`Patent 7,162,967
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`PETROLEUM GEO-SERVICES INC.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`WESTERNGECO, LLC
`Patent Owner
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00687
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,162,967
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PETROLEUM GEO-SERVICES INC.’S OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PGS Exhibit 1110, pg. 1
`PGS v. WesternGeco (IPR2014-00687)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner Petroleum Geo-Services Inc. (“PGS”) objects pursuant to 37
`
`C.F.R. § 42.64(b)(1) and the Federal Rules of Evidence (“FRE”) to the
`
`admissibility of exhibits served by Patent Owner WesternGeco, LLC on September
`
`16, 2014. The exhibits objected to, and grounds for PGS’ objections, are listed
`
`below.
`
`I.
`
`IDENTIFICATION OF CHALLENGED EVIDENCE AND GROUNDS
`FOR OBJECTIONS
`A. Exhibit 2002
`PGS objects to Exhibit 2002 under FRE 402 and FRE 403 because it is
`
`irrelevant and its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of
`
`wasting time in this compressed proceeding. The Board has instituted the IPR
`
`based on various grounds that certain claims of U.S. Patent No. 7,162,967 (“the
`
`’967 Patent”) are anticipated and/or obvious. The Board declined to deny the
`
`petition on the basis that ION Geophysical Corp. (“ION”) is a real party in interest
`
`or a privy of PGS in this proceeding. Because Patent Owner has cited this exhibit
`
`solely in an effort to show that ION is a real party in interest or a privy of PGS in
`
`this proceeding, this exhibit is irrelevant to the determination to be made in the
`
`IPR. Moreover, even were the question of ION’s status as a real party in interest
`
`or privy of PGS relevant to the proceeding, Exhibit 2002 is not relevant to that
`
`determination and therefore should be excluded under FRE 402. And because any
`
`relevance of Exhibit 2002 is significantly outweighed by the undue prejudice
`
`
`
`2
`
`PGS Exhibit 1110, pg. 2
`PGS v. WesternGeco (IPR2014-00687)
`
`
`
`
`
`associated with ancillary litigation of the tangential and irrelevant issue of
`
`Petitioner’s relationship with ION, it should be excluded pursuant to FRE 403.
`
`PGS further objects to Exhibit 2002 under FRE 901, 1002, and 1003. It has
`
`not been authenticated under FRE 901, is not self-authenticating under FRE 902,
`
`and is not a “duplicate” as defined by FRE 1001(e). Exhibit 2002 is therefore
`
`inadmissible under FRE 901, 1002, and 1003. Additionally, this exhibit is
`
`inadmissible hearsay under FRE 802.
`
`Exhibit 2003
`
`B.
`PGS objects to Exhibit 2003 under FRE 402 and FRE 403 because it is
`
`irrelevant and its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of
`
`wasting time in this compressed proceeding. The Board has instituted the IPR
`
`based on various grounds that certain claims of the ’967 Patent are anticipated
`
`and/or obvious. The Board declined to deny the petition on the basis that ION is a
`
`real party in interest or a privy of PGS in this proceeding. Because Patent Owner
`
`has cited this exhibit solely in an effort to show that ION is a real party in interest
`
`or a privy of PGS in this proceeding, this exhibit is irrelevant to the determination
`
`to be made in the IPR. Moreover, even were the question of ION’s status as a real
`
`party in interest or privy of PGS relevant to the proceeding, Exhibit 2003 is not
`
`relevant to that determination and therefore should be excluded under FRE 402.
`
`And because any relevance of Exhibit 2003 is significantly outweighed by the
`
`
`
`3
`
`PGS Exhibit 1110, pg. 3
`PGS v. WesternGeco (IPR2014-00687)
`
`
`
`
`
`undue prejudice associated with ancillary litigation of the tangential and irrelevant
`
`issue of Petitioner’s relationship with ION, it should be excluded pursuant to FRE
`
`403.
`
`PGS further objects to Exhibit 2003 under FRE 901, 1002, and 1003. It has
`
`not been authenticated under FRE 901, is not self-authenticating under FRE 902,
`
`and is not a “duplicate” as defined by FRE 1001(e). Exhibit 2003 is therefore
`
`inadmissible under FRE 901, 1002, and 1003. Additionally, this exhibit is
`
`inadmissible hearsay under FRE 802.
