`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00687, Paper 67
`IPR2014-00688, Paper 68
`IPR2014-00689, Paper 67
`Entered: May 19, 2015
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`PETROLEUM GEO-SERVICES INC,
`and
`ION GEOPHYSICAL CORPORATION
`AND ION INTERNATIONAL S.A.R.L,
`Petitioners,
`
`v.
`
`WESTERNGECO LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`
`Cases1 2
`IPR2014-00687 (Patent 7,162,967)
`IPR2014-00688 (Patent 7,080,607)
`IPR2014-00689 (Patent 7,293,520)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Before BRYAN F. MOORE, SCOTT A. DANIELS,
`BEVERLY M. BUNTING, and BARBARA A. PARVIS,
`Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`DANIELS, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
` This Order addresses issues from a phone conference that are the same in
`all three cases. Therefore, we exercise our discretion to issue one Decision
`to be filed in each case. The parties are not authorized to use this style
`heading for any subsequent papers.
`2 Cases IPR2015-00565, IPR2015-00566, IPR2015-00567 have been joined
`with these proceedings.
`
`1
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00687 (Patent 7,162,967)
`IPR2014-00688 (Patent 7,080,607)
`IPR2014-00689 (Patent 7,293,520)
`
`
`
`
`CORRECTED ORDER3
`Conduct of the Proceeding
`37 C.F.R. § 42.5
`A conference call for these proceedings was held on April 27, 2015,
`
`including Judges Daniels, Moore, Bunting, and Parvis, and respective
`
`counsel for the parties. A court reporter was also on the call. The transcript
`
`should be filed via PRPS as soon as it is available. PGS and WesternGeco
`
`requested the conference because they could not agree on deposition times
`
`for witnesses. In the discussion that follows, because of the related
`
`discovery matters directed to a second group of PGS proceedings, IPR2014--
`
`-01475, -01477, and -01478, involving the same patents, we refer to the
`
`present proceedings as the first group of PGS proceedings.
`
`Initially, Counsel for PGS raised a concern regarding unsupported
`
`evidence in the declaration of Mr. Robin Walker, asserting that certain
`
`information referenced by Mr. Walker had not been produced, and the
`
`deposition of Mr. Walker was only a few days away, set for April 30, 2015.
`
`Counsel for WesternGeco indicated that some of this information was on
`
`encrypted, and double encrypted drives which they were attempting to
`
`produce, and that certain information was from Mr. Walker’s memory as
`
`opposed to physically available documents and things. The Board expects
`
`all available evidence that WesternGeco intends to rely on be produced prior
`
`to the deposition, and any additional evidence to be produced as soon as it is
`
`available. The Board is fully capable of determining the appropriate weight
`
`to give certain evidence relied upon by either party, and PGS may file
`
`
`3 This Order corrects a misreference to a case number in the original Order.
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00687 (Patent 7,162,967)
`IPR2014-00688 (Patent 7,080,607)
`IPR2014-00689 (Patent 7,293,520)
`
`motions to exclude at the appropriate time should it believe it is prejudiced
`
`by late or unsupported evidence.
`
`With respect to the length of depositions, in accordance with our
`
`Initial Conference Order (Paper 55) in this first group of PGS proceedings,
`
`we consistently determine that a reasonable time for each witness’s petition
`
`declaration testimony in the second group of PGS proceedings is 17 hours
`
`total, including: 12 hours for cross-examination; 3 hours for redirect
`
`examination; and 2 hours for re-cross examination. A reasonable time for
`
`reply declaration testimony for each witness in both groups of PGS
`
`proceedings is 7 hours for cross-examination; 4 hours for redirect
`
`examination; and 2 hours for re-cross examination. If necessary, the parties
`
`may contact the Board to explain why any further deposition time is needed.
`
`Also during the call, WesternGeco’s counsel explained that new
`
`evidence, filed subsequent to our Decisions to Institute, specifically Master
`
`Purchase Agreement No. MAR-2008-0139, (Ex. 2069) between PGS and
`
`Concept Systems Limited, a subsidiary of ION, was indicative of the need
`
`for additional discovery with respect to alleged privity between ION and
`
`PGS. Having addressed the matters of privity and real-party-in-interest
`
`already in our Decisions to Institute, we took the matter under advisement.
`
`Thus, having reviewed the Master Purchase Agreement and the indemnity
`
`clause at 1.17, WesternGeco does not, now, apprise us of any new evidence
`
`demonstrating control, opportunity to control, or financial compensation for
`
`litigation, or IPR proceedings. See Ex. 2069, 14.4 Neither are we persuaded
`
`
`4 WesternGeco’s Counsel points to IPR2014-01559, Paper 23, where the
`Board determined that the facts and evidence supported a finding of privity.
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00687 (Patent 7,162,967)
`IPR2014-00688 (Patent 7,080,607)
`IPR2014-00689 (Patent 7,293,520)
`
`that we misapprehended or overlooked such evidence in our Decisions to
`
`Institute. See Inst. Dec. 17, Exs. 2022, 2027.
`
`Accordingly, it is
`
`ORDERED that petition declaration testimony for each witness in
`
`each of the first and second PGS proceedings shall not exceed 17 hours total,
`
`including: 12 hours for cross-examination; 3 hours for redirect examination;
`
`and 2 hours for re-cross examination;
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that reply declaration witness testimony for
`
`each witness in each of the first and second PGS proceedings shall not
`
`exceed 13 hours total, including: 7 hours for cross-examination; 4 hours for
`
`redirect examination; and 2 hours for re-cross examination;
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that Patent Owner’s request for authorization
`
`for a Motion for Additional Discovery on the subjects of privity and real-
`
`party-in-interest, is denied; and
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order is to be entered into
`
`the files of the second group of PGS proceedings, IPR2014-01475, 01477,
`
`and 01478.
`
`
`However, the decision referred to is not precedential and the Board’s
`evaluation of privity in an inter partes review is made based on a case-by-
`case basis, taking into account the particular facts of each case. See 77 Fed.
`Reg. at 48,760.
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00687 (Patent 7,162,967)
`IPR2014-00688 (Patent 7,080,607)
`IPR2014-00689 (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
`
`5
`
`