Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`Paper 106
`Entered: March 17, 2016
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`PETROLEUM GEO-SERVICES INC.
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`WESTERNGECO LLC
`Patent Owner.
`
`Case IPR2014-00688
`Patent 7,080,607 B2
`
`Before BRYAN F. MOORE, SCOTT A. DANIELS, and BEVERLY M.
`BUNTING, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`MOORE, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`DECISION
`Denying Patent Owner’s Request for Rehearing
`37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d)
`
`
`
`
`
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`Paper 106
`Entered: March 17, 2016
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`PETROLEUM GEO-SERVICES INC.
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`WESTERNGECO LLC
`Patent Owner.
`
`Case IPR2014-00688
`Patent 7,080,607 B2
`
`Before BRYAN F. MOORE, SCOTT A. DANIELS, and BEVERLY M.
`BUNTING, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`MOORE, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`DECISION
`Denying Patent Owner’s Request for Rehearing
`37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00688
`Patent 7,080,607 B2
`
`INTRODUCTION
`I.
`WesternGeco LLC (“Patent Owner”) filed a Request for Rehearing
`(Paper 103, “Req. Reh’g”) of the Final Written Decision of the above
`entitled Inter Partes Review (IPR) (Paper 101, “Final Dec.”) of claims 1 and
`15 of U.S. Patent No. 7,080,607 B2 (Ex. 1001, “the ’607 patent”). In the
`Request for Rehearing, Patent Owner argues that the Final Written Decision
`overlooked and/or misapprehended several matters in the IPR. For the
`reasons set forth below, the Request for Rehearing is denied.
`
`II. ANALYSIS
`When considering a request for rehearing, we review the Final
`Written Decision for an abuse of discretion. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c). The
`party requesting rehearing bears the burden of showing that the Final
`Written Decision should be modified, and “[t]he request must specifically
`identify all matters the party believes [we] misapprehended or overlooked.”
`37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d).
`
`A. Workman discloses a “prediction unit”
`
`Claim 15 of the ’607 patent recites “a prediction unit adapted to
`predict positions of at least some of the streamer positioning devices.”
`Claim 1 contains a similar limitation written in method form. In the Final
`Written Decision, we determined that “predict positions,” means “estimating
`the actual locations.” Final Dec. 16. We also determined that the Workman
`references disclosure of a Kalman filter meets the limitation to “predict[ing]
`positions.” Id. at 25–29. Finally, we stated “we have incorporated the time
`delay aspect of past verses future positions of the SPD’s into the proper
`claim construction of ‘predicting positions’ by determining this limitation to
`mean ‘estimating the actual locations.’” Id. at 25.
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00688
`Patent 7,080,607 B2
`
`In its Request for Rehearing, Patent Owner argues “Kalman filters are
`
`flexible calculators that can be used for many applications, including merely
`“as a filter for noisy signals”—there is nothing inherent to a Kalman filter
`that teaches predicting future positions based on past data. Paper 101 at 26.”
`Req. Reh’g 5. Thus, according to Patent Owner, “[b]y misapprehending
`‘real time’ as teaching prediction to account for ‘signal processing delay
`time’—a problem unrecognized in the art—the Board erroneously
`‘interpret[ed] Workman[1] to disclose a Kalman filter that provides an
`estimate of real time, i.e. actual, streamer positions.’ Paper 101 at 27.” Id.
`The Final Decision considered the issue of what is meant by “real
`time.” Final Dec. 25–29. Based on substantial evidence from Workman
`(“the network solution system 10 implements a Kalman filter solution on the
`signals it receives from the vessel positioning system 20 and location
`sensing devices” (Ex. 1004, 3:46-48); “[t]he network solution system 10
`outputs real time streamer cable shapes, streamer cable positions, and
`streamer cable separations” (Ex. 1004, 3:48-51), and Patent Owner’s expert
`(Ex. 2042 ¶ 137 (admitting that a Kalman Filter can “predict the behavior of
`the system in the future.”); Ex. 1092, 434), we determined that Workman
`predicts streamer positions as required by the claims. Id. In the Final
`Written Decision, we fully considered the evidence cited in Patent Owner’s
`Request for Rehearing, including the argument that Kalman filters can be
`used in other applications (i.e. filtering a noisy signal) and the argument that
`Workman does not account for time delay. Id. Both of these arguments
`were presented in the Patent Owner Response. Patent Owner Response
`
`
`1 Ex. 1004, U.S. Patent No. 5,790,472 (Aug. 4, 1998).
