Page 1
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x
` :
`PETROLEUM GEO-SERVICES, INC.; :
` :
` Petitioner, :
` :
` - v - :
` :
`WESTERNGECO, LLC., :
` :
` Patent Owner. :
`- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x
`CASES: IPR2014-01475, -01477, 01478.
` ** T E L E C O N F E R E N C E **
` (ALL PARTICIPANTS APPEARING TELEPHONICALLY)
`
`B O A R D :
` JUDGE SCOTT DANIELS
` JUDGE BEVERLY BUNTING
` JUDGE BRYAN MOORE
` JUDGE BARBARA PARVIS
`
` April 13, 2015
`
`Reported by:
`Danielle Grant
`
`Job No. 92583
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`1 2
`
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Board Exhibit 3001, pg. 1
`PGS v. WesternGeco
`IPR2014-00688
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x
` :
`PETROLEUM GEO-SERVICES, INC.; :
` :
` Petitioner, :
` :
` - v - :
` :
`WESTERNGECO, LLC., :
` :
` Patent Owner. :
`- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x
`CASES: IPR2014-01475, -01477, 01478.
` ** T E L E C O N F E R E N C E **
` (ALL PARTICIPANTS APPEARING TELEPHONICALLY)
`
`B O A R D :
` JUDGE SCOTT DANIELS
` JUDGE BEVERLY BUNTING
` JUDGE BRYAN MOORE
` JUDGE BARBARA PARVIS
`
` April 13, 2015
`
`Reported by:
`Danielle Grant
`
`Job No. 92583
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`1 2
`
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Board Exhibit 3001, pg. 1
`PGS v. WesternGeco
`IPR2014-00688
`
`
`
`Page 2
`
` April 13, 2015
` 1:00 p.m.
`
` TELEPHONIC CONFERENCE CALL, before
`Danielle Grant, a Reporter and Notary Public
`within and for the State
`of New York.
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
`
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Board Exhibit 3001, pg. 2
`PGS v. WesternGeco
`IPR2014-00688
`
`
`
`Page 3
`
`A P P E A R A N C E S :
`
`WILLIAMS & CONNOLLY
`Attorneys for Petitioner
`725 Twelfth Street, NW
`Washington, DC 20005
`BY: JESSAMYN BERNIKER, ESQ.
` CHRISTOPHER SUAREZ, ESQ.
`
`OBLON McCLELLAND MAIER & NEUSTADT
`Attorneys for Patent Owner
`1940 Duke Street
`Alexandria, Virginia 22314
`BY: MICHAEL KIKLIS, ESQ.
` KATHERINE CAPPAERT, ESQ.
`ALSO PRESENT:
` BRIGITTE ECHOLS
`
`1 2
`
`3 4
`
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Board Exhibit 3001, pg. 3
`PGS v. WesternGeco
`IPR2014-00688
`
`
`
`Page 4
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` Proceedings April 13, 2015
` JUDGE SCOTT: All right. Again,
`this is Judge Scott Daniels, and I'm
`joined on the call with Judges Parvis
`and Bunting. And this is the initial
`conference call for IPR-2014, 01475,
`01477 and 01478. And those IPRs all
`specifically relate to the -- I'll give
`the whole number, U.S. Patent 7,080
`607, and Patent 7,293,520.
` Let me ask now, who's on the line
`from Petitioner?
` MS. BERNIKER: This is Jess from
`Williams and Connolly and with me is
`Christopher Suarez also from Williams
`and Connolly.
` JUDGE SCOTT: Thank you. And from
`Williams & Connolly?
` MR. KIKLIS: Mike Kiklis, Your
`Honor, from Oblon. With me is Kate
`Cappaert of our office and I believe
`Christopher Judy is also on the line,
`as well as in-house counsel, Bridget
`Echols.
` JUDGE SCOTT: Thank you. All
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Board Exhibit 3001, pg. 4
`PGS v. WesternGeco
`IPR2014-00688
`
`
`
`Page 5
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` Proceedings April 13, 2015
`right. I think that we've been
`through -- in the first series of cases
`we have been through the entire range
`of things that would -- issues that we
`usually cover including motions to
`amend and things like that. From
`patent owner's perspective, do we need
`to go through that again?
