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
`
`
`
`PETITIONER PETROLEUM GEO-SERVICES INC.’S
`MOTION TO EXCLUDE
`
`
`
`1 Case IPR2015-00567 has been joined with this proceeding.
`
`

`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I. Mr. Walker’s Statement, Ex. 2077, Should Be Excluded. .............................. 2
`Significant Parts of Walker’s Statement and the Exhibits Cited
`A.
`Therein Should Be Excluded. ................................................................ 2
`The Walker Statement Should Be Excluded In Its Entirety. ................. 4
`B.
`C. Walker’s Statement Should Also Be Excluded Because It Is Not
`a Declaration. ......................................................................................... 6
`II. Many Other Exhibits Should Be Excluded As Hearsay, Not
`Authenticated and/or Untimely. ...................................................................... 7
`Transcripts from the ION Case Are Hearsay. ....................................... 7
`A.
`B.
`Court and Jury Rulings Are Hearsay .................................................... 7
`C.
`ION, Fugro and WG Documents Are Hearsay and/or Not
`Authenticated. ........................................................................................ 8
`“Validity” Exhibits Filed With WG’s “ION” POPR Are
`Untimely. ............................................................................................. 11
`III. Exhibits Otherwise Admissible Against ION Are Not Admissible In
`This Proceeding and Should Be Excluded Under Rule 403. ......................... 12
`IV. Conclusion ..................................................................................................... 15
`
`D.
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`Case IPR2014-00687
`Patent 7,162,967
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`CASES
`Bruton v. U.S., 391 U.S. 123 (1968) ........................................................................ 13
`
`Century ‘21’ Shows v. Owens, 400 F.2d 603 (8th Cir. 1968) .................................... 9
`
`Consolidated Rail Corp. v. Grand Trunk Western R. Co., 2011 WL
`6004291 (E.D. Mich. Dec. 1, 2011) ..................................................................... 6
`
`Corwin v. Walt Disney Co., 475 F.3d 1239 (11th Cir. 2007) .................................... 3
`
`Gaffney v. Dep’t of Info. Tech. & Telecomm., 579 F. Supp. 2d 455
`(S.D.N.Y. 2008) .................................................................................................... 9
`
`Gunville v. Walker, 583 F.3d 979 (7th Cir. 2009) ..................................................... 2
`
`Manuel v. City of Chicago, 335 F.3d 592 (7th Cir. 2003) ....................................... 15
`
`Minemyer v. B-Roc Representatives, Inc., 2012 WL 346621 (N.D. Ill.
`Feb. 2, 2012) ....................................................................................................... 13
`
`Nash v. U.S., 54 F.2d 1006 (2d Cir. 1932) ............................................................... 14
`
`Stiglianese v. Vallone, 666 N.Y.2d 362 (N.Y. App. Term 1997) ............................ 13
`
`U.S .v. Dhinsa, 243 F.3d 635 (2d Cir. 2001) ........................................................... 14
`
`U.S. v. Duenas, 691 F.3d 1070 (9th Cir. 2012) ......................................................... 3
`
`U.S. v. Hunt, 521 F.3d 636 (6th Cir. 2008) .............................................................. 10
`
`U.S. v. Sine, 493 F.3d 1021 (9th Cir. 2007) ............................................................... 8
`
`Valdivia v. Schwarzenegger, 599 F.3d 984 (9th Cir. 2010) .................................... 14
`
`OTHER AUTHORITIES
`
`37 C.F.R. § 1.68 ......................................................................................................... 6
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.2 ......................................................................................................... 6
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.53(a) ................................................................................................... 6
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.64(c) ................................................................................................... 2
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.123 ............................................................................................... 6, 12
`
`FRE 105 ................................................................................................................... 13
`
`FRE 602 ..................................................................................................................... 3
`
`FRE 403 ....................................................................................................... 12, 14, 15
`
`FRE 801 ......................................................................................................... 2, 3, 7, 8
`
`FRE 803(6) ............................................................................................................... 10
`
`FRE 804 ............................................................................................................... 7, 10
`
`FRE 901 ................................................................................................................... 10
`
`Leonard, The New Wigmore: Selected Rules of Limited Admissibility
`§ 1.8 ..................................................................................................................... 12
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`Pursuant to 37 C .F.R. § 42.64(c), Petitioner Petroleum Geo-Services Inc.
