Ex. PGS 1064
`
`EX. PGS 1064
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`EX. PGS 1064
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
` BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`Page 1
`
`- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x
` :
`PETROLEUM GEO-SERVICES, INC. ;
` :
` Petitioner, :
` :
` - v - :
` :
`WESTERNGECO, LLC., :
` :
` Patent Owner. :
` :
`- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x
`CASES: IPR2014-0687, -688, -689, and
` IPR2015-0565, -0566 and 0567.
`
` ** T E L E C O N F E R E N C E **
`
`(ALL PARTICIPANTS APPEARING TELEPHONICALLY)
`
`B O A R D :
` JUDGE SCOTT DANIELS,
` JUDGE BEVERLY BUNTING,
` JUDGE BRYAN MOORE &
` JUDGE BARBARA PARVIS.
`
` Wednesday, March 25, 2015
`
`Reported by:
`Joseph V. Connolly
`Job No. 91950
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`1
`
`23
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Ex. PGS 1064
`
`
`
`Page 2
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` March 25, 2015
` 4:00 p.m.
`
` TELEPHONIC CONFERENCE CALL, before
` Joseph V. Connolly, a Reporter and
` Notary Public within and for the State
` of New York.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Ex. PGS 1064
`
`
`
`Page 3
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`9
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` A P P E A R A N C E S :
`
`
`
` WILLIAMS & CONNOLLY
` Attorneys for Petitioner
` 725 Twelfth Street, NW
` Washington, DC 20005
` BY: DAVID BERL, ESQ.
` CHRISTOPHER SUAREZ, ESQ.
` THOMAS FLETCHER, ESQ.
` JESSAMYN BERNIKER, ESQ.
`
`
` OBLON, McCLELLAND, MAIER & NEUSTADT
` Attorneys for Patent Owner
` 1940 Duke Street
` Alexandria, Virginia 22314
` BY: MICHAEL KIKLIS, ESQ.
` KATHARINE CAPPAERT, ESQ.
` SCOTT McKEOWN, ESQ.
` MITCHELL BLAKELEY, ESQ.
`
` FISH & RICHARDSON
` Attorneys for ION
` 1425 K Street, NW
` Washington, DC 20005
` BY: KARL RENNER, ESQ.
` ROBERT DEVOTO, ESQ.
` DAVID HOLT, ESQ.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Ex. PGS 1064
`
`
`
`Page 4
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` (Time noted: 4:00 p.m.)
` JUDGE DANIELS: Good evening,
` everyone.
` This is Judge Daniels.
` I understand that you all are
` currently giving your names for the
` Court Reporter. Let me just, before you
` continue on, let me just begin here and
` then we can introduce everybody again.
` How's that?
` (No response).
` JUDGE DANIELS: This is a
` conference call for IPR2014-01475,
` -01476 and the related cases, for which
` there is a Joiner Motion, which is the
` basis of our discussion today. Those
` cases are 2014-00687, -688 and -689.
` I do understand there's a Court
` Reporter now on the line.
` Is that correct?
` COURT REPORTER: Yes, sir.
` JUDGE DANIELS: Great.
` We're joined on the phone by
` Judges Bunting, Moore and Parvis, as
` well.
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Ex. PGS 1064
`
`
`
`Page 5
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` I'm sorry to have you all do this
` again, but let me just ask who we have
` from -- who I'll refer to as the First
` Petitioner -- from PGS?
` MR. FLETCHER: Thank you, your
` Honor.
` This is Tom Fletcher, for PGS,
` with my colleague, Jessamyn Berniker.
` MR. SUAREZ: This is Christopher
` Suarez, also for PGS, on the line.
` JUDGE DANIELS: Thank you.
` And from the Second Petitioner,
` from ION?
` MR. RENNER: Yes, your Honor.
` This is Karl Renner, from Fish
` and Richardson; and Rob Devoto, who is
` also from our firm.
