`Tel: 571-272-7822
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00687, Paper 97
`IPR2014-00688, Paper 98
`IPR2014-00689, Paper 98
`Entered: July 16, 2015
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`PETROLEUM GEO-SERVICES INC,
`and
`ION GEOPHYSICAL CORPORATION
`AND ION INTERNATIONAL S.A.R.L,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`WESTERNGECO LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Cases1
`IPR2014-00687 (Patent 7,162,967)
`IPR2014-00688 (Patent 7,080,607)
`IPR2014-00689 (Patent 7,293,520)
`____________
`
`Before BRYAN F. MOORE, SCOTT A. DANIELS, and
`BEVERLY M. BUNTING, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`DANIELS, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`1Cases IPR2015-00565, IPR2015-00566, IPR2015-00567 have been joined
`with these proceedings.
`
`1
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00687 (Patent 7,162,967)
`IPR2014-00688 (Patent 7,080,607)
`IPR2014-00689 (Patent 7,293,520)
`ORDER
`Request for Oral Argument
`37 C.F.R. § 42.70
`The Scheduling Order for these cases sets the date for oral hearing as
`July 30, 2015, if a hearing is requested by the parties and granted by the
`panel. See, e.g., IPR2014-00687, Paper 10. Both parties have requested oral
`hearing pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.70. See, e.g., IPR2014-00687, (Paper 81,
`“PO Req.”) (Paper 82, “Pet. Req.”). The requests for oral argument are
`granted.
`Oral arguments in this proceeding will commence at 9:00 am Eastern
`Time on July 30, 2015, on the ninth floor of Madison Building East, 600
`Dulany Street, Alexandria, Virginia. Each party will have 90 minutes total
`time to present argument in all three cases. Parties may divide the 90 minute
`time between each case as they wish.
`Petitioner bears the ultimate burden of proof that Patent Owner’s
`claims at issue are unpatentable. Thus, Petitioner will open the hearing by
`presenting its case; Patent Owner will follow. Petitioner may reserve some
`time to respond to Patent Owner’s presentation.
`Patent Owner has requested the Board grant leave for Patent Owner to
`offer live testimony from Mr. Robin Walker, WesternGeco’s former Vice
`President of Sales and Marketing Director. PO Req. 2–3. Patent Owner
`alleges that Petitioner has attacked Mr. Walker’s credibility, and that “Mr.
`Walker’s credibility and testimony are therefore central to this Board’s
`secondary considerations determination.” Id. at 3. Petitioner opposes live
`testimony of Mr. Walker. Pet. Req. 2–3.
`Patent Owner has not cited to any specific credibility argument by
`Petitioner. We assume that Patent Owner refers in general to Petitioner’s
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00687 (Patent 7,162,967)
`IPR2014-00688 (Patent 7,080,607)
`IPR2014-00689 (Patent 7,293,520)
`Reply (Paper 77, “Pet. Reply”) and Petitioner’s evidentiary objections in
`Exs. 1110–12, as well as to Petitioner’s Motion to Exclude (Paper 85,
`“Mot.”), as evidencing such an attack on Mr. Walkers credibility. Pointing
`to a lack of nexus to show objective indicia of secondary considerations,
`Petitioner’s Reply asserts that Mr. Walker’s testimony fails to show, on a
`limitation by limitation basis, that the Q-marine product embodies the claims
`at issue. Reply 27–28. Petitioner’s objections in Exs. 1110–12, as well as
`Petitioner’s Motion to Exclude, contain various specific objections based on
`certain evidentiary rules, e.g. FRE 402, 403, 802, etc. Neither Petitioner’s
`Reply, evidentiary objections nor the Motion to Exclude, however, amount
`to a specific attack as to Mr. Walker’s credibility as a witness. We are not
`persuaded that Petitioner’s evidentiary objections are an overt attack on Mr.
`Walker’s credibility that would prejudice in any way our ability to ascertain
`the appropriate weight to give to his sworn testimony. To the extent that
`certain parts of Mr. Walker’s testimony may be uncorroborated and self-
`serving because he was WesternGeco’s Vice President of Sales and
`Marketing, may indeed impact his credibility. See PO Reply 33–34, Ex.
