`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 1111, 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 March 20,
`
`2015. The exhibits objected to, and grounds for PGS’ objections, are listed below.
`
`PGS also objects to Patent Owner’s reliance or citation to any objected evidence in
`
`its papers.
`
`I.
`
`IDENTIFICATION OF CHALLENGED EVIDENCE AND GROUNDS
`FOR OBJECTIONS
`A. Exhibit 2042
`PGS objects to Exhibit 2042, the Declaration of Dr. Triantafyllou, under
`
`FRE 402 to the extent it includes or relies on irrelevant information and under FRE
`
`403 to the extent that it includes or relies on information, the probative value of
`
`which is substantially outweighed by the danger of wasting time in this
`
`compressed proceeding. By way of non-exclusive example, Exhibit 2042 relies on
`
`exhibits and information not available to the public as of the priority date. This
`
`evidence has no relevance to what a person of ordinary skill in the art would have
`
`known by the priority date. By way of non-exclusive example, Dr. Triantafyllou
`
`cites Exhibit 2053 in discussing the prior art, but that article was published in 2009
`
`and has no relevance to what a person of ordinary skill in the art would have
`
`known by the October 1, 1998 priority date.
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`PGS Exhibit 1111, pg. 2
`PGS v. WesternGeco (IPR2014-00687)
`
`
`
`
`
`PGS further objects to Exhibit 2042 under FRE 402 and FRE 403 because it
`
`is irrelevant and its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of
`
`unfair prejudice and the danger of wasting time. Exhibit 2042 includes or relies on
`
`testimony and exhibits from WesternGeco LLC v. ION Geophysical Corp., 4:09-
`
`cv-01827 (S.D. Tex.) (“the ION case”). PGS was not a party to the ION case and
`
`did not have an opportunity to examine witnesses, object to evidence, or present
`
`evidence in that case. Furthermore, reliance on this evidence is additionally
`
`irrelevant, unfairly prejudicial, and would result in a waste of time because the
`
`issues presented in the ION case were substantively different than those presented
`
`in this case. As a result, PGS would suffer substantial unfair prejudice if reliance
`
`on this evidence were permitted. For that additional reason, Exhibit 2042 should
`
`be excluded under FRE 402 and 403.
`
`PGS further objects to Exhibit 2042 under FRE 802 because it contains and
`
`relies on inadmissible hearsay, including testimony and exhibits from the ION
`
`case. PGS did not have an opportunity to examine witnesses, object to evidence,
`
`or present evidence in that case as it was not a party to it. The probative value of
`
`this hearsay does not substantially outweigh its prejudicial effect, particularly
`
`given that the issues presented in the ION case were substantively different than
`
`those presented in this case.
`
`
`
`3
`
`PGS Exhibit 1111, pg. 3
`PGS v. WesternGeco (IPR2014-00687)
`
`
`
`
`
`PGS objects to Exhibit 2042 to the extent Dr. Triantafyllou’s Declaration is
`
`being offered pursuant to FRE 702, including to the extent that he offers opinions
`
`without having demonstrated the requisite expertise, basis, methodology or
`
`foundation. To the extent Exhibit 2042 is being offered as an expert declaration,
`
`PGS objects on the ground that it does not comply with the requirements for an
`
`expert declaration. PGS also objects to Exhibit 2042 to the extent it includes
`
`subject matter that is not permitted pursuant to FRE 602 or 701, including to the
`
`extent that Dr. Triantafyllou is commenting as a fact witness on matters that are
`
`outside his personal knowledge or offering improper lay opinion testimony. PGS
`
`also objects to Exhibit 2042 under FRE 402 and 403 for these same reasons. PGS
`
`also objects to Exhibit 2042 for failure to comply with 37 C.F.R. § 42.53.
`
`PGS further objects to Exhibit 2042 as irrelevant under FRE 401, and as
`
`unfairly prejudicial and needlessly presenting cumulative evidence and wasting
`
`time under FRE 403, to the extent that the opinions and conclusions expressed in
`
`the exhibit are not expressly relied on and incorporated in Patent Owner’s
`
`Response.
`
`PGS objects to Exhibit 2042 under FRE 901, 1002, and 1003 on the basis
`
`that it cites or relies on exhibits that have not been authenticated or lack
`
`foundation, such as Exhibit 2051. See, e.g., Ex. 2042 at 29.