` Also present today is David Holt.
` JUDGE DANIELS: Thank you.
` And from the Patent Owner?
` MR. KIKLIS: This is Michael
` Kiklis, from Oblon, for Westerngeco, the
` Patent Owner.
` With me is Katherine Cappaert,
` as well as Mitchell Blakeley, who is
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Ex. PGS 1064
`
`
`
`Page 6
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` In-House Counsel for the Patent Owner.
` JUDGE DANIELS: Thank you.
` We've asked in our e-mails to the
` parties that they be prepared to speak
` to this Joinder issue.
` I think I would like to structure
` this conference by first just asking PGS
` for its position on Joinder in these
` cases and then allow ION to add anything
` that they feel might be helpful to our
` deliberations. And then, finally, we'll
` ask the Patent Owner what are the
` factors it feels we should consider in
` deciding this motion or these motions.
` You all, there's a number of
` factors that are going into these
` Joinder decisions and a significant
` amount of thought and discussion that
` we, as Judges, will have on this panel,
` on both cases, as to what will help the
` efficiency of this case and not stretch
` this on, to a greater extent.
` Following this discussion, I
` think I will take a break, with the
` other Judges, for a few minutes and
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Ex. PGS 1064
`
`
`
`Page 7
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` we'll discuss what we've heard.
` After that, we may have some more
` questions to follow-up on. We may.
` Other than that, I think we will
` take this under advisement for the time
` being. We're certainly not going to
` make a ruling on the phone. We'll take
` it under advisement, adjourn the call,
` and then we'll get back to you all at a
` later date with our decision.
` So, with those formalities in
` mind, let me ask Mr. Fletcher what PGS's
` position is?
` I'm assuming you're the one
` that's prepared to speak. If you'd like
` to go ahead?
` MR. FLETCHER: Yes, your Honor.
` Thank you.
` This is Tom Fletcher, for the
` Petitioner, PGS.
` Thank you for inviting us to this
` call.
` We've not previously been served
` with any of these matters. So, if
` possible, we'd appreciate the
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Ex. PGS 1064
`
`
`
`Page 8
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` opportunity to say some things, that
` we're about to say now, in writing at a
` later time.
` But at this time PGS's position
` is that we oppose ION's motion for
` Joinder.
` Our opposition is firmly focused
` on the concern about what ION's
` participation would do to the time lines
` and to the scope of our proceedings.
` We know, from WesternGeCo's own
` Response that was filed on Friday, that
` WesternGeCO is going to attempt to
` introduce into these proceeding a
` substantial volume of testimony from the
` WesternGeCo versus ION litigation; trial
` transcripts, deposition transcripts,
` Hague Convention testimony from other
` countries.
` We've objected to it.
` That was material that was served
` with the preliminary Response and we'll
` expand on such objections to it when the
` time comes, with respect to what we
` received on Friday, because it's all
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Ex. PGS 1064
`
`
`
`Page 9
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` hearsay as to PGS.
` In a proceeding that is just
` between WesternGeCo and PGS, I trust to
` be able to resolve this problem via any
` evidentiary motions practice.
` That would become lot more
` complicated, potentially, if ION is
` permitted to participate throughout
` these proceedings.
` WesternGeCo may argue that what
` is hearsay to PGS may not be hearsay to
` ION. In that situation, it becomes a
` lot more complicated for the Board to
` reserve what is and is not admissible in
` these proceedings.
` To the extent that any of these
` materials comes in, then it's 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 only potential way to cure
` that prejudice would be to open up
` Discovery, which would derail these
` proceedings, delay them substantially,
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Ex. PGS 1064
`
`
`
`Page 10
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` at a substantial cost, none of which is
` in the interest of the Petitioner, PGS.
` We're currently dealing with an
` unstayed District Court action and we
` would like these IPR's to reach their
` final resolution as quickly as possible.
` And permitting ION into this case will
` certainly not expedite the resolution of
` these proceedings.
