Case -4:O9—cv—O1827 Document 6
`
`-iled in XbD on 06/16/09 Beige 1 of 24
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`HOUSTON DIVISION
`
`WESTERNGECO L.L.C.,
`
`§
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`V.
`ION GEOPHYSICAL CORPORATION,
`
`2
`§ CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:09-cv-01827
`
`Defendant.
`
`§
`§ JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`ION GEOPHYSICAL CORPORATION’S ANSWER, AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES,
`AND COUNTERCLAIMS TO WESTERNGECO L.L.C.’S
`COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`
`Defendant
`
`ION Geophysical Corporation (“ION Geophysical")
`
`files this Answer,
`
`Affirrnative Defenses, and Counterclairns in response to WesternGeco L.L.C.’s Complaint (the
`
`“Complaint”), and in support thereof would respectfully show the Court the following:
`
`ANSWER
`
`l.
`
`ION Geophysical lacks information sufficient to admit or deny the allegations of
`
`Paragraph 1 of the Complaint and on that basis denies them.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`ION Geophysical admits the allegations of Paragraph 2 of the Complaint.
`
`ION Geophysical admits that the Complaint attempts to allege causes of action for
`
`infringement of certain patents, as stated in Paragraph 3 of the Complaint, but ION Geophysical
`
`denies all such allegations.
`
`4.
`
`ION Geophysical admits that the Court has jurisdiction over this case as alleged
`
`in Paragraph 4 of the Complaint.
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`ION Geophysical admits the allegations of Paragraph 5 of the Complaint.
`
`ION Geophysical admits the allegations of Paragraph 6 of the Complaint.
`
`PGS v WESTERNGECO (|PR20’l4-00688)
`WESTERNGECO Exhibit 2155, pg. 1
`
`

`
`Case -4:O9—cv—O1827 Document 6
`
`-ileol in XbD on 06/16/09 Beige 2 of 24
`
`7.
`
`ION Geophysical admits that the ‘O38 Patent was issued on February 10, 2004, as
`
`alleged in the first sentence of Paragraph 7 of the Complaint.
`
`ION Geophysical denies that the
`
`‘Q38 Patent was “duly and legally issued to WesternGeco” as further alleged in the first sentence
`
`of Paragraph 7 of the Complaint. ION Geophysical lacks information sufficient to admit or deny
`
`the allegations of the second sentence of Paragraph 7 of the Complaint and on that basis denies
`
`them.
`
`ION Geophysical admits the allegations made in the third sentence of Paragraph 7 of the
`
`Complaint.
`
`8.
`
`ION Geophysical admits that the ‘O17 Patent was issued on August 23, 2005, as
`
`alleged in the first sentence of Paragraph 8 of the Complaint.
`
`ION Geophysical denies that the
`
`‘017 Patent was “duly and legally issued to WestcrnGeco” as further alleged in the first sentence
`
`of Paragraph 8 of the Complaint. ION Geophysical lacks information sufficient to admit or deny
`
`the allegations of the second sentence of Paragraph 8 of the Complaint and on that basis denies
`
`them.
`
`ION Geophysical admits the allegations made in the third sentence of Paragraph 8 of the
`
`Complaint.
`
`9.
`
`ION Geophysical admits that the ‘607 Patent was issued on July 25, 2006, as
`
`alleged in the first sentence of Paragraph 9 of the Complaint.
`
`ION Geophysical denies that the
`
`‘607 Patent was “duly and legally issued to WesternGeco” as further alleged in the first sentence
`
`of Paragraph 9 of the Complaint. ION Geophysical lacks information sufficient to admit or deny
`
`the allegations of the second sentence of Paragraph 9 of the Complaint and on that basis denies
`
`them.
`
`ION Geophysical admits the allegations made in the third sentence of Paragraph 9 of the
`
`Complaint.
`
`IO.
`
`ION Geophysical admits that the ‘967 Patent was issued on January 16, 2007, as
`
`alleged in the first sentence of Paragraph 10 of the Complaint.
`
`ION Geophysical denies that the
`
`PGS V WESTERNGECO(|PR2014-00688)
`WESTERNGECO Exhibit 2155, pg. 2
`
`