`
`C. Exhibit 2004
`PGS objects to Exhibit 2004 under FRE 402 and FRE 403 because it is
`
`irrelevant and its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of
`
`wasting time in this compressed proceeding. The Board has instituted the IPR
`
`based on various grounds that certain claims of the ’967 Patent are anticipated
`
`and/or obvious. The Board declined to deny the petition on the basis that ION is a
`
`real party in interest or a privy of PGS in this proceeding. Because Patent Owner
`
`has cited this exhibit solely in an effort to show that ION is a real party in interest
`
`or a privy of PGS in this proceeding, this exhibit is irrelevant to the determination
`
`to be made in the IPR. Moreover, even were the question of ION’s status as a real
`
`party in interest or privy of PGS relevant to the proceeding, Exhibit 2004 is not
`
`relevant to that determination and therefore should be excluded under FRE 402.
`
`
`
`4
`
`PGS Exhibit 1110, pg. 4
`PGS v. WesternGeco (IPR2014-00687)
`
`
`
`
`
`And because any relevance of Exhibit 2004 is significantly outweighed by the
`
`undue prejudice associated with ancillary litigation of the tangential and irrelevant
`
`issue of Petitioner’s relationship with ION, it should be excluded pursuant to FRE
`
`403.
`
`D. Exhibit 2005
`PGS objects to Exhibit 2005 under FRE 402 and FRE 403 because it is
`
`irrelevant and its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of
`
`wasting time in this compressed proceeding. The Board has instituted the IPR
`
`based on various grounds that certain claims of the ’967 Patent are anticipated
`
`and/or obvious. The Board declined to deny the petition on the basis that ION is a
`
`real party in interest or a privy of PGS in this proceeding. Because Patent Owner
`
`has cited this exhibit solely in an effort to show that ION is a real party in interest
`
`or a privy of PGS in this proceeding, this exhibit is irrelevant to the determination
`
`to be made in the IPR. Moreover, even were the question of ION’s status as a real
`
`party in interest or privy of PGS relevant to the proceeding, Exhibit 2005 is not
`
`relevant to that determination and therefore should be excluded under FRE 402.
`
`And because any relevance of Exhibit 2005 is significantly outweighed by the
`
`undue prejudice associated with ancillary litigation of the tangential and irrelevant
`
`issue of Petitioner’s relationship with ION, it should be excluded pursuant to FRE
`
`403.
`
`
`
`5
`
`PGS Exhibit 1110, pg. 5
`PGS v. WesternGeco (IPR2014-00687)
`
`
`
`
`
`PGS further objects to Exhibit 2005 under FRE 901, 1002, and 1003.
`
`Exhibit 2005 contains handwritten notes imposed on top of documents in the
`
`exhibit. Neither the documents in Exhibit 2005 nor the super-imposed handwriting
`
`have been authenticated under FRE 901, nor are they self-authenticating under
`
`FRE 902, and they are not “duplicates” as defined by FRE 1001(e). Exhibit 2005
`
`is therefore inadmissible under FRE 901, 1002, and 1003. Additionally, this
`
`exhibit is inadmissible hearsay under FRE 802. And the super-imposed
`
`handwriting in this exhibit is inadmissible double hearsay under FRE 802.
`
`Exhibit 2006
`
`E.
`PGS objects to Exhibit 2006 under FRE 402 and FRE 403 because it is
`
`irrelevant and its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of
`
`wasting time in this compressed proceeding. The Board has instituted the IPR
`
`based on various grounds that certain claims of the ’967 Patent are anticipated
`
`and/or obvious. The Board declined to deny the petition on the basis that ION is a
`
`real party in interest or a privy of PGS in this proceeding. Because Patent Owner
`
`has cited this exhibit solely in an effort to show that ION is a real party in interest
`
`or a privy of PGS in this proceeding, this exhibit is irrelevant to the determination
`
`to be made in the IPR. Moreover, even were the question of ION’s status as a real
`
`party in interest or privy of PGS relevant to the proceeding, Exhibit 2006 is not
`
`relevant to that determination and therefore should be excluded under FRE 402.
