Case 4:14-cv-03118 Document 15 Filed in TXSD on 01/23/15 Page 1 of 23
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`
`
`
`WESTERNGECO L.L.C.,
`
`
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`MULTI KLIENT INVEST AS,
`PETROLEUM GEO-SERVICES, INC., )
`and PGS GEOPHYSICAL AS
`
`)
`)
`)
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Civil Action No. 14-cv-03118
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`
`
`FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
`
`DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`
`Plaintiff WesternGeco L.L.C., for its Complaint against Defendants Multi Klient Invest
`
`AS, Petroleum Geo-Services, Inc., and PGS Geophysical AS (collectively, “PGS”) hereby
`
`alleges as follows and demands a jury trial on all issues so triable.
`
`THE PARTIES
`
`1.
`
`Plaintiff WesternGeco L.L.C. (“WesternGeco”) is a Delaware corporation having
`
`a principal place of business at 10001 Richmond Avenue, Houston, Texas 77042-4299.
`
`2.
`
`Upon information and belief, Defendant Multi Klient Invest AS (“Multi Klient”)
`
`is a Norwegian corporation having a principal place of business at Lillearerveien 4C, P.O. Box
`
`251, Lillearer, Oslo, Norway 0216 and an office in Houston, Texas.
`
`3.
`
`Upon information and belief, Defendant Petroleum Geo-Services, Inc. (“PGS
`
`Inc.”) is a Delaware corporation having a principal place of business at 15150 Memorial Drive,
`
`Houston, Texas 77079, having an agent for service of process registered with the Texas
`
`Secretary of State’s office.
`
`498772.1
`
`PGS Exhibit 1103, pg. 1
`PGS v. WesternGeco (IPR2014-00689)
`
`

`

`Case 4:14-cv-03118 Document 15 Filed in TXSD on 01/23/15 Page 2 of 23
`
`4.
`
`Upon information and belief, Defendant PGS Geophysical AS (“PGS AS”) is a
`
`Norwegian corporation having a principal place of business at Strandveien 4, P.O. Box 290, N-
`
`1326, Lysaker, Norway, and an office in Houston, Texas.
`
`5.
`
`Upon information and belief, Multi Klient, PGS Inc., and PGS AS are wholly
`
`owned subsidiaries of Petroleum Geo-Services ASA and coordinate their business activities and
`
`cooperate regarding the subject matter of this Complaint, as set forth below.
`
`NATURE OF THE ACTION
`
`6.
`
`This is a civil action for the willful infringement of United States Patent Nos.
`
`5,924,049 (the ’049 patent), 6,545,944 (the ’944 patent), 6,671,223 (the ’223 patent), 7,822,552
`
`(the ’552 patent), 7,293,520 (the ’520 patent), 7,080,607 (the ’607 patent), and 7,162,967 (the
`
`’967 patent) (collectively, “the Patents-in-Suit”). This action arises under the Patent Laws of the
`
`United States, 35 U.S.C. § 1, et seq.
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`7.
`
`This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over the infringement action pursuant to
`
`28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338(a).
`
`8.
`
`Multi Klient, PGS Inc., and PGS AS are 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. Upon information and belief, Multi Klient, PGS Inc., and PGS
`
`AS have an active business presence in this district.
`
`9.
`
`Upon
`
`information and belief, PGS uses and/or maintains a website:
`
`http://www.pgs.com. 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. Upon information
`
`
`
`498772.1
`
`2
`
`PGS Exhibit 1103, pg. 2
`PGS v. WesternGeco (IPR2014-00689)
`
`