` MR. KIKLIS: I don't believe so,
`Your Honor, but there are a motion that
`we do feel that we'll end up raising,
`potentially.
` JUDGE SCOTT: I'll get to that.
`Just wanted to make sure -- I just
`didn't want to go through, you know,
`spend ten minutes going through what
`we've been through before. Because it
`doesn't look like we've -- in the other
`cases, or this one, you still could but
`at the moment, there's no anticipated
`motion to amend?
` MR. KIKLIS: Not at this point,
`Your Honor, but of course but we may
`decide to change that later on.
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Board Exhibit 3001, pg. 5
`PGS v. WesternGeco
`IPR2014-00688
`
`
`
`Page 6
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` Proceedings April 13, 2015
` JUDGE SCOTT: Certainly. All
`right. Are there any proposed changes
`to the scheduling order? We currently
`have oral argument in these series of
`cases is for November 12, 2015. Are
`there any other -- any issues with the
`order, the scheduling order as it
`stands?
` MS. BERNIKER: Your Honor, this is
`Jessamyn Bernicker from Williams and
`Connolly. We certainly have no issue
`with the oral argument date or the
`other -- what we refer to as the fixed
`date. The parties are in the midst a
`long and arguably heated discussion
`about the other deadlines and how they
`interact with the deadlines in the
`first set of cases that are currently
`ongoing.
` I don't know if that's something
`that we're prepared to discuss today,
`because as I understand it, at least
`from our perspective, we need to settle
`on kind of making sure that the
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Board Exhibit 3001, pg. 6
`PGS v. WesternGeco
`IPR2014-00688
`
`
`
`Page 7
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` Proceedings April 13, 2015
`deadlines that are already coming up
`very quickly in phase one or the first
`set of IPRs on these patents, get
`confirmed and locked down and that has
`been a struggle between the parties.
` And I think from our perspective,
`it entirely affects the intermediate
`deadlines for this phase of the case,
`because the witnesses are the same in
`terms of our principle declarant. And
`it's argued that we should be able to
`kind of consolidate when they come into
`town for depositions and, so we haven't
`been able to work it out together at
`this point.
` If that's something that you'd
`like to hear more or WesternGeco
`intends to address that more in detail,
`I'm happy to talk about it. From our
`perspective the order of events in
`terms of how we can make this work, is
`to first resolve with issues with
`respect to the first case, which I
`believe, sometime in the next week
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Board Exhibit 3001, pg. 7
`PGS v. WesternGeco
`IPR2014-00688
`
`
`
`Page 8
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` Proceedings April 13, 2015
`we're hoping to either resolve or bring
`to your attention. And then once we
`work that out, we think we should be
`able to work out the dates for the
`second case in terms of those
`intermediate deadlines that are movable
`by agreement of the parties.
` JUDGE SCOTT: Okay. Understood.
`We can talk about that because I wanted
`to discuss that as well based on what,
`you know, we already had. One, we gave
`out one order with respect to the
`witnesses for time in the first case,
`so. Patent owner, do you want to
`respond to that?
` MR. KIKLIS: Yes, Your Honor.
`What you heard the petitioner say is
`that she's making her witnesses
`available in the second round of IPRs
`contingent upon what they decide to do
`in the first round. So as of today,
`patent owner doesn't have any specific
`date for when they can depose
`petitioner's witnesses. You also heard
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Board Exhibit 3001, pg. 8
`PGS v. WesternGeco
`IPR2014-00688
`
`
`
`Page 9
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` Proceedings April 13, 2015
`the petitioner argue that these two
`proceeding should be linked, so as to
`make it easier on their witnesses.
` And I would argue that they filed
`two sets of IPRs. We should be able to
`get -- have their witnesses for a
`deposition within a reasonable
`timeframe and they shouldn't
`necessarily combined. They filed a
`second round of IPRs. We should be
`able to know within a few days, when
`those depositions are going to be.
` JUDGE SCOTT: Do we know when, in
`the first phase, do we know in the
`first set of cases when the depositions
`are?
` MS. BERNIKER: The initial round
`of depositions have taken place. So
`patent owner has deposed the experts
`for petitioner and they have obviously
`filed their opposition. We had agreed
`to give them a five or actually a four
`week extension on their opposition
`deadline because they insisted on
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Board Exhibit 3001, pg. 9
`PGS v. WesternGeco
`IPR2014-00688
`
`
`
`Page 10
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` Proceedings April 13, 2015
`pushing the original dates that we
`proposed for those witnesses and they
`insisted on having five weeks between
`the deposition and their opposition,
`which they were granted.