`
`Case -4:O9—cv—O1827 Document 6 —iled in XbD on 06/16/09 33age 3 of 24
`
`‘967 Patent was “duly and legally issued to WesternGeco” as further alleged in the lirst sentence
`
`of Paragraph 10 of the Complaint.
`
`ION Geophysical lacks information sufficient to admit or
`
`deny the allegations of the second sentence of Paragraph 10 of the Complaint and on that basis
`
`denies them. ION Geophysical admits the allegations made in the third sentence of Paragraph 10
`
`of the Complaint.
`
`ll.
`
`ION Geophysical admits that the ‘S20 Patent was issued on November 13, 2007,
`
`as alleged in the first sentence of Paragraph 11 of the Complaint.
`
`ION Geophysical denies that
`
`the ‘S20 Patent was “duly and legally issued to WesternGeco” as further alleged in the first
`
`sentence of Paragraph 11 of the Complaint.
`
`ION Geophysical lacks information sufficient to
`
`admit or deny the allegations of the second sentence of Paragraph 11 of the Complaint and on
`
`that basis denies them.
`
`ION Geophysical admits the allegations made in the third sentence of
`
`Paragraph 11 of the Complaint.
`
`12.
`
`13.
`
`14.
`
`15.
`
`Paragraph 12 of the Complaint contains a legal conclusion requiring no response.
`
`ION Geophysical denies the allegations made in Paragraph 13 of the Complaint.
`
`ION Geophysical admits the allegations made in Paragraph 14 of the Complaint.
`
`ION Geophysical lacks information sufficient to admit or deny the allegations of
`
`Paragraph 15 of the Complaint and on that basis denies them.
`
`16.
`
`17.
`
`18.
`
`19.
`
`20.
`
`ION Geophysical denies the allegations made in Paragraph 16 of the Complaint.
`
`ION Geophysical denies the allegations made in Paragraph 17 of the Complaint.
`
`Paragraph 18 of the Complaint contains a lo gal conclusion requiring no response.
`
`ION Geophysical denies the allegations made in Paragraph 19 of the Complaint.
`
`ION Geophysical admits the allegations made in Paragraph 20 of the Complaint.
`
`PGS V WESTERNGECO(|PR2014-00688)
`WESTERNGECO Exhibit 2155, pg. 3
`
`

`
`Case -4:O9—cv—O1827 Document 6
`
`~iled in XbD on 06/16/09 Beige -4 of 24
`
`21.
`
`ION Geophysical lacks information sufficient to admit or deny the allegations of
`
`Paragraph 21 of the Complaint and on that basis denies them.
`
`22.
`
`ION Geophysical denies the allegations made in Paragraph 22 of the Complaint.
`
`ION Geophysical denies the allegations made in Paragraph 23 of the Complaint.
`
`Paragraph 24 of the Complaint contains a legal conclusion requiring no response.
`
`ION Geophysical denies the allegations made in Paragraph 25 of the Complaint.
`
`ION Geophysical admits the allegations made in Paragraph 26 of the Complaint.
`
`ION Geophysical lacks information sufficient to admit or deny the allegations of
`
`Paragraph 27 of the Complaint and on that basis denies them.
`
`28.
`
`29.
`
`30.
`
`31.
`
`32.
`
`33.
`
`ION Geophysical denies the allegations made in Paragraph 28 of the Complaint.
`
`ION Geophysical denies the allegations made in Paragraph 29 of the Complaint.
`
`Paragraph 30 of the Complaint contains a legal conclusion requiring no response.
`
`ION Geophysical denies the allegations made in Paragraph 31 of the Complaint.
`
`ION Geophysical admits the allegations made in Paragraph 32 of the Complaint.
`
`ION Geophysical lacks information sufficient to admit or deny the allegations of
`
`Paragraph 33 of the Complaint and on that basis denies them.
`
`34.
`
`35.
`
`36.
`
`37.
`
`38.
`
`39.
`
`ION Geophysical denies the allegations made in Paragraph 34 of the Complaint.
`
`ION Geophysical denies the allegations made in Paragraph 35 of the Complaint.
`
`Paragraph 36 of the Complaint contains a legal conclusion requiring no response.
`
`ION Geophysical denies the allegations made in Paragraph 37 of the Complaint.
`
`ION Geophysical admits the allegations made in Paragraph 38 of the Complaint.
`
`ION Geophysical lacks information sufficient to admit or deny the allegations of
`
`Paragraph 39 of the Complaint and on that basis denies them.
`
`PGS V WESTERNGECO(|PR2014-00688)
`WESTERNGECO Exhibit 2155, pg. 4
`
`