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00688
`Patent 7,080,607 B2
`
`(Paper 44, PO Resp.), 21–22 (time delay), 23–24 (Kalman filter has other
`applications).
`Upon review of the Final Written Decision, however, we did find that
`the Decision omitted a citation to evidence upon which the Decision was
`based. Thus, we amend the decision at page 26 after the following citation
`“Ex. 1004, 3:46–51, see also Ex. 1092, 434.” to insert the following
`sentence: “We also credit the testimony of Dr. Evans that receiving signals
`and outputting real time positions using a Kalman filter is predicting
`locations, i.e. “Workman thus discloses using a Kalman filter to predict
`present (“real time”) streamer positions from the past positions that were
`determined by the position-monitoring system.” Ex. 1002 ¶ 81.”
`For the reasons stated above, the Decision did not overlook or
`misapprehend Petitioner’s arguments or evidence. We considered
`Petitioner’s position, and determined that the evidence on which Petitioner
`relied was persuasive in establishing that Workman disclosed predicting
`streamer location by estimating the actual, i.e., real time, streamer positions
`as required by the claims, that accounts for delay. Patent Owner’s “real
`time” argument on rehearing is merely a restating of the argument proffered
`in the Patent Owner Response. A request for rehearing is not an opportunity
`merely to disagree with the panel’s assessment of the arguments or weighing
`of the evidence. It is not an abuse of discretion to have performed an
`analysis or reached a conclusion with which Petitioner disagrees, and mere
`disagreement with the Board’s analysis or conclusion is not a proper basis
`for rehearing. We are not persuaded that this determination was an abuse of
`our discretion. Thus, we are not persuaded by this argument.
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00688
`Patent 7,080,607 B2
`B. Service under 315(b)
`
`Patent Owner argues “[t]he Board attempts to analogize the present
`case to Motorola Mobility LLC v. Arnouse Digital Devices Corp., IPR2013-
`00010, Paper 20 (PTAB Jan. 30, 2013), in order to find that PGS [Petroleum
`Geo-Services Inc.] merely “received a copy” of the complaint.” Req. Reh’g
`6. Further, Patent Owner argues “[t]he Board compounded its error by re-
`writing ‘served’ in Section 315(b) to require ‘service upon a defendant.’
`Paper 101 at 52.” Id. at 7. We disagree. The Final Decision intended to
`read “petitioner, real party in interest, or privy of the petitioner is
`[‘]served[’] with a complaint alleging infringement of the patent” to mean
`that the party is served as a defendant in the case rather than served the
`complaint for the purpose of enforcing a third party subpoena. Id. at 6.
`The Final Decision states:
`Patent Owner’s argument that S.D. Texas L.R. 5-1 “comports”
`(PO Resp. 59) with the proper interpretation of service under
`§315(b) is not persuasive as to the intent of Congress with respect
`to §315(b). See 157 Cong. Rec. S5429 (daily ed. Sept. 8, 2011)
`(statement of Senator Kyl) (“it is important that the section
`315(b) deadline afford defendants a reasonable opportunity to
`identify and understand the patent claims that are relevant to the
`litigation”).
`
`
`Final Dec. 52–53, n. 7. Thus, the Final Decision explicitly reads the
`requirement that the person “served” under section 315(b) is a defendant in
`from the legislative history of the statute. On rehearing, Patent Owner
`argues that “Congress did not intend to redefine the well-understood
`meaning of ‘service,’ but rather intended to ensure that the length of the
`Section 315(b) deadline would afford parties, defendants or otherwise, ‘a
`reasonable opportunity to identify and understand the patent claims that are
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00688
`Patent 7,080,607 B2
`
`relevant to the litigation’ while still preventing the harassment of patent
`holders.” Req. Reh’g 9–10. However, applying this logic to third parties
`who are simply served with a subpoena does not insure that such parties
`have “a reasonable opportunity to identify and understand the patent claims”
`because a party that is not a defendant may have no reason to evaluate the
`patent claims involved in the litigation in order to respond to the subpoena.