`
`
`
`6
`
`PGS Exhibit 1110, pg. 6
`PGS v. WesternGeco (IPR2014-00687)
`
`
`
`
`
`And because any relevance of Exhibit 2006 is significantly outweighed by the
`
`undue prejudice associated with ancillary litigation of the tangential and irrelevant
`
`issue of Petitioner’s relationship with ION, it should be excluded pursuant to FRE
`
`403.
`
`PGS further objects to Exhibit 2006 under FRE 901, 1002, and 1003. It has
`
`not been authenticated under FRE 901, is not self-authenticating under FRE 902,
`
`and is not a “duplicate” as defined by FRE 1001(e). Exhibit 2006 is therefore
`
`inadmissible under FRE 901, 1002, and 1003. Additionally, this exhibit contains
`
`inadmissible hearsay under FRE 802, including the statements of Alan Faichney
`
`and Clem Guillot of ION.
`
`Exhibit 2007
`
`F.
`PGS objects to Exhibit 2007 under FRE 402 and FRE 403 because it is
`
`irrelevant and its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of
`
`wasting time in this compressed proceeding. The Board has instituted the IPR
`
`based on various grounds that certain claims of the ’967 Patent are anticipated
`
`and/or obvious. The Board declined to deny the petition on the basis that ION is a
`
`real party in interest or a privy of PGS in this proceeding. Because Patent Owner
`
`has cited this exhibit solely in an effort to show that ION is a real party in interest
`
`or a privy of PGS in this proceeding, this exhibit is irrelevant to the determination
`
`to be made in the IPR. Moreover, even were the question of ION’s status as a real
`
`
`
`7
`
`PGS Exhibit 1110, pg. 7
`PGS v. WesternGeco (IPR2014-00687)
`
`
`
`
`
`party in interest or privy of PGS relevant to the proceeding, Exhibit 2007 is not
`
`relevant to that determination and therefore should be excluded under FRE 402.
`
`And because any relevance of Exhibit 2007 is significantly outweighed by the
`
`undue prejudice associated with ancillary litigation of the tangential and irrelevant
`
`issue of Petitioner’s relationship with ION, it should be excluded pursuant to FRE
`
`403. Additionally, this exhibit is inadmissible hearsay under FRE 802.
`
`G. Exhibit 2008
`PGS objects to Exhibit 2008 under FRE 402 and FRE 403 because it is
`
`irrelevant and its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of
`
`wasting time in this compressed proceeding. The Board has instituted the IPR
`
`based on various grounds that certain claims of the ’967 Patent are anticipated
`
`and/or obvious. The Board declined to deny the petition on the basis that ION is a
`
`real party in interest or a privy of PGS in this proceeding. Because Patent Owner
`
`has cited this exhibit solely in an effort to show that ION is a real party in interest
`
`or a privy of PGS in this proceeding, this exhibit is irrelevant to the determination
`
`to be made in the IPR. Moreover, even were the question of ION’s status as a real
`
`party in interest or privy of PGS relevant to the proceeding, Exhibit 2008 is not
`
`relevant to that determination and therefore should be excluded under FRE 402.
`
`And because any relevance of Exhibit 2008 is significantly outweighed by the
`
`undue prejudice associated with ancillary litigation of the tangential and irrelevant
`
`
`
`8
`
`PGS Exhibit 1110, pg. 8
`PGS v. WesternGeco (IPR2014-00687)
`
`
`
`
`
`issue of Petitioner’s relationship with ION, it should be excluded pursuant to FRE
`
`403.
`
`PGS further objects to Exhibit 2008 under FRE 901, 1002, and 1003. It has
`
`not been authenticated under FRE 901, is not self-authenticating under FRE 902,
`
`and is not a “duplicate” as defined by FRE 1001(e). Exhibit 2008 is therefore
`
`inadmissible under FRE 901, 1002, and 1003. Additionally, this exhibit is
`
`inadmissible hearsay under FRE 802.