`
`
`
`4
`
`PGS Exhibit 1111, pg. 4
`PGS v. WesternGeco (IPR2014-00687)
`
`
`
`
`
`PGS incorporates herein by reference its objections to the exhibits relied on
`
`or cited in Exhibit 2042.
`
`Exhibit 2046
`
`B.
`Exhibit 2046 purports to be a book entitled “Fluid-Structure Interactions:
`
`Slender Structures and Axial Flow,” but it is incomplete. The Exhibit includes
`
`only the cover page and table of contents of the book. Additionally, this exhibit is
`
`inadmissible hearsay under FRE 802.
`
`C. Exhibit 2049
`PGS objects to Exhibit 2049 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. Exhibit 2049 was published in 2002
`
`and, therefore, bears no relevance to what a person of ordinary skill in the art
`
`would have known by the October 1, 1998 priority date. Therefore, Exhibit 2049
`
`should be excluded under FRE 402 and 403. Additionally, this exhibit is
`
`inadmissible hearsay under FRE 802.
`
`D. Exhibit 2050
`PGS objects to Exhibit 2050 under FRE 802 because it is inadmissible
`
`hearsay, specifically trial testimony from Simon Bittleston in the ION case. PGS
`
`was not a party to the ION case and, consequently, did not have an opportunity to
`
`examine Dr. Bittleston or object to his testimony at that trial. This exhibit also
`
`
`
`5
`
`PGS Exhibit 1111, pg. 5
`PGS v. WesternGeco (IPR2014-00687)
`
`
`
`
`
`contains inadmissible hearsay under FRE 802 because it includes statements of
`
`trial counsel.
`
`PGS further objects to Exhibit 2050 under FRE 402 and FRE 403 because it
`
`is irrelevant and its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of
`
`unfair prejudice. Information regarding Dr. Bittleston’s alleged invention that was
`
`not available to the public has no relevance to what a person of ordinary skill in the
`
`art would have known by the priority date. Moreover, because PGS was not a
`
`party to the ION case and did not have an opportunity to examine Dr. Bittleston or
`
`object to his testimony at that trial, PGS would suffer substantial unfair prejudice if
`
`this testimony were admitted. Furthermore, this testimony is additionally
`
`irrelevant, unfairly prejudicial, and would result in a waste of time because the
`
`issues presented in the ION case were substantively different than those presented
`
`in this case. For that additional reason, Exhibit 2050 should be excluded under
`
`FRE 402 and 403.
`
`PGS further objects to the testimony contained in Exhibit 2050 to the extent
`
`particular testimony does not comply with the Federal Rules of Evidence or the
`
`Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Because PGS was not present for the testimony
`
`it was not able to make such objections at the time the testimony was elicited.
`
`
`
`6
`
`PGS Exhibit 1111, pg. 6
`PGS v. WesternGeco (IPR2014-00687)
`
`
`
`
`
`Given that Exhibit 2050 is only a portion of Dr. Bittleston’s testimony, if this
`
`exhibit is not excluded, Petitioner reserves the right to provide counter-
`
`designations at an appropriate time.
`
`Exhibit 2051
`
`E.
`PGS objects to Exhibit 2051 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. Information regarding Dr.
`
`Bittleston’s alleged invention that was not available to the public has no relevance
`
`to what a person of ordinary skill in the art would have known by the priority date.
`
`Therefore, Exhibit 2051 should be excluded under FRE 402 and 403.
`
`PGS also objects to Exhibit 2051 under FRE 901, 1002, and 1003. It has not
`
`been authenticated and lacks proper foundation under FRE 901, is not self-
`
`authenticating under FRE 902, and is not a “duplicate” as defined by FRE 1001(e).
`
`Exhibit 2051 additionally appears to be an improper compilation of documents.
`
`Exhibit 2051 is therefore inadmissible under FRE 901, 1002, and 1003.
`
`Additionally, this exhibit is inadmissible hearsay under FRE 802.
`
`Exhibit 2052
`
`F.
`PGS objects to Exhibit 2052 under FRE 802 because it is inadmissible
`
`hearsay, specifically deposition testimony from Oyvind Hillesund in the ION case.
