Case 4:13-cv-02725 Document 79 Filed in TXSD on 04/07/14 Page 1 of 30
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`
`FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
`
`DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`
`Plaintiff WesternGeco L.L.C., for
`
`its First Amended Complaint against
`
`Defendants Petroleum Geo-Services ASA, PGS Geophysical AS and Petroleum Geo-Services,
`
`Inc. (collectively, Geo) hereby alleges as follows and demands a jury trial on all issues so triable.
`
`THE PARTIES
`
`1. Plaintiff WesternGeco L.L.C. (Western) is a Delaware corporation having a
`
`principal place of business at 10001 Richmond Avenue, Houston, Texas 77042-4299.
`
`2. Upon information and belief, Defendant Petroleum Geo-Services ASA (Geo
`
`ASA) is a Norwegian corporation having a principal place of business at Strandveien 4, P.O. Box
`
`89, NO-1325, Lysaker, Norway, and using offices and conducting business operations in
`
`Houston, Texas and Austin, Texas as set forth herein.
`
`3. Upon information and belief, Defendant PGS Geophysical AS (Geo A/S) is a
`
`Norwegian corporation having a principal place of business at Strandvein 4, P.O. Box 290, N-
`
`1326, Lysaker, Norway and using offices and conducting business operations in Houston, Texas
`
`Civil Action No. 4:13-cv-02725
`
`Hon. Lynn N. Hughes
`
`Jury Trial Demanded
`
`
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`
`
`WESTERNGECO L.L.C.,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PETROLEUM GEO-SERVICES ASA,
`PGS GEOPHYSICAL AS, and
`
`PETROLEUM GEO-SERVICES, INC.,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`
`
`PGS v. WESTERNGECO (IPR2014-00689)
`WESTERNGECO Exhibit 2073, pg. 1
`
`

`
`Case 4:13-cv-02725 Document 79 Filed in TXSD on 04/07/14 Page 2 of 30
`
`as set forth herein. Upon information and belief, Defendant Geo A/S is a wholly-owned
`
`subsidiary of Defendant Geo ASA.
`
`4. Upon information and belief, Defendant Petroleum Geo-Services, Inc. (Geo
`
`Inc.) is a Delaware corporation having a principal place of business at 15150 Memorial Drive,
`
`Houston, Texas 77079 and having an agent for service of process registered with the Texas
`
`Secretary of State’s office. Upon information and belief, Defendant Geo Inc. is a wholly-owned
`
`subsidiary of Defendant Geo ASA.
`
`NATURE OF THE ACTION
`
`5. This is a civil action for the willful infringement of United States Patent Nos.
`
`7,293,520 (the ’520 patent), 7,080,607 (the ’607 patent), 7,162,967 (the ’967 patent), and
`
`6,691,038 (the ’038 patent) (collectively, Patents-in-Suit). This action arises under the Patent
`
`Laws of the United States, 35 U.S.C. § 1, et seq.
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`6. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over the infringement action
`
`pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338(a).
`
`7. Geo ASA, Geo A/S and Geo Inc. are each subject to personal jurisdiction in
`
`this Court as evidenced by, inter alia, their presence in Texas and their systematic and
`
`continuous contacts with the State of Texas.
`
`Geo ASA
`
`8. Upon information and belief, Geo ASA has an active business presence in this
`
`district. For example, the 2009 and 2010 Annual Reports for Geo ASA list three “worldwide
`
`offices” located in Texas, two in Houston and one in Austin. Geo ASA’s 2011 and 2012 Reports
`
`list five offices in Texas, four in Houston and one in Austin. (Ex. E) Upon information and
`
`PGS v. WESTERNGECO (IPR2014-00689)
`WESTERNGECO Exhibit 2073, pg. 2
`
`