`
`(“PGS”) moves to exclude exhibits offered and relied on by Patent Owner
`
`WestemGeco, LLC (“WG”). The following table identifies the exhibits PGS
`
`moves to exclude, which are discussed in detail below.
`
`Section Addressed
`
`Section Addressed
`
`tases For Exclusion *
`
`:ases For Exclusion *
`
`2002
`
`2003
`
`2005
`
`2006
`
`2007
`
`2010
`
`2012
`
`2015
`
`2019
`
`2034
`
`2035
`
`2036
`
`2050
`
`2052
`
`2055
`
`2073
`
`2077
`
`II.C. (H)
`
`11.(:. (A, H)
`
`11.(:. (A, H)
`
`II.C. (A, H)
`
`11c. (H)
`
`II.C. (H)
`
`II.C. (H)
`
`II.C. (H)
`
`II.C. (A, H)
`
`1.13., II.A. (H)
`
`II.A. (H)
`
`II.A. (H)
`
`II.A. (H)
`
`II.A. (H)
`
`II.A. (H)
`
`II.C. (H)
`
`I.A., I.B., I.C. (A, F, H, U)
`
`2084
`
`2085
`
`2086
`
`2087
`
`2093
`
`2094
`
`2095
`
`2096
`
`2097
`
`2098
`
`2099
`
`2141
`
`2142
`
`2143
`
`2144
`
`2149
`
`2150
`
`I.A., II.A. (H)
`
`I.A., II.C. (A, H)
`
`1.13.,11_c. (H)
`
`II.C., II.C. (H)
`
`I.B., II.C. (H)
`
`I.A., I.B., II.C. (H)
`
`I.A., II.C. (H)
`
`I.A., 11.0 (A, H)
`
`I.A., 11.0 (H)
`
`11.c- (H)
`
`II.B- (H)
`
`11.c. (H)
`
`11.0 (H)
`
`11.13. (H, U)
`
`II.B. (H)
`
`II.C.,II.D.(H,U)
`
`II.C., II.D. (H, U)
`
`I2
`
`—
`
`Key: A — Authentication; H — Hearsay; F — Foundation; U — Untimely
`
`

`
`*All listed exhibits are also addressed in Part III, regarding Rule 403 objections.
`
`PGS timely objected to each of these exhibits, on the grounds identified
`
`above, on Dec. 30, 2014 in Ex. 1110 (Exs. 2002-36), Mar. 27, 2015 in Ex. 1111
`
`(Exs. 2050-99), and June 8, 2015 in Ex. 1112 (Exs. 2141-61).
`
`I.
`
`Mr. Walker’s Statement, Ex. 2077, Should Be Excluded.
`
`-
`
`N
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`I
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
` 4I 4
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`________________________________________
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`II. Many Other Exhibits Should Be Excluded As Hearsay, Not
`Authenticated and/or Untimely.
`A. Transcripts from the ION Case Are Hearsay.
`WG cites testimony from the ION case, Exs. 2035-36, 2052, 2084—
`
`including testimony from an inventor, a WG expert, and ION witnesses. WG cites
`
`this testimony for the truth of the matter asserted. See IPR2014-00687 (“-00687”),
`
`Paper 44 at 48, IPR2014-00688 (“-00688”), Paper 48 at 48, IPR2014-00689 (“-
`
`00689”), Paper 47 at 47 (all citing WG fact witnesses (Ex. 2035) and ION expert
`
`(Ex. 2036) re: secondary considerations); Ex. 2042 (Triantafylou Decl.) (¶ 79,
`
`citing a named inventor (
`
`);
`
`
`
`). This prior testimony is
`
`hearsay, FRE 801, 804, and WG has not even attempted to meet the prior
`
`testimony exception because it plainly does not apply.
`
`B. Court and Jury Rulings Are Hearsay.
`WG cites the jury’s lost profits award and a court ruling on claim
`
`construction to suggest that Q-Marine embodies the claimed invention. -
`
`00687/Paper 44 at 34, -00688/Paper 48 at 49, -00689/Paper 47 at 48-49 (referring
`
`to Ex. 2099); -00687/Paper 70 at 33,-00688/Paper 71 at 34, -00689/ Paper 72 at 33
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`
`
`
`(citing Ex. 2161). Then, in support of its interpretation of the prior art, WG cites
`
`the ION jury verdict, the ION final judgment, and a district court ruling on ION’s
`
`motion for new trial in support of WG’s interpretation of the prior art. -
`
`00687/Paper 70 at 21, 26, 28, -00688/Paper 71 at 21, 26, 28, 30, -00689/ Paper 72
`
`at 21, 22, 26-30 (citing Exs. 2099, 2143, and 2144). It is well established that
`
`court and jury determinations are inadmissible hearsay. U.S. v. Sine, 493 F.3d
`
`1021, 1036-37 & n.16 (9th Cir. 2007).