`We decline to read 315(b) to apply the time bar to all third parties who
`after receiving a copy of a complaint concurrent with a third party subpoena,
`appear in the case for the purpose of responding to the subpoena. Patent
`Owner’s reliance on LG Elecs., Inc. v. Mondis Tech. Ltd., IPR2015-00937,
`Paper 8 at 4-5 (PTAB Sept. 17, 2015) (precedential) (“LG”) is misplaced.
`Req. Reh’g 9. The Panel in LG declined to read a word into 315(b) in a
`situation where the addition of that word was not argued to be supported by
`legislative history. LG, Paper 8 at 5. The LG Panel went on to state that the
`legislative history and “equitable and public policy considerations [do not]
`favor a ‘broad’ interpretation of § 315(b).” LG, IPR2015-00937, Paper 8 at
`7–8. Here, as in LG, we read the “service” requirement of 315(b) narrowly.
`We did not misapprehend or overlook anything relating to Patent Owner’s
`argument regarding the meaning of “service” under 315(b). Thus, we are
`not persuaded by that argument.
`
`C. We Fully Considered Evidence of RPI and Privity
`
`Patent Owner argues “the Board overlooked relevant evidence of
`ION’s relationship to PGS and the Petition and compounded that error by
`preventing WG [WesternGeco LLC] from discovering admittedly existing
`documents that would have confirmed ION’s status as an RPI and/or privy
`of PGS. Paper 101 at 44-49.” Req. Reh’g 10–11. Patent Owner argues that
`
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00688
`Patent 7,080,607 B2
`
`the Board focused on whether ION “controlled” the instant proceeding but
`“the Board failed to fully consider ION’s broader financial interest in, and
`ability to fund, the IPR.” Id. at 12. Patent Owner does not cite to any rule or
`cases suggesting a “broader financial interest” or “ability to fund” is relevant
`nor does Patent Owner which, if any, evidence in the record was not
`considered in the Final Decision. C.f. GEA Process Engineering, Inc. v.
`Steuben Foods, Inc., IPR2014-00041, Paper 135 at 13–16 (PTAB Dec. 23,
`2014) (Actual evidence of funding found to show that party was RPI). Thus,
`Patent Owner has not established the proposition that the Board overlooked
`some evidence it was required to consider. A request for rehearing is not an
`opportunity merely to disagree with the panel’s assessment of the arguments
`or weighing of the evidence. Thus, we are not persuaded by this argument.
`
`D. We Properly Denied Patent Owner’s Request For Additional
`Discovery
`Patent Owner argues “[i]n denying WG’s request for additional
`discovery, the Board overlooked PGS’s own admission that relevant
`agreements exist that have not been produced and ION’s obvious
`contradictory statements—PGS and ION could not both be correct in their
`representations to the Board. Paper 101 at 49.” Req. Reh’g 13. We
`disagree. The Final Decision relies on the fact that Exhibit 2018 shows
`“Petitioner unambiguously affirmed that Petitioner had made no claims or
`demands to ION for indemnity with respect to the ’607 patent.” Final Dec.
`49. The mere allegation that “relevant” agreements may exist, is not
`inconsistent with Petitioner’s statement.
`Patent Owner argues “[t]he Board further erred by basing its Decision
`on an undisputedly incomplete record.” Req. Reh’g 12. A “complete”
`
`7
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00688
`Patent 7,080,607 B2
`
`record is not the standard for granting discovery. Granting of additional
`discovery is discretionary with the Board. See 35 U.S.C. § 316(a)(5)(B)
`(“discovery shall be limited to — what is otherwise necessary in the interest
`of justice”); see also Cochran v. Kresock, 530 F.2d 385, 396 (CCPA 1976)
`(whether a party is entitled to additional discovery is discretionary with the
`board); Keebler Co. v. Murray Bakery Products, 866 F.2d 1386, 1388 n.1
`(Fed. Cir. 1989) (standard of review of discovery order on appeal is abuse of
`discretion).