` That is the gravamen of our
` opposition to the motion.
` I'd be happy to establish it in
` more depth in papers, if we had the
` opportunity to file some additional
` materials.
` And were the Court or the Board
` to consider permitting ION to
` participate, we also have some concerns
` that ION's participation in the Motion
` Practice would certainly be more
` complicating to the proceedings.
` Therefore, it is PGS's position
` that, in the first instance, we believe
` the motion for Jointer should be denied.
` JUDGE DANIELS: Thank you. That
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Ex. PGS 1064
`
`
`
`Page 11
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` was very helpful.
` I guess now I'd like to hear from
` Mr. Renner, from ION.
` MR. RENNER: Yes, your Honor.
` I think Robert Devoto is going to
` speak on our behalf and I'll comment
` when he's finished.
` Rob, if you would, please?
` MR. DEVOTO: Sure.
` As a preliminary matter, the
` Patent Owner's Responses that were filed
` were filed under seal. So, it's a
` little hard for us to assess the nature
` of the problem that is being raised here
` by PGS.
` So, we're going to have to put
` that aside. We're going to have to
` focus only on what we're aware of.
` Certainly what we have here,
` based on the evidence that we're
` acknowledging, is the basis for what we
` believe to be a proper motion for
` Joinder.
` Our Joinder Motion was not
` complicated. It was filed within the
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Ex. PGS 1064
`
`
`
`Page 12
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` prescribed one month time period.
` And WesternGeCo's -- excuse me --
` it's WesternGeCo's assertion that
` somehow us filing in that time period,
` or towards the end of it, is somehow
` ineffective and, therefore, should make
` it not credible.
` Moreover, the Joining Party,
` I-O-N, we've stayed perfectly close to
` the issues raised by PGS; and, thus, we
` seek merely to become part of the
` existing proceedings, on the existing
` proceeding's schedule.
` In fact, to this point we,
` literally, copied an O-C-R version of
` the PGS Petition and we modified,
` simply, that petition to conform in the
` procedure and properly identify the
` position as to otherwise conform with
` the format compliance. And we've
` indicated both, in our Motion for
` Joinder, a willingness to join the
` ongoing proceeding without any
` modification to the schedule.
` And, finally, we've indicated
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Ex. PGS 1064
`
`
`
`Page 13
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` that we're willing to accept any
` accommodation with respect to the
` Petitioner's remaining oral hearing.
` We'd certainly note in the past
` that ION or that -- excuse me -- I-O-N,
` that we've seen a joining parties being
` provided with one-half of the allotment
` afforded to Petitioners. And, really,
` one-half of the allotment, which is what
` we're focusing on, would be the areas
` that we simply disagree on.
` So, if we are not in full
` agreement on the divergence of view, we
` would have nothing to add in addition to
` the reply. There is nothing exactly
` that would be consolidated in the
` Replies.
` Moreover, when we have this
` Consolidated Reply, as we have seen in a
` similar case -- in fact, we pointed to
` IPR2013-00256 as an example that
` supports these types of consolidated
` filings -- that when we are -- when we
` do have additional set of pages directed
` to the area where we have some type of a
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Ex. PGS 1064
`
`
`
`Page 14
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` divergence of views, that the Patent
` Owner, in this case WesternGeCo, would
` have a similar set of papers to respond,
` thereby minimizing the burden on them.
` Now, as such, we do feel that
` Joinder is and well within the Board's
` discretion and it really seems perfectly
` appropriate. In fact, we can't imagine
` a better remedy for it.
` WesternGeCo, obviously, opposes
` this motion. But, really, their
` opposition, as laid out in both their
` Opposition Filings, really is laid out
` indirectly in the last call to the
` Board; which is, really, not an issue.
` We, quite frankly, believe they are
` non-issues.