`
`Case 4:13-cv-02725 Document 79 Filed in TXSD on 04/07/14 Page 3 of 30
`
`belief, these offices include Geo ASA’s business activities, and not merely the activities of its
`
`subsidiaries. For example, the 2009 Annual Report defined “PGS or the Company” as Geo
`
`ASA, and then stated that “PGS [i.e., Geo ASA] operates through the business units: Marine and
`
`Data Processing & Technology” and that “PGS [i.e., Geo ASA] acquires and processes seismic
`
`data.” Upon information and belief, Geo ASA employees have repeatedly conducted business in
`
`Houston offices throughout the period of infringement, i.e., 2007 to present.
`
`9. Upon information and belief, Geo ASA uses and has used Houston addresses
`
`and Houston-based agents in its legal, financial, and business dealings, and to petition the federal
`
`government. For example, Geo ASA SEC filings from 2007 to 2013 include Geo ASA’s
`
`disclosure of a Houston-based agent for service of process. (Ex. F) Geo ASA’s SEC filings,
`
`investor presentations and website recite a Houston-area telephone number for “investor
`
`services.” (Ex. G) A 2009 Geo ASA Intellectual Property Agreement recited a Houston contact
`
`address for Geo ASA and invoked Texas law. (Ex. H) Geo ASA similarly used a Houston
`
`address in a 2010 federal trademark filing for its GeoStreamer mark, which is used in the
`
`accused marine seismic surveys. (Ex. I) And Geo ASA’s filings in a 2013 bankruptcy case in
`
`Delaware recite a Houston business address for Geo ASA. (Ex. J)
`
`Geo A/S
`
`10. Upon information and belief, Geo A/S has an active business presence in this
`
`district. As set forth in greater detail below, on information and belief, Geo A/S employees have
`
`used Houston business addresses when interacting with ION Geophysical Corp. and its affiliates
`
`(collectively, ION) to negotiate for, purchase, and supply the DigiFIN and Lateral Controller
`
`products accused of infringement. For example, Geo A/S contracts with ION regarding DigiFIN
`
`PGS v. WESTERNGECO (IPR2014-00689)
`WESTERNGECO Exhibit 2073, pg. 3
`
`

`
`Case 4:13-cv-02725 Document 79 Filed in TXSD on 04/07/14 Page 4 of 30
`
`recite a Houston business address for Geo A/S, are “governed by and construed according to the
`
`laws of Harris County, Texas” and are enforceable “by arbitration to be held in Houston, Texas.”
`
`Geo Inc.
`
`11. Upon information and belief, Geo Inc. has an active business presence in this
`
`district. For example, a sworn affidavit of James Brasher, Vice President and Senior Legal
`
`Counsel of Geo Inc. provided by Geo Inc. to Western on April 23, 2010 in connection with
`
`WesternGeco L.L.C. v. ION Geophysical Corp., No. 4:09-CV-01827 (S.D. Tex.) (“the ION
`
`litigation”) stated that Geo Inc. “markets seismic services to customers in the United States.”
`
`(Ex. K) As another example, Geo ASA’s Annual Reports from at least 2009-2012 disclose a
`
`Geo Inc. office on Memorial Drive in Houston, Texas which, on information and belief, is Geo
`
`Inc.’s primary place of business.
`
`“Geo”
`
`12. Upon information and belief, Geo ASA and its subsidiaries, including Geo
`
`A/S and Geo Inc., operate together as an integrated business based on business units that cut
`
`across legal entities, rather than based on the business entities themselves. As set forth below,
`
`each Geo entity may thereby contribute to, induce and cause actions of other Geo entities, with
`
`the knowledge and intent that those actions will have effects within this judicial district.
`
`13. For example, upon information and belief, Geo ASA, Geo A/S and Geo Inc.
`
`employees have attended and plan to attend conferences and trade shows within this judicial
`
`district to promote their commercial interests under the generic name “PGS,” i.e., “Geo,” without
`
`distinguishing between any specific legal entities. This promotion has included advertisements
`
`for the products and services accused of infringing Western’s Patents-in-Suit. Upon information
`
`and belief, Geo exhibited at the 2013 Society of Exploration Geophysicists International
`
`PGS v. WESTERNGECO (IPR2014-00689)
`WESTERNGECO Exhibit 2073, pg. 4
`
`

