IP Verse

Orca Security Ltd. V. Wiz, Inc. - 1:23-cv-00758

Explore the details of the Orca Security Ltd. V. Wiz, Inc. case under case number 1:23-cv-00758 involving a cause of action for Patent Infringement. Review key information about the parties involved, the patents in question, and the docket entries.

Case Details

Case Number
1:23-cv-00758
Filing Date
Jul 12, 2023
Cause of Action
Patent Infringement
Status
-
Nature of Suit
Patent

Parties Involved in the Case

The following parties are involved in this case, with their respective legal representatives for the case.

NameRepresented By
Orca Security Ltd. -
Wiz, Inc. -

Patents Involved in the Case

Patents not found - set an alert to get notified when patents are added.

Docket Entries

The Docket Entries section provides a chronological list of all significant filings and court actions in this case.

DateDocket EntryType

Set alerts for critical docket entry

Jan 3, 2025MOTION for Teleconference to Resolve Dispute Regarding Wiz's Request for Stay Pending Inter Partes Review re 223 Order Cancelling Deadline,,, Set Deadlines,, - filed by Wiz, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C)Motions referred to Sherry R. Fallon.(Haynes, Christine) (Entered: 01/03/2025)PACER Document
May 17, 2024ORAL ORDER re 49 Joint Motion for Discovery Dispute Teleconference. Having reviewed the parties' discovery dispute letter submissions (D.I. 58, D.I. 59, D.I. 60, D.I. 61), IT IS ORDERED that: (1) Plaintiff's motion to compel Defendant to produce relevant and responsive internal technical documents describing the Accused Product from OneDrive, Box, GitHub, Notion, Confluence, and SharePoint is GRANTED-IN-PART. The motion is GRANTED to the extent that internal core technical documents exist which show the operation of the Accused Product's "Wiz Analysis Engine" and "Wiz Console and Backend." (D.I. 58, Ex. D at 9, 16-17) Defendant states that it produced source code disclosing these features. However, Defendant does not represent that this is the only technical information in its possession that discloses the operation of these specific functionalities. (D.I. 60 at 2); see Cirba Inc. v. VMWare, Inc., C.A. No. 19-742-LPS, 2021 WL 7209447, at *6 (D. Del. Dec. 14, 2021) (recognizing that "whether source code must be produced as a core technical document is far from clear," and noting the impression that "a significant volume of technical documents" was missing from the core technical document production); PerDiemCo LLC v. CalAmp Corp., C.A. No. 20-1397-VAC-SRF, May 17, 2022 Oral Order (D. Del. May 17, 2022). Plaintiff should have an opportunity to review core technical documents, and not just source code, on the operation of the specific features at issue in the Accused Product. See Princeton Digital Image Corp. v. Konami Digital Ent'mt Inc., 316 F.R.D. 89, 95 n.11 (D. Del. 2016) ("The Court is aware of no rule that states that if a defendant has produced source code, Plaintiff is not entitled to any other 'core technical documents.' "). Defendant shall produce responsive documents in accordance with this Oral Order on or before May 24, 2024. Plaintiff's motion to compel is DENIED without prejudice in all other respects for this issue. Plaintiff has not identified other specific features for which Defendant's core technical document production is lacking. (D.I. 33 at ¶ 8(b)) (2) Plaintiff's motion to compel Defendant to produce the complete source code for Defendant's Cloud Security Platform including git history is DENIED without prejudice. Plaintiff seeks the production of all source code on the Accused Product, beyond the source code produced on the specific accused features of the Accused Product. (D.I. 58 at 3) But Plaintiff has not explained why the complete code, including code unrelated to the accused functionality, is relevant or proportional to the needs of the case. See LoganTree LP v. Garmin Int'l, Inc., 339 F.R.D. 171, 182 (D. Kan. 2021) (denying request for additional printed source code on functionalities not accused of infringement where, as here, the parties were direct competitors); Ameranth, Inc. v. Pizza Hut, Inc., 2013 WL 636936, at *7 (S.D. Cal. Feb. 20, 2013) (holding that "the Defendant is only required to produce the source code that is 'sufficient