtaMove’s claims for relief and prayer for damages are limited by at 

least 35 U.S.C. §§ 286 and 287. For example, VirtaMove fails to allege that VirtaMove or 

VirtaMove’s licensees have properly marked relevant products and offerings as required by 35 

U.S. C. § 287 or have otherwise given proper notice that HPE’s actions allegedly infringe any of 

VirtaMove’s Asserted Patents. HPE is not liable to VirtaMove for any acts alleged to have been 

Case 2:24-cv-00093-JRG Document 102-2 Filed 11/05/24 Page 6 of 19 PageID #: 4995
6 

performed before HPE received actual notice that it was alleged to have infringed any of the 

Asserted Patents. 

With respect to 35 U.S.C. § 287, VirtaMove represented in its Second Amended Complaint 

that VirtaMove’s AppZero product practiced the Asserted Patents. See Dkt. 63 ¶ 11; see also Dkt. 

70 at 1. However, VirtaMove has not presented any evidence that the allegedly patent-practicing 

AppZero articles were ever marked—much less marked throughout the entire alleged damages 

period—to recover past damages under § 287. HPE therefore identifies AppZero as a product that 

VirtaMove has represented as practicing the Asserted Patents, and, under Arctic Cat Inc. v. 

Bombardier Recreational Prod. Inc., it is VirtaMove’s burden to plead and prove that it complied 

with § 287(a) by providing the requisite notice. See 876 F.3d 1350, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2017). 

VirtaMove is further barred by 35 U.S.C. § 288 from recovering costs associated with its 

action. 

VirtaMove cannot show this is an exceptional case, and therefore has no basis to recovery 

of attorneys’ fees and cannot recover costs as a matter of law under 35 U.S.C. § 285, the Court’s 

inherent powers, or any other fee-shifting authority. In addition, HPE is entitled to recover their 

attorneys’ fees and costs because the claims asserted by VirtaMove in the instant action are 

meritless and objectively unreasonable. 

No Entitlement to Injunctive Relief 

VirtaMove is not entitled to injunctive relief at least because any alleged injury to 

VirtaMove is not immediate or irreparable, and VirtaMove has an adequate remedy at law for its 

claims. VirtaMove will not be able to demonstrate (1) irreparable injury, (2) that damages are 

inadequate remedies, (3) that an equitable remedy is appropriate on balance, and (4) that the public 

interest would not be disserved by the issuance of an injunction. 

Case 2:24-cv-00093-JRG Document 102-2 Filed 11/05/24 Page 7 of 19 PageID #: 4996
7 

Government Patent Use 

VirtaMove’s remedies are limited under 28 U.S.C. § 1498(a). HPE is not liable to the 

extent the accused instrumentalities were used or manufactured by or for the United States, and to 

the extent the accused instrumentalities were used or manufactured by a contractor, a 

subcontractor, or any person, firm, or corporation for the Government and with the authorization 

or consent of the Government, according to at least 28 U.S.C. § 1498.

* * * 

HPE incorporates by reference: (i) any defense and/or counterclaims identified in its 

Answer and Counterclaims to Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint (Dkt. No. 51) or any future 

answer or counterclaim filed by HPE; (ii) the defenses set out in any interrogatory responses and 

deposition testimony; (iii) the eligibility and/or invalidity contentions set forth in the P.R. 3-3 

disclosures served by HPE in this action or any related action and (iv) any amendments thereto; 

and the defenses set out in expert reports to be served on HPE’s behalf. HPE reserves the right to 

supplement its disclosures in any manner it deems appropriate after further investigation and 

discovery and to assert any other defenses and/or to bring counterclaims that discovery may reveal. 

D. The name, address, and telephone number of persons having knowledge of 

relevant facts, a brief statement of each identified person’s connection with the 

case, and a brief, fair summary of the information known by any such person. 

Based upon information reasonably available at this time, HPE identifies the following as 

individuals likely to have discoverable information that HPE may use to supports its claims or 

defenses. Discovery in this case is ongoing and in its preliminary stages, and HPE anticipates that 

other individuals may also have discoverable information upon which HPE may rely. HPE 

specifically reserves the right to identify additional witnesses as discovery proceeds. Further, as 

stated, HPE is not able to identify what specific functionality or instrumentalities are accused in 

Case 2:24-cv-00093-JRG Document 102-2 Filed 11/05/24 Page 8 of 19 PageID #: 4997
8 

this case due to the vague and deficient nature of Plaintiff’s Complaint and P.R. 3-1 Infringement 

Contentions. HPE reserves the right to supplement its disclosures after it has had an adequate 

opportunity to review any amended and/or supplemental contentions served by Plaintiff, to the 

extent Plaintiff is allowed to serve any amendment and/or supplementation. 