`
`Case 4:13-cv-02725 Document 79 Filed in TXSD on 04/07/14 Page 5 of 30
`
`Exposition and Annual Meeting (Expo), that took place in Houston, Texas in September 2013, in
`
`order to promote products and services incorporating ION’s DigiFIN and Lateral Controller that
`
`infringe Western’s Patents-in-Suit. Upon information and belief, Geo employees have attended
`
`and exhibited at prior Expo annual meetings, including those within this judicial district, in order
`
`to promote products and services incorporating ION’s DigiFIN and Lateral Controller that
`
`infringe Western’s Patents-in-Suit.
`
`14. Upon information and belief, Geo ASA, Geo A/S and Geo Inc. share a
`
`website: http://www.pgs.com. Upon information and belief, Geo ASA employees are
`
`responsible for at least some of the content on this site. Upon information and belief, this
`
`website is accessible nationally and internationally, and is active in interstate commerce. This
`
`website touts and advertises the products, components and services accused of infringement in
`
`this Complaint. This judicial district comprises one of the largest worldwide markets for the
`
`advertised marine seismic services, and upon information and belief, Geo ASA, Geo A/S and
`
`Geo Inc. each intend for customers and potential customers within this judicial district to access
`
`this website and to purchase Geo products and services. This website additionally lists major
`
`U.S. offices and career opportunities in Houston and Austin, including a recruitment event at the
`
`annual International Association of Geophysical Contractors meeting held in Houston targeted
`
`towards “Geoscience professors and students from local universities.” (Ex. L)
`
`Additional Bases for Specific Jurisdiction
`
`15. Upon information and belief, Geo ASA, Geo A/S and Geo Inc. are each
`
`additionally subject to personal jurisdiction in this Court due to their specific activities in the
`
`State of Texas relating to the supply, marketing and selling of products and services, and
`
`PGS v. WESTERNGECO (IPR2014-00689)
`WESTERNGECO Exhibit 2073, pg. 5
`
`

`
`Case 4:13-cv-02725 Document 79 Filed in TXSD on 04/07/14 Page 6 of 30
`
`components thereof, that infringe the Patents-in-Suit as alleged and stated within this section and
`
`throughout this Complaint.
`
`16. Venue is proper in this judicial district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391 and
`
`1400(b).
`
`THE PATENTS
`
`17. On November 13, 2007, the ’520 patent, titled “Control System For
`
`Positioning Of A Marine Seismic Streamers,” was duly and legally issued to Western as
`
`assignee. The ’520 patent teaches and claims control systems and streamer positioning devices
`
`for a variety of steering modes in marine seismic surveys. These steering modes enable
`
`sophisticated geophysical exploration for natural resources, promote the efficiency and efficacy
`
`of seismic surveys, and improve the safety of those operations. Western is the current assignee
`
`of the ’520 patent, and is the owner of the right to sue and to recover for any current or past
`
`infringement of that patent. A copy of the ’520 patent is attached hereto as Exhibit A.
`
`18. On July 25, 2006, the ’607 patent, titled “Seismic Data Acquisition Equipment
`
`Control System,” was duly and legally issued to Western as assignee. The ’607 patent teaches
`
`and claims prediction and control units for use with streamer positioning devices to dynamically
`
`manage measurements and commands for lateral steering. This prediction and control allows
`
`operators to overcome the limitations of mis-measurements and signal latency across the many
`
`square miles of a marine seismic survey array. Western is the current assignee of the ’607
`
`patent, and is the owner of the right to sue and to recover for any current or past infringement of
`
`that patent. A copy of the ’607 patent is attached hereto as Exhibit B.
`
`19. On January 16, 2007, the ’967 patent, titled “Control System For Positioning
`
`Of Marine Seismic Streamers,” was duly and legally issued to Western as assignee. The ’967
`
`PGS v. WESTERNGECO (IPR2014-00689)
`WESTERNGECO Exhibit 2073, pg. 6
`
`

