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 L.L.C.
`
`Patent Owner.
`
`____________
`
`Case IPR2014-006891
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,293,520
`
`____________
`
`PATENT OWNER’S REQUEST FOR REHEARING
`UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.71
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1 Case IPR2015-00565 has been joined with this proceeding.
`
`
`
`____________
`
`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 L.L.C.
`
`Patent Owner.
`
`____________
`
`Case IPR2014-006891
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,293,520
`
`____________
`
`PATENT OWNER’S REQUEST FOR REHEARING
`UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.71
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1 Case IPR2015-00565 has been joined with this proceeding.
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Request for Rehearing
`Case IPR2014-00689
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d), Patent Owner, WesternGeco L.L.C.
`
`
`
`(“Patent Owner” or “WesternGeco”), requests rehearing of the Board’s Order (1)
`
`denying Patent Owner’s request to file a Motion for Additional Discovery on the
`
`subjects of privity and real party-in-interest (“RPI”) as they relate to the
`
`relationship between ION Geophysical Corporation and ION International
`
`S.A.R.L. (collectively, “ION”) and Petroleum Geo-Services Inc. (“PGS”)
`
`(collectively, “Petitioners”); and (2) setting unequal time limits for petition and
`
`reply declaration testimony. Paper No. 59.
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`The opportunity to be heard before forfeiting one’s property is a
`
`fundamental right. See U.S. CONST. amend. V; amend. XIV § 1. Here, the Board
`
`deprives Patent Owner of this fundamental right by refusing to allow it to file a
`
`motion for additional discovery on privity between ION and PGS. The focused
`
`question of Petitioners’ relationship with each other—which they concede is
`
`broader than what they have disclosed—is potentially dispositive of the entire
`
`proceeding. Yet, the Board refuses to even hear Patent Owners’ motion to expose
`
`this hidden relationship.
`
`If Petitioners are in privity, or if ION is a RPI to PGS, this review must
`
`terminate immediately. It is therefore not surprising that ION and PGS have
`
`worked to prevent the disclosure of this information, which is in their sole
`
`1
`
`
`
`
`possession and otherwise unavailable to Patent Owner. PGS has produced one
`
`Patent Owner’s Request for Rehearing
`Case IPR2014-00689
`
`indemnification agreement between ION and PGS (Ex. 2069)—which ION denies
`
`even exists—while publicly conceding that multiple indemnification agreements
`
`exist. See Ex. 2018 at 14. Thus, the existence of additional indemnification
`
`agreements is not mere speculation. Despite this, the Board refuses to authorize
`
`Patent Owner to file a motion seeking additional discovery on (1) all agreements
`
`between PGS and ION containing any warranty, indemnification, or intellectual
`
`property defense provisions; and (2) other relevant communications.2 Paper No.
`
`59; see also IPR2014-01478, Paper No. 10. As strong evidence exists to support
`
`Patent Owner’s request to move for additional discovery, Patent Owner
`
`respectfully requests that the Board allow its motion to be heard.
`
`Accordingly, Patent Owner respectfully requests that this Board (1) vacate
`
`the Order (Paper No. 59) and (2) authorize Patent Owner to file a Motion for
`
`Additional Discovery on the subjects of privity and RPI.
`
`II. LEGAL STANDARD
`“A party dissatisfied with a decision may file a request for rehearing,
`
`without prior authorization from the Board.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d). “The request
`
`must specifically identify all matters the party believes the Board misapprehended
`
`
`2 See infra at § V.
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`or overlooked, and the place where each matter was previously addressed in a
`
`Patent Owner’s Request for Rehearing
`Case IPR2014-00689
`
`motion, an opposition, or a reply.” Id.
`
`Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c), “[w]hen rehearing a decision on petition, a
`
`panel will review the decision for an abuse of discretion.” An abuse of discretion
`
`“occurs where the decision is based on an erroneous interpretation of the law, on
`
`factual findings that are not supported by substantial evidence, or represents an
`
`unreasonable judgment in weighing relevant factors.” Star Fruits S.N.C. v. United
`
` States, 393 F.3d 1277, 1281 (Fed. Cir. 2005); see also Japanese Found. For
`
`Cancer Research v. Lee, 773 F.3d 1300, 1304 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (“An agency abuses
`
`its discretion where the decision is based on an erroneous interpretation of the
`
`law.”) (internal quotations omitted).
