Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00687, Paper 67
`IPR2014-00688, Paper 68
`IPR2014-00689, Paper 67
`Entered: May 19, 2015
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`PETROLEUM GEO-SERVICES INC,
`and
`ION GEOPHYSICAL CORPORATION
`AND ION INTERNATIONAL S.A.R.L,
`Petitioners,
`
`v.
`
`WESTERNGECO LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`
`Cases1 2
`IPR2014-00687 (Patent 7,162,967)
`IPR2014-00688 (Patent 7,080,607)
`IPR2014-00689 (Patent 7,293,520)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Before BRYAN F. MOORE, SCOTT A. DANIELS,
`BEVERLY M. BUNTING, and BARBARA A. PARVIS,
`Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`DANIELS, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
` This Order addresses issues from a phone conference that are the same in
`all three cases. Therefore, we exercise our discretion to issue one Decision
`to be filed in each case. The parties are not authorized to use this style
`heading for any subsequent papers.
`2 Cases IPR2015-00565, IPR2015-00566, IPR2015-00567 have been joined
`with these proceedings.
`
`1
`
`
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00687, Paper 67
`IPR2014-00688, Paper 68
`IPR2014-00689, Paper 67
`Entered: May 19, 2015
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`PETROLEUM GEO-SERVICES INC,
`and
`ION GEOPHYSICAL CORPORATION
`AND ION INTERNATIONAL S.A.R.L,
`Petitioners,
`
`v.
`
`WESTERNGECO LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`
`Cases1 2
`IPR2014-00687 (Patent 7,162,967)
`IPR2014-00688 (Patent 7,080,607)
`IPR2014-00689 (Patent 7,293,520)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Before BRYAN F. MOORE, SCOTT A. DANIELS,
`BEVERLY M. BUNTING, and BARBARA A. PARVIS,
`Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`DANIELS, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
` This Order addresses issues from a phone conference that are the same in
`all three cases. Therefore, we exercise our discretion to issue one Decision
`to be filed in each case. The parties are not authorized to use this style
`heading for any subsequent papers.
`2 Cases IPR2015-00565, IPR2015-00566, IPR2015-00567 have been joined
`with these proceedings.
`
`1
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00687 (Patent 7,162,967)
`IPR2014-00688 (Patent 7,080,607)
`IPR2014-00689 (Patent 7,293,520)
`
`
`
`
`CORRECTED ORDER3
`Conduct of the Proceeding
`37 C.F.R. § 42.5
`A conference call for these proceedings was held on April 27, 2015,
`
`including Judges Daniels, Moore, Bunting, and Parvis, and respective
`
`counsel for the parties. A court reporter was also on the call. The transcript
`
`should be filed via PRPS as soon as it is available. PGS and WesternGeco
`
`requested the conference because they could not agree on deposition times
`
`for witnesses. In the discussion that follows, because of the related
`
`discovery matters directed to a second group of PGS proceedings, IPR2014--
`
`-01475, -01477, and -01478, involving the same patents, we refer to the
`
`present proceedings as the first group of PGS proceedings.
`
`Initially, Counsel for PGS raised a concern regarding unsupported
`
`evidence in the declaration of Mr. Robin Walker, asserting that certain
`
`information referenced by Mr. Walker had not been produced, and the
`
`deposition of Mr. Walker was only a few days away, set for April 30, 2015.
`
`Counsel for WesternGeco indicated that some of this information was on
`
`encrypted, and double encrypted drives which they were attempting to
`
`produce, and that certain information was from Mr. Walker’s memory as
`
`opposed to physically available documents and things. The Board expects
`
`all available evidence that WesternGeco intends to rely on be produced prior
`
`to the deposition, and any additional evidence to be produced as soon as it is
`
`available. The Board is fully capable of determining the appropriate weight
`
`to give certain evidence relied upon by either party, and PGS may file
`
`
`3 This Order corrects a misreference to a case number in the original Order.
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00687 (Patent 7,162,967)
`IPR2014-00688 (Patent 7,080,607)
`IPR2014-00689 (Patent 7,293,520)
`
`motions to exclude at the appropriate time should it believe it is prejudiced
`
`by late or unsupported evidence.