`
`Case 4:13-cv-02725 Document 79 Filed in TXSD on 04/07/14 Page 7 of 30
`
`patent teaches and claims a steering system apportioned between a shipboard global control
`
`system and local control systems on streamer positioning devices spread out across a seismic
`
`array. This distributed control balances the measurement, computing power and communication
`
`requirements across the various components of the marine seismic vessel and array to improve
`
`steering. Western is the current assignee of the ’967 patent, and is the owner of the right to sue
`
`and to recover for any current or past infringement of that patent. A copy of the ’967 patent is
`
`attached hereto as Exhibit C.
`
`20. On February 10, 2004, the ’038 patent, titled “Active Separation Tracking
`
`And Positioning System For Towed Seismic Arrays,” was duly and legally issued to Western as
`
`assignee. The ’038 patent teaches and claims an array tracking and positioning system for
`
`repeating seismic surveys of the same location over time. This system allows for time-lapse, or
`
`4-D seismic surveys, which allow reservoirs and formations to be monitored over time to
`
`manage the production of natural resources. Western is the current assignee of the ’038 patent,
`
`and is the owner of the right to sue and to recover for any current or past infringement of that
`
`patent. A copy of the ’038 patent is attached hereto as Exhibit D.
`
`GEO AND DIGIFIN
`
`21. Upon information and belief, every DigiFIN and Lateral Controller supplied
`
`or used by Geo, as discussed below, was manufactured in and supplied from the United States.
`
`22. The supplying or causing the supply of DigiFIN and/or the Lateral Controller
`
`in or from the United States was found to infringe the ’520 patent, the ’607 patent, the ’967
`
`patent, and the ’038 patent in the ION litigation, the judgment, verdict and rulings of which are
`
`hereby incorporated by reference. Western was not compensated for some or all of Geo’s
`
`infringement as a result of the ION litigation. For example, the ION Court limited the royalty
`
`PGS v. WESTERNGECO (IPR2014-00689)
`WESTERNGECO Exhibit 2073, pg. 7
`
`

`
`Case 4:13-cv-02725 Document 79 Filed in TXSD on 04/07/14 Page 8 of 30
`
`damages that Western could seek from ION in order to ensure that ION maintained a profit,
`
`while recognizing that Western’s harm for the infringement was greater than such a royalty and
`
`allowing Western to seek higher royalty damages from ION’s customers.
`
`23. Upon information and belief, Geo ASA, Geo A/S and Geo Inc. each have
`
`been aware of the Patents-in-Suit and that DigiFIN and/or the Lateral Controller could infringe
`
`those patents since at least around September 2008, when ION discussed the possibility of such
`
`infringement with at least Vidar Hovland and Paul Courtenay, Geo employees as discussed
`
`below.
`
`24. Upon information and belief, Geo ASA, Geo A/S and Geo Inc. additionally
`
`each have been aware of the Patents-in-Suit and that DigiFIN and/or the Lateral Controller could
`
`infringe those patents since at least around December 8, 2009, when Western provided Geo with
`
`a copy of Western’s Complaint in the ION litigation.
`
`25. Upon information and belief, Geo ASA, Geo A/S and Geo Inc. additionally
`
`each have been aware since around June 11, 2012 of the summary judgment in the ION litigation
`
`that supplying or causing to be supplied DigiFIN and the Lateral Controller for use in marine
`
`seismic surveys outside the United States infringes the ’520 patent.
`
`26. Upon information and belief, Geo ASA, Geo A/S and Geo Inc. additionally
`
`each have been aware since around August 16, 2012 of the jury verdict in the ION litigation that
`
`supplying or causing to be supplied DigiFIN and/or the Lateral Controller for use in marine
`
`seismic surveys outside the United States infringes claims 18, 19, and 23 of the ’520 patent;
`
`claim 15 of the ’607 patent; claim 15 of the ’967 patent; and claim 14 of the ’038 patent under 35
`
`U.S.C. §§ 271(f)(1) and (2).
`
`PGS v. WESTERNGECO (IPR2014-00689)
`WESTERNGECO Exhibit 2073, pg. 8
`
`