to show the operation of' those system aspects identified" in the plaintiff's charts). (3) Plaintiff's motion to compel Defendant to produce documents responsive to Plaintiff's first set of RFPs on or before May 24, 2024 is GRANTED. Defendant's briefing on this issue does not clarify whether a meaningful production either has been or will be made soon. Defendant represents that it "has supplemented all but one of its responses to Orca's first set of RFPs," without stating when the supplementation was made or attaching those responses as an exhibit, and Plaintiff's submission attached only Defendant's original responses to the RFPs. (D.I. 60 at 1; D.I. 58, Ex. B) Defendant further represents that it made a document production on May 10, again without citing to exhibits or summarizing the content and scope of the production. (D.I. 59 at 3) Plaintiff states that the production contained no internal documents from the most relevant non-custodial sources identified by Defendant in its ESI Initial Disclosures. (D.I. 58 at 1 n.1; D.I. 45) Defendant has had sufficient time since the February 21 service of the RFPs to begin the rolling production it represented it would make "within the month" in an email dated April 17, 2024. (D.I. 58, Ex. D at 7) This production should include internal, non-public documents from Defendant's most relevant non-custodial sources. (Id., Ex. B) The Court is not persuaded on this record that a schedule of interim deadlines is necessary because Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(e)(1) already imposes a requirement for ongoing supplementation of a party's discovery responses and, furthermore, IT IS ORDERED that the parties shall submit a joint status report on the status of fact discovery, limited to no more than four (4) pages, on or before June 24, 2024. (4) The relief requested in Defendant's moving letter submission is DENIED as moot. (D.I. 59) Defendant raises no affirmative grounds for relief in its "moving" submission and instead provides additional argument in opposition to Plaintiff's request for interim discovery deadlines. Defendant's briefing falls outside the Court's discovery dispute procedures, which are in place to enable the Court to address discovery disputes on an expedited basis without extended briefing. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the discovery dispute teleconference scheduled for May 20, 2024 at 2:00 PM is CANCELLED. Signed by Judge Sherry R. Fallon on 5/17/2024. (Polito, Rebecca) (Entered: 05/17/2024)PACER Document
Jan 7, 2025ORAL ORDER- re 228 MOTION for Teleconference to Resolve Dispute Regarding Wiz's Request for Stay Pending Inter Partes Review. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the parties shall submit a joint letter, limited to no more than six pages, explaining their respective positions regarding the form of the stipulation to stay the case by no later than January 13, 2025. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a teleconference may be scheduled at the convenience of the court, if necessary, otherwise, the court intends to resolve the dispute based on the written submissions. Ordered by Judge Sherry R. Fallon on 1/7/2025. (lih) (Entered: 01/07/2025)PACER Document
Jan 3, 2025MOTION for Teleconference to Resolve Dispute Regarding Wiz's Request for Stay Pending Inter Partes Review re 223 Order Cancelling Deadline,,, Set Deadlines,, - filed by Wiz, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C)Motions referred to Sherry R. Fallon.(Haynes, Christine) (Entered: 01/03/2025)Attachment
Jan 3, 2025MOTION for Teleconference to Resolve Dispute Regarding Wiz's Request for Stay Pending Inter Partes Review re 223 Order Cancelling Deadline,,, Set Deadlines,, - filed by Wiz, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C)Motions referred to Sherry R. Fallon.(Haynes, Christine) (Entered: 01/03/2025)Attachment
Jan 3, 2025MOTION for Teleconference to Resolve Dispute Regarding Wiz's Request for Stay Pending Inter Partes Review re 223 Order Cancelling Deadline,,, Set Deadlines,, - filed by Wiz, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C)Motions referred to Sherry R. Fallon.(Haynes, Christine) (Entered: 01/03/2025)Attachment