`
`PGS was not a party to the ION case and, consequently, did not have an
`
`
`
`7
`
`PGS Exhibit 1111, pg. 7
`PGS v. WesternGeco (IPR2014-00687)
`
`
`
`
`
`opportunity to examine Mr. Hillesund or object to his testimony at that deposition
`
`or at trial.
`
`PGS further objects to Exhibit 2052 under FRE 402 and FRE 403 because it
`
`is irrelevant and its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of
`
`unfair prejudice. Information regarding Mr. Hillesund’s alleged invention that was
`
`not available to the public has no relevance to what a person of ordinary skill in the
`
`art would have known by the priority date. Moreover, because PGS was not a
`
`party to the ION case and did not have an opportunity to examine Mr. Hillesund or
`
`object to his testimony at his deposition or at trial, PGS would suffer substantial
`
`unfair prejudice if this testimony were admitted. For that additional reason,
`
`Exhibit 2052 should be excluded under FRE 402 and 403.
`
`PGS further objects to the testimony contained in Exhibit 2052 to the extent
`
`particular testimony does not comply with the Federal Rules of Evidence or the
`
`Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Because PGS was not present for the testimony
`
`it was not able to make such objections at the time the testimony was elicited or
`
`offered at trial.
`
`PGS further objects to Exhibit 2052 because 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 2052 is therefore inadmissible under FRE 901,
`
`1002, and 1003.
`
`
`
`8
`
`PGS Exhibit 1111, pg. 8
`PGS v. WesternGeco (IPR2014-00687)
`
`
`
`
`
`Given that Exhibit 2052 is only a portion of Mr. Hillesund’s testimony, if
`
`this exhibit is not excluded, Petitioner reserves the right to provide counter-
`
`designations at an appropriate time.
`
`G. Exhibit 2053
`PGS objects to Exhibit 2053 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. Exhibit 2053 was published in 2009
`
`and, therefore, bears no relevance to what a person of ordinary skill in the art
`
`would have known by the October 1, 1998 priority date. Therefore, Exhibit 2053
`
`should be excluded under FRE 402 and 403.
`
`H. Exhibit 2054
`PGS objects to Exhibit 2054 under FRE 901, 1002, and 1003. Exhibit 2054
`
`purports to be a trial demonstrative exhibit from the ION case, which purports to
`
`excerpt a separate document that is not attached. It has not been authenticated and
`
`lacks proper foundation under FRE 901, is not self-authenticating under FRE 902,
`
`and is not a “duplicate” as defined by FRE 1001(e). Exhibit 2054 is therefore
`
`inadmissible under FRE 901, 1002, and 1003. Additionally, this exhibit is
`
`inadmissible hearsay under FRE 802.
`
`PGS further objects to Exhibit 2054 under FRE 402 and 403. Because PGS
`
`was not a party to the ION case and did not have an opportunity to examine
`
`
`
`9
`
`PGS Exhibit 1111, pg. 9
`PGS v. WesternGeco (IPR2014-00687)
`
`
`
`
`
`witnesses, object to evidence, or present evidence in that case, PGS would suffer
`
`substantial unfair prejudice if this exhibit were admitted.
`
`Exhibit 2055
`
`I.
`PGS objects to Exhibit 2055 under FRE 802 because it is inadmissible
`
`hearsay, specifically trial testimony from John Leonard in the ION case. PGS was
`
`not a party to the ION case and, consequently, did not have an opportunity to
`
`examine Dr. Leonard or object to his testimony at that trial. This exhibit also
`
`contains inadmissible hearsay under FRE 802 because it includes statements of
`
`trial counsel.
`
`PGS further objects to Exhibit 2055 under FRE 402 and FRE 403 because it
`
`is irrelevant and its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of
`
`unfair prejudice. Because PGS was not a party to the ION case and did not have
`
`an opportunity to examine Dr. Leonard or object to his testimony at that trial, PGS
`
`would suffer substantial unfair prejudice if this testimony were admitted.
`
`Furthermore, this testimony is additionally irrelevant, unfairly prejudicial, and
`
`would result in a waste of time because the issues presented in the ION case were
`
`substantively different than those presented in this case. For that additional reason,
`
`Exhibit 2055 should be excluded under FRE 402 and 403.