`
`H. Exhibit 2009
`PGS objects to Exhibit 2009 under FRE 402 and FRE 403 because it is
`
`irrelevant and its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of
`
`wasting time in this compressed proceeding. The Board has instituted the IPR
`
`based on various grounds that certain claims of the ’967 Patent are anticipated
`
`and/or obvious. The Board declined to deny the petition on the basis that ION is a
`
`real party in interest or a privy of PGS in this proceeding. Because Patent Owner
`
`has cited this exhibit solely in an effort to show that ION is a real party in interest
`
`or a privy of PGS in this proceeding, this exhibit is irrelevant to the determination
`
`to be made in the IPR. Moreover, even were the question of ION’s status as a real
`
`party in interest or privy of PGS relevant to the proceeding, Exhibit 2009 is not
`
`relevant to that determination and therefore should be excluded under FRE 402.
`
`And because any relevance of Exhibit 2009 is significantly outweighed by the
`
`
`
`9
`
`PGS Exhibit 1110, pg. 9
`PGS v. WesternGeco (IPR2014-00687)
`
`
`
`
`
`undue prejudice associated with ancillary litigation of the tangential and irrelevant
`
`issue of Petitioner’s relationship with ION, it should be excluded pursuant to FRE
`
`403.
`
`PGS further objects to Exhibit 2009 under FRE 901, 1002, and 1003. It has
`
`not been authenticated under FRE 901, is not self-authenticating under FRE 902,
`
`and is not a “duplicate” as defined by FRE 1001(e). Exhibit 2009 is therefore
`
`inadmissible under FRE 901, 1002, and 1003. Additionally, this exhibit is
`
`inadmissible hearsay under FRE 802.
`
`Exhibit 2010
`
`I.
`PGS objects to Exhibit 2010 under FRE 402 and FRE 403 because it is
`
`irrelevant and its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of
`
`wasting time in this compressed proceeding. The Board has instituted the IPR
`
`based on various grounds that certain claims of the ’967 Patent are anticipated
`
`and/or obvious. The Board declined to deny the petition on the basis that ION is a
`
`real party in interest or a privy of PGS in this proceeding. Because Patent Owner
`
`has cited this exhibit solely in an effort to show that ION is a real party in interest
`
`or a privy of PGS in this proceeding, this exhibit is irrelevant to the determination
`
`to be made in the IPR. Moreover, even were the question of ION’s status as a real
`
`party in interest or privy of PGS relevant to the proceeding, Exhibit 2010 is not
`
`relevant to that determination and therefore should be excluded under FRE 402.
`
`
`
`10
`
`PGS Exhibit 1110, pg. 10
`PGS v. WesternGeco (IPR2014-00687)
`
`
`
`
`
`And because any relevance of Exhibit 2010 is significantly outweighed by the
`
`undue prejudice associated with ancillary litigation of the tangential and irrelevant
`
`issue of Petitioner’s relationship with ION, it should be excluded pursuant to FRE
`
`403. Additionally, this exhibit is inadmissible hearsay under FRE 802.
`
`Exhibit 2011
`
`J.
`PGS objects to Exhibit 2011 under FRE 402 and FRE 403 because it is
`
`irrelevant and its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of
`
`wasting time in this compressed proceeding. The Board has instituted the IPR
`
`based on various grounds that certain claims of the ’967 Patent are anticipated
`
`and/or obvious. The Board declined to deny the petition on the basis that ION is a
`
`real party in interest or a privy of PGS in this proceeding. Because Patent Owner
`
`has cited this exhibit solely in an effort to show that ION is a real party in interest
`
`or a privy of PGS in this proceeding, this exhibit is irrelevant to the determination
`
`to be made in the IPR. Moreover, even were the question of ION’s status as a real
`
`party in interest or privy of PGS relevant to the proceeding, Exhibit 2011 is not
`
`relevant to that determination and therefore should be excluded under FRE 402.
`
`And because any relevance of Exhibit 2011 is significantly outweighed by the
`
`undue prejudice associated with ancillary litigation of the tangential and irrelevant
`
`issue of Petitioner’s relationship with ION, it should be excluded pursuant to FRE
`
`403.