The following should not be construed as an admission that the listed individuals will have 

discoverable information. In addition, by making the following disclosures, HPE does not waive 

its right to any discovery in this case, including depositions of as-yet-unidentified individuals or 

entities. Furthermore, by indicating the general subject matter of information individuals and 

entities may possess, HPE does not make any concession, agreement, admission, or waiver of any 

ultimate determination of relevance or admissibility of any particular information for any purpose, 

nor does HPE in any way limit its right to call any individual or entity to testify concerning other 

subjects. The individuals and entities identified above may possess information protected by the 

attorney-client privilege, the work-product doctrine, or other applicable legal privileges and 

protections. By identifying these individuals and entities, HPE does not waive the right to assert 

any applicable privileges or protections in this matter. 

HPE does not consent or authorize any other party to communicate with employees or 

former employees of HPE or affiliated companies, and HPE does not consent to or authorize any 

communications prohibited by any applicable rule of professional conduct. Any individuals 

designated in this disclosure as an employee or former employee of HPE or affiliated companies 

should be contacted only through HPE’s undersigned attorneys. 

HPE does not authorize Plaintiff or its agents to communicate directly with any current or 

former employees of HPE or related entities. 

Case 2:24-cv-00093-JRG Document 102-2 Filed 11/05/24 Page 9 of 19 PageID #: 4998
9 

Name Contact 

Information 

Connection to 

Case 

Information 

Known 

Plaintiff VirtaMove, Corp. On information and 

belief: 

110 Didsbury 

Road, M083, 

Ottawa, Ontario 

K2T 0C2 

Plaintiff and 

alleged owner of 

the Asserted 

Patents 

Information relating 

to ownership of the 

Asserted Patents; 

licenses to the 

Asserted Patents; 

design, 

development, and 

sale of AppZero, 

Trigence, and 

VirtaMove 

software; 

compliance with 35 

U.S.C. § 287; the 

alleged AppZero 

“Partner Program” 

as identified in ¶ 10 

of the First 

Amended 

Complaint 

Donn Rochette Not currently 

known

Named Inventor of 

the ’814 and ’058 

Patents 

Information related 

to the ’814 and ’058 

Patents; prior art, 

including prior 

uses, sales, or offers 

for sale; conception 

and reduction to 

practice (if any) of 

the alleged 

inventions 

Paul O’Leary Not currently 

known

Named Inventor of 

the ’814 and ’058 

Patents 

Information related 

to the ’814 and ’058 

Patents; prior art, 

including prior 

uses, sales, or offers 

for sale; conception 

and reduction to 

practice (if any) of 

the alleged 

inventions 

Case 2:24-cv-00093-JRG Document 102-2 Filed 11/05/24 Page 10 of 19 PageID #: 4999
10 

Dean Huffman Not currently 

known

Named Inventor of 

the ’814 and ’058 

Patents 

Information related 

to the ’814 and ’058 

Patents; prior art, 

including prior 

uses, sales, or offers 

for sale; conception 

and reduction to 

practice (if any) of 

the alleged 

inventions 

Charles Edmund Wands Not currently 

known 

Prosecution 

attorney or agent 

for the Asserted 

Patents 

Prosecution of 

Asserted Patents; 

prior art to Asserted 

Patents 

Christopher F. Regan On information and 

belief: 

Allen, Dyer, 

Doppelt and 

Gilchrist, P.A. 

255 South Orange 

Avenue, Suite 1401 

Orlando, Florida 

32801

Prosecution 

attorney or agent 

for the Asserted 

Patents 

Prosecution of 

Asserted Patents; 

prior art to Asserted 

Patents 

David S. Carus On information and 

belief: 

Allen, Dyer, 

Doppelt and 

Gilchrist, P.A. 

255 South Orange 

Avenue, Suite 1401 

Orlando, Florida 

32801

Prosecution 

attorney or agent 

for the’058 Patent 

Prosecution of 

Asserted Patent; 

prior art to Asserted 

Patents 

Allen, Dyer, Doppelt and 

Gilchrist, P.A. 