`
`Case -4:O9—cv—O1827 Document 6
`
`-iled in XbD on 06/16/09 Beige 5 of 24
`
`40.
`
`[ON Geophysical denies the allegations made in Paragraph 40 of the Complaint.
`
`41.
`
`ION Geophysical denies the allegations made in Paragraph 41 of the Complaint.
`
`42.
`
`All allegations made in the Complaint which are not specifically admitted herein
`
`are denied.
`
`AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
`
`43.
`
`ION Geophysical asserts the following affirmative defenses to Plaintiffs claims
`
`for patent infringement. The assertion of an affirmative defense is not a concession that ION
`
`Geophysical has the burden of proving the matter asserted:
`
`First Affirmative Defense
`
`44.
`
`The ‘038 Patent, the ‘O17 Patent, the ‘607 Patent, the ‘967 Patent, or the ‘S20
`
`Patent (collectively,
`
`the “Patents”), are invalid for failure to comply with or satisfy the
`
`requirements and/or conditions of patentability as specified under one or more sections of Title
`
`35 of the United States Code, including, Without limitation, 35 U.S.C. §§ I01, I02, 103, or H2,
`
`or the Patents are unenforceable. ION Geophysical reserves the right to assert any other basis for
`
`invalidity or unenforceability, or any other defense, that discovery may reveal.
`
`Second Affirmative Defense
`
`45.
`
`Plaintiff’ 5 claims for relief and prayer for damages are barred, in whole or in part,
`
`by 35 U.S.C. § 287.
`
`Third Affirmative Defense
`
`46.
`
`Plaintiff is estopped from construing the claims of the Patents in such a way as
`
`may cover any ION Geophysical product or process by reasons of statements made to the United
`
`States Patent and Trademark Office (“PTO”) during the prosecution of the applications that led
`
`to the issuance of the Patents.
`
`PGS V WESTERNGECO(|PR2014-00688)
`WESTERNGECO Exhibit 2155, pg. 5
`
`

`
`Case -4:O9—cv—O1827 Document 6
`
`-iled in XbD on 06/16/09 Beige 6 of 24
`
`Fourth Affirmative Defense
`
`47.
`
`The ‘O17 Patent, the ‘V607 Patent, the ‘967 Patent and the ‘520 Patent (collectively
`
`the “Bittleston Patents”) are invalid or unenforceable because they were procured through
`
`inequitable conduct before the PTO. The Bittleston Patents all derive from or are continuations
`
`of Application No. 09/787,723. Each of the claims of each of the Bittleston Patents requires a
`
`device which controls, or describes a method of controlling, the position of a marine seismic
`
`streamer.
`
`48.
`
`Marine seismic streamers are long cables which are towed behind ships in an
`
`array of 5-20 streamers which, ideally, maintain a parallel relationship to one another. On each
`
`streamer, there are a number of hydrophones which collect acoustic data reflected from the
`
`subsurface of the ocean from acoustic signals typically produced by air guns near the ships. The
`
`collected data is processed to yield an image of the subsurface geology which is used in
`
`hydrocarbon exploration. For many seismic studies, it is important that the streamers be located
`
`at a specific depth and lateral position with respect to each other.
`
`49.
`
`During a series of meetings and communications which took place beginning in
`
`1995, Simon Bittleston, a named inventor on all of the Bittleston Patents, was shown a device
`
`which had been invented and prototyped by DigiCOURSE, Inc., a company later acquired by
`
`ION Geophysical. This device was designed to provide precise Vertical and lateral steering of a
`
`marine seismic streamer. One embodiment of the devices demonstrated to Bittleston had two
`
`wings, each with a separate axis, with both wings being rotatable about that axis to impart both
`
`vertical and/or horizontal forces to the seismic streamer. The meetings between DigiCOURSE
`
`and Mr. Bittleston took place pursuant to a Confidential Disclosure Agreement dated April 25,
`
`l995 between DigiCOURSE and Bittleston’s
`
`employer, GECO A.S.
`
`(WesternGeco’s
`
`PGS V WESTERNGECO(|PR2014-00688)
`WESTERNGECO Exhibit 2155, pg. 6
`
`