`
`
`
`11
`
`PGS Exhibit 1110, pg. 11
`PGS v. WesternGeco (IPR2014-00687)
`
`
`
`
`
`K. Exhibit 2012
`PGS objects to Exhibit 2012 under FRE 402 and FRE 403 because it is
`
`irrelevant and its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of
`
`wasting time in this compressed proceeding. The Board has instituted the IPR
`
`based on various grounds that certain claims of the ’967 Patent are anticipated
`
`and/or obvious. The Board declined to deny the petition on the basis that ION is a
`
`real party in interest or a privy of PGS in this proceeding. Because Patent Owner
`
`has cited this exhibit solely in an effort to show that ION is a real party in interest
`
`or a privy of PGS in this proceeding, this exhibit is irrelevant to the determination
`
`to be made in the IPR. Moreover, even were the question of ION’s status as a real
`
`party in interest or privy of PGS relevant to the proceeding, Exhibit 2012 is not
`
`relevant to that determination and therefore should be excluded under FRE 402.
`
`And because any relevance of Exhibit 2012 is significantly outweighed by the
`
`undue prejudice associated with ancillary litigation of the tangential and irrelevant
`
`issue of Petitioner’s relationship with ION, it should be excluded pursuant to FRE
`
`403. Additionally, this exhibit is inadmissible hearsay under FRE 802.
`
`Exhibit 2013
`
`L.
`PGS objects to Exhibit 2013 under FRE 402 and FRE 403 because it is
`
`irrelevant and its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of
`
`wasting time in this compressed proceeding. The Board has instituted the IPR
`
`
`
`12
`
`PGS Exhibit 1110, pg. 12
`PGS v. WesternGeco (IPR2014-00687)
`
`
`
`
`
`based on various grounds that certain claims of the ’967 Patent are anticipated
`
`and/or obvious. The Board declined to deny the petition on the basis that ION is a
`
`real party in interest or a privy of PGS in this proceeding. Because Patent Owner
`
`has cited this exhibit solely in an effort to show that ION is a real party in interest
`
`or a privy of PGS in this proceeding, this exhibit is irrelevant to the determination
`
`to be made in the IPR. Moreover, even were the question of ION’s status as a real
`
`party in interest or privy of PGS relevant to the proceeding, Exhibit 2013 is not
`
`relevant to that determination and therefore should be excluded under FRE 402.
`
`And because any relevance of Exhibit 2013 is significantly outweighed by the
`
`undue prejudice associated with ancillary litigation of the tangential and irrelevant
`
`issue of Petitioner’s relationship with ION, it should be excluded pursuant to FRE
`
`403.
`
`PGS further objects to Exhibit 2013 under FRE 901, 1002, and 1003. It has
`
`not been authenticated under FRE 901, is not self-authenticating under FRE 902,
`
`and is not a “duplicate” as defined by FRE 1001(e). Exhibit 2013 is therefore
`
`inadmissible under FRE 901, 1002, and 1003. Additionally, this exhibit is
`
`inadmissible hearsay under FRE 802.
`
`M. Exhibit 2014
`PGS objects to Exhibit 2014 under FRE 402 and FRE 403 because it is
`
`irrelevant and its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of
`
`
`
`13
`
`PGS Exhibit 1110, pg. 13
`PGS v. WesternGeco (IPR2014-00687)
`
`
`
`
`
`wasting time in this compressed proceeding. The Board has instituted the IPR
`
`based on various grounds that certain claims of the ’967 Patent are anticipated
`
`and/or obvious. The Board declined to deny the petition on the basis that PGS
`
`Americas, Inc. (“PGSAI”) is an unnamed real party in interest in this proceeding.
`
`Because Patent Owner has cited this exhibit solely in an effort to show that PGSAI
`
`is an unnamed real party in interest in this proceeding, this exhibit is irrelevant to
`
`the determination to be made in the IPR. Moreover, even were the question of
`
`PGSAI’s status as a real party in interest relevant to the proceeding, Exhibit 2014
`
`is not relevant to that determination and therefore should be excluded under FRE
`
`402. And because any relevance of Exhibit 2014 is significantly outweighed by
`
`the undue prejudice associated with the tangential and irrelevant issue of
`
`Petitioner’s relationship with PGSAI, it should be excluded pursuant to FRE 403.
`
`Additionally, this exhibit contains inadmissible hearsay under FRE 802, including
`
`the statements of Phillip Shotts of ION.
