`
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`Case IPR2014-006881
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,080,607
`
`PETROLEUM GEO-SERVICES INC.’S OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`1 Case IPR2015-00567 has been joined with this proceeding.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PGS Exhibit 1115, pg. 1
`PGS v. WesternGeco (IPR2014-00688)
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00688
`Patent 7,080,607
`
`
`
`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 evidence served by Patent Owner WesternGeco, LLC on June 1,
`
`2015. PGS files these objections pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b)(1), which—as
`
`of May 19, 2015—requires objections to be filed with the Board. See 80 F.R.
`
`28,561, 28,563. Nothing contained herein shall be deemed to withdraw any
`
`objection in PGS’ Objections to Evidence previously served on Patent Owner on
`
`March 27, April 16, May 6, and May 28, 2015.
`
`The exhibits objected to, and grounds for PGS’ objections, are listed below.
`
`PGS also objects to Patent Owner’s reliance on or citation to any objected evidence
`
`in its papers.
`
`I.
`
`IDENTIFICATION OF CHALLENGED EVIDENCE AND GROUNDS
`FOR OBJECTIONS
`A. Exhibit 2141
`PGS objects to Exhibit 2141 because it is untimely under 37 C.F.R.
`
`§ 42.64(b). Exhibit 2141 was not filed within the due date for Patent Owner’s
`
`response, March 20, 2015. See Paper 38 at 2. Moreover, Patent Owner has not
`
`requested authorization from the Board to file supplemental information under 37
`
`C.F.R. § 42.123, and Patent Owner does not and cannot demonstrate that this
`
`
`
`
`
`PGS Exhibit 1115, pg. 2
`PGS v. WesternGeco (IPR2014-00688)
`
`
`
`
`
`exhibit reasonably could not have been obtained earlier or that it would be in the
`
`interests of justice to allow this supplemental information. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.123.
`
`PGS also objects to Exhibit 2141 under FRE 802 because it is inadmissible
`
`hearsay. This document appears to be 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, consequently, did not have an opportunity to respond or object to
`
`these statements.
`
`PGS also objects to Exhibit 2141 under FRE 402 and 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 2141 is not relevant to that determination and therefore should be excluded
`
`under FRE 402. And because any relevance of Exhibit 2141 is significantly
`
`outweighed by the undue prejudice associated with ancillary litigation of the
`
`
`
`3
`
`PGS Exhibit 1115, pg. 3
`PGS v. WesternGeco (IPR2014-00688)
`
`
`
`
`
`tangential and irrelevant issue of Petitioner’s relationship with ION, it should be
`
`excluded pursuant to FRE 403. Additionally, despite having a full and fair
`
`opportunity to address RPI and privity issues in its POPR and Patent Owner
`
`Response that have already been submitted, WesternGeco filed this new exhibit
`
`contrary to the Board’s rules. See Trial Practice Guide at 48769 (providing only
`
`for motions for observation on cross-examination when “no further substantive
`
`paper is permitted”). For these additional reasons, Exhibit 2141 should be
`
`excluded under FRE 402 and 403.
`
`PGS further objects to Exhibit 2141 because it is not an “original” under
`
`FRE 1002 or a “duplicate” under FRE 1001(e) and 1003. Exhibit 2141 appears to
`
`have been improperly reproduced, resulting in unreadable pages. See, e.g., Ex.
`
`2141 at 29-34. Exhibit 2141 is therefore inadmissible under FRE 1002 and 1003.
`
`Exhibit 2142
`
`B.
`PGS objects to Exhibit 2142 because it is untimely under 37 C.F.R.
`
`§ 42.64(b). Exhibit 2142 was not filed within the due date for Patent Owner’s
`
`response, March 20, 2015. See Paper 38 at 2. Moreover, Patent Owner has not
`
`requested authorization from the Board to file supplemental information under 37
`
`C.F.R. § 42.123, and Patent Owner does not and cannot demonstrate that this
`
`exhibit reasonably could not have been obtained earlier or that it would be in the
`
`interests of justice to allow this supplemental information. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.123.
`
`
`
`4
`
`PGS Exhibit 1115, pg. 4
`PGS v. WesternGeco (IPR2014-00688)
`
`
`
`
`
`PGS also objects to Exhibit 2142 under FRE 802 because it is inadmissible
`
`hearsay. This document appears to be from the ION case. PGS was not a party to
`
`the ION case and, consequently, did not have an opportunity to respond or object
`
`to these statements.