`
`Case 4:13-cv-02725 Document 79 Filed in TXSD on 04/07/14 Page 9 of 30
`
`Geo ASA
`
`27. Upon information and belief, Geo ASA has caused the supply of DigiFIN and
`
`the Lateral Control in or from the United States for use in marine seismic surveys, and induced
`
`and contributed to the use, sale and offer for sale of DigiFIN and the Lateral Controller in
`
`surveys within the United States.
`
`28. In a March 26, 2010 letter to Western, counsel for Geo Inc. disclosed that
`
`“Petroleum Geo-Services ASA [Geo ASA] is responsible for outfitting the marine vessels and
`
`for maintaining the records regarding what equipment is used on these vessels for its various
`
`customers.” (Ex. M) Geo Inc.’s counsel further stated that “acquisition of equipment for [the
`
`infringing vessels] is under the direction and control of Petroleum Geo-Services ASA [Geo
`
`ASA].” Espen Sandvik, general counsel for Geo ASA at the time, was included in this
`
`correspondence.
`
`29. Upon information and belief, Geo ASA began working with ION to design
`
`DigiFIN in 2005, and the infringing supply and use of DigiFIN began in 2007 and continued into
`
`at least 2012.
`
`30. Upon information and belief, following meetings in Houston in 2005, Geo
`
`ASA entered into a DigiFIN Launch Partner Agreement with ION in 2006, which required ION
`
`to supply DigiFINs from the United States for use abroad. This agreement was executed by
`
`Vidar Hovland, a self-described employee of Geo ASA at the time.
`
`31. Upon information and belief, in 2007, Oyvind Hillesund, an employee of Geo
`
`ASA at the time, contacted ION while working from a Houston address to continue the
`
`discussion of “Lateral Steering,” the technology that would be embodied in DigiFIN. In 2009,
`
`an attorney for Geo Inc. confirmed to Western that Mr. Hillesund was an employee of Geo ASA.
`
`PGS v. WESTERNGECO (IPR2014-00689)
`WESTERNGECO Exhibit 2073, pg. 9
`
`

`
`Case 4:13-cv-02725 Document 79 Filed in TXSD on 04/07/14 Page 10 of 30
`
`(Ex. N) Espen Sandvik, general counsel for Geo ASA at the time, was also included in this
`
`confirmatory correspondence. Upon information and belief, in 2007, Sverre Olsen, an employee
`
`of Geo ASA at the time, met with ION in Houston to discuss the results of preliminary DigiFIN
`
`tests.
`
`32. Upon information and belief, in 2007, Rune Eng, an employee of Geo ASA at
`
`the time, stated in a press release that Geo was “actively involved in maturing this [DigiFIN]
`
`technology through the ION-PGS Launch Partner Agreement, which enables first adoption of the
`
`technology by PGS” and that Geo was “pleased with the results of the tests on the Atlantic
`
`Explorer and Pacific Explorer.” (Ex. O) Press releases from Geo ASA at this time describe Mr.
`
`Eng as “Group President Marine of Petroleum Geo-Services ASA,” i.e., Geo ASA. (Ex. P)
`
`33. Upon information and belief, in a 2008 Geo ASA presentation to investors,
`
`Sverre Strandenes promoted the “DigiFIN Steerable streamers” on Geo’s Ramform Sovereign
`
`vessel as resulting in “[f]aster deployment and retrieval” and “reduced tangling risk and faster
`
`line turns.” (Ex. Q) Press releases from Geo ASA at this time describe Mr. Strandenes as
`
`“Group President Data Processing & Technology of Petroleum Geo-Services ASA,” i.e., Geo
`
`ASA. (Ex. P)
`
`34. Upon information and belief, Geo ASA entered into Master Purchase
`
`Agreements with ION in 2009 and 2010 for acquiring DigiFIN. The agreements were signed by
`
`Vidar Hovland, a Geo ASA employee at the time as set forth above. The 2009 and 2010 Master
`
`Purchase Agreements were “governed by and construed according to the laws of Harris County,
`
`Texas” and enforceable “by arbitration to be held in Houston, Texas.”
`
`35. Upon information and belief, Geo ASA approved expenditures for DigiFIN.
`
`For example, on information and belief, Geo ASA authorized expenditures for the purchase of
`
`PGS v. WESTERNGECO (IPR2014-00689)
`WESTERNGECO Exhibit 2073, pg. 10
`
`