` And we had agreed to that subject
`to their agreeing to put up their
`experts between a particular window of
`April 20 and May 8. They have now told
`us, that their principle expert will
`not be available in the United States
`during that window and not be available
`until May 21 or 22. So they're not
`prepared to stand by the stipulation
`and they've insisted that we fly to
`Singapore to depose him during that
`window, which is why there is a dispute
`right now as to phase one, because our
`view is that we agreed to the extension
`subject to a stipulation that we would
`be provided access to their witness for
`a deposition in sufficient time for us
`to have time to submit our reply.
` The date they're proposing in the
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Board Exhibit 3001, pg. 10
`PGS v. WesternGeco
`IPR2014-00688
`
`
`
`Page 11
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` Proceedings April 13, 2015
`U.S. is two weeks before our reply
`deadline and obviously, considering the
`lengthy extensions we have given them,
`we don't feel like that's appropriate.
`So reason of course that this is
`intertwined with what we call phase
`two, is at the time that we agreed to
`give them this long extension, we
`indicated that by giving them extension
`in phase one, we would be messing up
`the alignment of the schedule, such
`that it would be more difficult to have
`our witnesses come to do a phase two
`declaration and any reply declaration
`in phase one at the same time.
` So before we gave them an
`extension, it was kind of aligned well
`so that Dr. Evans who's located in
`Australia, could come. And if he
`submitted a supply declaration in phase
`one, he could be deposed at the same
`time in phase one and phase two. But
`when we granted them the extension we
`explained that that was going to
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Board Exhibit 3001, pg. 11
`PGS v. WesternGeco
`IPR2014-00688
`
`
`
`Page 12
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` Proceedings April 13, 2015
`necessarily result in a gap between
`those two timeframes. And that it was
`important to us that we be in a
`situation where he only had to come
`once for a deposition and only had to
`prepare him once, because we're doing
`this several times and we were giving
`them the benefit of an extension. We
`thought that's where we were with
`respect to phase two, but when I
`reminded counsel for the patent owner
`of that in our discussion last week, he
`indicated that he did not intend to
`treat it that way.
` And that he believed that our
`witnesses needed to come separately for
`phase two first, and then if they
`submit a reply declaration, to come
`back again for that. And that is why,
`in many ways. There is a dispute. Our
`position is we would like to stick with
`the schedule that was set forth in
`phase one, where they stipulated to
`make their witnesses available in the
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Board Exhibit 3001, pg. 12
`PGS v. WesternGeco
`IPR2014-00688
`
`
`
`Page 13
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` Proceedings April 13, 2015
`United States during the April 20 to
`May 8 window.
` And we would like to stick with
`what we had discussed in phase one,
`which is that our reply declaration, if
`they were submitting reply
`declarations, would also be subject to
`phase two declaration at that time, at
`the beginning of June. And that we
`would happily give patent owner the
`appropriate extension that they would
`need on their opposition brief in order
`to give them sufficient time to file an
`opposition after the declaration.
` We believe there is sufficient
`time in the schedule to push their
`original opposition brief deadline and
`our reply deadline and still not to
`have move the unmovable deadlines and
`meet the schedule comfortably. And so
`that is where we are on this issue.
` JUDGE SCOTT: All right. I can
`give you, I'm looking at what we did in
`the first set of cases here as far
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Board Exhibit 3001, pg. 13
`PGS v. WesternGeco
`IPR2014-00688
`
`
`
`Page 14
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` Proceedings April 13, 2015
`as -- as far as time. We didn't do
`anything to the schedule. Look, I've
`got to tell you that asking, asking
`people to travel more than twice is,
`you know, from one continent to another
`is a lot. That's a lot on the witness.
`I understand that there is -- there
`were two, you know, there's two series
`of cases filed here.