`
`C.
`
`ION, Fugro and WG Documents Are Hearsay and/or Not
`Authenticated.
`WG offers various documents allegedly created by the parties to the ION
`
`case—including internal documents, emails, presentations, and pleadings—
`
`produced by ION (Exs. 2002-03, 2005-06, 2019, 2081, 2085, 2095-96, 2141, 2142,
`
`2149-53), Fugro (Exs. 2082-83, 2097) and WG (Exs. 2007, 2010, 2012, 2015,
`
`2073, 2079-80, 2086-87, 2093-94, 2098). They are plainly hearsay under Rule
`
`801. WG relies on them for the truth of the matters asserted in them, in support of
`
`WG’s arguments regarding (1) service, real party in interest or privity (Exs. 2002-
`
`03, 2005-07, 2010, 2012, 2015, 2019, 2073, 2141, 2142, cited in -00687/Paper 26
`
`at 5-7, 10, 11, 14, -00688/Paper 26 at 5-7, 10, 11, 14, -00689/Paper 26 at 5-7, 10,
`
`11, 14, -00687/Paper 44 at 37-38, 43, -00688/Paper 48 at 52-53, 57, -00689/Paper
`
`47 at 51-52, 57, -00687/Paper 70 at 3, 5, 12-15, 23, 27, -00688/Paper 71 at 3, 5,
`
`12-15, 23, -00689/Paper 72 at 3, 5, 12-15, 23, (2) Kalman filters (Exs. 2051, 2054,
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`
`
`
`cited in Ex. 2042 ¶¶ 52, 139-40), (3)
`
` cited in
`
`Paper 70 at 33), and (4) secondary considerations of nonobviousness (Exs. 2079-
`
`80, 2081-83, 2085-87, 2093-98, cited in Ex. 2077 (Walker Stmt.) ¶¶ 15, 17, 19-20,
`
`23-24, 28, 30, 45, 49, and Exhibits 2150-53, cited in -00687/Paper 70 at 33-34, -
`
`00688/Paper 71 at 33-34, -00689/Paper 72 at 33-34).
`
`For example, WG relies on generic statements in ION pleadings to try to
`
`carry its burden of proving that the Q-Marine embodies the claimed invention—a
`
`showing WG wholly failed to meet in its response. See -00687/Paper 70 at 33,
`
`00688/Paper 71 at 33-34, -00689/Paper 72 at 33-34 (citing Exs. 2149-53). Beyond
`
`the fact that these documents do not support the required showing of nexus because
`
`they are not tied to particular claims, much less particular claim limitations, court
`
`pleadings from other litigations are inadmissible. Century ‘21’ Shows v. Owens,
`
`400 F.2d 603, 609-10 (8th Cir. 1968); Gaffney v. Dep’t of Info. Tech. &
`
`Telecomm., 579 F. Supp. 2d 455, 459 (S.D.N.Y. 2008).
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`No hearsay exception applies to the documents addressed in this section. As
`
`to the vast majority, WG has not even attempted to lay an 803(6) business records
`
`foundation, which would require a showing that the records were, inter alia, “kept
`
`in the course of regularly conducted business activity,” as verified “by the
`
`testimony of a custodian or other qualified witness, or by certification.” FRE
`
`803(6). As to Exs. 2079-80, 2086, 2093, WG asked Mr. Walker to lay a business
`
`records foundation, but he admitted that he left the company some time ago and
`
`has no idea how documents have been maintained. See Ex. 1089 at 29. Even as to
`
`these documents, WG therefore cannot establish that a hearsay exception applies.
`
`Exs. 2003, 2005-06, 2019, 2085, and 2096, which were purportedly
`
`
`
`2 WG does not offer this exhibit for this purpose in -00687.
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`
`
`
`produced by ION in the ION case also are inadmissible on authentication grounds
`
`under Rule 901, which requires one to propound “[t]estimony that an item is what
`
`it is claimed to be.” Despite PGS’s timely authenticity objections, WG made no
`
`effort whatsoever to authenticate Exs. 2003, 2005-06, and 2019, on which it relied
`
`for PGS’s alleged relationship with ION. WG did attempt to authenticate Exs.