`
`Case 4:13-cv-02725 Document 79 Filed in TXSD on 04/07/14 Page 11 of 30
`
`184 DigiFIN units for the “DigiFIN System for the [Geo vessel] Ramform Sterling for their
`
`Statoil Job during Summer 2009.” This expenditure was approved by Gottfred Langseth, the
`
`CFO of Geo ASA. The expenditure also required the approval of Rune Eng, a Geo ASA
`
`employee at the time as discussed above. By approving these expenditures, Geo ASA caused
`
`DigiFIN to be supplied in and from the United States. As set forth below, this infringed
`
`Western’s patents under 35 U.S.C. § 271(f).
`
`36. Upon information and belief, Geo ASA caused similar infringing supplies of
`
`DigiFIN from Houston to go to at least Geo’s Ramform Sovereign, Ramform Viking, and Apollo
`
`vessels over the ensuing years.
`
`37. Upon information and belief, Geo ASA participated in applications to the
`
`United States to perform seismic surveys with these vessels offshore of Texas using ports in
`
`Galveston and offices in Houston. For example, a 2013 permit application for the PGS Apollo
`
`was signed by Sverre Strandenes, a Geo ASA employee as discussed above, certifying the
`
`accuracy of all the information contained therein. (Ex. R) The resulting permit was likewise
`
`signed by Mr. Strandenes as “permittee.” (Ex. S) As set forth below, the use, sale or offer for
`
`sale of DigiFIN in marine seismic surveys within the United States infringes Western’s patents
`
`under 35 U.S.C. § 271(a), and Geo ASA induced and contributed to such infringement under 35
`
`U.S.C. § 271 (b) and (c), respectively.
`
`Geo A/S
`
`38. Upon information and belief, Geo A/S purchased DigiFIN from ION from
`
`2007 through at least 2012. Geo A/S took title to those DigiFIN while in ION’s warehouse,
`
`shipped those DigiFIN into this judicial district, and supplied those DigiFIN in or from this
`
`judicial district for use on marine seismic surveys within and outside the United States. Upon
`
`PGS v. WESTERNGECO (IPR2014-00689)
`WESTERNGECO Exhibit 2073, pg. 11
`
`

`
`Case 4:13-cv-02725 Document 79 Filed in TXSD on 04/07/14 Page 12 of 30
`
`information and belief, Geo A/S has performed marine seismic surveys using DigiFIN and the
`
`Lateral Controller within the United States’ Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ).
`
`39. Upon information and belief, Geo A/S entered into a Master Purchase
`
`Agreement with ION in 2008 for acquiring, inter alia, DigiFIN. The 2008 Master Purchase
`
`Agreement was “governed by and construed according to the laws of Harris County, Texas” and
`
`enforceable “by arbitration to be held in Houston, Texas.” The agreement further states it is
`
`“between PGS Geophysical Inc. [sic Geo A/S] and ION.”
`
`40. The 2009 Master Purchase Agreement discussed above in paragraph 34
`
`similarly states that it is “between PGS Geophysical Inc. [sic Geo A/S] and ION.” To the extent
`
`the agreement was not between Geo ASA and ION, as averred above, upon information and
`
`belief it was between Geo A/S and ION.
`
`41. Upon information and belief, Geo A/S entered into a Master Purchase
`
`Agreement with ION in 2010-2012 for acquiring, inter alia, DigiFIN. The 2011-2012 Master
`
`Purchase Agreement was “governed by and construed according to the laws of Harris County,
`
`Texas” and enforceable “by arbitration to be held in Houston, Texas.” The agreement describes
`
`Geo A/S as “a company incorporated and organized under the laws of Texas.”
`
`42. To the extent that any of Mr. Hovland, Mr. Courtenay, Mr. Hillesund, Mr.
`
`Olsen, Mr. Eng or Mr. Standenes were not employees of Geo ASA as set forth above, upon
`
`information and belief they were employees of Geo A/S, and Western incorporates the above
`
`averments herein accordingly.
`
`43. Upon information and belief, Geo A/S supplied or caused the supply of
`
`DigiFIN in or from the United States to at least the Ramform Sterling, Ramform Sovereign,
`
`Ramform Viking, and Apollo, thereby infringing Western’s patents under 35 U.S.C. § 271(f).
`
`PGS v. WESTERNGECO (IPR2014-00689)
`WESTERNGECO Exhibit 2073, pg. 12
`
`