On information and 

belief: 

Allen, Dyer, 

Doppelt and 

Gilchrist, P.A. 

255 South Orange 

Avenue, Suite 1401 

Orlando, Florida 

32801

Prosecution 

attorney or agent 

for the Asserted 

Patents 

Prosecution of 

Asserted Patents; 

prior art to Asserted 

Patents 

Srikanth Venkata Seshu To be contacted 

solely via the 

Employee of HPE Technical 

information about 

the operation of 

Case 2:24-cv-00093-JRG Document 102-2 Filed 11/05/24 Page 11 of 19 PageID #: 5000
11 

undersigned 

counsel for HPE 

certain features of 

HPE’s accused 

Ezmeral Runtime 

Enterprise software 

Scott Norton To be contacted 

solely via the 

undersigned 

counsel for HPE 

Employee of HPE Prior art to Asserted 

Patents, including 

HP-UX prior art 

Mohan Rajagopalan To be contacted 

solely via the 

undersigned 

counsel for HPE 

Employee of HPE Information about 

the development 

and features of 

HPE’s Ezmeral 

Runtime Enterprise 

software 

David Lee To be contacted 

solely via the 

undersigned 

counsel for HPE 

Employee of HPE Information about 

the engineering, 

development, and 

operation of certain 

features of HPE’s 

Ezmeral Runtime 

Enterprise software 

Joann Starke To be contacted 

solely via the 

undersigned 

counsel for HPE 

Employee of HPE Information about 

marketing of HPE’s 

Ezmeral Runtime 

Enterprise software 

Tanuj Mittal To be contacted 

solely via the 

undersigned 

counsel for HPE 

Employee of HPE Information about 

revenue operations 

related to HPE’s 

Ezmeral Runtime 

Enterprise software 

Dave Hawley To be contacted 

solely via the 

undersigned 

counsel for HPE 

Employee of HPE Information about 

GreenLake for 

Private Cloud 

Enterprise 

Michael Bower To be contacted 

solely via the 

undersigned 

counsel for HPE

Employee of HPE Information about 

sales of HPE’s 

Case 2:24-cv-00093-JRG Document 102-2 Filed 11/05/24 Page 12 of 19 PageID #: 5001
12 

Ezmeral Runtime 

Enterprise software 

Docker, Inc. On information and 

belief: 

Docker, Inc. 

3790 El Camino 

Real # 1052 

Palo Alto, CA 

94306 

(415) 941-0376

Third-party with 

knowledge related 

to accused 

functionalities 

Information related 

to the accused 

functionalities 

Derek McGowan Not currently 

known

Former Docker, 

Inc. employee with 

knowledge related 

to accused 

functionalities 

Information related 

to the accused 

functionalities 

Tonis Tiigi Not currently 

known

Former Docker, 

Inc. employee with 

knowledge related 

to accused 

functionalities 

Information related 

to the accused 

functionalities 

Solomon Hykes Not currently 

known 

Former Docker, 

Inc. employee with 

knowledge related 

to accused 

functionalities 

Information related 

to the accused 

functionalities 

Jessie Frazelle Not currently 

known 

Former Docker, 

Inc. employee with 

knowledge related 

to accused 

functionalities 

Information related 

to the accused 

functionalities 

Cloud Native Computing 

Foundation 

On information and 

belief: 

Cloud Native 

Computing 

Foundation 

c/o The Linux 

Foundation 

548 Market St 

PMB 57274 

San Francisco, CA 

94104-5401

Third-party with 

knowledge related 

to accused 

functionalities 

Information related 

to the accused 

functionalities 

Case 2:24-cv-00093-JRG Document 102-2 Filed 11/05/24 Page 13 of 19 PageID #: 5002
13 

Jonathan Clark Not currently 

known

Third-party with 

knowledge related 

to prior art 

products 

Information related 

to prior art products 

Sun Microsystems On information and 

belief: 

Sun Microsystems 

3401 Hillview Ave, 

Palo Alto, CA 

95054 

(737) 867-1000 

Third-party with 

knowledge related 

to prior art 

products 

Information related 

to prior art products 

Andrew Tucker Not currently 

known

Former Sun 

Microsystems 

employee with 

knowledge related 

to prior art 

products 

Information related 

to prior art products 

Daniel Price Not currently 

known 

Former Sun 

Microsystems 

employee with 

knowledge related 

to prior art 

products 

Information related 

to prior art products 

Steven Osman Not currently 

known

Third-party with 

knowledge related 

to prior art 

products 

Information related 

to prior art products 

Dinesh Subhraveti Not currently 

known

Third-party with 

knowledge related 

to prior art 

products 

Information related 

to prior art products 

Broadcom On information and 

belief: 

Broadcom 

3421 Hillview Ave, 

Palo Alto, CA 

94304 

(650) 427-6000 

Third-party with 

knowledge related 

to prior art 

products 

Information related 

to prior art products 

Virtuozzo, Inc. On information and 

belief: 

Virtuozzo, Inc.

