Case IPR2014-00688
`Patent 7,080,607
`
`
`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
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,080,607
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PETROLEUM GEO-SERVICES INC.’S OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PGS Exhibit 1114, pg. 1
`PGS v. WesternGeco (IPR2014-00688)
`
`
`Patent 7,080,607
`
`
`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
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,080,607
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PETROLEUM GEO-SERVICES INC.’S OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PGS Exhibit 1114, pg. 1
`PGS v. WesternGeco (IPR2014-00688)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner Petroleum Geo-Services Inc. (“PGS”) objects pursuant to 37
`
`C.F.R. § 42.64(b)(1) and the Federal Rules of Evidence (“FRE”) to the
`
`admissibility of exhibits served by Patent Owner WesternGeco, LLC on March 20,
`
`2015. The exhibits objected to, and grounds for PGS’ objections, are listed below.
`
`PGS also objects to Patent Owner’s reliance or citation to any objected evidence in
`
`its papers.
`
`I.
`
`IDENTIFICATION OF CHALLENGED EVIDENCE AND GROUNDS
`FOR OBJECTIONS
`A. Exhibit 2042
`PGS objects to Exhibit 2042, the Declaration of Dr. Triantafyllou, under
`
`FRE 402 to the extent it includes or relies on irrelevant information and under FRE
`
`403 to the extent that it includes or relies on information, the probative value of
`
`which is substantially outweighed by the danger of wasting time in this
`
`compressed proceeding. By way of non-exclusive example, Exhibit 2042 relies on
`
`exhibits and information not available to the public as of the priority date. This
`
`evidence has no relevance to what a person of ordinary skill in the art would have
`
`known by the priority date. By way of non-exclusive example, Dr. Triantafyllou
`
`cites Exhibit 2053 in discussing the prior art, but that article was published in 2009
`
`and has no relevance to what a person of ordinary skill in the art would have
`
`known by the October 1, 1998 priority date.
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`PGS Exhibit 1114, pg. 2
`PGS v. WesternGeco (IPR2014-00688)
`
`
`
`
`
`PGS further objects to Exhibit 2042 under FRE 402 and FRE 403 because it
`
`is irrelevant and its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of
`
`unfair prejudice and the danger of wasting time. Exhibit 2042 includes or relies on
`
`testimony and exhibits from WesternGeco LLC v. ION Geophysical Corp., 4:09-
`
`cv-01827 (S.D. Tex.) (“the ION case”). PGS was not a party to the ION case and
`
`did not have an opportunity to examine witnesses, object to evidence, or present
`
`evidence in that case. Furthermore, reliance on this evidence is additionally
`
`irrelevant, unfairly prejudicial, and would result in a waste of time because the
`
`issues presented in the ION case were substantively different than those presented
`
`in this case. As a result, PGS would suffer substantial unfair prejudice if reliance
`
`on this evidence were permitted. For that additional reason, Exhibit 2042 should
`
`be excluded under FRE 402 and 403.
`
`PGS further objects to Exhibit 2042 under FRE 802 because it contains and
`
`relies on inadmissible hearsay, including testimony and exhibits from the ION
`
`case. PGS did not have an opportunity to examine witnesses, object to evidence,
`
`or present evidence in that case as it was not a party to it. The probative value of
`
`this hearsay does not substantially outweigh its prejudicial effect, particularly
`
`given that the issues presented in the ION case were substantively different than
`
`those presented in this case.
`
`
`
`3
`
`PGS Exhibit 1114, pg. 3
`PGS v. WesternGeco (IPR2014-00688)
`
`
`
`
`
`PGS objects to Exhibit 2042 to the extent Dr. Triantafyllou’s Declaration is
`
`being offered pursuant to FRE 702, including to the extent that he offers opinions
`
`without having demonstrated the requisite expertise, basis, methodology or
`
`foundation. To the extent Exhibit 2042 is being offered as an expert declaration,
`
`PGS objects on the ground that it does not comply with the requirements for an
`
`expert declaration. PGS also objects to Exhibit 2042 to the extent it includes
`
`subject matter that is not permitted pursuant to FRE 602 or 701, including to the
`
`extent that Dr. Triantafyllou is commenting as a fact witness on matters that are
`
`outside his personal knowledge or offering improper lay opinion testimony. PGS
`
`also objects to Exhibit 2042 under FRE 402 and 403 for these same reasons. PGS
`
`also objects to Exhibit 2042 for failure to comply with 37 C.F.R. § 42.53.