`
`Case 4:13-cv-02725 Document 79 Filed in TXSD on 04/07/14 Page 13 of 30
`
`44. Upon information and belief, Geo A/S has used, sold or offered for sale
`
`marine seismic systems including DigiFIN within the United States, including seismic surveys
`
`with the United States’ Exclusive Economic Zone, thereby infringing Western’s patents under 35
`
`U.S.C. § 271(a). To the extent Geo A/S did not perform these surveys, it induced and
`
`contributed to such infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b) and (c), respectively.
`
`Geo Inc.
`
`45. Upon information and belief, Geo Inc. markets, offers for sale, and sells
`
`marine seismic surveys including the accused DigiFIN and Lateral Controller. For example, Geo
`
`Inc. provided an affidavit in the ION litigation stating that Geo Inc. “markets seismic services to
`
`customers in the United States.”
`
`46. Upon information and belief, Geo Inc. employees and resources are used to
`
`perform marine seismic surveys using DigiFIN within the EEZ. For example, Geo applications
`
`to the U.S. government and permits received from the U.S. government for such surveys list Geo
`
`Inc.’s principle office as whom “[t]he activity will be conducted by” and the location for “the
`
`individual(s) in charge of the field operations.” To the extent Geo A/S did not perform these
`
`surveys as set forth above, on information and belief, Geo Inc. did and thereby infringed
`
`Western’s patents under 35 U.S.C. § 271(a). To the extent Geo Inc. did not perform these
`
`surveys, it induced and contributed to such infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b) and (c),
`
`respectively.
`
`47. The 2008 and 2009 Master Purchase Agreements state that they are “between
`
`PGS Geophysical Inc. [sic Geo Inc.] and ION.” To the extent neither Geo ASA nor Geo A/S
`
`entered into either of these agreements, upon information and belief, Geo Inc. did, and to the
`
`extent Mr. Hillesund or any of the other Geo employees referenced above was neither an
`
`PGS v. WESTERNGECO (IPR2014-00689)
`WESTERNGECO Exhibit 2073, pg. 13
`
`

`
`Case 4:13-cv-02725 Document 79 Filed in TXSD on 04/07/14 Page 14 of 30
`
`employee of Geo ASA nor Geo A/S, upon information and belief, they were an employee of Geo
`
`Inc., and Geo Inc. thereby infringed Western’s Patents-in-Suit under 35 U.S.C. § 271(f) as well.
`
`COUNT I – INFRINGEMENT OF THE ’520 PATENT
`
`48. Western repeats and incorporates by reference the allegations set forth in
`
`paragraphs 1-47 above.
`
`49. Geo ASA, Geo A/S and Geo Inc. each have infringed the ’520 patent, literally
`
`and/or under the doctrine of equivalents, by making, using, offering to sell, selling, supplying
`
`and/or causing to be supplied in or from the United States products and services incorporating
`
`DigiFIN and
`
`the Lateral Controller—or components
`
`thereof—and/or
`
`inducing and/or
`
`contributing to such conduct by each other and/or other Geo entities, without authority and in
`
`violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(a), (b), (c) and/or (f). Geo Inc. previously argued that the
`
`importation of seismic data can infringe a United States patent under 35 U.S.C. § 271(g). To the
`
`extent Geo Inc. is correct, Geo ASA, Geo A/S and Geo Inc. each infringe under this provision as
`
`well.
`
`50. The DigiFIN and/or Lateral Controller comprise a substantial portion of the
`
`components of the system covered by the ’520 patent. For example, the DigiFIN units supplied
`
`from the United States used on Geo’s marine seismic vessels comprise streamer positioning
`
`devices as recited in claim 18 of the ’520 patent. The Lateral Controller also supplied from the
`
`United States and intended to be combined with the DigiFIN units is configured to operate in one
`
`or more control modes selected from a feather angle mode, a turn control mode, and a streamer
`
`separation mode. The similar supply of DigiFIN, as well as DigiFIN and the Lateral Controller,
`
`from the United States for their intended use abroad by Geo’s competitors was found to infringe
`
`the ’520 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 271(f) in the ION litigation. The DigiFIN and Lateral
`
`PGS v. WESTERNGECO (IPR2014-00689)
`WESTERNGECO Exhibit 2073, pg. 14
`
`