`
`PGS further objects to the testimony contained in Exhibit 2055 to the extent
`
`particular testimony does not comply with the Federal Rules of Evidence or the
`
`
`
`10
`
`PGS Exhibit 1111, pg. 10
`PGS v. WesternGeco (IPR2014-00687)
`
`
`
`
`
`Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Because PGS was not present for the testimony
`
`it was not able to make such objections at the time the testimony was elicited.
`
`PGS further objects to Exhibit 2055 because 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 2055 is therefore inadmissible under FRE 901,
`
`1002, and 1003.
`
`Given that Exhibit 2055 is only a portion of Dr. Leonard’s testimony, if this
`
`exhibit is not excluded, Petitioner reserves the right to provide counter-
`
`designations at an appropriate time.
`
`Exhibit 2061
`
`J.
`Exhibit 2061 is an excerpt from the Declaration of Dr. Brian Evans in
`
`IPR2014-00688, but it is incomplete and therefore should be introduced in
`
`complete form under FRE 106.
`
`K. Exhibit 2062
`Exhibit 2062 is an excerpt from the Declaration of Dr. Jack Cole in
`
`IPR2014-00688, but it is incomplete and therefore should be introduced in
`
`complete form under FRE 106.
`
`Exhibit 2064
`
`L.
`Exhibit 2064 is an excerpt from the Declaration of Dr. Brian Evans in
`
`IPR2014-00689, but it is incomplete and therefore should be introduced in
`
`complete form under FRE 106.
`
`
`
`11
`
`PGS Exhibit 1111, pg. 11
`PGS v. WesternGeco (IPR2014-00687)
`
`
`
`
`
`M. Exhibit 2066
`PGS objects to Exhibit 2066 under FRE 402 and 403. Exhibit 2066 is
`
`irrelevant and its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of
`
`wasting time in this compressed proceeding because it is cited for a definition in a
`
`non-technical dictionary that is not even relied upon by Dr. Triantafyllou or Mr.
`
`Walker in their statements. Additionally, this exhibit is inadmissible hearsay under
`
`FRE 802.
`
`N. Exhibit 2068
`Exhibit 2068 purports to be an excerpt of a book entitled “A Handbook for
`
`Seismic Data Acquisition” by Dr. Brian Evans, but it is incomplete and therefore
`
`should be introduced in complete form under FRE 106.
`
`O. Exhibit 2069
`PGS objects to Exhibit 2069 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 this IPR
`
`based on various grounds that certain claims of the ’607 Patent are anticipated
`
`and/or obvious. The Board declined to deny institution of 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 this IPR. Moreover, even were the question of
`12
`
`
`
`PGS Exhibit 1111, pg. 12
`PGS v. WesternGeco (IPR2014-00687)
`
`
`
`
`
`ION’s status as a real party in interest or privy of PGS relevant to the proceeding,
`
`Exhibit 2069 is not relevant to that determination and therefore should be excluded
`
`under FRE 402. And because any relevance of Exhibit 2069 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.
`
`Exhibit 2070
`
`P.
`PGS objects to Exhibit 2070 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 this IPR
`
`based on various grounds that certain claims of the ’607 Patent are anticipated
`
`and/or obvious. The Board declined to deny institution of 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 connection with its 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 this 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 2070 is not relevant to that determination and therefore should
`
`be excluded under FRE 402. And because any relevance of Exhibit 2070 is
`
`significantly outweighed by the undue prejudice associated with ancillary litigation
`
`
`
`13
`
`PGS Exhibit 1111, pg. 13
`PGS v. WesternGeco (IPR2014-00687)
`
`
`
`
`
`of the tangential and irrelevant issue of Petitioner’s relationship with ION, it
`
`should be excluded pursuant to FRE 403.
`
`Q. Exhibit 2071
`PGS objects to all exhibits relating to Patent Owner’s argument that ION is a
`
`real party in interest or a privy of PGS in this proceeding under FRE 402 and FRE
`
`403, including Exhibit 2071, because they are irrelevant and their probative value
`
`is substantially outweighed by the danger of wasting time in this compressed
`
`proceeding. The Board has instituted this IPR based on various grounds that
`
`certain claims of the ’607 Patent are anticipated and/or obvious. The Board
`
`declined to deny institution of 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 connection with its 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 this IPR. However, if the Board allows the admission
`
`of other exhibits regarding this issue, Exhibit 2071 should also be admitted.