`
`PGS also objects to Exhibit 2142 under FRE 402 and 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 2142 is not relevant to that determination and therefore should be excluded
`
`under FRE 402. And because any relevance of Exhibit 2142 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. Additionally, despite having a full and fair
`
`opportunity to address RPI and privity issues in its POPR and Patent Owner
`
`
`
`5
`
`PGS Exhibit 1115, pg. 5
`PGS v. WesternGeco (IPR2014-00688)
`
`
`
`
`
`Response that have already been submitted, WesternGeco filed this new exhibit
`
`contrary to the Board’s rules. See Trial Practice Guide at 48769 (providing only
`
`for motions for observation on cross-examination when “no further substantive
`
`paper is permitted”). For these additional reasons, Exhibit 2142 should be
`
`excluded under FRE 402 and 403.
`
`C. Exhibit 2143
`PGS objects to Exhibit 2143 because it is untimely under 37 C.F.R.
`
`§ 42.64(b). Exhibit 2143 was not filed within the due date for Patent Owner’s
`
`response, March 20, 2015. See Paper 38 at 2. Moreover, Patent Owner has not
`
`requested authorization from the Board to file supplemental information under 37
`
`C.F.R. § 42.123, and Patent Owner does not and cannot demonstrate that this
`
`exhibit reasonably could not have been obtained earlier or that it would be in the
`
`interests of justice to allow this supplemental information. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.123.
`
`PGS also objects to Exhibit 2143 under FRE 802 because it is inadmissible
`
`hearsay. This document appears to be from the ION case. PGS was not a party to
`
`the ION case and, consequently, did not have an opportunity to respond or object
`
`to these statements.
`
`PGS further objects to Exhibit 2143 under FRE 402 and FRE 403 because it
`
`is irrelevant and its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of
`
`unfair prejudice and wasting time in this compressed proceeding. Any relevance
`
`
`
`6
`
`PGS Exhibit 1115, pg. 6
`PGS v. WesternGeco (IPR2014-00688)
`
`
`
`
`
`Exhibit 2143 has is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice
`
`because the determinations in the ION case were made under a different standard
`
`than the standard applicable in this IPR proceeding. See Ariosa Diagnostics v. Isis
`
`Innovation Ltd., IPR2012-00022, Paper 166 at 23-24 (Sept. 2, 2014). Additionally,
`
`the judgment in the ION case is currently on appeal to the Federal Circuit. See
`
`WesternGeco LLC v. ION Geophysical Corp., No. 13-1527 (Fed. Cir. filed July 23,
`
`2013). Exhibit 2143 is also irrelevant because the issues presented in the ION case
`
`were substantively different than those presented in this case. Moreover, because
`
`PGS was not a party to the ION case and did not have an opportunity to examine
`
`witnesses, object to evidence or present evidence or argument, PGS would suffer
`
`substantial unfair prejudice if this exhibit were admitted. Additionally, despite
`
`having a full and fair opportunity to address validity issues in its POPR and Patent
`
`Owner Response that have already been submitted, WesternGeco filed this new
`
`exhibit contrary to the Board’s rules. See Trial Practice Guide at 48769 (providing
`
`only for motions for observation on cross-examination when “no further
`
`substantive paper is permitted”). Therefore, Exhibit 2143 should be excluded
`
`under FRE 402 and 403.
`
`PGS further objects to Exhibit 2143 because it has not been authenticated
`
`under FRE 901, is not self-authenticating under FRE 902, and is not a “duplicate”
`
`
`
`7
`
`PGS Exhibit 1115, pg. 7
`PGS v. WesternGeco (IPR2014-00688)
`
`
`
`
`
`as defined by FRE 1001(e). Exhibit 2143 is therefore inadmissible under FRE 901,
`
`1002, and 1003.
`
`D. Exhibit 2144
`PGS objects to Exhibit 2144 because it is untimely under 37 C.F.R.
`
`§ 42.64(b). Exhibit 2144 was not filed within the due date for Patent Owner’s
`
`response, March 20, 2015. See Paper 38 at 2. Moreover, Patent Owner has not
`
`requested authorization from the Board to file supplemental information under 37
`
`C.F.R. § 42.123, and Patent Owner does not and cannot demonstrate that this
`
`exhibit reasonably could not have been obtained earlier or that it would be in the
`
`interests of justice to allow this supplemental information. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.123.