`
`N. Exhibit 2015
`PGS objects to Exhibit 2015 under FRE 402 and FRE 403 because it is
`
`irrelevant and its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of
`
`wasting time in this compressed proceeding. The Board has instituted the IPR
`
`based on various grounds that certain claims of the ’967 Patent are anticipated
`
`and/or obvious. The Board declined to deny the petition on the basis that PGSAI is
`
`
`
`14
`
`PGS Exhibit 1110, pg. 14
`PGS v. WesternGeco (IPR2014-00687)
`
`
`
`
`
`an unnamed real party in interest in this proceeding. Because Patent Owner has
`
`cited this exhibit solely in an effort to show that PGSAI is an unnamed real party in
`
`interest in this proceeding, this exhibit is irrelevant to the determination to be made
`
`in the IPR. Moreover, even were the question of PGSAI’s status as a real party in
`
`interest relevant to the proceeding, Exhibit 2015 is not relevant to that
`
`determination and therefore should be excluded under FRE 402. And because any
`
`relevance of Exhibit 2015 is significantly outweighed by the undue prejudice
`
`associated with the tangential and irrelevant issue of Petitioner’s relationship with
`
`PGSAI, it should be excluded pursuant to FRE 403. Additionally, this exhibit is
`
`inadmissible hearsay under FRE 802.
`
`O. Exhibit 2016
`PGS objects to Exhibit 2016 under FRE 402 and FRE 403 because it is
`
`irrelevant and its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of
`
`wasting time in this compressed proceeding. The Board has instituted the IPR
`
`based on various grounds that certain claims of the ’967 Patent are anticipated
`
`and/or obvious. The Board declined to deny the petition on the basis that PGSAI is
`
`an unnamed real party in interest in this proceeding. Because Patent Owner has
`
`cited this exhibit solely in an effort to show that PGSAI is an unnamed real party in
`
`interest in this proceeding, this exhibit is irrelevant to the determination to be made
`
`in the IPR. Moreover, even were the question of PGSAI’s status as a real party in
`
`
`
`15
`
`PGS Exhibit 1110, pg. 15
`PGS v. WesternGeco (IPR2014-00687)
`
`
`
`
`
`interest relevant to the proceeding, Exhibit 2016 is not relevant to that
`
`determination and therefore should be excluded under FRE 402. And because any
`
`relevance of Exhibit 2016 is significantly outweighed by the undue prejudice
`
`associated with the tangential and irrelevant issue of Petitioner’s relationship with
`
`PGSAI, it should be excluded pursuant to FRE 403. Additionally, this exhibit
`
`contains inadmissible hearsay under FRE 802, including the statements of Phillip
`
`Shotts of ION.
`
`Exhibit 2017
`
`P.
`PGS objects to Exhibit 2017 under FRE 402 and FRE 403 because it is
`
`irrelevant and its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of
`
`wasting time in this compressed proceeding. The Board has instituted the IPR
`
`based on various grounds that certain claims of the ’967 Patent are anticipated
`
`and/or obvious. The Board declined to deny the petition on the basis that PGSAI is
`
`an unnamed real party in interest in this proceeding. Because Patent Owner has
`
`cited this exhibit solely in an effort to show that PGSAI is an unnamed real party in
`
`interest in this proceeding, this exhibit is irrelevant to the determination to be made
`
`in the IPR. Moreover, even were the question of PGSAI’s status as a real party in
`
`interest relevant to the proceeding, Exhibit 2017 is not relevant to that
`
`determination and therefore should be excluded under FRE 402. And because any
`
`relevance of Exhibit 2017 is significantly outweighed by the undue prejudice
`
`
`
`16
`
`PGS Exhibit 1110, pg. 16
`PGS v. WesternGeco (IPR2014-00687)
`
`
`
`
`
`associated with the tangential and irrelevant issue of Petitioner’s relationship with
`
`PGSAI, it should be excluded pursuant to FRE 403. Additionally, this exhibit
`
`contains inadmissible hearsay under FRE 802, including the statements of Phillip
`
`Shotts of ION.