`
`PGS further objects to Exhibit 2042 as irrelevant under FRE 401, and as
`
`unfairly prejudicial and needlessly presenting cumulative evidence and wasting
`
`time under FRE 403, to the extent that the opinions and conclusions expressed in
`
`the exhibit are not expressly relied on and incorporated in Patent Owner’s
`
`Response.
`
`PGS objects to Exhibit 2042 under FRE 901, 1002, and 1003 on the basis
`
`that it cites or relies on exhibits that have not been authenticated or lack
`
`foundation, such as Exhibit 2051. See, e.g., Ex. 2042 at 29.
`
`
`
`4
`
`PGS Exhibit 1114, pg. 4
`PGS v. WesternGeco (IPR2014-00688)
`
`
`
`
`
`PGS incorporates herein by reference its objections to the exhibits relied on
`
`or cited in Exhibit 2042.
`
`Exhibit 2046
`
`B.
`Exhibit 2046 purports to be a book entitled “Fluid-Structure Interactions:
`
`Slender Structures and Axial Flow,” but it is incomplete. The Exhibit includes
`
`only the cover page and table of contents of the book. Additionally, this exhibit is
`
`inadmissible hearsay under FRE 802.
`
`C. Exhibit 2049
`PGS objects to Exhibit 2049 under FRE 402 and FRE 403 because it is
`
`irrelevant and its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of
`
`wasting time in this compressed proceeding. Exhibit 2049 was published in 2002
`
`and, therefore, bears no relevance to what a person of ordinary skill in the art
`
`would have known by the October 1, 1998 priority date. Therefore, Exhibit 2049
`
`should be excluded under FRE 402 and 403. Additionally, this exhibit is
`
`inadmissible hearsay under FRE 802.
`
`D. Exhibit 2050
`PGS objects to Exhibit 2050 under FRE 802 because it is inadmissible
`
`hearsay, specifically trial testimony from Simon Bittleston in the ION case. PGS
`
`was not a party to the ION case and, consequently, did not have an opportunity to
`
`examine Dr. Bittleston or object to his testimony at that trial. This exhibit also
`
`
`
`5
`
`PGS Exhibit 1114, pg. 5
`PGS v. WesternGeco (IPR2014-00688)
`
`
`
`
`
`contains inadmissible hearsay under FRE 802 because it includes statements of
`
`trial counsel.
`
`PGS further objects to Exhibit 2050 under FRE 402 and FRE 403 because it
`
`is irrelevant and its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of
`
`unfair prejudice. Information regarding Dr. Bittleston’s alleged invention that was
`
`not available to the public has no relevance to what a person of ordinary skill in the
`
`art would have known by the priority date. Moreover, because PGS was not a
`
`party to the ION case and did not have an opportunity to examine Dr. Bittleston or
`
`object to his testimony at that trial, PGS would suffer substantial unfair prejudice if
`
`this testimony were admitted. Furthermore, this testimony is additionally
`
`irrelevant, unfairly prejudicial, and would result in a waste of time because the
`
`issues presented in the ION case were substantively different than those presented
`
`in this case. For that additional reason, Exhibit 2050 should be excluded under
`
`FRE 402 and 403.
`
`PGS further objects to the testimony contained in Exhibit 2050 to the extent
`
`particular testimony does not comply with the Federal Rules of Evidence or the
`
`Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Because PGS was not present for the testimony
`
`it was not able to make such objections at the time the testimony was elicited.
`
`
`
`6
`
`PGS Exhibit 1114, pg. 6
`PGS v. WesternGeco (IPR2014-00688)
`
`
`
`
`
`Given that Exhibit 2050 is only a portion of Dr. Bittleston’s testimony, if this
`
`exhibit is not excluded, Petitioner reserves the right to provide counter-
`
`designations at an appropriate time.
`
`Exhibit 2051
`
`E.
`PGS objects to Exhibit 2051 under FRE 402 and FRE 403 because it is
`
`irrelevant and its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of
`
`wasting time in this compressed proceeding. Information regarding Dr.
`
`Bittleston’s alleged invention that was not available to the public has no relevance
`
`to what a person of ordinary skill in the art would have known by the priority date.