`
`R. Exhibit 2072
`PGS objects to Exhibit 2072 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. Patent Owner has cited this exhibit
`
`solely in an effort to show that Multi Klient Invest AS is a real party in interest or a
`
`
`
`14
`
`PGS Exhibit 1111, pg. 14
`PGS v. WesternGeco (IPR2014-00687)
`
`
`
`
`
`privy of PGS in this proceeding. But Exhibit 2072 is not relevant to that
`
`determination and therefore should be excluded under FRE 402. And because any
`
`relevance of Exhibit 2072 is significantly outweighed by the undue prejudice
`
`associated with ancillary litigation of the tangential and irrelevant issue of
`
`Petitioner’s relationship with Multi Klient Invest AS, it should be excluded
`
`pursuant to FRE 403. Additionally, this exhibit is inadmissible hearsay under FRE
`
`802.
`
`Exhibit 2073
`
`S.
`PGS objects to Exhibit 2073 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. Patent Owner has cited this exhibit
`
`solely in an effort to show that Multi Klient Invest AS is a real party in interest or a
`
`privy of PGS in this proceeding. But Exhibit 2073 is not relevant to that
`
`determination and therefore should be excluded under FRE 402. And because any
`
`relevance of Exhibit 2073 is significantly outweighed by the undue prejudice
`
`associated with ancillary litigation of the tangential and irrelevant issue of
`
`Petitioner’s relationship with Multi Klient Invest AS, it should be excluded
`
`pursuant to FRE 403. Additionally, this exhibit is inadmissible hearsay under FRE
`
`802.
`
`
`
`15
`
`PGS Exhibit 1111, pg. 15
`PGS v. WesternGeco (IPR2014-00687)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Exhibit 2073 is a complaint filed against PGS in district court proceedings,
`
`and it has its own exhibits. PGS objects to all of the exhibits under FRE 402 and
`
`403, as described above. PGS has the following further additional objections to
`
`certain exhibits:
`
`• Exhibit E: Exhibit E purports to be PGS annual reports, but those
`
`reports are incomplete.
`
`• Exhibit F: Exhibit F purports to be registration statements filed
`
`with the Securities and Exchange Commission, but it is
`
`incomplete.
`
`• Exhibit G: Exhibit G purports to be reports filed with the
`
`Securities and Exchange Commission, but it is incomplete.
`
`• Exhibit I: PGS objects to Exhibit I because 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 I
`
`is therefore inadmissible under FRE 901, 1002, and 1003.
`
`Additionally, this exhibit is inadmissible hearsay under FRE 802.
`
`• Exhibit J: Exhibit J purports to be a docket sheet for Case 4:13-
`
`cv-02725 (S.D. Tex.), but it is incomplete.
`
`• Exhibit L: PGS objects to Exhibit L because it has not been
`
`authenticated under FRE 901, is not self-authenticating under FRE
`
`
`
`16
`
`PGS Exhibit 1111, pg. 16
`PGS v. WesternGeco (IPR2014-00687)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`902, and is not a “duplicate” as defined by FRE 1001(e). Exhibit L
`
`is therefore inadmissible under FRE 901, 1002, and 1003.
`
`Additionally, this exhibit is inadmissible hearsay under FRE 802.
`
`• Exhibit O: PGS objects to Exhibit O because 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
`
`O is therefore inadmissible under FRE 901, 1002, and 1003.
`
`Additionally, this exhibit is inadmissible hearsay under FRE 802.
`
`• Exhibit P: PGS objects to Exhibit P because 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 P
`
`is therefore inadmissible under FRE 901, 1002, and 1003.
`
`Additionally, this exhibit is inadmissible hearsay under FRE 802.
`
`• Exhibit Q: PGS objects to Exhibit Q because 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
`
`Q is therefore inadmissible under FRE 901, 1002, and 1003.
`
`Additionally, this exhibit is inadmissible hearsay under FRE 802.
`
`Exhibit Q purports to be a PGS presentation at Capital Markets
`
`Day 2008, but it is incomplete.
`
`17
`
`PGS Exhibit 1111, pg. 17
`PGS v. WesternGeco (IPR2014-00687)
`
`
`
`
`
`• Exhibit R: PGS objects to Exhibit R because 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
`
`R is therefore inadmissible under FRE 901, 1002, and 1003.