` But I'm thinking about the
`witnesses. You know, the time is
`relatively easy when we can do it if we
`have to, before if we need to extend
`the time, we can do that. But I would
`like you all to come to an agreement
`about the schedule. If you can't do
`that in the next -- in the next five
`days or so, then we maybe have to have
`another call and maybe submit proposed
`changes, proposed scheduling in both of
`those cases. This is going to get
`complicated in a hurry and take a lot
`of time if you all can't reach an
`agreement. What I'm going to -- let's
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Board Exhibit 3001, pg. 14
`PGS v. WesternGeco
`IPR2014-00688
`
`
`
`Page 15
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` Proceedings April 13, 2015
`go on to another subject at the moment.
` MR. KIKLIS: Your Honor, may
`I just --
` JUDGE SCOTT: Hang on for a
`second. I'm going to go off line here
`when done and discuss this with the
`other judges, because we have to find a
`way to simplify the scheduling order so
`that there's not a lot of burden on
`these witnesses. Mr. Kiklis. Go
`ahead. If you had a thought.
` MR. KIKLIS: Yes, I just wanted to
`mention that yes, there is a
`stipulation that we entered into that
`we would make Dr. Transbluth (ph)
`available between April 30 and May 8.
`Unfortunately, an emergency has arisen.
`He is the CEO of the University of
`Athens. And apparently due to the
`Greece economic crisis, the university,
`it's entire wellbeing was being
`threatened. So he had to travel to
`Greece part of this timeframe, which
`made it very difficult for him to then
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Board Exhibit 3001, pg. 15
`PGS v. WesternGeco
`IPR2014-00688
`
`
`
`Page 16
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` Proceedings April 13, 2015
`come to the United States because he's
`on a long term contract with the
`government of Singapore. So he's over
`in Singapore, he has to go to Greece
`and he and will not be able to come
`back to the United States until May 22
`or May 23.
` That's why when we originally had
`proposed May 22, May 23 in the United
`States, we received push back from the
`petitioner so we tried to accommodate
`them, we're making him available in
`Singapore on the seventh or eighth.
`Mr. Transbluth is rather advanced in
`years and he's also facing a health
`issue which sometimes makes it
`impossible for him to travel. So right
`now, it's a very difficult thing to
`commit to his travel and that's why we
`were offering him over in Singapore
`only for the benefit of the witness.
`And for the emergency that has arisen.
` Since that time we have also
`offered to the petitioner, that while
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Board Exhibit 3001, pg. 16
`PGS v. WesternGeco
`IPR2014-00688
`
`
`
`Page 17
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` Proceedings April 13, 2015
`in Singapore, the parties would agree
`to take Dr. Transbluth's deposition in
`Singapore and May 7 and 8, we can stop
`by western Australia, which is only a
`five hour plane ride on the way back
`and kill two birds with one stone.
`That way everybody would get the
`depositions early, there would only be
`this one charge for both sides incurred
`to fly out to another hemisphere.
`That's the proposal on the table and I
`think it would adequately address both
`parties.
` JUDGE SCOTT: Do you have any
`thoughts on this?
` MS. BERNIKER: Well, I think for a
`start, the agreement to extend the
`schedule in the first instance was
`contingent on the dates in the United
`States and having some parity in terms
`of fairness and how much time was
`provided for each side for taking the
`depositions, between taking them and
`submitting their responses.
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Board Exhibit 3001, pg. 17
`PGS v. WesternGeco
`IPR2014-00688
`
`
`
`Page 18
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` Proceedings April 13, 2015
` I think the suggestion that we now
`have to fly 24 hours to Singapore,
`handle a 12 hour time change to depose
`a witness who lives in Boston is not
`reasonable or fair. And I don't think
`it makes it any easier to tack on
`having to go to Australia in the
`meantime, somehow prepare our witness
`for his deposition, just so that he can
`fly back to the United States, a few
`weeks later, potentially, to be deposed
`again if he submits a reply
`declaration. It seems like that's not
`really bringing efficiency to the
`table. It seems like, with all respect
`to the patent owner's witness, Dr.
`Transbluth, I apologize for not
`pronouncing it right, he seems
`available or it seems like he able to
`travel the world for other obligations
`and this is an obligation on the books
`in this proceeding for several months.
`And we think he should be made
`available when they originally
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Board Exhibit 3001, pg. 18
`PGS v. WesternGeco
`IPR2014-00688
`
`
`
`Page 19
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` Proceedings April 13, 2015
`committing it to him being available.