`
`Therefore, Exhibit 2051 should be excluded under FRE 402 and 403.
`
`PGS also objects to Exhibit 2051 under FRE 901, 1002, and 1003. It has not
`
`been authenticated and lacks proper foundation under FRE 901, is not self-
`
`authenticating under FRE 902, and is not a “duplicate” as defined by FRE 1001(e).
`
`Exhibit 2051 additionally appears to be an improper compilation of documents.
`
`Exhibit 2051 is therefore inadmissible under FRE 901, 1002, and 1003.
`
`Additionally, this exhibit is inadmissible hearsay under FRE 802.
`
`Exhibit 2052
`
`F.
`PGS objects to Exhibit 2052 under FRE 802 because it is inadmissible
`
`hearsay, specifically deposition testimony from Oyvind Hillesund in the ION case.
`
`PGS was not a party to the ION case and, consequently, did not have an
`
`
`
`7
`
`PGS Exhibit 1114, pg. 7
`PGS v. WesternGeco (IPR2014-00688)
`
`
`
`
`
`opportunity to examine Mr. Hillesund or object to his testimony at that deposition
`
`or at trial.
`
`PGS further objects to Exhibit 2052 under FRE 402 and FRE 403 because it
`
`is irrelevant and its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of
`
`unfair prejudice. Information regarding Mr. Hillesund’s alleged invention that was
`
`not available to the public has no relevance to what a person of ordinary skill in the
`
`art would have known by the priority date. Moreover, because PGS was not a
`
`party to the ION case and did not have an opportunity to examine Mr. Hillesund or
`
`object to his testimony at his deposition or at trial, PGS would suffer substantial
`
`unfair prejudice if this testimony were admitted. For that additional reason,
`
`Exhibit 2052 should be excluded under FRE 402 and 403.
`
`PGS further objects to the testimony contained in Exhibit 2052 to the extent
`
`particular testimony does not comply with the Federal Rules of Evidence or the
`
`Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Because PGS was not present for the testimony
`
`it was not able to make such objections at the time the testimony was elicited or
`
`offered at trial.
`
`PGS further objects to Exhibit 2052 because it has not been authenticated
`
`under FRE 901, is not self-authenticating under FRE 902, and is not a “duplicate”
`
`as defined by FRE 1001(e). Exhibit 2052 is therefore inadmissible under FRE 901,
`
`1002, and 1003.
`
`
`
`8
`
`PGS Exhibit 1114, pg. 8
`PGS v. WesternGeco (IPR2014-00688)
`
`
`
`
`
`Given that Exhibit 2052 is only a portion of Mr. Hillesund’s testimony, if
`
`this exhibit is not excluded, Petitioner reserves the right to provide counter-
`
`designations at an appropriate time.
`
`G. Exhibit 2053
`PGS objects to Exhibit 2053 under FRE 402 and FRE 403 because it is
`
`irrelevant and its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of
`
`wasting time in this compressed proceeding. Exhibit 2053 was published in 2009
`
`and, therefore, bears no relevance to what a person of ordinary skill in the art
`
`would have known by the October 1, 1998 priority date. Therefore, Exhibit 2053
`
`should be excluded under FRE 402 and 403.
`
`H. Exhibit 2054
`PGS objects to Exhibit 2054 under FRE 901, 1002, and 1003. Exhibit 2054
`
`purports to be a trial demonstrative exhibit from the ION case, which purports to
`
`excerpt a separate document that is not attached. It has not been authenticated and
`
`lacks proper foundation under FRE 901, is not self-authenticating under FRE 902,
`
`and is not a “duplicate” as defined by FRE 1001(e). Exhibit 2054 is therefore
`
`inadmissible under FRE 901, 1002, and 1003. Additionally, this exhibit is
`
`inadmissible hearsay under FRE 802.
`
`PGS further objects to Exhibit 2054 under FRE 402 and 403. Because PGS
`
`was not a party to the ION case and did not have an opportunity to examine
`
`
`
`9
`
`PGS Exhibit 1114, pg. 9
`PGS v. WesternGeco (IPR2014-00688)
`
`
`
`
`
`witnesses, object to evidence, or present evidence in that case, PGS would suffer
`
`substantial unfair prejudice if this exhibit were admitted.
`
`Exhibit 2055
`
`I.