`The first and oft-disputed factor in determining whether additional
`discovery is necessary in the interests of justice is whether there exists more
`than a “mere possibility” or “mere allegation that something useful [to the
`proceeding] will be found.” Garmin Int’l, Inc. et al. v. Cuozzo Speed Techs
`LLC, Case IPR2012- 00001, Paper 20, slip op. at 2-3 (PTAB Feb. 14, 2014),
`“Order—Authorizing Motion for Additional Discovery” (listing factors to
`determine whether a discovery request is necessary in the interests of justice)
`(“the Garmin factors”). Under this first factor, a party should already be in
`possession of evidence tending to show beyond speculation that in fact
`something useful will be uncovered. Id. The discovery-seeking party only
`needs to set forth a threshold amount of evidence tending to show that the
`discovery it seeks factually supports its contention. See Garmin, IPR2012-
`00001, Paper 26, slip op. at 8-9, “Decision—On Motion for Additional
`Discovery” (finding that, with respect to Cuozzo’s contention of commercial
`success, Cuozzo failed to present a threshold amount of evidence tending to
`show that the requested discovery of sales and pricing information involved
`units with a nexus to the claimed features).
`
`8
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00688
`Patent 7,080,607 B2
`
`Patent Owner states that “[t]he existence of additional indemnity
`agreements between PGS and ION is a case dispositive issue, and one on
`which WG should have been permitted to take discovery.” Req. Reh’g at
`13. The existence of indemnity agreements is not always case dispositive.
`See Zerto, Inc v. EMC Corporation, IPR2014-01295, Paper 34, 12–13 (PTAB
`March 3, 2015) (“an indemnification clause, by itself, is not dispositive with
`respect to whether the indemnitor exercises or could exercise control over an
`inter partes review proceeding.”) (citations omitted); see also Arris Group,
`Inc. v. C-Cation Technologies, LLC, IPR2015-00635, Paper 19, 9–12 (PTAB
`July 31, 2015) (determining fact that “indemnification claims were made
`according to the provisions of the [indemnification] Agreements” was not
`sufficient to show control over the district court proceedings such that a
`party was in privity with the Petitioner). For example, we determined that
`the indemnity agreement produced in this case (see Patent Owner’s
`Rehearing Request, Paper 63 (discussing indemnity agreement in evidence)
`was not case dispositive.
`Patent Owner argues that since the 315(b) bar date has passed, ION
`cannot be added as an RPI because the filing date of the Petition would have
`to be reset and more than one year has passed since ION was served with a
`an infringement complaint. Patent Owner Preliminary Response, Paper 26,
`16.
`
`We determined, based on evidence (Ex. 2022, 2027; Dec. on Inst. 15,
`Paper 33) of the provisions of the indemnity agreement that was eventually
`produced (Ex. 2069), that the existence of the indemnity agreement did not
`sufficiently prove ION was a real party in interest to the Petition or privy of
`Petitioner. Dec. on Inst. 13–19. On rehearing, we determined that “[t]he
`
`9
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00688
`Patent 7,080,607 B2
`
`evidence presented by Westerngeco in its second Preliminary Response with
`respect to privy and real party-in-interest between ION and PGS, is
`essentially the same as that set forth in its initial Preliminary Response
`(Paper 26), and Patent Owner Response (Paper 48), with respect to PGS and
`ION.” Paper 99 (Decision Denying Patent Owner’s Request for Rehearing),
`5. Thus, we considered Patent Owner’s argument and evidence of record
`multiple times, including in its May 7, 2015 Request for Rehearing
`regarding joinder (Paper 63), initial Preliminary Response (Paper 26), and
`Patent Owner Response (Paper 48).
`As noted above, the Board reviewed the agreement that was produced
`along with all the arguments made by Patent Owner and the statement by
`Petitioner in Ex. 2018 and determine that additional discovery was not
`required in the interest of justice. A request for rehearing is not an
`opportunity merely to disagree with the panel’s assessment of the arguments
`or weighing of the evidence. Thus, we are not persuaded by this argument.
`
`E. We Properly Considered the May 14, 2015 Request for Rehearing
`
`Patent Owner argues that the Board failed to consider its Request for
`Rehearing filed on May 14, 2015 and thus “failed to substantively address
`any issues that WG raised in its rehearing request and prevented WG from
`fully developing its arguments. See Paper 99 at 2, n. 4.” Req. Reh’g. 13–14.
