`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`Paper 54
`Entered: April 23, 2015
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`ION GEOPHYSICAL CORPORATION
`AND ION INTERNATIONAL S.A.R.L.,
`Petitioners,
`
`v.
`
`WESTERNGECO LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2015-00565
`Patent 7,293,520
`
`
`
`Before SCOTT A. DANIELS, BEVERLY M. BUNTING, and
`BARBARA A. PARVIS, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`DANIELS, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`DECISION
`Institution of Inter Partes Review and Grant of Motion for Joinder
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108
`37 C.F R § 42.122(b)
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00565
`Patent 7,293,520
`
`
`I. INTRODUCTION
`
`ION Geophysical Corporation and ION International S.a.r.l. (“ION”)
`
`filed a Petition to institute an inter partes review of claims 1, 2, 6, 18, 19,
`
`and 23 of U.S. Patent No. 7,293,520 (“the ’520 patent”). Paper 3 (“Pet.”).
`
`The Petition was accorded a filing date of January 14, 2014. Paper 6. With
`
`the Petition, ION also filed a Motion for Joinder (“Mot.,” Paper 4) seeking
`
`to join this proceeding with Petroleum Geo-Services, Inc., v. WesternGeco
`
`L.L.C., Case IPR2014-00689 (the “PGS IPR”). Mot. 2. The PGS IPR
`
`concerns the same patent as at issue here, namely the ’520 patent. We
`
`instituted trial in the PGS IPR on December 15, 2015. See Petroleum Geo-
`
`Services, Inc., v. WesternGeco L.L.C., Case IPR2014-00689, Paper 32
`
`(Decision instituting inter partes review).
`
`Patent Owner, WesternGeco L.L.C. (“WesternGeco”) timely filed an
`
`Opposition (“Opp.,” Paper 10) to ION’s Motion for Joinder, and ION, in
`
`turn, filed a Reply (Paper 12).
`
`We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 314, which provides that an
`
`inter partes review may not be instituted “unless . . . there is a reasonable
`
`likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the
`
`claims challenged in the petition.” For the reasons provided below, we (1)
`
`institute an inter partes review on certain grounds, and (2) grant ION’s
`
`Motion for Joinder, subject to the conditions detailed herein.
`
`II. INSTITUTION OF INTER PARTES REVIEW
`
`We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 314, which provides that an
`
`inter partes review may not be instituted “unless . . . there is a reasonable
`
`likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the
`
`claims challenged in the petition.” The Petition in this proceeding asserts
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00565
`Patent 7,293,520
`
`the same grounds as those asserted in the PGS IPR. Pet. 1, 28, Mot. 2–4.
`
`We instituted a trial in the PGS IPR on four grounds:
`
`1. Claims 1 and 18 are anticipated by Workman;
`
`2. Claims 1, 2, 18, and 19 as obvious over Workman;
`
`3. Claims 1, 2, 18, and 19 as anticipated by Hedberg;
`
`4. Claims 1, 2, 18, and 19 as obvious over Hedberg
`
` Petroleum Geo-Services, Inc., v. WesternGeco L.L.C., Case IPR2014-
`
`00689, slip op. at 43 (PTAB Dec. 15, 2014) (Paper 32). We did not institute
`
`on two grounds, namely, obviousness of claims 1, 6, 18, and 23 over the
`
`’636 PCT and either the ’153 PCT or Dolengowski. Id. In view of the
`
`challenges in the instant Petition and the petition in the PGS IPR, we
`
`institute an inter partes review in this proceeding on the same four grounds
`
`as those on which we instituted in the PGS IPR. Id. We do not institute on
`
`any other grounds.
`
`III. GRANT OF MOTION FOR JOINDER
`
`An inter partes review may be joined with another inter partes
`
`review, subject to the provisions 35 U.S.C. § 315(c), which governs joinder
`
`of inter partes review proceedings:
`
`(c) JOINDER.—If the Director institutes an inter partes review, the
`Director, in his or her discretion, may join as a party to that inter
`partes review any person who properly files a petition under section
`311 that the Director, after receiving a preliminary response under
`section 313 or the expiration of the time for filing such a response,
`determines warrants the institution of an inter parties review under
`section 314.
`
`
`As the moving party, ION bears the burden of proving that it is
`
`entitled to the requested relief. 37 C.F.R. § 42.20(c). A motion for joinder
`
`should: (1) set forth the reasons joinder is appropriate; (2) identify any new
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00565
`Patent 7,293,520
`
`grounds of unpatentability asserted in the petition; and (3) explain what
`
`impact (if any) joinder would have on the trial schedule for the existing
`
`review. See Frequently Asked Question H5, http://www.uspto.gov/patents-
`
`application-process/appealing-patentdecisions/ trials/patent-review-
`
`processing-system-prps-0. (Last visited April 1, 2015).
`
`The Petition in this proceeding has been accorded a filing date of
`
`January 14, 2015 (Paper 6), and the Motion for Joinder was filed on the
`
`same date. (Mot.). Thus, the Motion for Joinder in this proceeding satisfies
`
`the requirement of being filed within one month of the date, December 15,
`
`2014, instituting a trial in the PGS IPR. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.122(b) (Any
`
`request for joinder must be filed, as a motion under § 42.22, no later than
`
`one month after the institution date of any inter partes review for which
`
`joinder is requested.).
`
`In its Motion for Joinder, ION contends that “aside from the
`
`procedural sections of the Petition, for example that identify ION and its
`
`standing, the Petition and accompanying evidence are identical.” Mot. 7.