`PGS objects to Exhibit 2055 under FRE 802 because it is inadmissible
`
`hearsay, specifically trial testimony from John Leonard in the ION case. PGS was
`
`not a party to the ION case and, consequently, did not have an opportunity to
`
`examine Dr. Leonard or object to his testimony at that trial. This exhibit also
`
`contains inadmissible hearsay under FRE 802 because it includes statements of
`
`trial counsel.
`
`PGS further objects to Exhibit 2055 under FRE 402 and FRE 403 because it
`
`is irrelevant and its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of
`
`unfair prejudice. Because PGS was not a party to the ION case and did not have
`
`an opportunity to examine Dr. Leonard or object to his testimony at that trial, PGS
`
`would suffer substantial unfair prejudice if this testimony were admitted.
`
`Furthermore, this testimony is additionally irrelevant, unfairly prejudicial, and
`
`would result in a waste of time because the issues presented in the ION case were
`
`substantively different than those presented in this case. For that additional reason,
`
`Exhibit 2055 should be excluded under FRE 402 and 403.
`
`PGS further objects to the testimony contained in Exhibit 2055 to the extent
`
`particular testimony does not comply with the Federal Rules of Evidence or the
`
`
`
`10
`
`PGS Exhibit 1114, pg. 10
`PGS v. WesternGeco (IPR2014-00688)
`
`
`
`
`
`Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Because PGS was not present for the testimony
`
`it was not able to make such objections at the time the testimony was elicited.
`
`PGS further objects to Exhibit 2055 because it has not been authenticated
`
`under FRE 901, is not self-authenticating under FRE 902, and is not a “duplicate”
`
`as defined by FRE 1001(e). Exhibit 2055 is therefore inadmissible under FRE 901,
`
`1002, and 1003.
`
`Given that Exhibit 2055 is only a portion of Dr. Leonard’s testimony, if this
`
`exhibit is not excluded, Petitioner reserves the right to provide counter-
`
`designations at an appropriate time.
`
`Exhibit 2064
`
`J.
`Exhibit 2064 is an excerpt from the Declaration of Dr. Brian Evans in
`
`IPR2014-00689, but it is incomplete and therefore should be introduced in
`
`complete form under FRE 106.
`
`K. Exhibit 2066
`PGS objects to Exhibit 2066 under FRE 402 and 403. Exhibit 2066 is
`
`irrelevant and its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of
`
`wasting time in this compressed proceeding because it is cited for a definition in a
`
`non-technical dictionary that is not even relied upon by Dr. Triantafyllou or Mr.
`
`Walker in their statements. Additionally, this exhibit is inadmissible hearsay under
`
`FRE 802.
`
`
`
`11
`
`PGS Exhibit 1114, pg. 11
`PGS v. WesternGeco (IPR2014-00688)
`
`
`
`
`
`Exhibit 2068
`
`L.
`Exhibit 2068 purports to be an excerpt of a book entitled “A Handbook for
`
`Seismic Data Acquisition” by Dr. Brian Evans, but it is incomplete and therefore
`
`should be introduced in complete form under FRE 106.
`
`M. Exhibit 2069
`PGS objects to Exhibit 2069 under FRE 402 and FRE 403 because it is
`
`irrelevant and its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of
`
`wasting time in this compressed proceeding. The Board has instituted this IPR
`
`based on various grounds that certain claims of the ’607 Patent are anticipated
`
`and/or obvious. The Board declined to deny institution of the petition on the basis
`
`that ION is a real party in interest or a privy of PGS in this proceeding. Because
`
`Patent Owner has cited this exhibit solely in an effort to show that ION is a real
`
`party in interest or a privy of PGS in this proceeding, this exhibit is irrelevant to
`
`the determination to be made in this IPR. Moreover, even were the question of
`
`ION’s status as a real party in interest or privy of PGS relevant to the proceeding,
`
`Exhibit 2069 is not relevant to that determination and therefore should be excluded
`
`under FRE 402. And because any relevance of Exhibit 2069 is significantly
`
`outweighed by the undue prejudice associated with ancillary litigation of the
`
`tangential and irrelevant issue of Petitioner’s relationship with ION, it should be
`
`excluded pursuant to FRE 403.