`
`III. THE BOARD’S DENIAL OF PATENT OWNER’S REQUEST TO
`FILE A MOTION FOR ADDITIONAL DISCOVERY VIOLATES
`PATENT OWNER’S DUE PROCESS RIGHTS AND CONSTITUTES
`AN ABUSE OF DISCRETION
`The Board’s Order denies Patent Owner authorization to file a Motion for
`
`Additional Discovery based on a standard that is impossible to meet. It is
`
`undisputed that new privity-related evidence exists that is within Petitioners’
`
`control, and that Petitioners refuse to voluntarily produce it. Nevertheless, the
`
`Board denied discovery of this new evidence because Patent Owner had “no new
`
`evidence” to present. Paper No. 59 at 3. The Board thus sets up an impossible,
`
`deadlock situation: it refuses additional discovery because Patent Owner cannot
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`present the “new evidence” that the Petitioners are withholding. Where case-
`
`Patent Owner’s Request for Rehearing
`Case IPR2014-00689
`
`dispositive evidence exists and is uniquely within the control of Petitioners, the
`
`interests of justice dictate that such discovery should be allowed. See Garmin Int’l,
`
`Inc. et al. v. Cuozzo Speed Techs LLC, IPR2012-00001 Paper No. 26 at 5-7 (Mar.
`
`5, 2013) (considering whether something “favorable to a contention of the party
`
`moving for discovery” will be discovered and whether the requester has the ability
`
`to generate the requested information from other means as part of the interests of
`
`justice standard analysis).
`
`A. The Board’s Denial Violates Patent Owner’s Due Process Rights
`The Board’s Order did not simply deny discovery on agreements and
`
`communications from Petitioners that would establish privity. The Board’s Order
`
`bars Patent Owner from even filing a Motion to request such discovery. This
`
`discovery is necessary in the interests of justice, and the Board’s denial of an
`
`opportunity to be heard on this issue deprives Patent Owner of the chance to
`
`adequately defend its rights in U.S. Patent No. 7,293,520 (“the ’520 patent”).
`
`ION was sued for infringing the ’520 patent in 2009 with its DigiFIN
`
`system. PGS—ION’s “launch partner” for DigiFIN from 2007 to present—did not
`
`bring this action until the spring of 2014. Section 315(b) establishes, however, that
`
`“[a]n inter partes review may not be instituted if the petition requesting the
`
`proceeding is filed more than 1 year after the date on which the petitioner, real
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`party in interest, or privy of the petitioner is served with a complaint alleging
`
`Patent Owner’s Request for Rehearing
`Case IPR2014-00689
`
`infringement of the patent.” Thus, the issue of privity in this proceeding is case-
`
`dispositive. By denying Patent Owner access to discovery on a case-dispositive
`
`issue from the only parties able to provide the requested information—PGS and
`
`ION—the Board’s Order violates Patent Owner’s due process rights.
`
`“The fundamental requirement of due process is the opportunity to be heard
`
`at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner.” Matthews v. Eldridge, 424
`
`U.S. 319, 333 (1975) (internal quotations omitted). Thus, “[t]he indispensable
`
`ingredients of due process are notice and an opportunity to be heard by a
`
`disinterested decision-maker.” Abbott Labs. v. Cordis Corp., 710 F.3d 1318, 1328
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2013). When assessing the requirements of due process, courts consider
`
`“[f]irst, the private interest that will be affected by the official action; second, the
`
`risk of an erroneous deprivation of such interest through the procedures used, and
`
`the probable value, if any of additional or substitute procedural safeguards; and
`
`finally, the Government’s interest, including the function involved and the fiscal
`
`and administrative burdens that the additional or substitute procedural requirement
`
`would entail.” Matthews, 424 U.S. at 335.