`
`ION further represents that because the challenges are identical, it “envisions
`
`few, if any, differences in position between ION and PGS.” Id. at 8.
`
`PGS indicated during a conference call on March 25, 2015, with the
`
`Board and all the participants in the PGS IPR and this proceeding, that it
`
`opposes joinder because PGS does not desire to coordinate its conduct of the
`
`PGS IPR with ION, and also, because joining these proceeding may raise
`
`issues relating to alleged hearsay evidence. For its part, WesternGeco
`
`argues that joinder would create duplicative litigation delay and complicate
`
`the PGS IPR schedule, thus prejudicing WesternGeco and raising its costs.
`
`4
`
`Opp. Mot. 2–4.
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00565
`Patent 7,293,520
`
`
`Based on the present record, we agree that joinder with the PGS IPR
`
`would promote the efficient resolution of these proceedings. In the March
`
`25, 2015 conference call, ION confirmed that it was amendable to joinder on
`
`only the already instituted grounds in the PGS IPR. In its Motion for
`
`Joinder, ION notes that both proceedings involve the same prior art, the
`
`same claims, and the same arguments and evidence. Mot.5–6. ION has
`
`brought the same substantive challenges in this proceeding, as in the PGS
`
`IPR, and joinder simplifies addressing the overlap of the instituted grounds.
`
`Compare Pet. 3–60 with, Petroleum Geo-Services, Inc., v. WesternGeco
`
`L.L.C., Case IPR2014-00689, Paper 3, 3–60. Addressing the same grounds
`
`in the PGS IPR as presented here, in a joined proceeding, facilitates
`
`scheduling of the joined actions and minimizes delay. Also, because the
`
`challenges, prior art and evidence are substantively identical to the PGS IPR,
`
`prejudice to WesternGeco is minimal. With respect to PGS’s concern
`
`regarding hearsay evidence, even if these proceedings were not joined, the
`
`parties have the ability to request authorization to obtain 3rd party testimony
`
`under 35 U.S.C. 24. See § 42.53. In addition, scheduling of the joined
`
`proceeding, as set forth below, will occur so as to minimize impact to
`
`WesternGeco and PGS, yet maintain the current DUE DATE 7 (July 30,
`
`2015) for oral hearing.
`
`IV. SCHEDULING
`
`The Scheduling Order in the PGS IPR (Paper 33) sets the oral hearing
`
`for July 30, 2015. Final hearing and final determination shall not be delayed
`
`by joining the two proceedings. In view of our joinder order below, the
`
`remaining DUE DATES are unchanged. The parties may stipulate to
`
`different dates for DUE DATES 2 through 5 (earlier or later, but no later
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00565
`Patent 7,293,520
`
`than DUE DATE 6). A notice of the stipulation, specifically identifying the
`
`changed due dates, must be promptly filed. The parties may not stipulate to
`
`an extension of DUE DATES 6 and 7.
`
`
`
`V. CONCLUSION
`Based on the record before us, we institute an inter partes review in
`
`IPR2015-00565 and grant ION’s motion to join that proceeding to IPR2014-
`
`00689.
`
`
`
`
`In consideration of the foregoing, it is hereby:
`
`VI. ORDER
`
`ORDERED that a trial is instituted as to the challenged claims of the
`
`’520 patent only on the following grounds:
`
`Claims 1 and 18 as anticipated by Workman;
`
`Claims 1, 2, 18, and 19 as obvious over Workman;
`
`Claims 1, 2, 18, and 19 as anticipated by Hedberg; and
`
`Claims 1, 2, 18, and 19 as obvious over Hedberg
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that ION’s Motion for Joinder with respect to
`
`the same grounds as instituted in the PGS IPR is granted, and that this
`
`proceeding is joined with IPR2014-00689;
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that the ground on which IPR2014-00689 was
`
`instituted is unchanged and no other grounds are instituted in the joined
`
`proceeding;
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that the Scheduling Order in place for
`
`IPR2014-00689 (Paper 33) remains unchanged, and shall govern the joined
`
`6
`
`proceedings;
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00565
`Patent 7,293,520
`
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that ION is not permitted to file papers,
`
`engage in discovery, or participate in any deposition or oral hearing in
`
`IPR2014-00689. ION, however, is permitted to appear in IPR2014-00689 so
`
`that it may receive notification of filings and may attend depositions and oral
`
`hearing. Should ION believe it necessary to take any further action, ION
`
`should request a conference call to obtain authorization from the Board;
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that IPR2015-00565 is terminated under 37
`
`C.F.R. § 42.72 and all further filings in the joined proceeding are to be made
`
`in IPR2014-00689;
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Decision be entered into
`
`the file of IPR2014-00689; and
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that the case caption in IPR2014-00689 shall
`
`be changed to reflect joinder with this proceeding in accordance with the
`
`attached example.
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00565
`Patent 7,293,520
`
`
`
`
`For PETITIONERS:
`
`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
`Christopher A. Bullard
`Kevin B. Laurence
`Katherine D. Cappaert
`Christopher Ricciuti
`OBLON, SPIVAK, McCLELLAND,
`MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P.
`CPdocketMcKeown@oblon.com
`CPdocketBullard@oblon.com
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00565
`Patent 7,293,520
`
`
`
`
`Example Case Caption for Joined Proceeding
`
`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 IPR2014-006891
`Patent 7,293,520
`
`
`1 Case IPR2015-00565 has been joined with this proceeding.
`9