`
`Additionally, this exhibit is inadmissible hearsay under FRE 802.
`
`• Exhibit S: PGS objects to Exhibit S because 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 S
`
`is therefore inadmissible under FRE 901, 1002, and 1003.
`
`Additionally, this exhibit is inadmissible hearsay under FRE 802.
`
`Exhibit 2074
`
`T.
`PGS objects to Exhibit 2074 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. Patent Owner has cited this exhibit
`
`solely in an effort to show that Multi Klient Invest AS is a real party in interest or a
`
`privy of PGS in this proceeding. But Exhibit 2074 is not relevant to that
`
`determination and therefore should be excluded under FRE 402. And because any
`
`relevance of Exhibit 2074 is significantly outweighed by the undue prejudice
`
`associated with ancillary litigation of the tangential and irrelevant issue of
`
`
`
`18
`
`PGS Exhibit 1111, pg. 18
`PGS v. WesternGeco (IPR2014-00687)
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s relationship with Multi Klient Invest AS, it should be excluded
`
`pursuant to FRE 403.
`
`PGS objects to Exhibit 2074 because 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 2074 is therefore inadmissible under FRE 901,
`
`1002, and 1003. Additionally, this exhibit is inadmissible hearsay under FRE 802.
`
`U. Exhibit 2075
`PGS objects to Exhibit 2075 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. It is not even relied on in Patent
`
`Owner’s Response, Dr. Triantafyllou’s Declaration or Mr. Walker’s statement.
`
`The Board has instituted this IPR based on various grounds that certain claims of
`
`the ’607 Patent are anticipated and/or obvious. This exhibit, which purports to be
`
`PGS’s 2013 annual report, is irrelevant to that determination.
`
`V. Exhibit 2076
`PGS objects to Exhibit 2076 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. Patent Owner has cited this exhibit
`
`solely in an effort to show that Multi Klient Invest AS is a real party in interest or a
`
`privy of PGS in this proceeding. But Exhibit 2076 is not relevant to that
`
`
`
`19
`
`PGS Exhibit 1111, pg. 19
`PGS v. WesternGeco (IPR2014-00687)
`
`
`
`
`
`determination and therefore should be excluded under FRE 402. And because any
`
`relevance of Exhibit 2076 is significantly outweighed by the undue prejudice
`
`associated with ancillary litigation of the tangential and irrelevant issue of
`
`Petitioner’s relationship with Multi Klient Invest AS, it should be excluded
`
`pursuant to FRE 403.
`
`W. Exhibit 2077
`PGS objects to Exhibit 2077, the statement of Robin Walker, under FRE 402
`
`to the extent it includes or relies on irrelevant information and under FRE 403 to
`
`the extent that it includes or relies on information, the probative value of which is
`
`substantially outweighed by the danger of wasting time in this compressed
`
`proceeding.
`
`PGS further objects to Exhibit 2077 under FRE 402 and FRE 403 because it
`
`is irrelevant and its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of
`
`unfair prejudice or the danger of wasting time. Exhibit 2077 includes or relies on
`
`testimony and exhibits from the ION case. PGS was not a party to the ION case
`
`and did not have an opportunity to examine witnesses, object to evidence, or
`
`present evidence in that case. Furthermore, reliance on this evidence is
`
`additionally irrelevant, unfairly prejudicial, and would result in a waste of time
`
`because the issues presented in the ION case were substantively different than
`
`those presented in this case. As a result, PGS would suffer substantial unfair
`
`
`
`20
`
`PGS Exhibit 1111, pg. 20
`PGS v. WesternGeco (IPR2014-00687)
`
`
`
`
`
`prejudice if reliance on this evidence were permitted. For that additional reason,
`
`Exhibit 2077 should be excluded under FRE 402 and 403.
`
`PGS further objects to Exhibit 2077 under FRE 802 because it contains and
`
`relies on inadmissible hearsay, including testimony and exhibits from the ION
`
`case. PGS did not have an opportunity to examine witnesses, object to evidence,
`
`or present evidence in that case as it was not a party to it. The probative value of
`
`this hearsay does not substantially outweigh its prejudicial effect, particularly
`
`given that the issues presented in the ION case were substantively different than
`
`those presented in this case.