` And I'm sorry if that creates
`other problems for him in terms of his
`obligations, but this is an important
`proceeding to our clients. And I don't
`think that we should bear the brunt of
`what they characterize as emergencies
`in Greece and apparently in Singapore.
`I do think that ultimately for our part
`with respect to the schedule on phase
`two is, you know, these were scheduled
`originally in a way that our witnesses
`would have to come once. That's
`tremendously efficient for everybody.
`The witness doesn't have to fly around
`the world multiple times. Our two
`witness have already been deposed once,
`I should know note, and they were
`permitted 12 hours of cross-examination
`of them on issues that are highly
`related, to what is going to happen in
`the second phase.
` But obviously, we're going to
`bring them back for a second
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Board Exhibit 3001, pg. 19
`PGS v. WesternGeco
`IPR2014-00688
`
`
`
`Page 20
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` Proceedings April 13, 2015
`deposition. We think it's reasonable
`to have that at the same time that they
`would have a deposition on any apply
`declaration that they submit then.
` And I think there's no prejudice
`to patent owner, because there's enough
`time in the schedule to move their
`opposition deadline and have all the
`dates work out pretty comfortably, so
`I'm not really sure what the problem is
`on that front.
` MR. KIKLIS: Your Honor if I may,
`an emergency came up. That's all I can
`say. We're trying to do our best to
`accommodate the other side, but again,
`I would note that they're the
`petitioner and they filed two rounds of
`IPRs. They did that all knowing of
`course, what that would mean for their
`witnesses and they selected their
`witnesses. So I don't think that their
`argument of prejudice or the
`inconvenience of bringing the witness
`here really should be that important.
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Board Exhibit 3001, pg. 20
`PGS v. WesternGeco
`IPR2014-00688
`
`
`
`Page 21
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` Proceedings April 13, 2015
`And also we've offered, this solution,
`which is we all fly out and get this
`done over a ten day period or so, and
`that the schedule doesn't -- shouldn't
`have to change basically at all.
` JUDGE SCOTT: Ms. Berniker, let me
`ask a couple of questions here and then
`I'll go offline and discuss it with the
`other judges.
` It seems to me that if counsel can
`travel, you'd have your deposition --
`you'd have your deposition in Singapore
`and you'd have it quicker. Or there's
`still the potential, as I understand
`it, to do the -- have the deposition
`here in -- here in the U.S. but it
`would be later and push up against your
`reply due date?
` MS. BERNIKER: Correct.
` JUDGE SCOTT: Which is less --
` MS. BERNIKER: I think they're
`both onerous. We're certainly not
`excited about having only two weeks for
`a reply due date for obvious reasons,
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Board Exhibit 3001, pg. 21
`PGS v. WesternGeco
`IPR2014-00688
`
`
`
`Page 22
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` Proceedings April 13, 2015
`considering we were very gracious in
`giving patent owner a long period of
`time on that. The travel is certainly
`not ideal, but it's also extremely
`expensive. The patent owner bought
`three people to the deposition of our
`experts and we had intended to do the
`same with respect to their experts.
`And a flight to Singapore and back is
`extremely expensive, not to mention
`time-consuming. So if you're asking me
`to pick between them, is that what
`you're asking me to do?
` JUDGE SCOTT: It's possible, we.
`Could make -- we could move the --
`potentially move the reply date a
`little bit.
` MS. BERNIKER: So we have looked
`at the schedule with an eye toward
`whether that would be possible, and the
`principal problem -- well there's
`several problems.
` For one, we've pushed the dates
`back in the first phase and there's
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Board Exhibit 3001, pg. 22
`PGS v. WesternGeco
`IPR2014-00688
`
`
`
`Page 23
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` Proceedings April 13, 2015
`very little fat left in terms of giving
`the parties time to submit their
`filings. We had proposed to
`WesternGeco that we could push the
`reply date by two weeks to deal with
`this two week loss that we would have.
`The problems is that Dr. Evans is only
`available in the first week in June,
`the week -- we had, I think it's the 11
`and 12. We actually indicated to them
`back in January that he would be
`available for a deposition those dates,
`because we knew that his schedule was
`tight, and he could come to the United
`States and be deposed those days.