`
`Due process applies to the improper taking of property rights, and courts
`
`have routinely held that patents are considered property for the purpose of a due
`
`process analysis. Fla. Prepaid Postsecondary Educ. Expense Bd. v. College Sav.
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`Bank, 527 U.S. 627, 642 (1999) (“Patents . . . have long been considered a species
`
`Patent Owner’s Request for Rehearing
`Case IPR2014-00689
`
`of property”); see also Abbott Labs., 710 F.3d at 1327 (“a patent is a property right
`
`protected by the Due Process Clause”). The validly issued ’520 patent is
`
`considered Patent Owner’s property, and Patent Owner therefore has a significant
`
`interest in retaining its rights in it. The Board’s Order, however, impermissibly
`
`deprives Patent Owner of these rights by preventing Patent Owner from acquiring
`
`evidence to establish that ION is a privy of PGS and PGS was thus time-barred
`
`from bringing this proceeding.
`
`With the enactment of the America Invents Act, Congress required the
`
`United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) to set “forth standards and
`
`procedures for discovery of relevant evidence” including for when such evidence is
`
`“necessary in the interests of justice.” See 35 U.S.C. § 316(a)(5)(B). The USPTO,
`
`in turn, provided that if the parties fail to agree on additional discovery, “a party
`
`may move for additional discovery.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.51(b)(2) (emphasis added).
`
`Before a party can file any motion in these proceedings, however, the Board must
`
`first authorize the filing. 37 C.F.R. § 42.20(b).
`
`Here, the Board is aware that (1) PGS has admitted to the existence of
`
`multiple indemnification agreements and requests for indemnification under those
`
`agreements; (2) PGS has produced only one such agreement (while ION denies
`
`that the produced agreement even exists); and (3) Patent Owner has attempted to
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`seek the additional agreements and communications regarding such agreements,
`
`Patent Owner’s Request for Rehearing
`Case IPR2014-00689
`
`including those related to contract negotiations and indemnification requests, from
`
`PGS to no avail. See Ex. 3002 at 21:21−22:17, 25:16−26:21. Thus, Patent Owner
`
`followed the USPTO established process and requested an opportunity to file a
`
`motion seeking additional discovery on this case-dispositive issue, but that process
`
`is proving completely ineffective.
`
`Indeed, the USPTO recently recognized that its rules pose the very problem
`
`of which Patent Owner now complains. The USPTO Director recognized the
`
`concern of ensuring “ample discovery to establish the real-party-in-interest (RPI)”
`
`and stated that “we want to be sure that the availability of appropriate RPI
`
`evidence does not pose a problem for patent owners.” See Ex. 2137. In fact, the
`
`Director said the USPTO is updating “the Trial Practice Guide to emphasize the
`
`importance of RPI discovery” and that the “Board increasingly has been granting
`
`motions for such discovery.” Id. While other Patent Owners apparently have been
`
`the beneficiary of the USPTO’s new liberalization of RPI-related additional
`
`discovery, this Patent Owner has not.
`
`The Board refuses to give Patent Owner the chance to even move for
`
`additional discovery. Patent Owner is rendered unable to fully brief how the
`
`requested information is in the interests of justice, let alone given a chance to
`
`receive information establishing that PGS was time-barred from filing this action.
`
`7
`
`
`
`
`Patent Owner respectfully submits that (1) the Board’s application of its additional
`
`Patent Owner’s Request for Rehearing
`Case IPR2014-00689
`
`discovery rules (37 C.F.R. §§ 42.20(b), 42.51(b)(2)) violates Patent Owner’s due
`
`process rights; (2) the USPTO’s implementation of the additional discovery statute
`
`(35 U.S.C. § 316(a)(5)) violates Patent Owner’s due process rights; and (3) the
`
`statutory standard (35 U.S.C. § 316(a)(5)(B)) violates Patent Owner’s due process
`
`rights. As the Board’s Order impermissibly deprives Patent Owner of the ability to
`
`defend its rights in the ’520 patent, Patent Owner respectfully requests that the
`
`Order be vacated and that Patent Owner be permitted the opportunity to file a
`
`Motion for Additional Discovery.
`
`B.