`

`Case 4:14-cv-03118 Document 15 Filed in TXSD on 01/23/15 Page 3 of 23
`
`and belief, Multi Klient, PGS Inc., and PGS AS intend for customers and potential customers
`
`within this judicial district to access this website and purchase PGS products and services. This
`
`website additionally lists major U.S. offices and career opportunities in Houston and Austin.
`
`10.
`
`Upon information and belief, Multi Klient, PGS Inc., and PGS AS are
`
`additionally subject to personal jurisdiction in this Court due to their specific activities in the
`
`State of Texas relating to the supply, marketing, selling, and performance of products and
`
`services, and components thereof, that infringe the Patents-in-Suit as alleged and stated within
`
`this section and throughout this Complaint.
`
`11.
`
`Upon information and belief, Multi Klient, PGS Inc., and PGS AS regularly
`
`market and advertise products and services that infringe the Patents-in-Suit to customers within
`
`this District. Upon information and belief, Multi Klient, PGS Inc., and PGS AS employ, and/or
`
`rely on marketing and sales personnel within this judicial district in connection with promoting
`
`their commercial interests, including but not limited to the sales of products and services that
`
`infringe the Patents-in-Suit.
`
`12.
`
`Upon information and belief, Multi Klient, PGS Inc., and PGS AS have attended
`
`and plan to attend conferences and trade shows within this judicial district to promote their
`
`commercial interests, including but not limited to the sales of products and services that infringe
`
`the Patents-in-Suit. Upon information and belief, PGS exhibited at the 2013 Society of
`
`Exploration Geophysicists International Exposition and Annual Meeting (“SEG annual
`
`meeting”), that took place in Houston, Texas in September 2013, in order to promote, inter alia,
`
`products and services incorporating eBird, GeoSource and/or Simultaneous Long Offset (“SLO”)
`
`acquisition and/or other simultaneous source acquisitions which infringe WesternGeco’s Patents-
`
`in-Suit. Upon information and belief, Multi Klient, PGS Inc., and PGS AS have attended and
`
`
`
`498772.1
`
`3
`
`PGS Exhibit 1103, pg. 3
`PGS v. WesternGeco (IPR2014-00689)
`
`

`

`Case 4:14-cv-03118 Document 15 Filed in TXSD on 01/23/15 Page 4 of 23
`
`exhibited at prior SEG annual meetings, including those within this judicial district, in order to
`
`promote, inter alia, products and services incorporating eBird, GeoSource and/or SLO
`
`acquisition and/or other simultaneous source acquisitions which infringe WesternGeco’s Patents-
`
`in-Suit.
`
`13.
`
`Upon information and belief, PGS has performed marine seismic surveys using
`
`products and methods that infringe WesternGeco’s Patents-in-Suit within the United States
`
`Exclusive Economic Zone (“EEZ”) relying on ports, offices, and business operations within this
`
`judicial district and using components supplied from this judicial district.
`
`14.
`
`For example, on June 20, 2014 Multi Klient applied for a permit from the United
`
`States Bureau of Energy Management (“BOEM”) to perform an infringing marine seismic
`
`survey offshore Texas. That application discloses a Houston-area telephone number and
`
`Houston-based employee for Multi Klient, that PGS will conduct the survey from 15150
`
`Memorial Drive, Houston, Texas, and that the vessel(s) will operate from Freeport, Texas. The
`
`expected commencement date was listed as August 1, 2014 and the expected completion date as
`
`July 30, 2015.
`
`15.
`
`Venue is proper in this judicial district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391 and
`
`1400(b).
`
`THE PATENTS
`
`16.
`
`On July 13, 1999, the ’049 patent, titled “Methods for Acquiring and Processing
`
`Seismic Data,” was duly and legally issued to Western Atlas International, Inc. (“Western
`
`Atlas”) as assignee. Western Atlas duly and legally assigned the ’049 patent to WesternGeco on
`
`September 14, 2001. The ’049 patent teaches and claims, e.g., methods for acquiring seismic
`
`data from seismic sources activated simultaneously or near simultaneously as well as processing
`
`
`
`498772.1
`
`4
`
`PGS Exhibit 1103, pg. 4
`PGS v. WesternGeco (IPR2014-00689)
`
`