`
`
`
`12
`
`PGS Exhibit 1114, pg. 12
`PGS v. WesternGeco (IPR2014-00688)
`
`
`
`
`
`N. Exhibit 2070
`PGS objects to Exhibit 2070 under FRE 402 and FRE 403 because it is
`
`irrelevant and its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of
`
`wasting time in this compressed proceeding. The Board has instituted this IPR
`
`based on various grounds that certain claims of the ’607 Patent are anticipated
`
`and/or obvious. The Board declined to deny institution of the petition on the basis
`
`that ION is a real party in interest or a privy of PGS in this proceeding. Because
`
`Patent Owner has cited this exhibit solely in connection with its effort to show that
`
`ION is a real party in interest or a privy of PGS in this proceeding, this exhibit is
`
`irrelevant to the determination to be made in this IPR. Moreover, even were the
`
`question of ION’s status as a real party in interest or privy of PGS relevant to the
`
`proceeding, Exhibit 2070 is not relevant to that determination and therefore should
`
`be excluded under FRE 402. And because any relevance of Exhibit 2070 is
`
`significantly outweighed by the undue prejudice associated with ancillary litigation
`
`of the tangential and irrelevant issue of Petitioner’s relationship with ION, it
`
`should be excluded pursuant to FRE 403.
`
`O. Exhibit 2071
`PGS objects to all exhibits relating to Patent Owner’s argument that ION is a
`
`real party in interest or a privy of PGS in this proceeding under FRE 402 and FRE
`
`403, including Exhibit 2071, because they are irrelevant and their probative value
`
`
`
`13
`
`PGS Exhibit 1114, pg. 13
`PGS v. WesternGeco (IPR2014-00688)
`
`
`
`
`
`is substantially outweighed by the danger of wasting time in this compressed
`
`proceeding. The Board has instituted this IPR based on various grounds that
`
`certain claims of the ’607 Patent are anticipated and/or obvious. The Board
`
`declined to deny institution of the petition on the basis that ION is a real party in
`
`interest or a privy of PGS in this proceeding. Because Patent Owner has cited this
`
`exhibit solely in connection with its effort to show that ION is a real party in
`
`interest or a privy of PGS in this proceeding, this exhibit is irrelevant to the
`
`determination to be made in this IPR. However, if the Board allows the admission
`
`of other exhibits regarding this issue, Exhibit 2071 should also be admitted.
`
`Exhibit 2072
`
`P.
`PGS objects to Exhibit 2072 under FRE 402 and FRE 403 because it is
`
`irrelevant and its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of
`
`wasting time in this compressed proceeding. Patent Owner has cited this exhibit
`
`solely in an effort to show that Multi Klient Invest AS is a real party in interest or a
`
`privy of PGS in this proceeding. But Exhibit 2072 is not relevant to that
`
`determination and therefore should be excluded under FRE 402. And because any
`
`relevance of Exhibit 2072 is significantly outweighed by the undue prejudice
`
`associated with ancillary litigation of the tangential and irrelevant issue of
`
`Petitioner’s relationship with Multi Klient Invest AS, it should be excluded
`
`
`
`14
`
`PGS Exhibit 1114, pg. 14
`PGS v. WesternGeco (IPR2014-00688)
`
`
`
`
`
`pursuant to FRE 403. Additionally, this exhibit is inadmissible hearsay under FRE
`
`802.
`
`Q. Exhibit 2073
`PGS objects to Exhibit 2073 under FRE 402 and FRE 403 because it is
`
`irrelevant and its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of
`
`wasting time in this compressed proceeding. Patent Owner has cited this exhibit
`
`solely in an effort to show that Multi Klient Invest AS is a real party in interest or a
`
`privy of PGS in this proceeding. But Exhibit 2073 is not relevant to that
`
`determination and therefore should be excluded under FRE 402. And because any
`
`relevance of Exhibit 2073 is significantly outweighed by the undue prejudice
`
`associated with ancillary litigation of the tangential and irrelevant issue of
`
`Petitioner’s relationship with Multi Klient Invest AS, it should be excluded
`
`pursuant to FRE 403. Additionally, this exhibit is inadmissible hearsay under FRE
`
`802.
`
`
`
`Exhibit 2073 is a complaint filed against PGS in district court proceedings,
`
`and it has its own exhibits. PGS objects to all of the exhibits under FRE 402 and
`
`403, as described above. PGS has the following further additional objections to
`
`certain exhibits:
`
`• Exhibit E: Exhibit E purports to be PGS annual reports, but those
`
`reports are incomplete.