`
`PGS objects to Exhibit 2077 under FRE 402, 403, 602, and 701 because Mr.
`
`Walker, a fact witness, comments on matters that are outside his personal
`
`knowledge. By way of non-exclusive example, Mr. Walker purports to describe
`
`the content of internal documents apparently created by ION and Fugro, companies
`
`he was never affiliated with. See, e.g., Ex. 2077 at 20; Exs. 2095-97. Any
`
`discussion by Mr. Walker regarding subject matter outside of his personal
`
`knowledge is inadmissible pursuant to FRE 402, 403, 602, and 701.
`
`PGS objects to Exhibit 2077 to the extent Mr. Walker, a fact witness, offers
`
`opinions that are not permitted pursuant to FRE 701. To the extent that Exhibit
`
`2077 is being offered pursuant to FRE 702, PGS objects that it does not comply
`
`with FRE 702, the requirements for an expert declaration and 37 C.F.R. § 42.65,
`
`
`
`21
`
`PGS Exhibit 1111, pg. 21
`PGS v. WesternGeco (IPR2014-00687)
`
`
`
`
`
`including that it improperly includes opinions without having demonstrated the
`
`requisite expertise, basis, methodology or foundation. PGS objects to Exhibit 2077
`
`for failure to comply with 37 C.F.R. § 42.53.
`
`PGS further objects to Exhibit 2077 under FRE 402, 403, 602, 701, 802, and
`
`901 to the extent that it consists of or relies on unsubstantiated statements by others
`
`and unsubstantiated data. By way of non-exclusive example, Mr. Walker purports
`
`to describe certain WesternGeco “global internal statistics” without disclosing any
`
`source or underlying data supporting those values. See Ex. 2077 at 9, 11. Mr.
`
`Walker also repeatedly purports to quote members of the petroleum industry, but
`
`does so without citation. See Ex. 2077 at 16-19. To the extent that Exhibit 2077
`
`relies on such unsubstantiated statements or data, any relevance of Exhibit 2077 is
`
`significantly outweighed by undue prejudice and it should be excluded pursuant to
`
`FRE 403, 602, and 701 in addition to FRE 402, 802 and 901.
`
`PGS also objects to Exhibit 2077 as irrelevant and inadmissible under FRE
`
`402 and 403 to the extent that it does not demonstrate a nexus between the asserted
`
`secondary considerations of non-obviousness for which it is being offered and the
`
`particular limitations of the challenged patent claims.
`
`PGS also objects to Exhibit 2077 under FRE 901, 1002, and 1003 on the
`
`basis that it cites or relies on exhibits that have not been authenticated or lack
`
`foundation, such as Exhibit 2093. See, e.g., Ex. 2077 at 18.
`
`
`
`22
`
`PGS Exhibit 1111, pg. 22
`PGS v. WesternGeco (IPR2014-00687)
`
`
`
`
`
`PGS also objects to Exhibit 2077 as irrelevant under FRE 401, and as
`
`unfairly prejudicial and needlessly presenting cumulative evidence and wasting
`
`time under FRE 403, to the extent that the opinions and conclusions expressed in
`
`the exhibit are not expressly relied on and incorporated in Patent Owner’s
`
`Response.
`
`PGS incorporates herein by reference its objections to the exhibits relied on
`
`or cited in Exhibit 2077.
`
`X. Exhibit 2078
`PGS objects to Exhibit 2078 under FRE 802 because it is inadmissible
`
`hearsay, specifically trial testimony from Robin Walker in the ION case. PGS was
`
`not a party to the ION case and, consequently, did not have an opportunity to
`
`examine Mr. Walker or object to his testimony at that trial. This exhibit also
`
`contains inadmissible hearsay under FRE 802 because it includes statements of
`
`trial counsel.
`
`PGS further objects to Exhibit 2078 under FRE 402 and FRE 403 because it
`
`is irrelevant and its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of
`
`unfair prejudice. Because PGS was not a party to the ION case and did not have
`
`an opportunity to examine Mr. Walker or object to his testimony at that trial, PGS
`
`would suffer substantial unfair prejudice if this testimony were admitted.
`
`Furthermore, this testimony is additionally irrelevant, unfairly prejudicial, and
`
`
`
`23
`
`PGS Exhibit 1111, pg. 23
`PGS v. WesternGeco