`

`Case 4:14-cv-03118 Document 15 Filed in TXSD on 01/23/15 Page 5 of 23
`
`that data. This patented “simultaneous shooting” approach provides significant benefits,
`
`including allowing surveying companies to produce better seismic data in a shorter amount of
`
`time. WesternGeco is the current assignee of the ’049 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 ’049 patent is
`
`attached hereto as Exhibit A.
`
`17.
`
`On April 8, 2003, the ’944 patent, titled “Method for Acquiring and Processing of
`
`Data from Two or More Simultaneously Fired Sources,” was duly and legally issued to
`
`WesternGeco as assignee. The ’944 patent teaches and claims, e.g., methods for conducting
`
`seismic surveys by simultaneously shooting impulsive sources and processing the data to create
`
`source recordings with data responsive to each individual seismic source. This patented
`
`technology enables significant benefits and, e.g., allows for more efficient and cost-effective
`
`seismic data acquisition at a denser grid of surface locations. WesternGeco is the current
`
`assignee of the ’944 patent, and is the owner of the right to sue and recover for any current or
`
`past infringement of that patent. A copy of the ’944 patent is attached hereto as Exhibit B.
`
`18.
`
`On December 30, 2003, the ’223 patent, titled “Control Devices for Controlling
`
`the Position of a Marine Seismic Streamer,” was duly and legally issued to WesternGeco as
`
`assignee. A reexamination certificate for the ’223 patent issued on May 12, 2009. The ’223
`
`patent teaches and claims, e.g., devices for controlling the position of a marine seismic streamer
`
`using independent “wings” that project outwardly from the body of the device. The devices help
`
`prevent streamer tangling and mitigate the adverse effects of currents on survey efficiency.
`
`WesternGeco is the current assignee of the ’223 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 ’223 patent is attached
`
`
`
`498772.1
`
`5
`
`PGS Exhibit 1103, pg. 5
`PGS v. WesternGeco (IPR2014-00689)
`
`

`

`Case 4:14-cv-03118 Document 15 Filed in TXSD on 01/23/15 Page 6 of 23
`
`as Exhibit C. A copy of the reexamination certificate for the ’223 patent is attached as Exhibit
`
`D.
`
`19.
`
`On October 26, 2010, the ’552 patent, titled “Control Devices for Controlling the
`
`Position of a Marine Seismic Streamer,” was duly and legally issued to WesternGeco as
`
`assignee. The ’552 patent teaches and claims, e.g., methods for controlling the position of a
`
`marine seismic streamer using a control device with independent “wings” that project outwardly
`
`from the body of the device. These methods help prevent streamer tangling and mitigate the
`
`adverse effects of currents on survey efficiency. WesternGeco is the current assignee of the ’552
`
`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 ’552 patent is attached as Exhibit E.
`
`20.
`
`On November 13, 2007, the ’520 patent, titled “Control System for Positioning of
`
`a Marine Seismic Streamers,” was duly and legally issued to WesternGeco as assignee. The
`
`’520 patent teaches and claims, e.g., 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 efficiency and efficacy of seismic
`
`surveys, and improve the safety of those operations. WesternGeco 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 F.
`
`21.
`
`On July 25, 2006, the ’607 patent, titled “Seismic Data Acquisition Equipment
`
`Control System,” was duly and legally issued to WesternGeco as assignee. The ’607 patent
`
`teaches and claims, e.g., 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
`
`
`
`498772.1
`
`6
`
`PGS Exhibit 1103, pg. 6
`PGS v. WesternGeco (IPR2014-00689)
`
`

`

`Case 4:14-cv-03118 Document 15 Filed in TXSD on 01/23/15 Page 7 of 23
`
`across the many square miles of a marine seismic survey. WesternGeco 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 G.
`
`22.
`
`On January 16, 2007, the ’967 patent, titled “Control System for Positioning of
`
`Marine Seismic Streamers,” was duly and legally issued to WesternGeco as assignee. The ’967
`
`patent teaches and claims, e.g., 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. WesternGeco 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 H.
`
`PGS AND ACCUSED TECHNOLOGY
`
`23.
`
`Upon information and belief, PGS competes with WesternGeco to market and
`
`perform marine seismic surveys and to sell the resulting data to customers.
`
`24.
`
`Upon information and belief, Multi Klient commissions and participates in these
`
`PGS marine seismic surveys to obtain data to sell to customers. For example, Multi Klient has
`
`applied for several BOEM permits, commissioning PGS Inc. and/or PGS AS as the service
`
`company and listing itself as the recipient of the data. Upon information and belief, Multi Klient
`
`markets and sells the data received from such surveys to customers.
`
`25.
`
`Upon information and belief, PGS Inc. performs and contributes to marine
`
`seismic surveys, and provides support for surveying operations, including offices and facilities.
`
`Upon information and belief, PGS AS operates vessels and supplies equipment used to conduct
`
`
`
`498772.1
`
`7
`
`PGS Exhibit 1103, pg. 7
`PGS v. WesternGeco (IPR2014-00689)
`
`