Third-party with 

knowledge related 

Information related 

to prior art products 

Case 2:24-cv-00093-JRG Document 102-2 Filed 11/05/24 Page 14 of 19 PageID #: 5003
14 

13555 SE 36th St., 

Ste. 100, Bellevue, 

WA 98006

to prior art 

products 

University of California, 

Berkeley 

On information and 

belief: 

University of 

California, 

Berkeley 

110 Sproul Hall, 

Berkeley, CA 

94720 

(510) 642-6000 

Third-party with 

knowledge related 

to accused 

functionalities 

Information related 

to prior art products 

By making the disclosures herein, HPE is in no way limiting its rights to obtain discovery 

from or to call as a witness any individual or entities that are not listed. The individuals identified 

above may also have knowledge about issues in the case other than those specifically identified. 

Such knowledge may be uncovered during discovery, and HPE reserves the right to present the 

identified individuals at trial to testify regarding areas other than those specifically listed. HPE 

further reserves the right to present individuals at trial other than those identified if discovery 

reveals that such other individuals may be in possession of information relevant to this case. 

For example, in addition to the persons identified above, HPE notes that the following 

classes of persons may have discoverable information that HPE may use to support its claims or 

defenses: (1) persons who will be deposed during this lawsuit and persons identified during such 

depositions; (2) any custodians of records or other persons who may be required to establish the 

authenticity of documents or things; (3) all individuals identified by VirtaMove in its Initial 

Disclosures and any amendments thereto; (4) all individuals identified by VirtaMove in its 

discovery responses; and (5) all individuals identified by HPE in its discovery responses, if 

applicable. 

Moreover, in addition to the individuals and entities listed above, HPE will (and other 

parties in this action or related actions may) produce prior art discovered throughout the course of 

Case 2:24-cv-00093-JRG Document 102-2 Filed 11/05/24 Page 15 of 19 PageID #: 5004
15 

litigation that may identify authors, inventors, assignees, and other individuals or entities that may 

have additional knowledge, documents, or other discoverable information, including, for example, 

persons with knowledge as to the invalidity of the Asserted Patents under 35 U.S.C. §§ 101, 102, 

103, and/or 112 and/or the unenforceability of the Asserted Patents. HPE may seek information 

from these individuals and entities to support its claims. HPE hereby incorporates by reference the 

items of prior art that will be produced during the course of discovery by any party in the case or 

in any related cases and any individuals and entities that may be identified therein. 

E. Any indemnity and insuring agreements under which any person or entity 

carrying on an insurance business may be liable to satisfy part or all of a 

judgment entered in this action or to indemnify or reimburse for payments 

made to satisfy the judgment. 

HPE is currently unaware of any agreements under which a person or entity carrying on an 

insurance business may be liable to satisfy all or part of a judgment or to indemnify or reimburse 

for payments made to satisfy the judgment. 

F. Any settlement agreements relevant to the subject matter of this action. 

HPE is currently unaware of any settlement agreements relevant to the subject matter of 

this action. If HPE later becomes aware of any settlement agreements relevant to this action, and 

subject to any applicable third-party confidentiality obligations, HPE will produce or make such 

agreements available for inspection as discovery progresses. 

G. Any statement of any party to the litigation. 

HPE has no additional statements at this time. HPE is currently unaware of any relevant 

statement of any other party to the litigation. 

Case 2:24-cv-00093-JRG Document 102-2 Filed 11/05/24 Page 16 of 19 PageID #: 5005
16 

II. Additional Disclosures 

A. Provide the disclosures required by the Patent Rules for the Eastern District 

of Texas. 

HPE will provide the disclosures required by the Patent Rules for the Eastern District of 

Texas in accordance with the Docket Control Order. 