` So if he submits a reply
`declaration, the problem is that he
`would be available to be deposed on it
`before patent owner's cross-examination
`or comments on cross-examination
`deadline. We had indicated that we
`would be comfortable moving the
`deadline if they agreed to waive
`deposing him on a reply declaration and
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Board Exhibit 3001, pg. 23
`PGS v. WesternGeco
`IPR2014-00688
`
`
`
`Page 24
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` Proceedings April 13, 2015
`they weren't interested in that, as I
`understand it. But I don't know how to
`deal with the problem of his
`unavailability that would be created if
`we pushed our reply deadline.
` JUDGE SCOTT: Mr. Kiklis, what was
`the date again that your witness could
`be available in the U.S.? I believe
`you said in Singapore from -- is it
`April 20 through May 8?
` MR. KIKLIS: I don't think he's
`back in the United States until the
`week of the 22, that's the way I
`understand it. We can make him
`available on May 22, and May 23, which
`is 16 days or so before the petitioner
`would have to file its reply.
` MS. BERNIKER: Maybe I was unclear
`on this Mr. Kiklis. I understood that
`he was coming to the United States
`earlier that week, but wasn't available
`for deposition until the 22 or 23; is
`that right?
` MR. KIKLIS: That's correct. He's
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Board Exhibit 3001, pg. 24
`PGS v. WesternGeco
`IPR2014-00688
`
`
`
`Page 25
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` Proceedings April 13, 2015
`going to be in the United States a
`little bit before then, as I understand
`it. I don't know the exact day that he
`arrives but he can be available on May
`22 or May 23.
` JUDGE SCOTT: So how about --
`we're talking about a matter of days
`here. If -- do you have -- can he be
`made available some time before, it
`sounds like he's gone until May 8. We
`have quite a few days between the
`eighth and 22 and 23. Is there
`somewhere we can find to the petitioner
`a little bit of breathing room so we
`don't have to move that date?
` MR. KIKLIS: He's in Singapore
`traveling to Greece, going back to
`Singapore. I don't believe he can make
`it to the United States until the week
`of the 22, Your Honor, that's my
`understanding. And then as of right
`now, that week, I believe he has a
`couple of days where he is prescheduled
`where he has to be at the university
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Board Exhibit 3001, pg. 25
`PGS v. WesternGeco
`IPR2014-00688
`
`
`
`Page 26
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` Proceedings April 13, 2015
`responding to dissertation defenses or
`what have you which has prescheduled
`and what have you. He arrives here
`that week and some of those dates are
`already committed.
` JUDGE SCOTT: All right. Let me
`go off line for a few minutes and
`discuss this with the panel and I will
`be right back.
` (Off the record.)
` JUDGE SCOTT: We're back. All
`right. This is what -- this is what
`we're going to do. What I'm going to
`say in our summary here is that this --
`patent owner, your witness needs to be
`made available on May 22 and 23. I'll
`let you all work out any dates that may
`potentially have to change from the
`time perspective. And also on the
`hand, petitioner's witness who's
`traveling here from Australia, should
`be able to -- we should be able to have
`all the depositions for them taking
`place at one particular time.
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Board Exhibit 3001, pg. 26
`PGS v. WesternGeco
`IPR2014-00688
`
`
`
`Page 27
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` Proceedings April 13, 2015
` So that's where we're going go.
`If there's any particular changes that
`need to be made to the due date, then
`the due dates and things, I'll leave
`that to you all to make changes, to
`stipulate to changes. So that's what
`would we've got on that. Let me --
`let's move on to the proposed or the
`anticipated motions. Both parties
`filed anticipated motions. And the one
`that sticks out is of course, was
`patent owner, you seem like you may
`also want to have me -- the motion for
`additional discovery?
` MR. KIKLIS: Correct, Your Honor,
`as you saw from our responses that we
`filed in the first round of IPRs, we
`consider this to be a serious issue.
`There is indemnification agreement of
`our exhibits. There are interrogatory
`answers where I should have been named
`as a real party of interest. We intend
`to have a meet and confer later this
`week to try to discuss initial
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Board Exhibit 3001, pg. 27
`PGS v. WesternGeco
`IPR2014-00688
`
`
`
`Page 28
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` Proceedings April 13, 2015
`discovery that could be agreed to
`between the parties, and if that
`reaches an impasse then we would seek
`intervention by the board.