`

`Case 4:14-cv-03118 Document 15 Filed in TXSD on 01/23/15 Page 8 of 23
`
`marine seismic surveys that utilize eBird, GeoSource and/or SLO acquisition and other
`
`simultaneous source acquisitions. For example, PGS has been listed as the service company on
`
`multiple applications for BOEM permits filed by Multi Klient and, upon information and belief,
`
`PGS has conducted and continues to conduct marine seismic surveys within the Gulf of Mexico
`
`and EEZ under the trade name “Triton” that infringe the Patents-in-Suit, as set forth herein.
`
`26.
`
`Upon information and belief, the eBird is a device that uses independently-
`
`controlled wings to provide for lateral and horizontal steering of marine seismic streamers to
`
`allow for, e.g., more efficient control of the streamers during a marine seismic survey. Upon
`
`information and belief, PGS’ use of the eBird infringes the ’223, ’552, ’520, ’607, and ’967
`
`patents, as set forth below.
`
`27.
`
`Upon information and belief, GeoSource is a staggered source comprised of “two
`
`sources fired at different depths.” The “sub-sources” at different depths are fired with a time
`
`delay between their activations. Upon information and belief, PGS’ use of GeoSource infringes
`
`the ‘944 patent, as set forth below.
`
`28.
`
`Upon information and belief, GeoStreamer surveys within the Gulf of Mexico and
`
`EEZ incorporate eBird and GeoSource. The PGS 2011 Annual Report states that the
`
`“GeoStreamer steering system, [is] called eBird.” PGS’ website notes that “GeoStreamer GS
`
`uses a time and depth-distributed source technology (GeoSource).” PGS’ website also states that
`
`GeoStreamer GS was launched in 2011.
`
`29.
`
`Upon information and belief, SLO acquisition involves the simultaneous or near-
`
`simultaneous shooting of multiple spaced-apart seismic sources, such as airguns. Upon
`
`information and belief, the simultaneous shooting data acquired via the SLO method is separated
`
`to produce data responsive to each source used. Upon information and belief, PGS’ use of SLO
`
`
`
`498772.1
`
`8
`
`PGS Exhibit 1103, pg. 8
`PGS v. WesternGeco (IPR2014-00689)
`
`

`

`Case 4:14-cv-03118 Document 15 Filed in TXSD on 01/23/15 Page 9 of 23
`
`acquisition and other simultaneous source acquisitions infringe the ’049 and ’944 patents, as set
`
`forth below.
`
`30.
`
`Upon information and belief, PGS, including but not limited to Multi Klient, has
`
`applied for multiple BOEM permits that correspond to seismic surveying activity that was part of
`
`the Triton survey(s). These permits note the use of five total vessels and include maps showing
`
`the “Operational Area” within the Gulf of Mexico and EEZ, including United States-leased
`
`blocks within the Garden Banks and Keathley Canyon.
`
`31.
`
`Upon information and belief, conducting marine seismic surveys within the
`
`Garden Banks and Keathley Canyon, as well as other portions of the Gulf of Mexico, requires
`
`authorization from the United States Department of the Interior. Upon information and belief,
`
`BOEM, which is a division of the United States Department of the Interior, must issue a permit
`
`authorizing any geophysical exploration for mineral resources in these areas. Upon information
`
`and belief, PGS applied for multiple BOEM permits corresponding to seismic surveying activity
`
`that was part of the Triton survey(s) in order to comply with U.S. law governing seismic surveys
`
`in these areas.
`
`32.
`
`Upon information and belief, PGS has been aware of the ‘049 and ‘944 patents
`
`since at least January 8, 2008, when counsel for WesternGeco contacted counsel for PGS
`
`regarding these patents.
`
`33.
`
`Upon information and belief, PGS has been aware of the ‘520, ‘607 and ‘967 at
`
`all relevant times though its subsequent employment of a former-WesternGeco engineer and co-
`
`inventor of those patents, and his role in the development and launch of PGS’ infringing products
`
`and services. Additionally, PGS has been aware of the ‘520, ‘607 and ‘967 patents since at least
`
`December 8, 2009, when counsel for WesternGeco contacted counsel for PGS regarding these
`
`
`
`498772.1
`
`9
`
`PGS Exhibit 1103, pg. 9
`PGS v. WesternGeco (IPR2014-00689)
`
`