`
`Q. Exhibit 2018
`PGS objects to Exhibit 2018 under FRE 402 and FRE 403 because it is
`
`irrelevant and its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of
`
`wasting time in this compressed proceeding. The Board has instituted the IPR
`
`based on various grounds that certain claims of the ’967 Patent are anticipated
`
`and/or obvious. The Board declined to deny the petition on the basis that PGSAI is
`
`an unnamed real party in interest in this proceeding. Because Patent Owner has
`
`cited this exhibit solely in an effort to show that PGSAI is an unnamed real party in
`
`interest in this proceeding, this exhibit is irrelevant to the determination to be made
`
`in the IPR. Moreover, even were the question of PGSAI’s status as a real party in
`
`interest relevant to the proceeding, Exhibit 2018 is not relevant to that
`
`determination and therefore should be excluded under FRE 402. And because any
`
`relevance of Exhibit 2018 is significantly outweighed by the undue prejudice
`
`associated with the tangential and irrelevant issue of Petitioner’s relationship with
`
`PGSAI, it should be excluded pursuant to FRE 403.
`
`
`
`17
`
`PGS Exhibit 1110, pg. 17
`PGS v. WesternGeco (IPR2014-00687)
`
`
`
`
`
`R. Exhibit 2019
`PGS objects to Exhibit 2019 under FRE 402 and FRE 403 because it is
`
`irrelevant and its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of
`
`wasting time in this compressed proceeding. The Board has instituted the IPR
`
`based on various grounds that certain claims of the ’967 Patent are anticipated
`
`and/or obvious. The Board declined to deny the petition on the basis that PGSAI is
`
`an unnamed real party in interest in this proceeding. Because Patent Owner has
`
`cited this exhibit solely in an effort to show that PGSAI is an unnamed real party in
`
`interest in this proceeding, this exhibit is irrelevant to the determination to be made
`
`in the IPR. Moreover, even were the question of PGSAI’s status as a real party in
`
`interest relevant to the proceeding, Exhibit 2019 is not relevant to that
`
`determination and therefore should be excluded under FRE 402. And because any
`
`relevance of Exhibit 2019 is significantly outweighed by the undue prejudice
`
`associated with the tangential and irrelevant issue of Petitioner’s relationship with
`
`PGSAI, it should be excluded pursuant to FRE 403.
`
`PGS further objects to Exhibit 2019 under FRE 901, 1002, and 1003. It has
`
`not been authenticated under FRE 901, is not self-authenticating under FRE 902,
`
`and is not a “duplicate” as defined by FRE 1001(e). Exhibit 2019 is therefore
`
`inadmissible under FRE 901, 1002, and 1003. Additionally, this exhibit is
`
`inadmissible hearsay under FRE 802.
`
`
`
`18
`
`PGS Exhibit 1110, pg. 18
`PGS v. WesternGeco (IPR2014-00687)
`
`
`
`
`
`Exhibit 2020
`
`S.
`PGS objects to Exhibit 2020 under FRE 402 and FRE 403 because it is
`
`irrelevant and its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of
`
`wasting time in this compressed proceeding. The Board has instituted the IPR
`
`based on various grounds that certain claims of the ’967 Patent are anticipated
`
`and/or obvious. The Board declined to deny the petition on the basis that PGSAI is
`
`an unnamed real party in interest in this proceeding. Because Patent Owner has
`
`cited this exhibit solely in an effort to show that PGSAI is an unnamed real party in
`
`interest in this proceeding, this exhibit is irrelevant to the determination to be made
`
`in the IPR. Moreover, even were the question of PGSAI’s status as a real party in
`
`interest relevant to the proceeding, Exhibit 2020 is not relevant to that
`
`determination and therefore should be excluded under FRE 402. And because any
`
`relevance of Exhibit 2020 is significantly outweighed by the undue prejudice
`
`associated with the tangential and irrelevant issue of Petitioner’s relationship with
`
`PGSAI, it should be excluded pursuant to FRE 403.
`
`PGS further objects to Exhibit 2020 under FRE 901, 1002, and 1003. It has
`
`not been authenticated under FRE 901, is not self-authenticating under FRE 902,
`
`and is not a “duplicate” as defined by FRE 1001(e). Exhibit 2020 is therefore
`
`inadmissible under FRE 901, 1002, and 1003. Additionally, this exhibit is
`
`inadmissible hearsay under FRE 802.