`
`The Board Overlooked Evidence in Denying Patent Owner’s
`Request to File a Motion for Additional Discovery
`New evidence exists. Petitioners concede this fact; yet they refuse to
`
`provide that evidence to Patent Owner. PGS has publicly admitted that “PGS
`
`affiliates do have agreements with ION that contain warranty or indemnification
`
`provisions that, for example, protect against claims ‘made by third parties.’” Ex.
`
`2018 at 14 (emphasis added). Despite admitting the existence of multiple
`
`agreements containing indemnity provisions, however, PGS has only provided
`
`Patent Owner with one such agreement. See Ex. 2069. And, despite multiple
`
`requests from Patent Owner, PGS refuses to produce the additional agreements.
`
`ION, in turn, has refused to produce any agreements and remarkably denies
`
`the very existence of any indemnification agreements. See Ex. 1064 at 17:15-21.
`
`8
`
`
`
`
`This comes as no surprise because ION is seeking to overturn a large district court
`
`Patent Owner’s Request for Rehearing
`Case IPR2014-00689
`
`judgment against it. There are contradictions between what PGS admits exists,
`
`what PGS has actually produced, what ION admits exists, and what ION has
`
`refused to produce. This proceeding should not continue without allowing Patent
`
`Owner to move for discovery to find out the truth.
`
`Petitioners are simply playing games, and the Board should not tolerate this
`
`behavior. Despite feigning compliance, PGS went out of its way to avoid
`
`answering Patent Owner’s interrogatories regarding indemnification agreements.3
`
`Patent Owner’s interrogatories called for PGS to answer on behalf of itself as well
`
`as its sister-company RPIs in this proceeding about their relationship with ION.
`
`Yet, PGS refused to disclose its RPIs’ relationship with ION. PGS even went so
`
`far as to redefine the meaning of “PGS” to exclude its RPI subsidiaries (Ex. 2138
`
`at 2) and to mean only “Petroleum Geo-Services, Inc.” Ex. 2018 at 5. Thus,
`
`despite listing PGS Geophysical AS and Petroleum Geo-Services ASA as RPIs in
`
`this proceeding (Paper No. 18), PGS refuses to provide discovery on
`
`indemnification agreements relating to these and any other related PGS entities.
`
`
`3 Moreover, even though some interrogatories were ostensibly answered, PGS’s
`
`interrogatory responses are not verified under oath, and amount to nothing more
`
`than mere attorney argument.
`
`9
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Request for Rehearing
`Case IPR2014-00689
`
`Petitioners’ gamesmanship is simply part of their ongoing pattern of
`
`
`
`conduct. For example, in the past ION has been obstructive regarding
`
`indemnification agreements related to the DigiFIN system. During the ION
`
`litigation, David Gentle, ION’s director of marine sales, admitted that he made
`
`multiple misrepresentations of fact in his sworn deposition testimony related to
`
`indemnification between ION and one of its DigiFIN customers, Fugro. See Ex.
`
`2139. Specifically, at his deposition, Mr. Gentle denied any knowledge of
`
`discussions between ION and Fugro regarding indemnity when in fact he had been
`
`communicating with Fugro regarding that very issue just one week earlier. Id. It
`
`was not until Fugro produced indemnity discussions and agreements between ION
`
`and Fugro, which ION had withheld from its own document productions, that
`
`ION’s misrepresentations were revealed.
`
`The only action the Board has taken is to warn Petitioners that 37 C.F.R. §
`
`42.51 requires the production of any information that is inconsistent with a position
`
`Petitioners have taken. See Ex. 3002 at 27:6-15. Unfortunately, this warning
`
`accomplishes nothing because it gives Petitioners an opportunity to creatively
`
`interpret what constitutes “inconsistent information.” Petitioners’ position is that
`
`indemnification agreements are somehow irrelevant even though the PTAB has
`
`relied on such agreements as the basis for terminating cases. See e.g., Gen. Elec.
`
`Co. v. Transdata, Inc., IPR2014-01559, Paper No. 23 (Apr. 15, 2015).