`

`Case 4:14-cv-03118 Document 15 Filed in TXSD on 01/23/15 Page 10 of 23
`
`patents. Upon information and belief, PGS has additionally been aware of the ‘223 and ‘552
`
`patents at all relevant times through its employment of multiple former-WesternGeco engineers
`
`familiar with those patents and as evidenced by PGS’ citation of those patents to the United
`
`States Patent & Trademark Office as relevant to PGS’ accused technology.
`
`34.
`
`Upon information and belief, from its knowledge of the Patents-in-Suit and its
`
`knowledge of eBird, GeoSource, and SLO acquisition and other PGS simultaneous source
`
`acquisitions, PGS knew or should have known it was infringing the Patents-in-Suit as set forth
`
`below.
`
`COUNT I - INFRINGEMENT OF THE ’049 PATENT
`
`35. WesternGeco repeats and incorporates by reference the allegations set forth in
`
`paragraphs 1-34 above.
`
`36. Multi Klient, PGS Inc., and PGS AS have infringed the ’049 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
`
`SLO acquisition and/or other simultaneous source acquisitions, and/or inducing and/or
`
`contributing to such conduct by each other and/or other PGS entities, without authority and in
`
`violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(a), (b), (c) and/or (f).
`
`37.
`
`Upon information and belief, Multi Klient, PGS Inc., and PGS AS have
`
`performed within the EEZ marine seismic surveys covered by the ’049 patent in violation of at
`
`least 35 U.S.C. § 271(a). For example, the Triton FAZ Survey conducted by Multi Klient, PGS
`
`Inc., and PGS AS commenced in November 2013 and is covered by the ’049 patent in violation
`
`of at least 35 U.S.C. § 271(a). To the extent any of Multi Klient, PGS Inc. or PGS AS are not
`
`direct infringers under § 271(a), they contributed to and/or induced such infringement under
`
`
`
`498772.1
`
`10
`
`PGS Exhibit 1103, pg. 10
`PGS v. WesternGeco (IPR2014-00689)
`
`

`

`Case 4:14-cv-03118 Document 15 Filed in TXSD on 01/23/15 Page 11 of 23
`
`§ 271(b) and/or (c). For example, they have induced and contributed to each other’s conduct
`
`regarding the Triton survey(s) as set forth in PGS’ permit applications and as alleged herein.
`
`38.
`
`Upon information and belief, Multi Klient, PGS Inc., and PGS AS imported,
`
`offered to sell, sold, or used products within the United States which were made by the method
`
`patented in the ’049 patent in violation of at least 35 U.S.C. § 271(g). For example, PGS has
`
`alleged in other proceedings, that “data products, including potentially large volumes of recorded
`
`seismic data” are covered by § 271(g). To the extent PGS is correct, its importation of seismic
`
`data and products generated by the patented methods infringe under § 271(g).
`
`39.
`
`None of Multi Klient, PGS Inc., or PGS AS has any license or other authority
`
`from WesternGeco or any other person or entity to practice the subject matter claimed by the
`
`’049 patent.
`
`40. WesternGeco has, at all relevant times, complied with the notice provisions of 35
`
`U.S.C. § 287(a) with respect to the ’049 patent.
`
`41.
`
`Upon information and belief, Multi Klient, PGS Inc., and PGS AS have been
`
`aware of the ’049 patent at all relevant times. Their actions as set forth herein raised an
`
`objectively high risk of infringing WesternGeco’s ’049 patent, and they were aware or should
`
`have been aware of this risk.
`
`42.
`
`Upon information and belief, Multi Klient, PGS Inc., and PGS AS have willfully
`
`infringed the ’049 patent. Multi Klient’s, PGS Inc.’s, and PGS AS’s willful infringement of the
`
`’049 patent renders this an exceptional case pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 285.
`
`COUNT II - INFRINGEMENT OF THE ’944 PATENT
`
`43. WesternGeco repeats and incorporates by reference the allegations set forth in
`
`paragraphs 1-42 above.
`
`
`
`498772.1
`
`11
`
`PGS Exhibit 1103, pg. 11
`PGS v. WesternGeco (IPR2014-00689)
`
`