`
`
`
`15
`
`PGS Exhibit 1114, pg. 15
`PGS v. WesternGeco (IPR2014-00688)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`• Exhibit F: Exhibit F purports to be registration statements filed
`
`with the Securities and Exchange Commission, but it is
`
`incomplete.
`
`• Exhibit G: Exhibit G purports to be reports filed with the
`
`Securities and Exchange Commission, but it is incomplete.
`
`• Exhibit I: PGS objects to Exhibit I because it has not been
`
`authenticated under FRE 901, is not self-authenticating under FRE
`
`902, and is not a “duplicate” as defined by FRE 1001(e). Exhibit I
`
`is therefore inadmissible under FRE 901, 1002, and 1003.
`
`Additionally, this exhibit is inadmissible hearsay under FRE 802.
`
`• Exhibit J: Exhibit J purports to be a docket sheet for Case 4:13-
`
`cv-02725 (S.D. Tex.), but it is incomplete.
`
`• Exhibit L: PGS objects to Exhibit L because it has not been
`
`authenticated under FRE 901, is not self-authenticating under FRE
`
`902, and is not a “duplicate” as defined by FRE 1001(e). Exhibit L
`
`is therefore inadmissible under FRE 901, 1002, and 1003.
`
`Additionally, this exhibit is inadmissible hearsay under FRE 802.
`
`• Exhibit O: PGS objects to Exhibit O because it has not been
`
`authenticated under FRE 901, is not self-authenticating under FRE
`
`902, and is not a “duplicate” as defined by FRE 1001(e). Exhibit
`
`16
`
`PGS Exhibit 1114, pg. 16
`PGS v. WesternGeco (IPR2014-00688)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`O is therefore inadmissible under FRE 901, 1002, and 1003.
`
`Additionally, this exhibit is inadmissible hearsay under FRE 802.
`
`• Exhibit P: PGS objects to Exhibit P because it has not been
`
`authenticated under FRE 901, is not self-authenticating under FRE
`
`902, and is not a “duplicate” as defined by FRE 1001(e). Exhibit P
`
`is therefore inadmissible under FRE 901, 1002, and 1003.
`
`Additionally, this exhibit is inadmissible hearsay under FRE 802.
`
`• Exhibit Q: PGS objects to Exhibit Q because it has not been
`
`authenticated under FRE 901, is not self-authenticating under FRE
`
`902, and is not a “duplicate” as defined by FRE 1001(e). Exhibit
`
`Q is therefore inadmissible under FRE 901, 1002, and 1003.
`
`Additionally, this exhibit is inadmissible hearsay under FRE 802.
`
`Exhibit Q purports to be a PGS presentation at Capital Markets
`
`Day 2008, but it is incomplete.
`
`• Exhibit R: PGS objects to Exhibit R because it has not been
`
`authenticated under FRE 901, is not self-authenticating under FRE
`
`902, and is not a “duplicate” as defined by FRE 1001(e). Exhibit
`
`R is therefore inadmissible under FRE 901, 1002, and 1003.
`
`Additionally, this exhibit is inadmissible hearsay under FRE 802.
`
`17
`
`PGS Exhibit 1114, pg. 17
`PGS v. WesternGeco (IPR2014-00688)
`
`
`
`
`
`• Exhibit S: PGS objects to Exhibit S because it has not been
`
`authenticated under FRE 901, is not self-authenticating under FRE
`
`902, and is not a “duplicate” as defined by FRE 1001(e). Exhibit S
`
`is therefore inadmissible under FRE 901, 1002, and 1003.
`
`Additionally, this exhibit is inadmissible hearsay under FRE 802.
`
`R. Exhibit 2074
`PGS objects to Exhibit 2074 under FRE 402 and FRE 403 because it is
`
`irrelevant and its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of
`
`wasting time in this compressed proceeding. Patent Owner has cited this exhibit
`
`solely in an effort to show that Multi Klient Invest AS is a real party in interest or a
`
`privy of PGS in this proceeding. But Exhibit 2074 is not relevant to that
`
`determination and therefore should be excluded under FRE 402. And because any
`
`relevance of Exhibit 2074 is significantly outweighed by the undue prejudice
`
`associated with ancillary litigation of the tangential and irrelevant issue of
`
`Petitioner’s relationship with Multi Klient Invest AS, it should be excluded
`
`pursuant to FRE 403.