`
`Case -4:O9—cv—O1827 Document 6
`
`-ileol in XbD on 06/16/09 33age 7 of 24
`
`predecessor). Tliis DigiCOURSE device was prior art to Bittleston’s claimed invention in the
`
`Bittleston Patents. Either Bittlcston and/or the patent attorney prosecuting the patent application
`
`which led to the Bittleston Patents intentionally and deliberately withheld the DigiCOURSE
`
`prior art from the PTO contrary to the duty of full disclosure.
`
`50.
`
`In addition, the currently named inventors and/or the attorneys prosecuting the
`
`patent applications for the Bittleston Patents intentionally and with deceptive intent failed to
`
`identify Andre W. Olivier, Robert E. Rouquettc and Brien G. Rau, the DigiCOURSE engineers
`
`who developed the seismic cable steering device, as named inventors.
`
`51.
`
`In addition to WesternGeco’s inequitable conduct
`
`in the procurement of the
`
`Bittlcston Patents, WestcrnGeco also procured the ‘038 Patent
`
`through inequitable conduct
`
`before the PTO. During the prosecution of the ‘038 Patent,
`
`the patent examiner cited the
`
`Hillesund reference (WO 00/20895), an international patent application published on April 13,
`
`2000 under the Patent Cooperation Treaty, against the ‘038 Patent application. The attorney
`
`prosecuting the ‘038 Patent responded to the PTO by stating that the Hillesund reference “does
`
`not disclose positioning a streamer vertically and horizontally relative to a second streamer in the
`
`array, as claimed. Hillesund teaches only horizontal steering (p. 6, line 20) of the streamers.
`
`Vertical position is monitored but not steered as described in Hillesund on p. 8, ll. 6-10, .
`
`.
`
`. the
`
`global control system 22 will typically acquire the following .
`
`.
`
`. the location of the birds in the
`
`horizontal plane .
`
`.
`
`.
`
`. Thus, Hillesund does not anticipate Claim l.”
`
`52.
`
`This argument was convincing to the patent examiner, who allowed the issuance
`
`of the ‘038 Patent despite the existence of the Hillesund reference. The prosecuting attorney’s
`
`argument, however, was a blatant misrepresentation of the teachings of Hillesund. For example,
`
`in the first paragraph on page 6 of Hillesund, Hillesund discloses that “preferably, the birds are
`
`PGS V WESTERNGECO(|PR2014-00688)
`WESTERNGECO Exhibit 2155, pg. 7
`
`

`
`Case -4:O9—cv—O1827 Document 6
`
`-iled in XbD on 06/16/09 Beige 8 of 24
`
`both vertically and horizontally steerable. .
`
`.
`
`. The vertically and horizontally steerable birds 18
`
`can be used to constrain the shape of the seismic streamer 12 between the deflector 16 and the
`
`tail buoy in both vertical [depth] and horizontal directions.” The reference goes on to disclose on
`
`page 10 in the second paragraph: “[T]he bird 18 uses two wings 28 to produce the horizontal
`
`and vertical forces on the streamer.” Clearly, the Hillesund reference discloses vertical steering
`
`of the streamers, and had the attorney prosecuting the ‘O38 Patent properly disclosed this, the
`
`‘038 Patent would not have issued.
`
`Fifth Affirmative Defense
`
`53.
`
`Plaintiff’ s claims for relief and prayer for damages are barred in whole or in part
`
`by the equitable doctrines of laches, waiver and equitable estoppel.
`
`Sixth Affirmative Defense
`
`54.
`
`Plaintiffs claims for relief and prayer for damages are barred under the equitable
`
`doctrine of unclean hands.
`
`Seventh Affirmative Defense
`
`55.
`
`Plaintiff has failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.
`
`COUNTERCLAIMS
`
`56.
`
`ION Geophysical brings the following counterclaims against Plaintiff:
`
`Jurisdiction And Venue
`
`57.
`
`This is an action for declaratory relief This Court has jurisdiction over the
`
`counterclaim based on 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, l338(a), 2201, and 2202.
`
`58.
`
`Venue is proper under 28 U.S.C. §§ l39l(b) and 1400(b).
`
`PGS V WESTERNGECO(|PR2014-00688)
`WESTERNGECO Exhibit 2155, pg. 8
`
`