`We disagree. In response to the Patent Owner’s May 7, 2015 Request for
`Rehearing, we stated “[t]he matters raised by Westerngeco in their second
`Request for Rehearing were addressed in our Corrected Order (Cor. Order)
`entered May 19, 2015, denying authorization for a motion for additional
`discovery. See Cor. Order.” Paper 99 (Decision Denying Patent Owner’s
`Request for Rehearing), 2, n. 4. In that Corrected Order, we referred to the
`
`10
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00688
`Patent 7,080,607 B2
`
`indemnification agreement cited in Patent Owner’s May 14, 2015 Request
`for Rehearing and we stated “[n]either are we persuaded that we
`misapprehended or overlooked such evidence in our Decisions to Institute.”
`Paper 68 (Corrected Order Conduct of the Proceeding), 3–4.
`To the extent this statement was unclear, this statement was intended
`to indicate that we considered the arguments presented in Patent Owner’s
`May 14, 2015 Request for Rehearing. This is shown by our use of the
`“misapprehended or overlooked” standard that applies to requests for
`rehearing. Thus, we considered all arguments and evidence presented in the
`case with regard to RPI. Additionally, the Board is not required to
`“substantively address” all arguments raised by Patent Owner in all papers
`where some arguments are cumulative of previous arguments, rather the
`Board must consider and rule on challenges and/or requests made in those
`arguments. Thus, we are not persuaded by this argument.
`
`F. The New Multi Klient Evidence is Too Late
`
`Patent Owner argues that “[o]ne week after the Board rendered its
`Decision in this proceeding[] PGS filed an IPR Petition challenging the
`validity of a WG patent asserted alongside the ’607 patent in the same
`district court litigation and naming Multi Klient as an RPI. See Petroleum
`Geo-Services v. WesternGeco LLC, IPR2016-00407, Paper 1 at 3 (PTAB
`Dec. 23, 2015).” Req. Reh’g 15. Patent Owner argues further “PGS’s
`disclosure of Multi Klient as an RPI in IPR2016-00407 is a post hoc
`admission that Multi Klient should also have been named in this proceeding
`and confirms that additional discovery was improperly denied.” Id. The
`Final Decision has been entered and the record is closed in this IPR. We
`decline to decide whether such an “admission” would necessarily require a
`
`11
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00688
`Patent 7,080,607 B2
`
`finding that Multi Klient should have been named an RPI is this case. For
`example, it is unclear when Petitioner became aware of the fact that led it to
`name Multi Klient as an RPI in the other IPR.
`Nevertheless, we find that it is too late to introduce this evidence to
`support this argument after the Final Decision has been entered. See Sony
`Computer Entertainment America LLC v. Game Controller Technology
`LLC, IPR2013-00634, Paper 31, 3–5 (PTAB April 2, 2015) (“we determine
`that Patent Owner’s challenge of whether SAH and SONY should have been
`listed as RPIs in the Petition is untimely at this stage of the proceeding and,
`thus, is improper”).
`
`III. CONCLUSION
`The Request for Rehearing does not demonstrate that the Final
`Written Decision misapprehended or overlooked any matters in the case.
`
`IV. ORDER
`In consideration of the foregoing, it is hereby:
`
`ORDERED that the Request for Rehearing is denied;
`FURTHER ORDERED that the Final Written Decision at page 26
`after the following citation “Ex. 1004, 3:46–51, see also Ex. 1092, 434.” is
`changed to insert:
`We also credit the testimony of Dr. Evans that receiving signals
`and outputting real time positions using a Kalman filter is
`predicting locations, i.e. “Workman thus discloses using a
`Kalman filter to predict present (“real time”) streamer positions
`from the past positions that were determined by the position-
`monitoring system.” Ex. 1002 ¶ 81.
`
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00688
`Patent 7,080,607 B2
`
`
`For PETITIONER:
`David I. Berl
`Jessamyn S. Berniker
`Thomas S. Fletcher
`Christopher A. Suarez
`WILLIAMS & CONNOLLY LLP
`dberl@wc.com
`jberniker@wc.com
`tfletcher@wc.com
`csuarez@wc.com
`
`For PATENT OWNER:
`Michael L. Kiklis
`Scott A. McKeown
`Kevin B. Laurence
`Katherine D. Cappaert
`Christopher Ricciuti
`OBLON, MCCLELLAND, MAIER & NEUSTADT, LLP
`cpdocketkiklis@oblon.com
`cpdocketmckeown@oblon.com
`cpdocketlaurence@oblon.com
`cpdocketcappaert@oblon.com
`cpdocketricciuti@oblon.com
`
`
`
`13
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