`
`PGS objects to Exhibit 2074 because it has not been authenticated under
`
`FRE 901, is not self-authenticating under FRE 902, and is not a “duplicate” as
`
`defined by FRE 1001(e). Exhibit 2074 is therefore inadmissible under FRE 901,
`
`1002, and 1003. Additionally, this exhibit is inadmissible hearsay under FRE 802.
`
`
`
`18
`
`PGS Exhibit 1114, pg. 18
`PGS v. WesternGeco (IPR2014-00688)
`
`
`
`
`
`Exhibit 2075
`
`S.
`PGS objects to Exhibit 2075 under FRE 402 and FRE 403 because it is
`
`irrelevant and its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of
`
`wasting time in this compressed proceeding. It is not even relied on in Patent
`
`Owner’s Response, Dr. Triantafyllou’s Declaration or Mr. Walker’s statement.
`
`The Board has instituted this IPR based on various grounds that certain claims of
`
`the ’607 Patent are anticipated and/or obvious. This exhibit, which purports to be
`
`PGS’s 2013 annual report, is irrelevant to that determination.
`
`Exhibit 2076
`
`T.
`PGS objects to Exhibit 2076 under FRE 402 and FRE 403 because it is
`
`irrelevant and its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of
`
`wasting time in this compressed proceeding. Patent Owner has cited this exhibit
`
`solely in an effort to show that Multi Klient Invest AS is a real party in interest or a
`
`privy of PGS in this proceeding. But Exhibit 2076 is not relevant to that
`
`determination and therefore should be excluded under FRE 402. And because any
`
`relevance of Exhibit 2076 is significantly outweighed by the undue prejudice
`
`associated with ancillary litigation of the tangential and irrelevant issue of
`
`Petitioner’s relationship with Multi Klient Invest AS, it should be excluded
`
`pursuant to FRE 403.
`
`
`
`19
`
`PGS Exhibit 1114, pg. 19
`PGS v. WesternGeco (IPR2014-00688)
`
`
`
`
`
`U. Exhibit 2077
`PGS objects to Exhibit 2077, the statement of Robin Walker, under FRE 402
`
`to the extent it includes or relies on irrelevant information and under FRE 403 to
`
`the extent that it includes or relies on information, the probative value of which is
`
`substantially outweighed by the danger of wasting time in this compressed
`
`proceeding.
`
`PGS further objects to Exhibit 2077 under FRE 402 and FRE 403 because it
`
`is irrelevant and its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of
`
`unfair prejudice or the danger of wasting time. Exhibit 2077 includes or relies on
`
`testimony and exhibits from the ION case. PGS was not a party to the ION case
`
`and did not have an opportunity to examine witnesses, object to evidence, or
`
`present evidence in that case. Furthermore, reliance on this evidence is
`
`additionally irrelevant, unfairly prejudicial, and would result in a waste of time
`
`because the issues presented in the ION case were substantively different than
`
`those presented in this case. As a result, PGS would suffer substantial unfair
`
`prejudice if reliance on this evidence were permitted. For that additional reason,
`
`Exhibit 2077 should be excluded under FRE 402 and 403.
`
`PGS further objects to Exhibit 2077 under FRE 802 because it contains and
`
`relies on inadmissible hearsay, including testimony and exhibits from the ION
`
`case. PGS did not have an opportunity to examine witnesses, object to evidence,
`
`
`
`20
`
`PGS Exhibit 1114, pg. 20
`PGS v. WesternGeco (IPR2014-00688)
`
`
`
`
`
`or present evidence in that case as it was not a party to it. The probative value of
`
`this hearsay does not substantially outweigh its prejudicial effect, particularly
`
`given that the issues presented in the ION case were substantively different than
`
`those presented in this case.
`
`PGS objects to Exhibit 2077 under FRE 402, 403, 602, and 701 because Mr.
`
`Walker, a fact witness, comments on matters that are outside his personal
`
`knowledge. By way of non-exclusive example, Mr. Walker purports to describe
`
`the content of internal documents apparently created by ION and Fugro, companies
`
`he was never affiliated with. See, e.g., Ex. 2077 at 20; Exs. 2095-97. Any
`
`discussion by Mr. Walker regarding subject matter outside of his personal
`
`knowledge is inadmissible pursuant to FRE 402, 403, 602, and 701.