`
`Case -4:O9—cv—O1827 Document 6
`
`-iled in XbD on 06716109 Bags 9 of 24
`
`Parties
`
`59.
`
`ION Geophysical is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the
`
`state of Delaware with a principal place of business at 2105 CityWest Boulevard, Suite 400,
`
`Houston, Texas 77042-2839.
`
`60.
`
`On information and belief, WesternGeco L.L.C. (“WesternGeco”) is a corporation
`
`organized and existing under the laws of the state of Delaware with a principal place of business
`
`at 10001 Richmond Avenue, Houston, Texas 77042-4299.
`
`61. WesternGeco has submitted itself to the personal jurisdiction of this Court by
`
`filing its Complaint in this Court alleging infringement of the Patents and has likewise conceded
`
`that venue here is proper for the resolution of claims such as ION Geophysica1’s counterclaims.
`
`First Counterclaim ~ Declaratory Judgment (Noi1—Infringement)
`
`62.
`
`ION Geophysical repeats and realleges each and every allegation contained in
`
`Paragraphs 56 — 61 of the Counterclaims as if fully set forth herein.
`
`63. WesternGec0 alleges ownership of the Patents, and has brought suit against ION
`
`Geophysical alleging infringement of the Patents.
`
`64.
`
`ION Geophysical has not and does not infringe the Patents, either directly or
`
`indirectly, literally or under the doctrine of equivalents. ION Geophysical has not contributed to
`
`any infringement by others or induced others to infringe the Patents.
`
`65.
`
`An actual case or controversy exists between ION Geophysical and WestemGeco
`
`based on WesternGeco having filed a Complaint against ION Geophysical alleging infringement
`
`of the Patents.
`
`66.
`
`ION Geophysical has been injured and damaged by WesternGeco having filed a
`
`Complaint asserting Patents that are not infringed by ION Geophysical.
`
`PGS V WESTERNGECO(|PR2014-00688)
`WESTERNGECO Exhibit 2155, pg. 9
`
`

`
`Case -4:09—cv—O1827 Document 6 P-iled in XbD on 06/16/09 33age 10 of 2-4
`
`67.
`
`Declaratory relief is appropriate and necessary to establish that ION Geophysical
`
`does not infringe the Patents.
`
`Second Counterclaim —- Declaratory Judgment (Invalidity)
`
`68.
`
`ION Geophysical repeats and realleges each and every allegation contained in
`
`Paragraphs 56 - 67 of the Counterclaims as if fully set forth herein.
`
`69.
`
`WesternGeco alleges ownership of the Patents, and has brought suit against ION
`
`Geophysical alleging infringement of the Patents.
`
`70.
`
`ION Geophysical alleges that one or more claims of each of the Patents are
`
`invalid and/or unenforceable for failing to comply with one or more provisions of the patent
`
`laws, 35 U.S.C. § 1 et seq., including but not limited to 35 U.S.C. §§ 101, 102, 103 and 112 or is
`
`unenforceable.
`
`71.
`
`An actual case or controversy exists between ION Geophysical and WesternGeco
`
`based on WesternGeco having filed a Complaint against ION Geophysical alleging infringement
`
`of the Patents.
`
`72.
`
`ION Geophysical has been injured and damaged by WesternGcco filing a
`
`Complaint asserting patent infringement against ION Geophysical based on patents that are
`
`invalid.
`
`73.
`
`Declaratory relief is both appropriate and necessary to establish that each of the
`
`Patents are invalid and/or unenforceable, and thus cannot be asserted against ION Geophysical.
`
`Third Counterclaim —- Declaratory Judgment (Prosecution History Estoppel)
`
`74.
`
`ION Geophysical repeats and realleges each and every allegation contained in
`
`Paragraphs 56 -73 of the Counterclaims as if fully set forth herein.
`
`10
`
`PGS V WESTERNGECO(|PR2014-00688)
`WESTERNGECO Exhibit 2155, pg. 10
`
`

`
`Case -4:09—cv—O1827 Document 6 P-iled in XbD on 06/16/09 33age 11 of 2-4
`
`75.
`
`WesternGeco alleges ownership of the Patents, and has brought suit against ION
`
`Geophysical alleging infringement of the Patents.
`
`76.
`
`By reason of the prior art limitations and the claims of the Patents, the claims of
`
`the Patents are limited in scope and WesternGeco is estopped from maintaining that any product
`
`manufactured, used, sold, offered for sale, or leased by ION Geophysical or any use to which
`
`those products may be put constitutes infringement of any of the claims of the Patents.
`
`77.
`
`An actual case or controversy exists between ION Geophysical and WesternGeco
`
`based on WcstcrnGeco having filed a complaint against ION Geophysical alleging infringement
`
`of the Patents.
`
`78.
`
`ION Geophysical has been injured and damaged by WestemGeco filing a
`
`complaint asserting patent infringement against ION Geophysical based on Patents that may not
`
`be construed in such a way to find infringement or inducement
`
`to infringe against ION
`
`Geophysical.
`
`79.
`
`Declaratory relief is both appropriate and necessary to establish that the Patents
`
`may not be construed in such a way that they may be asserted against ION Geophysical.
`
`Fourth Counterclaim —- Tortious Interference with Contract and
`
`Prospective Business Relations
`
`80.
`
`ION Geophysical repeats and realleges each and every allegation contained in
`
`Paragraphs 56-79 of the Counterclaims as if fully set forth herein.
`
`81.
`
`Based upon information and belief, ION Geophysical has learned that at the 2008
`
`Society of Exploration Geophysicists (“SEG”) Convention held in Houston, Texas, one or more
`
`of WesternGeco’s executives made assertions to ION Geophysical’s customers and potential
`
`customers that ION products and the use of ION products infringe WcsternGeco patents. At the
`
`time, no specific patents were identified to customers. During and after the SEG convention,
`
`11
`
`PGS V WESTERNGECO(|PR2014-00688)
`WESTERNGECO Exhibit 2155, pg. 11
`
`