`
`10
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Request for Rehearing
`Case IPR2014-00689
`
`Moreover, the Board’s warning will not work on PGS, for it plays semantic
`
`
`
`games over what constitutes an “indemnification agreement.” Indeed, this Board
`
`heard firsthand of the semantic games PGS is playing. (Ex. 3002 at 23:22-
`
`25)(“Just to be clear, these are not indemnification agreements. These are
`
`agreements that have provisions that relate to indemnification.”). Not surprisingly,
`
`Petitioners would rather prevent Patent Owner from adequately raising a case-
`
`dispositive defense than play by the rules. This Board should level the playing
`
`field.
`
`Petitioners’ conduct demonstrates that they will only produce the necessary
`
`information if this Board orders such production. Petitioners should not be
`
`allowed to shield themselves from this necessary discovery while proceeding to
`
`attempt to invalidate Patent Owner’s patents. This is simply unfair to Patent
`
`Owner. At a minimum, due process demands that Patent Owner be heard on this
`
`issue, rather than summarily silenced. Accordingly, Patent Owner respectfully
`
`requests that the Board’s Order be vacated and that Patent Owner be afforded the
`
`opportunity to file a Motion for Additional Discovery.
`
`C. The Board Misapprehended the Law in Denying Patent Owner’s
`Request to File a Motion for Additional Discovery
`In denying Patent Owner’s request to file a Motion for Additional
`
`Discovery, the Board stated that there was no new evidence “demonstrating
`
`control, opportunity to control, or financial compensation for litigation or IPR
`
`11
`
`
`
`
`proceedings.” Paper No. 59 at 3. The Board, however, misapprehends the law
`
`Patent Owner’s Request for Rehearing
`Case IPR2014-00689
`
`governing additional discovery on the issue of privity. In particular, the Board
`
`misapprehends the law regarding indemnification agreements, which this Board
`
`has consistently found can establish privity.
`
`Privity “is more expansive” than RPI and “encompass[es] parties that do not
`
`necessarily need to be identified in the petition as a ‘real party-in-interest.’” Office
`
`Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48756, 48759 (Aug. 14, 2012). “[T]he
`
`presence or absence of actual control is immaterial to the privity determination.”
`
`Gen. Elec. Co. v. Transdata, Inc., IPR2014-01559, Paper No. 23 at 11 (Apr. 15,
`
`2015). What is important is whether a party “had the opportunity to exercise
`
`control” over a proceeding before this Board or another tribunal, past or present.
`
`Id. at 9. The Board has found litigation defense agreements and indemnification
`
`agreements to be evidence of such opportunity. Id. at 8-11 (finding a litigation
`
`defense agreement established privity); see also First Data Corp. v. Cardsoft
`
`(Assignment for the Benefit of Creditors), LLC, IPR2014-00715, Paper No. 9 at 7-
`
`10 (Oct. 17, 2014) (finding an indemnitor, who had control and/or an opportunity
`
`to control events leading up to the filing of a petition, to be a RPI).
`
`Because indemnification can establish the opportunity to exercise control,
`
`the Board has found that it is in the interests of justice to authorize additional
`
`discovery seeking indemnification agreements. See Arris Grp., Inc. v. C-Cation
`
`12
`
`
`
`
`Techs., LLC, IPR2014-00635, Paper No. 10 at 6 (May 1, 2015) (finding that
`
`Patent Owner’s Request for Rehearing
`Case IPR2014-00689
`
`“indemnification agreements referencing or contingent on Petitioner’s ability to
`
`control the [litigation]” were necessary discovery in the interests of justice). The
`
`Board has also authorized additional discovery seeking communications related to
`
`such agreements. See Atlanta Gas Light Co. v. Bennett Regulator Guards, Inc.,
`
`IPR2013-00453, Paper 40 at 4-7 (Apr. 23, 2014) (allowing additional discovery on
`
`documents and things containing communications regarding a dispute about
`
`indemnification). Because the discovery Patent Owner seeks is directly related to
`
`the issue of privity, it is in the interests of justice to allow Patent Owner to file a
`
`Motion requesting additional discovery on (1) all agreements between PGS and
`
`ION containing any warranty, indemnification, or intellectual property defense
`
`provisions; and (2) all relevant communications.