`2077 ¶ 1. However, assessing Mr. Walker’s demeanor during live direct
`and cross-examination cannot change the facts of his employment and
`therefore would provide little, if any, help to the Board in determining the
`appropriate weight to give his testimonial evidence as to secondary
`considerations. We are, therefore, not persuaded that Mr. Walker’s live
`testimony at the oral hearing would further the efficient administration of
`these proceedings or is necessary in the interest of justice. See 37 C.F.R. §
`42.5.
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00687 (Patent 7,162,967)
`IPR2014-00688 (Patent 7,080,607)
`IPR2014-00689 (Patent 7,293,520)
`The Board will provide a court reporter for the hearing and the
`reporter’s transcript will constitute the official record of the hearing. The
`hearing will be open to the public for in-person attendance that will be
`accommodated on a first-come, first-served basis.
`Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.70(b), the parties shall serve any demonstrative
`exhibits upon each other at least five business days prior to the hearing. The
`parties also shall provide the demonstrative exhibits to the Board at least five
`business days prior to the hearing by emailing them to Trials@uspto.gov.
`The parties shall not file any demonstrative exhibits in this proceeding
`without prior authorization from the Board. The parties are directed to St.
`Jude Medical, Cardiology Division, Inc. v. The Board of Regents of the
`University of Michigan, IPR2013-00041 (PTAB Jan. 27, 2014 (Paper 65)),
`for guidance regarding the appropriate content of demonstrative exhibits.
`The parties also should note that at least one member of the panel will
`be attending the hearing electronically from a remote location, and that if a
`demonstrative is not made fully available or visible to the judge participating
`in the hearing remotely, that demonstrative will not be considered. If the
`parties have questions as to whether demonstrative exhibits would be
`sufficiently visible and available to all of the judges, the parties are invited
`to contact the Board at (571) 272-9797. The parties are also reminded that
`the presenter must identify clearly and specifically each demonstrative
`exhibit (e.g., by slide or screen number) referenced during the hearing to
`ensure the clarity and accuracy of the reporter’s transcript and the ability of
`the judge participating in the hearing remotely to closely follow the
`presenter’s arguments.
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00687 (Patent 7,162,967)
`IPR2014-00688 (Patent 7,080,607)
`IPR2014-00689 (Patent 7,293,520)
`We expect lead counsel for each party to be present in person at the
`oral hearing. However, any counsel of record may present the party’s
`argument. If either party expects that its lead counsel will not be attending
`the oral argument, the parties should initiate a joint telephone conference
`with the panel no later than two business days prior to the oral hearing to
`discuss the matter.
`Petitioner requested audio/visual equipment for the oral hearing. Pet.
`Hearing Req. 3. Any special requests for audio visual equipment should be
`directed to Trials@uspto.gov. Requests for special equipment will not be
`honored unless presented in a separate communication directed to the above
`email address not less than five days before the hearing.
`In consideration of the foregoing, it is hereby:
`ORDERED that Patent Owner’s request for live testimony is denied.
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00687 (Patent 7,162,967)
`IPR2014-00688 (Patent 7,080,607)
`IPR2014-00689 (Patent 7,293,520)
`For PETITIONER:
`David. Berl
`Thomas S. Fletcher
`Jessamyn Berniker
`Christopher Suarez
`Williams & Connolly, LLP
`dberl@wc.com
`tfletcher@wc.com
`jberniker@wc.com
`csuarez@wc.com
`
`W. Karl Renner
`Roberto Devoto
`David L. Holt
`Fish & Richardson P.C.
`IPR37136-0004IP1@fr.com
`
`For PATENT OWNER:
`
`Michael L. Kiklis
`Scott A. McKeown
`Kevin B. Laurence
`Katherine D. Cappaert
`Christopher Ricciuti
`OBLON, SPIVAK, McCLELLAND,
`MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P.
`CPdocketMcKeown@oblon.com
`CPdocketKickless@oblon.com
`
`Timothy K. Gilman
`Kirkland & Ellis, L.L.P.