`
`PGS also objects to Exhibit 2144 under FRE 802 because it is inadmissible
`
`hearsay. This document appears to be from the ION case. PGS was not a party to
`
`the ION case and, consequently, did not have an opportunity to respond or object
`
`to these statements.
`
`PGS further objects to Exhibit 2144 under FRE 402 and FRE 403 because it
`
`is irrelevant and its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of
`
`unfair prejudice and wasting time in this compressed proceeding. Any relevance
`
`Exhibit 2144 has is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice
`
`because the determinations in the ION case were made under a different standard
`
`than the standard applicable in this IPR proceeding. See Ariosa Diagnostics v. Isis
`
`
`
`8
`
`PGS Exhibit 1115, pg. 8
`PGS v. WesternGeco (IPR2014-00688)
`
`
`
`
`
`Innovation Ltd., IPR2012-00022, Paper 166 at 23-24 (Sept. 2, 2014). Additionally,
`
`the judgment in the ION case is currently on appeal to the Federal Circuit. See
`
`WesternGeco LLC v. ION Geophysical Corp., No. 13-1527 (Fed. Cir. filed July 23,
`
`2013). Exhibit 2144 is also irrelevant because the issues presented in the ION case
`
`were substantively different than those presented in this case. Moreover, because
`
`PGS was not a party to the ION case and did not have an opportunity to examine
`
`witnesses, object to evidence or present evidence or argument, PGS would suffer
`
`substantial unfair prejudice if this exhibit were admitted. Additionally, despite
`
`having a full and fair opportunity to address validity issues in its POPR and Patent
`
`Owner Response that have already been submitted, WesternGeco filed this new
`
`exhibit contrary to the Board’s rules. See Trial Practice Guide at 48769 (providing
`
`only for motions for observation on cross-examination when “no further
`
`substantive paper is permitted”). Therefore, Exhibit 2144 should be excluded
`
`under FRE 402 and 403.
`
`PGS further objects to Exhibit 2144 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 2144 is therefore inadmissible under FRE 901,
`
`1002, and 1003.
`
`
`
`9
`
`PGS Exhibit 1115, pg. 9
`PGS v. WesternGeco (IPR2014-00688)
`
`
`
`
`
`Exhibit 2145
`
`E.
`PGS objects to Exhibit 2145 because it is untimely under 37 C.F.R.
`
`§ 42.64(b). Exhibit 2145 was not filed within the due date for Patent Owner’s
`
`response, March 20, 2015. See Paper 38 at 2. Moreover, Patent Owner has not
`
`requested authorization from the Board to file supplemental information under 37
`
`C.F.R. § 42.123, and Patent Owner does not and cannot demonstrate that this
`
`exhibit reasonably could not have been obtained earlier or that it would be in the
`
`interests of justice to allow this supplemental information. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.123.
`
`PGS further objects to Exhibit 2145 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.
`
`PGS further objects to Exhibit 2145 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 2145 is therefore inadmissible under FRE 901,
`
`1002, and 1003. Additionally, this exhibit is inadmissible hearsay under FRE 802.
`
`Exhibit 2146
`
`F.
`PGS objects to Exhibit 2146 because it is untimely under 37 C.F.R.
`
`§ 42.64(b). Exhibit 2146 was not filed within the due date for Patent Owner’s
`
`response, March 20, 2015. See Paper 38 at 2. Moreover, Patent Owner has not
`
`requested authorization from the Board to file supplemental information under 37
`
`
`
`10
`
`PGS Exhibit 1115, pg. 10
`PGS v. WesternGeco (IPR2014-00688)
`
`
`
`
`
`C.F.R. § 42.123, and Patent Owner does not and cannot demonstrate that this
`
`exhibit reasonably could not have been obtained earlier or that it would be in the
`
`interests of justice to allow this supplemental information. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.123.
`
`PGS also objects to Exhibit 2146 under FRE 802 because it is inadmissible
`
`hearsay. This document appears to be from proceedings in the European Patent
`
`Office. PGS was not a party to those proceedings and, consequently, did not have
`
`an opportunity to respond or object to these statements.
`
`PGS further objects to Exhibit 2146 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 those proceedings and did not
`
`have an opportunity to present evidence or argument in those proceedings, PGS
`
`would suffer substantial unfair prejudice if this exhibit were admitted.