`
`Case 4:13-cv-02725 Document 79 Filed in TXSD on 04/07/14 Page 15 of 30
`
`Controller are especially made and adapted for use in the invention of the ’520 patent and are not
`
`staple articles or commodities of commerce suitable for substantial noninfringing uses.
`
`Geo ASA
`
`51. Upon information and belief, Geo ASA, by entering into a Launch Partner
`
`Agreement with ION in 2006, working with ION to finalize and test DigiFIN, entering into
`
`Master Purchase Agreements with ION in 2009 and 2010, approving expenditures for the
`
`purchase of DigiFIN and the Lateral Controller, purchasing DigiFIN and the Lateral Controller,
`
`applying for U.S. permits for conducting seismic surveys, and/or equipping vessels with DigiFIN
`
`and the Lateral Controller, supplied or caused to be supplied the DigiFIN and Lateral Controller
`
`in or from the United States so as to actively induce their combination outside the United States
`
`in a manner that would infringe the ’520 patent if such combination occurred within the United
`
`States in violation of at least 35 U.S.C. § 271(f). Upon further information and belief, Geo ASA
`
`contributed to and induced Geo A/S’s and/or Geo Inc.’s infringement, as set forth below, in
`
`violation of at least 35 U.S.C. § 271(b) and (c), respectively.
`
`Geo A/S
`
`52. Upon information and belief, Geo A/S, by entering into a Launch Partner
`
`Agreement with ION in 2006, working with ION to finalize and test DigiFIN, entering into
`
`Master Purchase Agreements with ION in 2008, 2009, 2010, and 2011-2012, purchasing
`
`DigiFIN and the Lateral Controller, applying for U.S. permits for conducting seismic surveys,
`
`and/or equipping vessels with DigiFIN and the Lateral Controller, supplied or caused to be
`
`supplied the DigiFIN and Lateral Controller in or from the United States so as to actively induce
`
`their combination outside the United States in a manner that would infringe the ’520 patent if
`
`such combination occurred within the United States in violation of at least 35 U.S.C. § 271(f).
`
`PGS v. WESTERNGECO (IPR2014-00689)
`WESTERNGECO Exhibit 2073, pg. 15
`
`

`
`Case 4:13-cv-02725 Document 79 Filed in TXSD on 04/07/14 Page 16 of 30
`
`Upon information and belief, Geo A/S, by using, selling or offering for sale marine seismic
`
`systems including DigiFIN within the United States, including seismic surveys within the EEZ,
`
`infringed Western’s patents under 35 U.S.C. § 271(a). Upon further information and belief, to
`
`the extent Geo A/S did not perform these surveys, it induced Geo Inc.’s infringement, as set forth
`
`below, in violation of at least 35 U.S.C. § 271(b) and (c), respectively.
`
`Geo Inc.
`
`53. Upon information and belief, Geo Inc., by working with ION to finalize and
`
`test DigiFIN, entering into Master Purchase Agreements with ION in 2008 and 2009, applying
`
`for U.S. permits for conducting seismic surveys, and/or equipping vessels with DigiFIN and the
`
`Lateral Controller, supplied or caused to be supplied the DigiFIN and Lateral Controller in or
`
`from the United States so as to actively induce their combination outside the United States in a
`
`manner that would infringe the ’520 patent if such combination occurred within the United States
`
`in violation of at least 35 U.S.C. § 271(f). Upon information and belief, Geo Inc., by using,
`
`selling or offering for sale marine seismic systems including DigiFIN within the United States,
`
`including seismic surveys within the EEZ, infringed Western’s patents under 35 U.S.C. § 271(a).
`
`Upon further information and belief, to the extent Geo Inc. did not perform these surveys, it
`
`induced and contributed to such infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b) and (c), respectively.
`
`Knowledge and Willfulness
`
`54. Upon information and belief, Geo ASA, Geo A/S and Geo Inc. each were
`
`aware that the DigiFIN and the Lateral Controller products were made and adapted to infringe
`
`Western’s ’520 patent, and Geo ASA, Geo A/S and Geo Inc. each intended that DigiFIN and the
`
`Lateral Controller would be combined outside the United States in a manner that would infringe
`
`Western’s ’520 patent if such a combination occurred within the United States. Upon
`
`PGS v. WESTERNGECO (IPR2014-00689)
`WESTERNGECO Exhibit 2073, pg. 16
`
`

`
`Case 4:13-cv-02725 Document 79 Filed in TXSD on 04/07/14 Page 17 of 30
`
`information and belief, Geo ASA, Geo A/S and Geo Inc. each specifically intended to induce
`
`infringement of the ’520 patent, and were aware that they have induced acts that constitute
`
`infringement. Upon information and belief, Geo ASA, Geo A/S and Geo Inc. each have
`
`contributed to the infringement of the ’520 patent, and were aware that they have contributed to
`
`acts that constitute infringement.
`
`55. None of Geo ASA, Geo A/S, or Geo Inc. has any license