`
`Case -4:09—cv—O1827 Document 6 e-iled in XbD on 06/16/09 Bags 12 of 24
`
`certain customers and potential customers raised concerns with ION Geophysical that if they
`
`were to purchase or use ION products, they might be sued or found liable for infringement of
`
`WesternGeco patents.
`
`82.
`
`In late 2008/early 2009, ION Geophysical received information from a customer
`
`that WesternGeco had specifically identified certain U.S. Patents in connection with its threats of
`
`infringement. Among the patents identified were the Patents subject of this suit. As more fully
`
`described above, each of the Patents is not infringed, or is either invalid and/or unenforceable.
`
`83. WesternGeco’s threats to ION Geophysical’s customers and potential customers
`
`were made for the express purpose of inducing those customers and potential customers to use
`
`WcsternGcco’s “Q-Marine” system instead of ION Geophysical products.
`
`84. WesternGeco’s
`
`interference with the contractual and potential contractual
`
`relationships between ION Geophysical and its customers was made without privilege, and has
`
`caused damage to ION Geophysical.
`
`Fifth Counterclaim - Business Disparagement
`
`85.
`
`ION Geophysical repeats and realleges each and every allegation contained in
`
`Paragraphs 56-84 of the Counterclaims as if fully set forth herein.
`
`86. WesternGeco has published disparaging statements about ION Geophysical.
`
`87.
`
`The disparaging statements published by WesternGeco were false.
`
`88. WesternGeco intentionally and maliciously published the disparaging statements.
`
`89. WesternGeco does not have and has never had any privilege to publish the
`
`disparaging statements.
`
`90.
`
`ION Geophysical has suffered special damages due to WesternGeco’s intentional
`
`and malicious publishing of disparaging statements.
`
`12
`
`PGS V WESTERNGECO(|PR2014-00688)
`WESTERNGECO Exhibit 2155, pg. 12
`
`

`
`Case -4:09—cv—O:l827 Document 6 A-iled in XbD on 06/16/09 Bags 13 of 2-4
`
`Sixth Counterclaim —- Breach of Contract
`
`91,
`
`ION Geophysical repeats and realleges each and every allegation contained in
`
`Paragraphs 56-90 of the Counterclaims as if fully set forth herein.
`
`92.
`
`As described above, GECO AS. and DigiCOURSE,
`
`Inc. entered into a
`
`Confidential Disclosure Agreement (the ‘‘Agreement’’) on April 25, 1995. A copy of the
`
`Agreement is attached to this pleading as Exhibit “A.” The term of the Agreement was extended
`
`from 5 to 20 years by Amendment dated December 8, 1997 (attached as Exhibit “B”). The
`
`purpose of the Agreement was to protect discussions and disclosures between the parties
`
`concerning streamer cable positioning technology.
`
`93.
`
`Following the execution of the Agreement, Simon Bittleston, one of the named
`
`inventors on four of the five patents asserted against ION Geophysical, traveled to New Orleans
`
`to meet with employees of DigiCOURSE.
`
`In connection with those meetings, Bittleston was
`
`shown working prototypes of new lateral streamer steering devices which were being developed
`
`by DigiCOURSE. One of the prototypes disclosed to Bittleston under the Agreement was an
`
`operating model of a streamer control device attached to a streamer cable with two wings
`
`attached 180 degrees apart.
`
`In operation,
`
`the pitch of each wing could be independently
`
`adjusted, z'.e., the angle of each wing relative to the streamer could be different from the angle of
`
`the other wing. This device enables a seismic cable to be steered both laterally and in depth.
`
`Upon information and belief, GECO did not have an operational streamer steering device with
`
`these capabilities at the time of the meeting.
`
`94.
`
`Following the meeting in New Orleans, Bittleston requested that he be sent an
`
`operational model of the steering device. The device was sent to Bittleston in the fourth quarter
`
`of 1995, and was never returned to DigiCOURSE. Upon information and belief, GECO took the
`
`13
`
`PGS V WESTERNGECO(|PR2014-00688)
`WESTERNGECO Exhibit 2155, pg. 13
`
`