`
`Additionally, despite having a full and fair opportunity to address validity issues in
`
`its POPR and Patent Owner Response that have already been submitted,
`
`WesternGeco filed this new exhibit contrary to the Board’s rules. See Trial
`
`Practice Guide at 48769 (providing only for motions for observation on cross-
`
`examination when “no further substantive paper is permitted”). Therefore, Exhibit
`
`2146 should be excluded under FRE 402 and 403.
`
`PGS further objects to Exhibit 2146 because it has not been authenticated
`
`under FRE 901, is not self-authenticating under FRE 902, and is not a “duplicate”
`
`
`
`11
`
`PGS Exhibit 1115, pg. 11
`PGS v. WesternGeco (IPR2014-00688)
`
`
`
`
`
`as defined by FRE 1001(e). Exhibit 2146 is therefore inadmissible under FRE 901,
`
`1002, and 1003. Additionally, this exhibit is inadmissible hearsay under FRE 802.
`
`G. Exhibit 2149
`PGS objects to Exhibit 2149 because it is untimely under 37 C.F.R.
`
`§ 42.64(b). Exhibit 2149 was not filed within the due date for Patent Owner’s
`
`response, March 20, 2015. See Paper 38 at 2. WesternGeco admitted it untimely
`
`filed this exhibit despite having the burden to demonstrate a nexus between the
`
`asserted secondary considerations of non-obviousness and the particular limitations
`
`of the challenged patent claims. See Paper 71 at 33 (citing new exhibits in
`
`response to PGS “recently” implying its intent to dispute nexus). Moreover, Patent
`
`Owner has not requested authorization from the Board to file supplemental
`
`information under 37 C.F.R. § 42.123, and Patent Owner does not and cannot
`
`demonstrate that this exhibit reasonably could not have been obtained earlier or
`
`that it would be in the interests of justice to allow this supplemental information.
`
`See 37 C.F.R. § 42.123.
`
`PGS also objects to Exhibit 2149 under FRE 802 because it is inadmissible
`
`hearsay. This document appears to be from the ION case. PGS was not a party to
`
`the ION case and, consequently, did not have an opportunity to respond or object
`
`to these statements.
`
`
`
`12
`
`PGS Exhibit 1115, pg. 12
`PGS v. WesternGeco (IPR2014-00688)
`
`
`
`
`
`PGS further objects to Exhibit 2149 under FRE 402 and FRE 403 because it
`
`is irrelevant and its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of
`
`unfair prejudice and wasting time in this compressed proceeding. Because PGS
`
`was not a party to the ION case and did not have an opportunity to examine
`
`witnesses, object to evidence or present evidence or argument, PGS would suffer
`
`substantial unfair prejudice if this exhibit were admitted. Additionally, despite
`
`having a full and fair opportunity to address validity issues in its POPR and Patent
`
`Owner Response that have already been submitted, WesternGeco filed this new
`
`exhibit contrary to the Board’s rules. See Trial Practice Guide at 48769 (providing
`
`only for motions for observation on cross-examination when “no further
`
`substantive paper is permitted”). Exhibit 2149 is also irrelevant because it does not
`
`demonstrate the required nexus. Therefore, Exhibit 2149 should be excluded under
`
`FRE 402 and 403.
`
`PGS further objects to Exhibit 2149 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 2149 is therefore inadmissible under FRE 901,
`
`1002, and 1003.
`
`WesternGeco specifically cites to the declaration of Rick Workman
`
`contained in Exhibit 2149. The preceding objections regarding Exhibit 2149 apply
`
`equally to that document. Furthermore, PGS further objects because PGS was not
`
`
`
`13
`
`PGS Exhibit 1115, pg. 13
`PGS v. WesternGeco (IPR2014-00688)
`
`
`
`
`
`a party to the ION case and, consequently, did not have an opportunity to examine
`
`Mr. Workman or object to his declaration. In addition, that document fails to
`
`comply with 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.53, 42.2, and 1.68.
`
`H. Exhibit 2150
`PGS objects to Exhibit 2150 because it is untimely under 37 C.F.R.