`
`IV. THE BOARD’S ORDER ON DEPOSITION TIMES OVERLOOKS
`THE DISPARITY IN REDIRECT TIME
`The Board’s Order provides more re-direct testimony to PGS than to Patent
`
`Owner, thus creating a disparity that should be corrected. Under the 12-3-2 rule,
`
`Patent Owner is afforded only 3 hours of redirect, when defending its patent owner
`
`response declaration testimony, whereas PGS is afforded 4 hours of redirect when
`
`defending its reply declaration testimony. Paper No. 59 at 4. There is no
`
`principled reason why PGS should receive more time to redirect its witnesses than
`
`Patent Owner receives. As this was likely an inadvertent application of the default
`
`13
`
`
`
`
`deposition times to reply declarants, Patent Owner respectfully submits that the
`
`Patent Owner’s Request for Rehearing
`Case IPR2014-00689
`
`Board overlooked the differences in redirect time provided in the Order, and
`
`should adjust Petitioners’ re-direct time to be equal to that afforded Patent Owner’s
`
`witnesses.
`
`V. CONCLUSION
`This Board overlooked evidence and misapprehended the law governing
`
`additional discovery on privity and RPI when it refused to authorize Patent Owner
`
`to file a Motion for Additional Discovery. Denying Patent Owner the opportunity
`
`to brief these issues violates Patent Owner’s due process rights and amounts to an
`
`abuse of discretion. Additionally, Patent Owner submits that the Board overlooked
`
`the disparity in redirect examination time provided for petition and reply
`
`declaration testimony. For these reasons, Patent Owner respectfully requests that
`
`the Board:
`
`1. Vacate the Order (Paper No. 59);
`2. Provide Patent Owner with a reasonable opportunity to file a Motion for
`Additional Discovery seeking
`A.
`all agreements between any PGS affiliate and any ION affiliate
`containing any warranty, indemnification, or intellectual
`property defense provisions (“THE PROVISIONS”);
`all communications relating to any agreements containing THE
`PROVISIONS;
`
`B.
`
`14
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated: May 14, 2015
`
`
`
`
`
`Customer Number
` 22850
`Tel. (703) 413-3000
`Fax. (703) 413-2220
`
`Patent Owner’s Request for Rehearing
`Case IPR2014-00689
`
`C.
`
`all communications between any PGS affiliate and any ION
`affiliate regarding (1) any inter partes reviews of U.S. Patent
`Nos. 7,162,967; 7,080,607; or 7,293,520; (2) any district court
`proceedings involving PGS and Patent Owner or ION and
`Patent Owner, or (3) any of the patents at issue in (1) or (2); and
`3. Reduce the amount of time provided for redirect examination of reply
`declaration testimony to 3 hours or less.
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`Oblon, McClelland, Maier &
`Neustadt, LLP
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/Michael L. Kiklis/
`Michael L. Kiklis (Reg. No. 38,939)
`Attorney for Patent Owner
`WESTERNGECO L.L.C.
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Request for Rehearing
`Case IPR2014-00689
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(e), the undersigned certifies service of
`
`PATENT OWNER’S REQUEST FOR REHEARING UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.71
`
`and EXHIBITS 2137, 2138, and 2139 on the counsel of record for the Petitioners
`
`by filing this document through the Patent Review Processing System as well as
`
`delivering a copy via electronic mail to the following address:
`
`
`David Berl
`dberl@wc.com
`
`Jessamyn Berniker
`jberniker@wc.com
`
`Thomas S. Fletcher
`tfletcher@wc.com
`
`Christopher Suarez
`csuarez@wc.com
`
`W. Karl Renner
`Roberto Devoto
`IPR37136-0004IP1@fr.com
`
`
`
`
`
`/Michael L. Kiklis/
`Michael L. Kiklis (Reg. No. 38,939)
`Attorney for Patent Owner
`
`WESTERNGECO L.L.C.
`
`
`
`16
`
`Dated: May 14, 2015
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