` We can go into more detail on any
` of these. But, at a higher level, their
` position is really based on the notion
` that additional Discovery on Real
` Party-in-Interest is warranted and that
` these -- and that the additional
` briefing on Real Party-of-Interest, as
` well as res judicata and collateral
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Ex. PGS 1064
`
`
`
`Page 15
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` estoppel, are appropriate for briefing.
` Then, of course, they make no
` such briefing by the Preliminary
` Response date.
` We disagree with each one of
` these notions.
` First; as to additional
` Discovery.
` We did not believe that
` WesternGeCo should be granted additional
` Discovery regarding Real
` Party-in-Interest for the reason we set
` forth in the pending briefing in this
` case.
` And if any additional Discovery
` is granted, it would be with regard to a
` very specific issue. It could be
` separately scheduled and briefed without
` disrupting the schedule of the ongoing
` proceedings.
` And then, really, frankly, to
` deny Joinder based on unproven
` allegations of Real Party-in-Interest,
` such as those pending, would,
` potentially, undermine the concept of
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Ex. PGS 1064
`
`
`
`Page 16
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` Joinder, as most parties would be able
` to concoct unsupported allegations that
` a Joining Party has to be bound with a
` petition of a party who is a
` co-defendant in a co-pending litigation.
` Now, I certainly want to bring to
` the Board's attention IPR2013-00256, to
` which we've cited in our briefing, as an
` explanation of acceptable revisions on
` the joining -- on a Joining Party's
` participation.
` Now, the Patent Owner made -- in
` that case the Patent Owner made the
` exact same argument about Discovery and
` Real Party-in-Interest and privity as
` complicating and otherwise burdening the
` proceedings; and, hence, suggesting a
` Joinder should not be allowed.
` Now, the Board held that at this
` time that SoftView -- which was the
` Patent Owner -- had not adequately shown
` it would meet the necessary Interest of
` Justice standard, which calls for an
` inter-party review needed for inquiring
` into the role, if any, of this -- of
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Ex. PGS 1064
`
`
`
`Page 17
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` Apple, which was alleged to be a Real
` Party-in-Interest.
` And to justify such additional
` Discovery, as the Board stated, the
` Patent Owner, SoftView, should already
` be in possession of some facts tending
` to indicate, beyond mere speculation,
` that Apple is a Real Party-in-Interest.
` Now, in our present case
` regarding additional Discovery, as the
` Board is aware from our last call,
` WesternGeCo focused primarily on
` accelerating Discovery related to
` indemnification between PGS and I-O-N.
` And let's be unambiguously clear
` here: There is no -- and has never been
` -- indemnification between PGS and I-O-N
` relative to the accused product from the
` related litigation. In fact, I-O-N has
` explicitly refused indemnification
` requests from PGS, made by PGS to I-O-N.
` During our call with
` WesternGeCo's counsel, during our last
` call with the Board, WesternGeCo
` indicated, quite clearly, that the only
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Ex. PGS 1064
`
`
`
`Page 18
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` evidence that they were relying on in
` support of their assertion to additional
` Discovery is the evidence of record in a
` related proceeding, as set forth in the
` preliminary Responses and the evidence
` referred to in their Opposition.
` And opposing counsel, during that
` call, largely focused on Exhibit 2027,
` which we have not been able to review
` because it has been sealed.
` But even without reviewing this
` exhibit, we can tell you what the Board
` has already properly concluded in the
` related proceeding; that this piece of
` evidence is necessarily ambiguous and
` speculative. Because there is no
` indemnification between I-O-N and PGS
` relative to the accused product.
` At best, what this evidence would
` be -- and we're guessing here because we
` haven't seen it -- it would be PGS
` saying, "We want indemnification." And
` I can tell you that it was refused.
` That request was refused.
` Indeed, any evidence offered by
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Ex. PGS 1064
`
`
`
`Page 19
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` WesternGeCo is necessarily speculative
` and ambiguous because, again, there is
` no indemnification between I-O-N and
` PGS.
