EXHIBIT RR 

Case 2:24-cv-00093-JRG Document 95-4 Filed 10/23/24 Page 1 of 8 PageID #: 4673
1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

MARSHALL DIVISION

VIRTAMOVE, CORP.,

Plaintiff,

v.

HEWLETT PACKARD ENTERPRISE 

COMPANY,

Defendant.

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

(Lead Case)

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

VIRTAMOVE, CORP.,

Plaintiff,

v.

INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINES 

CORP.,

Defendant.

Case No. 2:24-CV-00064-JRG-RSP

(Member Case)

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

PLAINTIFF’S FIRST SUPPLEMENTAL OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO 

DEFENDANT HEWLETT PACKARD ENTERPRISE COMPANY’S FIRST SET OF 

INTERROGATORIES (NOS. 1-5)

Pursuant to Rules 26 and 33 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiff VirtaMove, 

Corp. (“Plaintiff” or “VirtaMove”) provides its first supplemental objections and responses to 

Defendant Hewlett Packard Enterprise Company’s (“Defendant” or “HPE”) First Set of 

Interrogatories as follows:

VirtaMove’s responses are based on information known and available to it at the time of 

these responses. VirtaMove’s investigation in this matter is ongoing. Further, because all 

information and documents that are possibly within the scope of the Interrogatories may have yet 

Case 2:24-cv-00093-JRG Document 95-4 Filed 10/23/24 Page 2 of 8 PageID #: 4674
6

VirtaMove understands these terms to refer to the plaintiff in this action, VirtaMove, Corp.

21. VirtaMove objects to the definitions of the term “Person” because it makes each 

Interrogatory that references a person vague, ambiguous, overbroad, and unduly burdensome 

VirtaMove will interpret this term using its common and ordinary meaning.

22. VirtaMove objects to the definition of the term “Documents” as overbroad and 

unduly burdensome. Accordingly, VirtaMove will interpret this term consistent with its 

obligations pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Local Rules of this District and any 

applicable Court orders.

23. VirtaMove objects to the definition of the term “and” as overbroad and unduly 

burdensome. VirtaMove will interpret this term using its common and ordinary meaning.

24. VirtaMove objects to the definition of the term “or” as overbroad and unduly 

burdensome. VirtaMove will interpret this term using its common and ordinary meaning.

25. VirtaMove objects to Defendant’s Instructions as overbroad, unduly burdensome 

and calling for a legal conclusion. VirtaMove will provide responses and produce documents, 

subject to its objections consistent with applicable statues, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 

the rules of this District and any court orders.

OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO INTERROGATORIES

INTERROGATORY NO. 1

State the date and provide a detailed description of all facts and circumstances relating to 

how You contend HPE first became aware of each Asserted Patent or was provided with notice of 

the alleged infringement. If You contend that You provided actual notice to HPE before filing the 

Complaint(s) in this Action, Your answer should include an identification of all Documents and 

things evidencing and Persons knowledgeable about such actual notice.

RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 1:

Incorporating the General Objections, above, VirtaMove further objects to this

Case 2:24-cv-00093-JRG Document 95-4 Filed 10/23/24 Page 3 of 8 PageID #: 4675
7

Interrogatory to the extent it calls for information protected from disclosure by the attorney-client

privilege, the attorney work product doctrine, or any other applicable privilege or protection.

VirtaMove further objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is overbroad, unduly

burdensome, and seeks information not relevant to any claim or defense. VirtaMove further objects 

to this Interrogatory to the extent it is a premature contention interrogatory that purports to require

VirtaMove to identify all facts or evidence with respect to a particular topic or issue in advance of 

the deadline set forth in the Docket Control Order. VirtaMove further objects to this Interrogatory

as calling for legal conclusions.

Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, VirtaMove responds as follows:

In meetings between 2011–2019, representatives of VirtaMove met with representatives of HP Co. 

and HPE to discuss and demo AppZero and its technology for purposes of investment, use, sale, 

and/or partnership. During this time frame, HPE would have learned that AppZero was patented 

as a matter of basic due diligence, or HPE would have been willfully blind to this fact. After the 

demos and disclosures from VirtaMove, the patented AppZero technology has made its way into 

the Accused Products of HPE. Pursuant to Rule 33(d), VirtaMove refers HPE to the Complaint 

filed in this case, and all amendments thereto. Discovery in this case is ongoing, and VirtaMove 

will amend or supplement this response as discovery in this case proceeds.

FIRST SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 1 (09/04/2024): 

Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, VirtaMove further responds as 

follows:

Pursuant to Rule 33(d) VirtaMove identifies the following documents relating to its 

meetings with HPE from the 2011-2019 timeframe that were produced in this case: 

VM_HPE_0001095 – VM_HPE_0001250. Discovery in this case is ongoing, and VirtaMove

Case 2:24-cv-00093-JRG Document 95-4 Filed 10/23/24 Page 4 of 8 PageID #: 4676
8

reserves the right to supplement or amend this response as discovery in this case proceeds.