`
`PGS objects to Exhibit 2077 to the extent Mr. Walker, a fact witness, offers
`
`opinions that are not permitted pursuant to FRE 701. To the extent that Exhibit
`
`2077 is being offered pursuant to FRE 702, PGS objects that it does not comply
`
`with FRE 702, the requirements for an expert declaration and 37 C.F.R. § 42.65,
`
`including that it improperly includes opinions without having demonstrated the
`
`requisite expertise, basis, methodology or foundation. PGS objects to Exhibit 2077
`
`for failure to comply with 37 C.F.R. § 42.53.
`
`PGS further objects to Exhibit 2077 under FRE 402, 403, 602, 701, 802, and
`
`901 to the extent that it consists of or relies on unsubstantiated statements by others
`
`
`
`21
`
`PGS Exhibit 1114, pg. 21
`PGS v. WesternGeco (IPR2014-00688)
`
`
`
`
`
`and unsubstantiated data. By way of non-exclusive example, Mr. Walker purports
`
`to describe certain WesternGeco “global internal statistics” without disclosing any
`
`source or underlying data supporting those values. See Ex. 2077 at 9, 11. Mr.
`
`Walker also repeatedly purports to quote members of the petroleum industry, but
`
`does so without citation. See Ex. 2077 at 16-19. To the extent that Exhibit 2077
`
`relies on such unsubstantiated statements or data, any relevance of Exhibit 2077 is
`
`significantly outweighed by undue prejudice and it should be excluded pursuant to
`
`FRE 403, 602, and 701 in addition to FRE 402, 802, and 901.
`
`PGS also objects to Exhibit 2077 as irrelevant and inadmissible under FRE
`
`402 and 403 to the extent that it does not demonstrate a nexus between the asserted
`
`secondary considerations of non-obviousness for which it is being offered and the
`
`particular limitations of the challenged patent claims.
`
`PGS also objects to Exhibit 2077 under FRE 901, 1002, and 1003 on the
`
`basis that it cites or relies on exhibits that have not been authenticated or lack
`
`foundation, such as Exhibit 2093. See, e.g., Ex. 2077 at 18.
`
`PGS also objects to Exhibit 2077 as irrelevant under FRE 401, and as
`
`unfairly prejudicial and needlessly presenting cumulative evidence and wasting
`
`time under FRE 403, to the extent that the opinions and conclusions expressed in
`
`the exhibit are not expressly relied on and incorporated in Patent Owner’s
`
`Response.
`
`
`
`22
`
`PGS Exhibit 1114, pg. 22
`PGS v. WesternGeco (IPR2014-00688)
`
`
`
`
`
`PGS incorporates herein by reference its objections to the exhibits relied on
`
`or cited in Exhibit 2077.
`
`V. Exhibit 2078
`PGS objects to Exhibit 2078 under FRE 802 because it is inadmissible
`
`hearsay, specifically trial testimony from Robin Walker in the ION case. PGS was
`
`not a party to the ION case and, consequently, did not have an opportunity to
`
`examine Mr. Walker or object to his testimony at that trial. This exhibit also
`
`contains inadmissible hearsay under FRE 802 because it includes statements of
`
`trial counsel.
`
`PGS further objects to Exhibit 2078 under FRE 402 and FRE 403 because it
`
`is irrelevant and its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of
`
`unfair prejudice. Because PGS was not a party to the ION case and did not have
`
`an opportunity to examine Mr. Walker or object to his testimony at that trial, PGS
`
`would suffer substantial unfair prejudice if this testimony were admitted.
`
`Furthermore, this testimony is additionally irrelevant, unfairly prejudicial, and
`
`would result in a waste of time because the issues presented in the ION case were
`
`substantively different than those presented in this case. For that additional reason,
`
`Exhibit 2078 should be excluded under FRE 402 and 403.
`
`PGS also objects to Exhibit 2078 as irrelevant and inadmissible under FRE
`
`402 and 403 to the extent that it does not demonstrate a nexus between the asserted
`
`
`
`23
`
`PGS Exhibit 1114, pg. 23
`PGS v. Weste
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