` The only evidence brought forward
` by WesternGeCo is, probably -- and,
` again, we're guessing -- from the
` different parties, PGS to I-O-N,
` requesting indemnification.
` But there has not been
` indemnification granted by I-O-N
` relative to these accused products.
` As such, this speculative
` evidence cannot serve as the proper
` basis for additional Discovery.
` And, respectfully, we believe
` that this Real Party-in-Interest issue
` is simply being offered as an attempt to
` create an artificial burden on the
` Joinder.
` And, moreover, even with
` additional Discovery granted, the time
` and burden that is being imposed, or
` that WesternGeCo has asserted would be
` imposed, is really WesternGeCo's own
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Ex. PGS 1064
`
`
`
`Page 20
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` fault. It should not be used to
` undermine this Joinder.
` WesternGeCo's argument is that
` this additional Discovery should not
` necessarily count against the Joinder
` because the burden imposed on the
` proceeding was largely the result of
` their un -- of their intentional delay.
` They sat on their additional Discovery
` Request for three weeks. So much of the
` time and the pressure stems from
` WesternGoCo's obligation.
` It's also notable that they
` haven't covered to the test for a Real
` Party-in-Interest to our knowledge.
` Incidently, they lost on this
` issue in December.
` Now, just to indicate when
` WesternGeCo first raised additional
` Discovery to us: It was on February 11,
` 2015.
` We had agreed to a
` meet-and-confer on February 13th. They
` pulled out of it and we didn't hear
` anything back from them until March 3rd.
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Ex. PGS 1064
`
`
`
`Page 21
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` Then we had the original or final
` conference call on March 6th.
` Moreover, even if additional
` Discovery were deemed appropriate -- and
` it's not -- this could be done in an
` entirely parallel process. It should
` cause minimal disruption to the Joined
` proceeding.
` So, this is the first burden that
` was raised on the Joinder. That was the
` first burden that was identified in the
` Opposition by WesternGeCo to the
` Joinder.
` The second burden was this
` raising of the res judicata and
` collateral estoppel issues. But these
` two issues are purely legal issues.
` In fact, we believe that there's
` already been enough briefing on these
` issues to, really, dismiss them as
` issues.
` The Fresenius case, which is a
` case that's entirely on point; that
` relates directly to facts that are
` virtually identical to the facts that
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Ex. PGS 1064
`
`
`
`Page 22
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` are presented in this proceeding. And
` it indicated that a Final Judgment is
` not made by a competing District Court
` decision, as well as a lack of appeal of
` validity, but maintenance of the appeal
` on other issues, like damages or
` standing; that that alone does not rise
` to a Final Judgment.
` Therefore, both res judicata and
` collateral estoppel are not triggered by
` what they're pointing to as happening in
` the co-pending litigation, which the
` Federal Circuit has not even rendered a
` Final Judgment on.
` So, those issues really should be
` dismissed off-hand as a non-issue, as
` yet another attempt to burden Joinder
` artificially.
` If the Board, however, disagrees
` or is thinking that further scrutiny
` should be applied here, we would
` consider that simply as a parallel
` briefing, as a self-contained paralegel
` briefing, on this very issue be applied.
` It should not be extensive and should
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Ex. PGS 1064
`
`
`
`Page 23
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` not disrupt the PGS proceeding.
` JUDGE DANIELS: Let me just
` interrupt for a second here.
` I think, for the moment, we know
` in both cases -- we know in both cases,
` sort of -- where we're at, at least from
` the evidence that we have; where we are
` at with the RPI issue and that that
` collateral estoppel and res judicata,
` you know, issue has merely been raised
` here from a, sort of, as a potential
` issue.
` Let me ask this question of
` I-O-N: Would you be willing -- would
` you be willing to, if the Joinder was
` restricted to the same grounds of
` institution and there was no additional
` briefing without authorization sought by
` I-O-N, would that be something that
` I-O-N would be willing to do?