`
`2085 and 2096, which appear to be internal ION documents, with a declaration
`
`from Timothy Gilman—WG’s outside counsel—but he did not attest to their being
`
`ION documents, which is how WG offers them. None of these exhibits are
`
`properly authenticated.
`
`D.
`
`“Validity” Exhibits Filed With WG’s “ION” POPR Are Untimely.
`
`
`
`, must also be
`
`excluded because they are untimely. WG cites these exhibits as bearing on validity,
`
`but submitted them long after its Patent Owner response was due. See -
`
`00687/Paper 38 at 2, -00688/Paper 38 at 2, -00689/Paper 37 at 2; -00687/Paper 34
`
`at 3, -00688/Paper 34 at 3, -00689/Paper 35 at 3 (“The patent owner is cautioned
`
`that any arguments for patentability not raised in the response will be deemed
`
`waived.”); Mobotix Corp. v. E-Watch, Inc., IPR2013-00335, Paper 36 at 2 (Apr.
`
`16, 2014) (striking amended response because “[t]here is simply no right to amend
`
`a Patent Owner Response after its due date.”). WG sought leave to file a second
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`
`
`
`POPR on three “ION”-specific issues after this deadline. See -00687/Paper 62, -
`
`00688/Paper 63, -00689/Paper 62. WG then submitted evidence outside these
`
`issues—namely, evidence on validity that it was required to have submitted in its
`
`Response. This evidence also cannot satisfy the requirements of 37 C.F.R. §
`
`42.123(b) because these documents have been available to WG for years. WG has
`
`no justification for this late evidence and it should be excluded.
`
`III. Exhibits Otherwise Admissible Against ION Are Not Admissible In This
`Proceeding and Should Be Excluded Under Rule 403.
`The documents addressed in Section II above are inadmissible because, inter
`
`alia, they are hearsay. To the extent that WG attempts to argue that some of them
`
`are not hearsay as to ION, they are still inadmissible in this joint proceeding.
`
`Where evidence is admissible against one party but not another, a court may
`
`(1) sever proceedings, (2) where practicable, limit consideration of the evidence
`
`solely to the claims of the party against whom the evidence is admissible, or (3)
`
`under FRE 403 or otherwise, exclude the evidence. See Leonard, The New
`
`Wigmore: Selected Rules of Limited Admissibility § 1.8.
`
`Assuming that the Board remains disinclined to unwind ION’s joinder,
`
`exclusion is the only viable alternative, because consideration of the evidence
`
`against ION but not PGS is impossible here. A typical case involves different
`
`claims against each party. In that context, a court can limit the parties and claims
`
`for which evidence is considered. See FRE 105 (“If the court admits evidence that
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`
`
`
`is admissible against a party or for a purpose—but not against another party or for
`
`another purpose—the court . . . must restrict the evidence to its proper scope . . .
`
`.”). By contrast, this proceeding involves a single, unitary question: the validity of
`
`the challenged patent claims. WG’s patent is either valid or invalid—it cannot be
`
`invalid as to PGS but valid as to ION. Therefore, in determining the outcome of
`
`this single claim, it is impossible to limit the applicability of any ION evidence to
`
`ION alone. The Board cannot consider this evidence against ION without
`
`improperly considering it in evaluating PGS’s validity challenge.
`
`In such a case, where it is impossible for a fact-finder to limit its
`
`consideration of evidence to only the proper party, the Supreme Court has held that
`
`a limiting instruction is inappropriate and, instead, the evidence must be excluded.
`
`Bruton v. U.S., 391 U.S. 123, 135-36 (1968); see also Minemyer v. B-Roc
`
`Representatives, Inc., 2012 WL 346621 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 2, 2012) (applying Bruton
`
`in patent context); Stiglianese v. Vallone, 666 N.Y.2d 362, 363-64 (N.Y. App.
`
`Term 1997) (reversing trial court’s finding on the basis that it could not have
`
`considered evidence only for the admissible purpose). As Judge Learned Hand
`
`once aptly observed, the limited consideration of evidence requires “a mental
`
`gymnastic which is beyond, not only [juries’] powers, but anybody’s else.” Nash
`
`v. U.S., 54 F.2d 1006, 1007 (2d Cir. 1932).