INTERROGATORY NO. 2

Describe in detail any and all bases for Your claim for damages from HPE in this lawsuit, 

including without limitation an identification and explanation of the damages theories in which 

Your calculations are grounded (e.g., lost profits, reasonable royalty, or any other measure of 

damages), any royalty rate that You contend applies, the amount of monetary damages to which 

You claim You are entitled from HPE, whether the subject matter of the Asserted Claims constitute 

a substantial basis for consumer demand of any HPE product or service, an identification of all 

facts that You contend or may contend support Your damages theories, an identification of all 

documents that support Your allegations with respect to damages, and an identification of all 

persons who have provided information that supports Your allegations with respect to damages.

RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 2:

Incorporating the General Objections, above, VirtaMove further objects to this

Interrogatory to the extent it calls for information protected from disclosure by the attorney-client

privilege, the attorney work product doctrine, or any other applicable privilege or protection.

VirtaMove further objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is overbroad and unduly

burdensome. VirtaMove further objects to this Interrogatory to the extent that it seeks information

that is equally accessible to Defendant from public sources or from third parties. VirtaMove further 

objects to this Interrogatory to the extent it is a premature contention interrogatory that purports to 

require VirtaMove to identify all facts or evidence with respect to a particular topic or issue in 

advance of the deadline set forth in the Docket Control Order. VirtaMove further objects to this 

Interrogatory to the extent that it seeks information that is outside of VirtaMove’s possession,

custody, and control. VirtaMove further objects to this Interrogatory as calling for expert opinions. 

Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, VirtaMove responds as follows: 

VirtaMove has not yet completed its investigation, collection of information, discovery, and 

analysis relating to this action. Accordingly, VirtaMove expressly reserves the right to supplement, 

modify or alter its response hereto. VirtaMove reserves all of its rights and does not waive any 

Case 2:24-cv-00093-JRG Document 95-4 Filed 10/23/24 Page 5 of 8 PageID #: 4677
15

that is equally accessible to Defendant from public sources or from third parties. VirtaMove further 

objects to this Interrogatory to the extent it is a premature contention interrogatory that purports to 

require VirtaMove to identify all facts or evidence with respect to a particular topic or issue in 

advance of the deadline set forth in the Docket Control Order. VirtaMove further objects to this 

Interrogatory to the extent that it seeks information that is outside of VirtaMove’s possession, 

custody, and control. VirtaMove further objects to this Interrogatory as calling for legal 

conclusions and expert opinions. 

Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, VirtaMove responds as follows:

HPE has had actual and/or constructive knowledge of the VirtaMove, its products, and at least one 

of the Asserted Patents long before this suit was filed and at least as early as 2012. For example, 

the ’814 Patent was cited in connection with at least the following patents: U.S. Patent Nos. 

10,489,354, 10,749,740, 11,467,775, 11,687,267, 11,693,573. Defendant knew, or should have 

known, that its conduct amounted to infringement of the ’814 patent. In view of that knowledge, 

HPE’s continued infringement of the asserted patents was deliberate and intentional and 

constitutes willful infringement. Additional information responsive to this Interrogatory can be 

found in VirtaMove’s Response to Interrogatory No. 1. Discovery in this case is ongoing and 

VirtaMove reserves the right to supplement or amend this response as discovery in this case 

proceeds.

Dated: September 4, 2024 Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Daniel Kolko

Reza Mirzaie (CA SBN 246953)

rmirzaie@raklaw.com 

Marc A. Fenster (CA SBN 181067)

Case 2:24-cv-00093-JRG Document 95-4 Filed 10/23/24 Page 6 of 8 PageID #: 4678
16

mfenster@raklaw.com 

Neil A. Rubin (CA SBN 250761)

nrubin@raklaw.com 

Amy E. Hayden (CA SBN 287026)

ahayden@raklaw.com 

Christian W. Conkle (CA SBN 306374)

cconkle@raklaw.com 

Jonathan Ma (CA SBN 312773)

jma@raklaw.com 

Daniel Kolko (CA SBN 341680)

dkolko@raklaw.com

RUSS AUGUST & KABAT

12424 Wilshire Boulevard, 12th Floor

Los Angeles, CA 90025

Telephone: (310) 826-7474

Qi (Peter) Tong (TX SBN 24119042)

ptong@raklaw.com

RUSS AUGUST & KABAT

4925 Greenville Ave, Suite 200

Dallas, TX 75206

Attorneys for Plaintiff VirtaMove, Corp.

Case 2:24-cv-00093-JRG Document 95-4 Filed 10/23/24 Page 7 of 8 PageID #: 4679
17

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The undersigned certifies that all counsel of record who are deemed to have consented to 

electronic service are being served with a copy of this document on September 4, 2024.

/s/ Daniel Kolko

Daniel Kolko

Case 2:24-cv-00093-JRG Document 95-4 Filed 10/23/24 Page 8 of 8 PageID #: 4680