`
`With respect to the length of depositions, in accordance with our
`
`Initial Conference Order (Paper 55) in this first group of PGS proceedings,
`
`we consistently determine that a reasonable time for each witness’s petition
`
`declaration testimony in the second group of PGS proceedings is 17 hours
`
`total, including: 12 hours for cross-examination; 3 hours for redirect
`
`examination; and 2 hours for re-cross examination. A reasonable time for
`
`reply declaration testimony for each witness in both groups of PGS
`
`proceedings is 7 hours for cross-examination; 4 hours for redirect
`
`examination; and 2 hours for re-cross examination. If necessary, the parties
`
`may contact the Board to explain why any further deposition time is needed.
`
`Also during the call, WesternGeco’s counsel explained that new
`
`evidence, filed subsequent to our Decisions to Institute, specifically Master
`
`Purchase Agreement No. MAR-2008-0139, (Ex. 2069) between PGS and
`
`Concept Systems Limited, a subsidiary of ION, was indicative of the need
`
`for additional discovery with respect to alleged privity between ION and
`
`PGS. Having addressed the matters of privity and real-party-in-interest
`
`already in our Decisions to Institute, we took the matter under advisement.
`
`Thus, having reviewed the Master Purchase Agreement and the indemnity
`
`clause at 1.17, WesternGeco does not, now, apprise us of any new evidence
`
`demonstrating control, opportunity to control, or financial compensation for
`
`litigation, or IPR proceedings. See Ex. 2069, 14.4 Neither are we persuaded
`
`
`4 WesternGeco’s Counsel points to IPR2014-01559, Paper 23, where the
`Board determined that the facts and evidence supported a finding of privity.
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00687 (Patent 7,162,967)
`IPR2014-00688 (Patent 7,080,607)
`IPR2014-00689 (Patent 7,293,520)
`
`that we misapprehended or overlooked such evidence in our Decisions to
`
`Institute. See Inst. Dec. 17, Exs. 2022, 2027.
`
`Accordingly, it is
`
`ORDERED that petition declaration testimony for each witness in
`
`each of the first and second PGS proceedings shall not exceed 17 hours total,
`
`including: 12 hours for cross-examination; 3 hours for redirect examination;
`
`and 2 hours for re-cross examination;
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that reply declaration witness testimony for
`
`each witness in each of the first and second PGS proceedings shall not
`
`exceed 13 hours total, including: 7 hours for cross-examination; 4 hours for
`
`redirect examination; and 2 hours for re-cross examination;
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that Patent Owner’s request for authorization
`
`for a Motion for Additional Discovery on the subjects of privity and real-
`
`party-in-interest, is denied; and
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order is to be entered into
`
`the files of the second group of PGS proceedings, IPR2014-01475, 01477,
`
`and 01478.
`
`
`However, the decision referred to is not precedential and the Board’s
`evaluation of privity in an inter partes review is made based on a case-by-
`case basis, taking into account the particular facts of each case. See 77 Fed.
`Reg. at 48,760.
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00687 (Patent 7,162,967)
`IPR2014-00688 (Patent 7,080,607)
`IPR2014-00689 (Patent 7,293,520)
`
`For PETITIONERS:
`
`David. Berl
`Thomas S. Fletcher
`Jessamyn Berniker
`Christopher Suarez
`Williams & Connolly, LLP
`dberl@wc.com
`tfletcher@wc.com
`jberniker@wc.com
`csuarez@wc.com
`
`W. Karl Renner
`Roberto Devoto
`David L. Holt
`Fish & Richardson P.C.
`IPR37136-0004IP1@fr.com
`
`For PATENT OWNER:
`
`Michael L. Kiklis
`Scott A. McKeown
`Christopher A. Bullard
`Kevin B. Laurence
`Katherine D. Cappaert
`Christopher Ricciuti
`OBLON, SPIVAK, McCLELLAND,
`MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P.
`CPdocketMcKeown@oblon.com
`CPdocketBullard@oblon.com
`
`5
`
`
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