` MR. RENNER: Karl Renner, from
` Fish Richardson.
` Yes, your Honor.
` We would ask that, to the extent
` there were divergence in the position,
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Ex. PGS 1064
`
`
`
`Page 24
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` that we might have additional briefing,
` but of limited pages, much like what
` we've seen in some of the precedents.
` Yet, if the Board is disinclined
` toward that, we would be willing --
` we're a Joining Party and we understand
` our position as such -- and, in that
` sense, we don't want to affect the flow;
` we don't want to delay things or
` complicate the proceeding anymore than
` absolutely necessary.
` JUDGE DANIELS: Let me ask
` another question.
` Mr. Fletcher -- I'm sorry, before
` we get to WesternGeCo -- Mr. Fletcher, I
` mean, there is -- we do not look forward
` to extending these proceedings. You all
` know we don't have much leeway. We want
` to get these done as quickly as possible
` too.
` Does that change your thought?
` I mean, if we keep this on a fast
` track, the track that it's on -- I mean,
` these can be moved. We have the ability
` to move these dates around.
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Ex. PGS 1064
`
`
`
`Page 25
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` But if we were able to complete
` this in the same time, does that change
` your position at all?
` MR. FLETCHER: Not substantially.
` It helps a little bit, in that we,
` obviously, want to get this resolved
` quickly.
` It does not address our
` evidentiary prejudice issue.
` It also doesn't address,
` completely, our concerns about the role
` ION has proposed.
` To this end, it cites for this
` Motorola versus SoftView, the
` 2013-00265, and that case was not
` clouded by these Real Party-in-Interest
` insinuation, the same way ours is.
` We have zero desire to share our
` briefing with ION; we don't want to
` share our deposition time with ION; we
` don't want to prepare for arguments with
` ION; we don't want to work with ION;
` and, we don't believe we should be
` forced to have to work with ION.
` To the extent the Board is
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Ex. PGS 1064
`
`
`
`Page 26
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` considering the motions for Joinder, in
` any sense, we think the applicable
` precedent, with respect to their role,
` should be -- I've got a few case cited
` here for Sony Corp. versus Network One,
` at IPR2013-00495, Paper 13; and a more
` recent one, from a few days ago, Samsung
` versus Arendi, IPR2014-1518, Paper 26.
` In both of those cases the
` Joining Party was circumscribed to a
` role, as the Court described it, as the
` "understudy." The understudy could
` watch; the understudy could listen; but
` the understudy can't talk.
` The understudy doesn't get to
` file any briefs; the understudy doesn't
` get to participate in any depositions or
` argument, unless the Primary Party
` leaves the case.
` That would be, what we think is,
` the appropriate ruling, were ION to be
` added to these proceedings.
` But we remain opposed to ION"s
` Joinder Motions because of the
` evidentiary prejudice issue that was
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Ex. PGS 1064
`
`
`
`Page 27
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` outlined at the beginning of the call.
` JUDGE DANIELS: All right.
` MR. RENNER: Your Honor, if may
` I? I would love to add a few comments
` to that.
` This is Karl Renner, again.
` JUDGE DANIELS: Yes. Sure.
` If you just give us a minute or
` so, Mr. Renner, that would be great.
` MR. RENNER: Okay, your Honor.
` Certainly.
` So, two things:
` One: This goes to your question
` and to the point just made by the
` counsel with respect to our role.
` We had -- I wanted to make sure
` our position was clear; as on what we
` perceived our role would be where we had
` limited briefing.
` But we were also trying to be
` clear that it is within the Board's
` discretion -- and we appreciate the
` discussion by the Board -- to determine
` what role we have.
` So, if it were determined to be
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Ex. PGS 1064
`
`
`
`Page 28
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` that we shouldn't have briefings or that
` we should play more of a watching and
` listening understudy role, then that
` would be a role that we would be willing
` to accept. Obviously, that's going to
` be, without saying.