`
`
`
`19
`
`PGS Exhibit 1110, pg. 19
`PGS v. WesternGeco (IPR2014-00687)
`
`
`
`
`
`Exhibit 2021
`
`T.
`PGS objects to Exhibit 2021 under FRE 402 and FRE 403 because it is
`
`irrelevant and its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of
`
`wasting time in this compressed proceeding. The Board has instituted the IPR
`
`based on various grounds that certain claims of the ’967 Patent are anticipated
`
`and/or obvious. The Board declined to deny the petition on the basis that PGSAI is
`
`an unnamed real party in interest in this proceeding. Because Patent Owner has
`
`cited this exhibit solely in an effort to show that PGSAI is an unnamed real party in
`
`interest in this proceeding, this exhibit is irrelevant to the determination to be made
`
`in the IPR. Moreover, even were the question of PGSAI’s status as a real party in
`
`interest relevant to the proceeding, Exhibit 2021 is not relevant to that
`
`determination and therefore should be excluded under FRE 402. And because any
`
`relevance of Exhibit 2021 is significantly outweighed by the undue prejudice
`
`associated with the tangential and irrelevant issue of Petitioner’s relationship with
`
`PGSAI, it should be excluded pursuant to FRE 403.
`
`PGS further objects to Exhibit 2021 under FRE 901, 1002, and 1003.
`
`Exhibit 2021 purports to be repair orders and shipping invoices, but it is
`
`incomplete. It has not been authenticated under FRE 901, is not self-authenticating
`
`under FRE 902, and is not a “duplicate” as defined by FRE 1001(e). Exhibit 2021
`
`
`
`20
`
`PGS Exhibit 1110, pg. 20
`PGS v. WesternGeco (IPR2014-00687)
`
`
`
`
`
`is therefore inadmissible under FRE 901, 1002, and 1003. Additionally, this
`
`exhibit is inadmissible hearsay under FRE 802.
`
`U. Exhibit 2022
`PGS objects to Exhibit 2022 under FRE 402 and FRE 403 because it is
`
`irrelevant and its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of
`
`wasting time in this compressed proceeding. The Board has instituted the IPR
`
`based on various grounds that certain claims of the ’967 Patent are anticipated
`
`and/or obvious. The Board declined to deny the petition on the basis that PGSAI is
`
`an unnamed real party in interest in this proceeding. Because Patent Owner has
`
`cited this exhibit solely in an effort to show that PGSAI is an unnamed real party in
`
`interest in this proceeding, this exhibit is irrelevant to the determination to be made
`
`in the IPR. Moreover, even were the question of PGSAI’s status as a real party in
`
`interest relevant to the proceeding, Exhibit 2022 is not relevant to that
`
`determination and therefore should be excluded under FRE 402. And because any
`
`relevance of Exhibit 2022 is significantly outweighed by the undue prejudice
`
`associated with the tangential and irrelevant issue of Petitioner’s relationship with
`
`PGSAI, it should be excluded pursuant to FRE 403. Additionally, this exhibit
`
`contains inadmissible hearsay under FRE 802, including the statements of Phillip
`
`Shotts and Dave Gentle of ION.
`
`
`
`21
`
`PGS Exhibit 1110, pg. 21
`PGS v. WesternGeco (IPR2014-00687)
`
`
`
`
`
`V. Exhibit 2023
`PGS objects to Exhibit 2023 under FRE 402 and FRE 403 because it is
`
`irrelevant and its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of
`
`wasting time in this compressed proceeding. The Board has instituted the IPR
`
`based on various grounds that certain claims of the ’967 Patent are anticipated
`
`and/or obvious. The Board declined to deny the petition on the basis that PGSAI is
`
`an unnamed real party in interest in this proceeding. Because Patent Owner has
`
`cited this exhibit solely in an effort to show that PGSAI is an unnamed real party in
`
`interest in this proceeding, this exhibit is irrelevant to the determination to be made
`
`in the IPR. Moreover, even were the question of PGSAI’s status as a real party in
`
`interest relevant to the proceeding, Exhibit 2023 is not relevant to that
`
`determination and therefore should be excluded under FRE 402. And because any
`
`relevance of Exhibit 2023 is significantly outweighed by the undue prejudice
`
`assoc