`
`§ 42.64(b). Exhibit 2150 was not filed within the due date for Patent Owner’s
`
`response, March 20, 2015. See Paper 38 at 2. WesternGeco admitted it untimely
`
`filed this exhibit despite having the burden to demonstrate a nexus between the
`
`asserted secondary considerations of non-obviousness and the particular limitations
`
`of the challenged patent claims. See Paper 71 at 33 (citing new exhibits in
`
`response to PGS “recently” implying its intent to dispute nexus). Moreover, Patent
`
`Owner has not requested authorization from the Board to file supplemental
`
`information under 37 C.F.R. § 42.123, and Patent Owner does not and cannot
`
`demonstrate that this exhibit reasonably could not have been obtained earlier or
`
`that it would be in the interests of justice to allow this supplemental information.
`
`See 37 C.F.R. § 42.123.
`
`PGS also objects to Exhibit 2150 under FRE 802 because it is inadmissible
`
`hearsay. This document appears to be from the ION case. PGS was not a party to
`
`the ION case and, consequently, did not have an opportunity to respond or object
`
`to these statements.
`
`
`
`14
`
`PGS Exhibit 1115, pg. 14
`PGS v. WesternGeco (IPR2014-00688)
`
`
`
`
`
`PGS further objects to Exhibit 2150 under FRE 402 and FRE 403 because it
`
`is irrelevant and its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of
`
`unfair prejudice and wasting time in this compressed proceeding. Any relevance
`
`Exhibit 2150 has is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice
`
`because the determinations in the ION case were made under a different standard
`
`than the standard applicable in this IPR proceeding. See Ariosa Diagnostics v. Isis
`
`Innovation Ltd., IPR2012-00022, Paper 166 at 23-24 (Sept. 2, 2014). Exhibit 2150
`
`is also irrelevant because it does not demonstrate the required nexus. Moreover,
`
`because PGS was not a party to the ION case and did not have an opportunity to
`
`examine witnesses, object to evidence or present evidence or argument, PGS
`
`would suffer substantial unfair prejudice if this exhibit were admitted.
`
`Additionally, despite having a full and fair opportunity to address validity issues in
`
`its POPR and Patent Owner Response that have already been submitted,
`
`WesternGeco filed this new exhibit contrary to the Board’s rules. See Trial
`
`Practice Guide at 48769 (providing only for motions for observation on cross-
`
`examination when “no further substantive paper is permitted”). Therefore, Exhibit
`
`2150 should be excluded under FRE 402 and 403.
`
`PGS further objects to Exhibit 2150 because it has not been authenticated
`
`under FRE 901, is not self-authenticating under FRE 902, and is not a “duplicate”
`
`
`
`15
`
`PGS Exhibit 1115, pg. 15
`PGS v. WesternGeco (IPR2014-00688)
`
`
`
`
`
`as defined by FRE 1001(e). Exhibit 2150 is therefore inadmissible under FRE 901,
`
`1002, and 1003.
`
`Exhibit 2151
`
`I.
`PGS objects to Exhibit 2151 because it is untimely under 37 C.F.R.
`
`§ 42.64(b). Exhibit 2151 was not filed within the due date for Patent Owner’s
`
`response, March 20, 2015. See Paper 38 at 2. WesternGeco admitted it untimely
`
`filed this exhibit despite having the burden to demonstrate a nexus between the
`
`asserted secondary considerations of non-obviousness and the particular limitations
`
`of the challenged patent claims. See Paper 71 at 33 (citing new exhibits in
`
`response to PGS “recently” implying its intent to dispute nexus). Moreover, Patent
`
`Owner has not requested authorization from the Board to file supplemental
`
`information under 37 C.F.R. § 42.123, and Patent Owner does not and cannot
`
`demonstrate that this exhibit reasonably could not have been obtained earlier or
`
`that it would be in the interests of justice to allow this supplemental information.
`
`See 37 C.F.R. § 42.123.
`
`PGS also objects to Exhibit 2151 under FRE 802 because it is inadmissible
`
`hearsay. This document appears to be from the ION case. PGS was not a party to
`
`the ION case and, consequently, did not have an opportunity to respond or object
`
`to these statements.