Jan 13, 2025Joint Letter to The Honorable Sherry R. Fallon from Christine D. Haynes regarding Wiz's Request for Stay Pending Inter Partes Review. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F, # 7 Exhibit G)(Haynes, Christine) (Entered: 01/13/2025)PACER Document
Jan 13, 2025Joint Letter to The Honorable Sherry R. Fallon from Christine D. Haynes regarding Wiz's Request for Stay Pending Inter Partes Review. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F, # 7 Exhibit G)(Haynes, Christine) (Entered: 01/13/2025)Attachment
Jan 13, 2025Joint Letter to The Honorable Sherry R. Fallon from Christine D. Haynes regarding Wiz's Request for Stay Pending Inter Partes Review. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F, # 7 Exhibit G)(Haynes, Christine) (Entered: 01/13/2025)Attachment
Jan 13, 2025Joint Letter to The Honorable Sherry R. Fallon from Christine D. Haynes regarding Wiz's Request for Stay Pending Inter Partes Review. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F, # 7 Exhibit G)(Haynes, Christine) (Entered: 01/13/2025)Attachment
Jan 13, 2025Joint Letter to The Honorable Sherry R. Fallon from Christine D. Haynes regarding Wiz's Request for Stay Pending Inter Partes Review. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F, # 7 Exhibit G)(Haynes, Christine) (Entered: 01/13/2025)Attachment
Jan 13, 2025Joint Letter to The Honorable Sherry R. Fallon from Christine D. Haynes regarding Wiz's Request for Stay Pending Inter Partes Review. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F, # 7 Exhibit G)(Haynes, Christine) (Entered: 01/13/2025)Attachment
Jan 13, 2025Joint Letter to The Honorable Sherry R. Fallon from Christine D. Haynes regarding Wiz's Request for Stay Pending Inter Partes Review. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F, # 7 Exhibit G)(Haynes, Christine) (Entered: 01/13/2025)Attachment
Jan 13, 2025Joint Letter to The Honorable Sherry R. Fallon from Christine D. Haynes regarding Wiz's Request for Stay Pending Inter Partes Review. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F, # 7 Exhibit G)(Haynes, Christine) (Entered: 01/13/2025)Attachment
Jan 14, 2025ORAL ORDER re 228 Motion for Teleconference to Resolve Dispute Regarding Request for Stay Pending Inter Partes Review. Having reviewed the parties' joint letter submission (D.I. 230), which confirms that the parties agree a stay should be entered but disagree regarding two aspects of the form of stay, IT IS ORDERED that Wiz's proposed form of stay is ADOPTED. First, the court rejects Orca's proposal to include a carveout from the stay allowing either party to amend the pleadings to assert new claims during the pendency of the stay. (D.I. 230, Ex. C at ¶ 4) Orca's proposal is unduly vague because it does not describe how briefing on any proposed amendments would proceed during the stay, and the scope and nature of any claims to be added remains unknown. (Id.) Wiz's proposal allows Orca to move to lift the stay, should Orca wish to amend the pleadings prior to the expiration of any statutes of limitations. (Id., Ex. A at ¶ 4) Next, Orca's proposal to lift the stay if institution is denied on any of the remaining three IPR petitions is rejected. (Id., Ex. 3 at ¶ 2) The fact that three of the six IPR petitions have already been instituted weighs in favor of maintaining the stay, and Orca may move to lift the stay if any of the three remaining IPR petitions are not instituted and Orca has a good faith basis to believe the case should proceed. See IOENGINE, LLC v. PayPal Holdings, Inc., C.A. No. 18-452-WCB, 2019 WL 3943058, at *9 (D. Del. Aug. 21, 2019) ("[D]istrict courts have frequently issued stays in cases in which IPR proceedings have been instituted on fewer than all the claims asserted in the related litigation."). The parties shall follow the agreed-upon procedure in paragraph 3 of the proposed order by submitting a joint status report within ten days of the last institution decision due by February 19, 2025. (D.I. 230, Ex. A at ¶ 3) IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, on or before January 16, 2025, the parties shall docket an executed copy of Wiz's Stipulation and Proposed Order for Stay (D.I. 230, Ex. A) for the court's signature in accordance with this ruling. Ordered by Judge Sherry R. Fallon on 1/14/2025. (lih) (Entered: 01/14/2025)PACER Document