`
`Considering “ION-only” evidence in this proceeding would be especially
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`
`
`
`unfair given the procedural history. As the Board is aware, this IPR was initiated
`
`and filed by PGS and PGS alone. ION was not a party to it and played no role
`
`whatsoever in its preparation or prosecution. The Board granted ION’s motion to
`
`join its copycat IPR to this one, over PGS’s objection, on the proviso that ION
`
`could not participate in the proceedings. -00687/Paper 53 at 6; Ex. 1046 (March
`
`25, 2015 Board Call) at 9 (PGS arguing that the ION case testimony is “highly
`
`prejudicial to PGS because we haven’t had the opportunity to participate in any of
`
`these proceedings in which this testimony was generated”). The notion that
`
`evidence indisputably inadmissible against PGS would be considered solely due to
`
`ION’s copycat joinder is unprecedented, unfair, and unwise.
`
`Thus the Board is left with only one option here: excluding the evidence.
`
`Irrespective of whether these documents are hearsay as to ION, they should be
`
`excluded under Rule 403, which provides for the exclusion of documents whose
`
`“probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice.”
`
`FRE 403. The Board is obligated to perform this Rule 403 balancing analysis even
`
`if the materials are not hearsay. U.S .v. Dhinsa, 243 F.3d 635, 655 (2d Cir. 2001);
`
`Valdivia v. Schwarzenegger, 599 F.3d 984, 991 (9th Cir. 2010).
`
`The prejudice to PGS here justifies excluding the materials identified in
`
`Section II under Rule 403. The probative value of these materials is minimal. For
`
`example, the materials cited by WG and Mr. Walker discuss lateral steering
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`
`
`
`generally, not the limitations of the claims at issue, and thus are irrelevant. See -
`
`00687/Paper 77 at 29-30, -00688/Paper 77 at 35-36, -00689/Paper 77 at 33-34.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`By contrast, the prejudice to PGS of admitting these documents is
`
`substantial given that PGS had no ability to question witnesses about their
`
`preparation or their purported meaning. PGS, for example, had no opportunity to
`
`question Mr. Sims about how an economic analyst could testify to his figures with
`
`a straight face, or ask Mr. Workman whether the WG attorney prosecuting his
`
`patent ever expressed concern that he had not personally “worked” on designing
`
`birds. See also -00688/Paper 78 at 26-29 (addressing WG’s argument).
`
`The risk of prejudice to PGS posed by admitting the documents identified in
`
`Section II far outweighs their probative value, and they should be excluded under
`
`Rule 403. See Manuel v. City of Chicago, 335 F.3d 592, 596 (7th Cir. 2003)
`
`(affirming the exclusion of prejudicial evidence under Rule 403).
`
`IV. Conclusion
`For the foregoing reasons, this Motion should be granted.
`
`Dated: June 29, 2015
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`15
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` /Jessamyn Berniker/
`Jessamyn Berniker
`Reg. No. 72,328
`Williams & Connolly LLP
`725 Twelfth Street, N.W.
`Washington, DC 20005
`
`Phone: 202-434-5474
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`16
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`The undersigned hereby certifies that the above-captioned Petroleum Geo-
`
`Services Inc.’s Motion to Exclude was served on June 29, 2015, by delivering a
`
`copy via electronic mail upon the following attorneys of record.
`
`For Petitioner ION Geophysical Corporation and ION International S.A.R.L.:
`
`W. Karl Renner
`Roberto Devoto
`IPR37136-0004IP1@fr.com
`
`Fish & Richardson P.C.
`3200 RBC Plaza
`60 South Sixth Street
`Minneapolis, MN 55402
`202-783-5070
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`For Patent Owner:
`
`
`Michael L. Kiklis
`CPDocketKiklis@oblon.com
`Scott McKeown
`CPDocketMcKeown@oblon.com
`Kevin Laurence
`CPDocketLaurence@oblon.com
`Katherine Cappaert
`CPDocketCappaert@oblon.com
`Christopher Ricciuti
`CPDocketRicciuti@oblon.com
`
`Oblon
`1940 Duke Street
`Alexandria, Virginia 22314
`703-413-3000
`
`
`Dated: June 22, 2015
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`17
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/Jessamyn Berniker/
`Jessamyn Berniker
`Reg. No. 72,328
`Williams & Connolly LLP
`725 Twelfth Street, N.W.
`Washington, DC 20005
`
`Phone: 202-434-5474
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`18