`
`Case -4:09-cv-01827 Document 6 --iled in XbD on 06/16/09 33age 1-4 of 24
`
`information it learned during its confidential meetings with DigiCOURSE and the device it
`
`obtained from DigiCOURSE to advance its knowledge of seismic streamer steering, and used the
`
`DigiCOURSE information and device as a basis for the Bittleston Patents.
`
`This use of
`
`DigiCOURSE information was a breach of the Agreement which has caused ION Geophysical
`
`damages.
`
`Seventh Counterclaim — Conversion
`
`95.
`
`ION Geophysical repeats and realleges each and every allegation contained in
`
`Paragraphs 56-94 of the Counterclaims as if fully set forth herein.
`
`96.
`
`As described in Paragraphs 92-94 above, GECO obtained confidential
`
`information and materials from DigiCOURSE relating to seismic streamer steering technology.
`
`Without the knowledge or consent of DigiCOURSE, GECO misappropriated this information
`
`and technology, and has illegally profited from it. WesternGeco’s conduct constitutes
`
`conversion which has caused ION Geophysical damages.
`
`Eighth Couuterclaim — Inventorship
`
`97.
`
`ION Geophysical repeats and realleges each and every allegation contained in
`
`Paragraphs 56-96 of the Counterclairns as if fully set forth herein.
`
`98.
`
`As described above, Andre W. Olivier, Robert E. Rouquette, and Brien G. Rau
`
`are inventors of the inventions claimed in the Bittleston Patents.
`
`In the event that the failure to
`
`so name Olivier, Rouquctte and Rau as inventors was not made with deceptive intent, ION
`
`Geophysical hereby sues to correct the Bittleston Patents’ inventorship pursuant to 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 256 to include Olivier, Rouquette and Rau.
`
`14
`
`PGS V WESTERNGECO(|PR2014-00688)
`WESTERNGECO Exhibit 2155, pg. 14
`
`

`
`Case -4:09—cv—O1827 Document 6 5-iled in XbD on 06/16/09 33age 15 of 2-4
`
`Ninth Counterclaim — Patent Infringement
`
`99.
`
`ION Geophysical repeats and realleges each and every allegation contained in
`
`Paragraphs 56-98 of the Counterclaims as if fully set forth herein.
`
`l00.
`
`This is a civil action for the willful infringement of United States Patent No.
`
`6,525,992 (the ‘992 Patent). This action arises under the patent laws of the United States 35
`
`U.S.C. § 1 et seq.
`
`101. On February 25, 2003,
`
`the ‘992 Patent,
`
`titled “Devices for Controlling the
`
`Position of an Underwater Cable” was duly and legally issued to Input/Output, Inc. (the former
`
`name of ION Geophysical) as assignee.
`
`ION Geophysical is the current assignee of the ‘992
`
`Patent and is the owner of the right to sue and to recover for any current or past infringement of
`
`the ‘992 Patent. A copy of the ‘992 Patent is attached as Exhibit “C.”,
`
`102. WesternGeco has infringed the ‘992 Patent, literally and/or under the doctrine of
`
`equivalents, by making, using, offering to sell, selling and/or supplying in or from the United
`
`States products and services relating to steerable streamers (including, but not limited to, the
`
`Q—Marine Products and Services) and/or inducing and/or contributing to such conduct by
`
`WesternGeco’s customers or other persons or entities, without authority and in violation of 35
`
`USC. § 27l(a), (b), (c) and/or (i).
`
`103. WesternGeco does not have any license or other authority from ION Geophysical
`
`or any other person or entity to practice the subject matter claimed by the ‘992 Patent.
`
`104. Upon information and belief, WesternGeco has been aware of the ‘992 Patent at
`
`all relevant times.
`
`15
`
`PGS V WESTERNGECO(|PR2014-00688)
`WESTERNGECO Exhibit 2155, pg. 15
`
`