B. Produce or permit the inspection of all documents, electronically stored 

information, and tangible things in the possession, custody, or control of the 

party that are relevant to the pleaded claims or defenses involved in this action, 

except to the extent these disclosures are affected by the time limits set forth 

in the Patent Rules for the Eastern District of Texas. 

HPE will produce or permit inspection non-privileged documents, electronically stored 

information, and tangible things relevant to the pleaded claims or defenses in this action in HPE’s 

possession, custody, or control, pursuant to a reasonable search, including but not limited to 

production of documents and things relating to the accused products and prior art pursuant to 

Patent Rule 3-4, consistent with the deadline specified in the Docket Control Order. HPE is 

continuing its investigation into documents, data compilations, or tangible things that are likely to 

be relevant to any claims or defenses in this case and will produce relevant and non-privileged 

documents on a rolling basis as they are collected. 

HPE’s investigation is in its early stages and HPE reserves the right to supplement this 

disclosure as it identifies additional facts and/or evidence that it may use to support its defenses or 

claims. HPE also reserves its right to object to the production of any documents described herein 

on any basis permitted by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 

C. Provide a complete computation of any category of damages claimed by any 

party to the action, and produce or permit the inspection of documents or 

other evidentiary material on which such computation is based, including 

materials bearing on the nature and extent of the injuries suffered, except that 

Case 2:24-cv-00093-JRG Document 102-2 Filed 11/05/24 Page 17 of 19 PageID #: 5006
17 

the disclosure of the computation of damages may be deferred until the time 

for Expert Disclosures if a party will rely on a damages expert. 

With respect to VirtaMove’s claims, VirtaMove is not entitled to any recovery. Under 35 

U.S.C. § 285, HPE, if it prevails in this matter, may seek to recover its attorneys’ fees in defending 

this action. HPE may also seek its costs relating to this action. In addition, HPE seeks other and 

further relief the Court deems just and proper. A computation of these damages and any related 

documents will be made available under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure at the appropriate 

times. 

As discovery proceeds in this action, HPE reserves the right to assert additional theories of 

recovery which may impact the damages computation. If appropriate, HPE will produce and/or 

make available for inspection documents or other evidentiary material on which such computation 

is based, consistent with the deadlines set forth in the Docket Control Order. If appropriate, HPE 

will also rely on a rebuttal damages expert in this matter. However, HPE will not provide any 

discovery related to accused products made for and/or used by the United States. 

Dated: October 10, 2024 By: /s/ Katharine Burke 

 Jennifer H. Doan 

Texas Bar No. 08809050 

Joshua R. Thane 

Texas Bar No. 24060713 

HALTOM & DOAN

6500 Summerhill Road, Suite 100 

Texarkana, TX 75503 

Telephone: (903) 255-1000 

Facsimile: (903) 255-0800 

Email: jdoan@haltomdoan.com 

Email: jthane@haltomdoan.com 

Katharine Burke (Lead Attorney) 

DC Bar Number: 985333 

Katharine.burke@bakerbotts.com 

BAKER BOTTS L.L.P. 

700 K Street, N.W. 

Case 2:24-cv-00093-JRG Document 102-2 Filed 11/05/24 Page 18 of 19 PageID #: 5007
18 

Washington, DC 20001-5692 

Tel: (202) 639-7700 

Fax: (202) 639-7890 

Douglas M. Kubehl 

Texas Bar No. 00796909 

Doug.kubehl@bakerbotts.com 

Morgan Mayne 

Texas Bar No. 24084387 

Morgan.mayne@bakerbotts.com 

Emily Deer 

Texas Bar No. 24116352 

BAKER BOTTS L.L.P. 

2001 Ross Avenue, Suite 900 

Dallas, TX 75201-2980 

Tel: (214) 953-6500 

Fax: (214) 953-6503 

David Lien (pro hac vice) 

California Bar No. 313754 

David.lien@bakerbotts.com 

BAKER BOTTS L.L.P. 

1001 Page Mill Road, Building One, 

Suite 200 

Palo Alto, CA 94304-1007 

Tel: (650) 739-7563 

Fax: (650) 739-7663 

ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT 

HEWLETT PACKARD ENTERPRISE 

COMPANY 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the above and foregoing document has been 

served on all counsel of record via email on October 10, 2024. 

/s/ Katharine Burke 

Katharine Burke 

Case 2:24-cv-00093-JRG Document 102-2 Filed 11/05/24 Page 19 of 19 PageID #: 5008