`
`
`
`16
`
`PGS Exhibit 1115, pg. 16
`PGS v. WesternGeco (IPR2014-00688)
`
`
`
`
`
`PGS further objects to Exhibit 2151 under FRE 402 and FRE 403 because it
`
`is irrelevant and its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of
`
`unfair prejudice and wasting time in this compressed proceeding. Exhibit 2151 is
`
`irrelevant because it does not demonstrate the required nexus. Moreover, because
`
`PGS was not a party to the ION case and did not have an opportunity to examine
`
`witnesses, object to evidence or present evidence or argument, PGS would suffer
`
`substantial unfair prejudice if this exhibit were admitted. Additionally, despite
`
`having a full and fair opportunity to address validity issues in its POPR and Patent
`
`Owner Response that have already been submitted, WesternGeco filed this new
`
`exhibit contrary to the Board’s rules. See Trial Practice Guide at 48769 (providing
`
`only for motions for observation on cross-examination when “no further
`
`substantive paper is permitted”). Therefore, Exhibit 2151 should be excluded
`
`under FRE 402 and 403.
`
`Exhibit 2152
`
`J.
`PGS objects to Exhibit 2152 because it is untimely under 37 C.F.R.
`
`§ 42.64(b). Exhibit 2152 was not filed within the due date for Patent Owner’s
`
`response, March 20, 2015. See Paper 38 at 2. WesternGeco admitted it untimely
`
`filed this exhibit despite having the burden to demonstrate a nexus between the
`
`asserted secondary considerations of non-obviousness and the particular limitations
`
`of the challenged patent claims. See Paper 71 at 33 (citing new exhibits in
`
`
`
`17
`
`PGS Exhibit 1115, pg. 17
`PGS v. WesternGeco (IPR2014-00688)
`
`
`
`
`
`response to PGS “recently” implying its intent to dispute nexus). Moreover, Patent
`
`Owner has not requested authorization from the Board to file supplemental
`
`information under 37 C.F.R. § 42.123, and Patent Owner does not and cannot
`
`demonstrate that this exhibit reasonably could not have been obtained earlier or
`
`that it would be in the interests of justice to allow this supplemental information.
`
`See 37 C.F.R. § 42.123.
`
`PGS also objects to Exhibit 2152 under FRE 802 because it is inadmissible
`
`hearsay. This document appears to be from the ION case. PGS was not a party to
`
`the ION case and, consequently, did not have an opportunity to respond or object
`
`to these statements.
`
`PGS further objects to Exhibit 2152 under FRE 402 and FRE 403 because it
`
`is irrelevant and its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of
`
`unfair prejudice and wasting time in this compressed proceeding. Any relevance
`
`Exhibit 2152 has is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice
`
`because the determinations in the ION case were made under a different standard
`
`than the standard applicable in this IPR proceeding. See Ariosa Diagnostics v. Isis
`
`Innovation Ltd., IPR2012-00022, Paper 166 at 23-24 (Sept. 2, 2014). Exhibit 2152
`
`is also irrelevant because the issues presented in the ION case were substantively
`
`different than those presented in this case and because it does not demonstrate the
`
`required nexus. Additionally, the judgment in the ION case is currently on appeal
`
`
`
`18
`
`PGS Exhibit 1115, pg. 18
`PGS v. WesternGeco (IPR2014-00688)
`
`
`
`
`
`to the Federal Circuit. See WesternGeco LLC v. ION Geophysical Corp., No. 13-
`
`1527 (Fed. Cir. filed July 23, 2013).Moreover, because PGS was not a party to the
`
`ION case and did not have an opportunity to examine witnesses, object to evidence
`
`or present evidence or argument, PGS would suffer substantial unfair prejudice if
`
`this exhibit were admitted. Additionally, despite having a full and fair opportunity
`
`to address validity issues in its POPR and Patent Owner Response that have
`
`already been submitted, WesternGeco filed this new exhibit contrary to the
`
`Board’s rules. See Trial Practice Guide at 48769 (providing only for motions for
`
`observation on cross-examination when “no further substantive paper is
`
`permitted”). Therefore, Exhibit 2152 should be excluded under FRE 402 and 403.
`
`K. Exhibit 2153
`PGS objects to Exhibit 2153 because it is untimely under 37 C.F.R.
`
`§ 42.64(b). Exhibit 2153 was not filed within the due date for Patent Owner’s
`
`response, March 20, 2015. See Paper 38 at 2. WesternGeco admitted it untimely
`
`filed this exhibit despite having the burden to demonstrate a nexus between the
`
`asserted secondary considerations of non-obviousness and the particular limitations
`
`of the challenged patent claims. See Paper 71 at 33 (citing new exhibits in
`
`response to PGS “recently” implying its intent to dispute nexus). Moreover, Patent
`
`Owner has not requested authorization from the Board to file supplemental
`
`information under 37 C.F.R. § 42.123, and Patent Owner does not and cannot
`
`
`
`19
`
`PGS Exhibit 1115, pg. 19
`PGS v. WesternGeco (IPR2014-00688)
`
`
`
`
`
`demonstrate that this exhibit reasonably could not have been obtained earlier or
`
`that it would be in the interests of justice to allow this supplemental information.