` JUDGE SCOTT: All right. That's
`understandable. So you know we're
`taking the issue seriously as well and
`we'll look at all the evidence as we
`have in the past. There is a joint
`motion for entry of the default
`protective technical order, I think,
`which is the only thing that jumps out
`at me as outstanding that we need to
`give you. Does that sound right?
` MS. BERNIKER: Yes.
` JUDGE SCOTT: It's the same
`default protective order as in the
`first series of cases.
` MS. BERNIKER: Yes, Your Honor.
` MR. KIKLIS: That's my
`understanding.
` JUDGE SCOTT: I'll address that in
`the conference summary as well. All
`right. Oral arguments we talked about
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Board Exhibit 3001, pg. 28
`PGS v. WesternGeco
`IPR2014-00688
`
`
`
`Page 29
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` Proceedings April 13, 2015
`the schedule. If there's a problem
`with -- if there is a problem with the
`due dates, a real problem and you can't
`work out what the directions that we
`give you as far as the depositions, I
`mean obviously, you can call us back
`and we'll take -- we'll have another go
`at it. But for the moment, let's see
`if that enables you to get to a
`resolution of these witnesses.
` MR. KIKLIS: Your Honor, may I ask
`a question or clarification? One of
`the proposals that you heard from the
`petitioner is that the patent owner
`foregoes the deposition of petitioner's
`witnesses that's been filed as a
`supplement declaration to a reply
`brief. I just wanted to clarify that
`our position is we're entitled to such
`a deposition and we'll not willing to
`forego those depositions, however we're
`very willing to move dates as we need,
`so with the one caveat, we're very
`amenable to moving dates.
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Board Exhibit 3001, pg. 29
`PGS v. WesternGeco
`IPR2014-00688
`
`
`
`Page 30
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` Proceedings April 13, 2015
` JUDGE SCOTT: Will that still be
`able to be done here in the United
`States at the same time? Are you
`talking about Dr. Evans?
` MS. BERNIKER: We are talking
`about Dr. Evans. We have heard your
`pronouncement and we'll attempt to make
`this work. I'm not sure how it's going
`to work because Doctor Evans does have
`very limited availability at the
`beginning of June as we indicated to
`the patent owner back in January.
`That's why we had originally said that
`if they want to move our reply
`deadline, they may have to forego his
`deposition because we don't see how it
`will work with his schedule. But we
`will certainly continue to work with
`them to try to make it work.
` JUDGE SCOTT: Is it because
`there's not enough time when he's here?
` MS. BERNIKER: His schedule in
`June is relatively busy and right now
`his availability for a deposition, it'd
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Board Exhibit 3001, pg. 30
`PGS v. WesternGeco
`IPR2014-00688
`
`
`
`Page 31
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` Proceedings April 13, 2015
`be the end of the week -- essentially
`the 11 and 12 of June which is a few
`days after our reply is due. But if
`you move our reply deadline which we
`think is necessary, given the
`deposition of their expert is being
`pushed, then the reply would come in
`after his deposition, which obviously
`doesn't make any sense.
` And then he's not available again
`until the very beginning of July and if
`we move that far in the schedule, then
`we're not going to be able to hold the
`argument date which is obviously
`critical. So that's kind of how we
`ended up in the issue with respect to
`June. But of course, we knew this in
`January when we gave them their
`extension. We told them this in
`January and that's why we said it was
`important that we get their expert
`during the window that they're now not
`putting him up. That's how we got
`here.
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Board Exhibit 3001, pg. 31
`PGS v. WesternGeco
`IPR2014-00688
`
`
`
`Page 32
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` Proceedings April 13, 2015
` MR. KIKLIS: I just want to point
`out that if we combine depositions then
`it's likely going to be a four-day
`deposition for this it witness.
` JUDGE SCOTT: Here's what we'll
`do. If you all are going to have five
`days to work this out. If -- if you
`all can't determine how to make this
`happen in five days, then let's see --
`that takes us into -- today's the 14.
`If you can't work this out seven days
`from now, by the 21, then what I'd like
`by the close of business on the 21, is
`a proposed schedule from each of you by
`the close of business on the 21. And
`then you can leave it to us, the panel,
`to decide if you can't work it out.
` I have a final or
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