`
`Case -4:09—cv—O1827 Document 6 P-ilecl in XbD on 06/16/09 33age 16 of 2-4
`
`lO5. Upon information and belief, WesternGeco has willfully infringed the ‘992
`
`Patent. WesternGeco’s willful infringement of the ‘992 Patent renders this an exceptional case
`
`pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 285.
`
`Tenth Counterclaim——Antitrust Violation as to the Bittleston Patents
`
`106.
`
`[ON Geophysical repeats and realleges each and every allegation contained in
`
`Paragraphs 56-105 of the Counterclaims as if fully set forth herein.
`
`107. On information and belief, one or more individuals associated with the filing and
`
`prosecution of the applications that led to the issuance of the Bittleston Patents including the
`
`alleged, named co—inventor, Bittleston, deliberately and intentionally committed fraud before the
`
`PTO in the procurement of the Bittleston Patents. On information and belief, the Bittleston
`
`Patents were assigned to WesternGeco.
`
`108.
`
`On information and belief, WesternGeco’s deliberate and intentional failure to
`
`disclose the DigiCOURSE device, upon which the subject matter of the Bittleston’s Patents’
`
`claims are based, materially affected allowance of the Bittleston Patents in that one or more
`
`claims of the Bittleston Patents would not have been allowed (at least in their present form) but
`
`for WesternGeco’s fraudulent omission. Moreover, the currently named inventors and/or the
`
`attorneys prosecuting the patent applications for the Bittleston Patents intentionally and with
`
`deceptive intent failed to identify Andre W. Olivier, Robert E. Rouquette and Brien G. Ran, the
`
`DigiCOURSE engineers who developed the seismic cable steering device, as named inventors.
`
`Relevant Market & Market Power
`
`109. On information and belief, WesternGeco is one of, if not the largest provider of
`
`marine seismic services in the United States.
`
`ION Geophysical competes with WesternGeco in
`
`the United States market by, among other things, manufacturing and selling devices which
`
`16
`
`PGS V WESTERNGECO(|PR2014-00688)
`WESTERNGECO Exhibit 2155, pg. 16
`
`

`
`Case -4:09—cv—O1827 Document 6 P-iled in XbD on 06/16/09 Bags 17 of 24
`
`provide for the lateral steering of marine seismic streamers and by providing seismic data
`
`processing services for 4D seismic surveys.
`
`110.
`
`A relevant market is the market for marine seismic surveys performed using
`
`laterally steerable streamers in the United States. Upon information and beliefl the United States
`
`market for marine seismic surveys performed using laterally steerable streamers is a separate and
`
`distinct market from other geographical markets. Furthermore, the market for marine seismic
`
`surveys performed using laterally steerable streamers is a separate and distinct market from the
`
`market for marine seismic surveys performed using other seismic survey devices. WesternGeco
`
`is active in the market for marine seismic surveys performed using laterally steerable streamers
`
`and, on information and belief, controls a significant share of the market and/or is attempting to
`
`gain a significant share of the market through the fraudulently procured Bittleston Patents.
`
`lll.
`
`A relevant submarket is the market for 4D marine seismic surveys. WestemGeco
`
`is active in the market for 4D marine seismic surveys, and on information and belief, controls a
`
`significant share of the market and/or is attempting to gain a significant share of the market
`
`through the fraudulently procured Bittleston Patents.
`
`Attempt To Monopolize
`
`112.
`
`The attempt
`
`to monopolize in violation of Sherman Act § 2 arises out of
`
`WesternGeco’s fraudulent procurement and enforcement of the Bittleston Patents.
`
`ll3. WesternGeco’s improper acts in procuring the Bittleston Patents constitute
`
`knowing, willful, and intentional acts, misrepresentations, and/or omissions before the PTO
`
`sufficient for a finding of fraud on the PTO.
`
`114. On information and belief, WesternGeco’s deliberate and intentional failure to
`
`disclose the DigiCOURSE device upon which the subject matter of the Bittleston Patents’ claims
`
`17
`
`PGS V WESTERNGECO(|PR2014-00688)
`WESTERNGECO Exhibit 2155, pg. 17
`
`

`
`Case -4:09—cv—O1827 Document 6 P-ilecl in XbD on 06/16/09 33age 18 of 2-4
`
`are based materially affected allowance of the Bittleston Patents in that one or more claims of the
`
`Bittleston Patents would not have been allowed (at
`
`least
`
`in their present
`
`form) but
`
`for
`
`WesternGeco’s fraudulent omission.
`
`115.
`
`On information and belief, WesternGeco has asserted the Bittleston Patents
`
`against ION Geophysical with knowledge of its failure to cite material prior art during the
`
`prosecution of the applications for the Bittleston Patents, and thus, with knowledge of the
`
`Bittleston Patents’ invalidity and/or unenforceability.
`
`116.
`
`