` It is our position that we would
` prefer to be able to put in some limited
` number of pages, when appropriate, to
` address issues where any divergence
` occurs.
` Then, as to any evidentiary issue
` that was outstanding, that's, you know,
` determined by us here today, I would
` simply suggest our position is that when
` evidence is raised, and it's hearsay or
` otherwise, that is a question that
` shouldn't have any delay in its impact;
` and, frankly, it is a question that we
` don't think should prejudice Joinder.
` It would give -- you know, it
` would be a decision where, if that was
` controlling, it would give the
` Petitioners a awful lot of control over
` whether the party attempting to join in
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Ex. PGS 1064
`
`
`
`Page 29
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` the future could, in fact, achieve
` Joinder.
` You could imagine why this
` Petitioner would be putting all kinds of
` evidence forward, much like we see here,
` to create and cloud the issues, if the
` guidance from the Court was that was a
` controlling factor.
` JUDGE DANIELS: All right.
` This is helpful. I mean, at the
` end of the day Joinder can be very --
` and if there is a way for us, at the
` Board, to handle some of these issues,
` for sure, then our initial consideration
` might be something along those lines.
` You know, sometimes people refer
` to it as sitting on one's butt and, sort
` of, sitting quietly while the, you know,
` the First Petitioner drives the bus.
` And it might not be for any
` briefings.
` And if there was a requirement --
` if there was a briefing that I-O-N
` thought was necessary, they would have
` to come to us for that authorization.
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Ex. PGS 1064
`
`
`
`Page 30
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` But that's just a little insight
` into what we were considering,
` potentially.
` MR. RENNER: Yes, your Honor.
` JUDGE DANIELS: Let me see if I
` could -- I left WesternGeCo out.
` So, let me hear from the Patent
` Owner at this time.
`
` MR. KIKLIS: This is Michael
` Kiklis.
` You heard about a bunch of issues
` from ION, such as Real
` Party-in-Interest.
` Let me address, I guess, that
` first, your Honor, based on our phone
` call with the Board last week.
` In this phone call we talked
` about there being existing
` indemnification agreements between an
` ION affiliate and a PGS affiliate.
` In our Response filed on Friday,
` I would direct the Board's attention to
` Exhibit 2069, on page 14. There, in
` paragraph 1.17, under the heading
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Ex. PGS 1064
`
`
`
`Page 31
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` "Patent Infringement," where, at the end
` of the first paragraph, it expressly
` says they would indemnify PGS from any
` claim by third-parties.
` So, it's clear, in unambiguous
` language.
` It's also argued on our Response.
` So, I wanted to direct the Board's
` attention to that.
` Also, the Interrogatory Answer
` that PGS provided, wherein they admit --
` and that's on Exhibit 2018, on the last
` page of that exhibit -- they admit to
` plural indemnification agreements.
` If it's not their position here,
` your Honor, that's fine.
` There's a serious Real
` Party-in-Interest here and my client,
` WesternGeCo, deserves additional
` Discovery on that issue against ION
` before this Board should consider a
` Joinder.
` Moreover, there are a lot of
` issues here that ION brings to the
` table.
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Ex. PGS 1064
`
`
`
`Page 32
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` First of all, I need to step back
` and say this isn't just three IPR's.
` This Board has just granted institution
` in three additional IPR's on these
` patents. Now there are six IPR's for
` these patents, co-pending all at the
` same time, using all the same witnesses,
` between PGS and WesternGeCo.
` ION would like to jump into the
` mix and just make everything much more
` complicated.
` No. 1: They bring a Real
` Party-in-Interest issue to the table,
` one that's already being argued with
` respect to PGS, as you see in our
` Response that we filed on Friday.
` No. 2: There are particular
` issues of res judicata and collateral
` estoppel, that abridge and go beyond,
` that are not applicable to PGS.
` Also,
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