`
`See 37 C.F.R. § 42.123.
`
`PGS also objects to Exhibit 2153 under FRE 802 because it is inadmissible
`
`hearsay. This document appears to be from the ION case. PGS was not a party to
`
`the ION case and, consequently, did not have an opportunity to respond or object
`
`to these statements.
`
`PGS further objects to Exhibit 2153 under FRE 402 and FRE 403 because it
`
`is irrelevant and its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of
`
`unfair prejudice and wasting time in this compressed proceeding. Any relevance
`
`Exhibit 2153 has is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice
`
`because the determinations in the ION case were made under a different standard
`
`than the standard applicable in this IPR proceeding. See Ariosa Diagnostics v. Isis
`
`Innovation Ltd., IPR2012-00022, Paper 166 at 23-24 (Sept. 2, 2014). Additionally,
`
`the judgment in the ION case is currently on appeal to the Federal Circuit. See
`
`WesternGeco LLC v. ION Geophysical Corp., No. 13-1527 (Fed. Cir. filed July 23,
`
`2013). Exhibit 2153 is also irrelevant because the issues presented in the ION case
`
`were substantively different than those presented in this case and because it does
`
`not demonstrate the required nexus. Moreover, because PGS was not a party to the
`
`ION case and did not have an opportunity to examine witnesses, object to evidence
`
`
`
`20
`
`PGS Exhibit 1115, pg. 20
`PGS v. WesternGeco (IPR2014-00688)
`
`
`
`
`
`or present evidence or argument, PGS would suffer substantial unfair prejudice if
`
`this exhibit were admitted. Additionally, despite having a full and fair opportunity
`
`to address validity issues in its POPR and Patent Owner Response that have
`
`already been submitted, WesternGeco filed this new exhibit contrary to the
`
`Board’s rules. See Trial Practice Guide at 48769 (providing only for motions for
`
`observation on cross-examination when “no further substantive paper is
`
`permitted”). Therefore, Exhibit 2153 should be excluded under FRE 402 and 403.
`
`Exhibit 2154
`
`L.
`PGS objects to Exhibit 2154 because it is untimely under 37 C.F.R.
`
`§ 42.64(b). Exhibit 2154 was not filed within the due date for Patent Owner’s
`
`response, March 20, 2015. See Paper 38 at 2. Moreover, Patent Owner has not
`
`requested authorization from the Board to file supplemental information under 37
`
`C.F.R. § 42.123, and Patent Owner does not and cannot demonstrate that this
`
`exhibit reasonably could not have been obtained earlier or that it would be in the
`
`interests of justice to allow this supplemental information. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.123.
`
`PGS also objects to Exhibit 2154 under FRE 802 because it is inadmissible
`
`hearsay. This document appears to be from proceedings in the European Patent
`
`Office. PGS was not a party to those proceedings and, consequently, did not have
`
`an opportunity to respond or object to these statements.
`
`
`
`21
`
`PGS Exhibit 1115, pg. 21
`PGS v. WesternGeco (IPR2014-00688)
`
`
`
`
`
`PGS further objects to Exhibit 2154 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 those proceedings and did not
`
`have an opportunity to present evidence or argument in those proceedings, PGS
`
`would suffer substantial unfair prejudice if this exhibit were admitted.
`
`Additionally, despite having a full and fair opportunity to address validity issues in
`
`its POPR and Patent Owner Response that have already been submitted,
`
`WesternGeco filed this new exhibit contrary to the Board’s rules. See Trial
`
`Practice Guide at 48769 (providing only for motions for observation on cross-
`
`examination when “no further substantive paper is permitted”). Therefore, Exhibit
`
`2154 should be excluded under FRE 402 and 403.
`
`PGS further objects to Exhibit 2154 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 2154 is therefore inadmissible under FRE 901,
`
`1002, and 1003. Additionally, this exhibit is inadmissible hearsay under FRE 802.
`
`M. Exhibit 2155
`PGS objects to Exhibit 2155 because it is unti
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