`

`Case 4:14-cv-03118 Document 15 Filed in TXSD on 01/23/15 Page 12 of 23
`
`44. Multi Klient, PGS Inc., and PGS AS have infringed the ’944 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
`
`GeoSource or components thereof, SLO acquisition and/or other simultaneous source
`
`acquisitions, and/or inducing and/or contributing to such conduct by each other and/or other
`
`PGS entities, without authority and in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(a), (b), (c) and/or (f).
`
`45.
`
`Upon information and belief, Multi Klient, PGS Inc., and PGS AS have
`
`performed within the EEZ marine seismic surveys covered by the ’944 patent in violation of at
`
`least 35 U.S.C. § 271(a). For example, the Triton FAZ Survey conducted by Multi Klient, PGS
`
`Inc., and PGS AS commenced in November 2013 and is covered by the ’944 patent in violation
`
`of at least 35 U.S.C. § 271(a). To the extent any of Multi Klient, PGS Inc. or PGS AS are not
`
`direct infringers under § 271(a), they contributed to and/or induced such infringement under
`
`§ 271(b) and/or (c). For example, they have induced and contributed to each other’s conduct
`
`regarding the Triton survey(s) as set forth in PGS’ permit applications and as alleged herein.
`
`46.
`
`Upon information and belief, Multi Klient, PGS Inc., and PGS AS imported,
`
`offered to sell, sold, or used products within the United States which were made by the method
`
`patented in the ’944 patent in violation of at least 35 U.S.C. § 271(g). For example, PGS has
`
`alleged in other proceedings, that “data products, including potentially large volumes of recorded
`
`seismic data” are covered by § 271(g). To the extent PGS is correct, its importation of seismic
`
`data and products generated by the patented methods infringe under § 271(g).
`
`47.
`
`None of Multi Klient, PGS Inc., or PGS AS has any license or other authority
`
`from WesternGeco or any other person or entity to practice the subject matter claimed by the
`
`’944 patent.
`
`
`
`498772.1
`
`12
`
`PGS Exhibit 1103, pg. 12
`PGS v. WesternGeco (IPR2014-00689)
`
`

`

`Case 4:14-cv-03118 Document 15 Filed in TXSD on 01/23/15 Page 13 of 23
`
`48. WesternGeco has, at all relevant times, complied with the notice provisions of 35
`
`U.S.C. § 287(a) with respect to the ’944 patent.
`
`49.
`
`Upon information and belief, Multi Klient, PGS Inc., and PGS AS have been
`
`aware of the ’944 patent at all relevant times. Their actions as set forth herein raised an
`
`objectively high risk of infringing WesternGeco’s ’944 patent, and they were aware or should
`
`have been aware of this risk.
`
`50.
`
`Upon information and belief, Multi Klient, PGS Inc., and PGS AS have willfully
`
`infringed the ’944 patent. Multi Klient’s, PGS Inc.’s, and PGS AS’s willful infringement of the
`
`’944 patent renders this an exceptional case pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 285.
`
`COUNT III - INFRINGEMENT OF THE ’223 PATENT
`
`51. WesternGeco repeats and incorporates by reference the allegations set forth in
`
`paragraphs 1-50 above.
`
`52. Multi Klient, PGS Inc., and PGS AS have infringed the ’223 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 and EEZ products and services
`
`incorporating eBird—or components thereof—and/or inducing and/or contributing to such
`
`conduct by each other and/or other PGS entities, without authority and in violation of 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 271(a), (b), (c) and/or (f).
`
`53.
`
`Upon information and belief, Multi Klient, PGS Inc., and PGS AS have
`
`performed within the EEZ marine seismic surveys covered by the ’223 patent in violation of at
`
`least 35 U.S.C. § 271(a). For example, the Triton FAZ Survey conducted by Multi Klient, PGS
`
`Inc., and PGS AS commenced in November 2013 and is covered by the ’223 patent in violation
`
`of at least 35 U.S.C. § 271(a). To the extent any of Multi Klient, PGS Inc. or PGS AS are not
`
`
`
`498772.1
`
`13
`
`PGS Exhibit 1103, pg. 13
`PGS v. WesternGeco (IPR2014-00689)
`
`

`

`Case 4:14-cv-03118 Document 15 Filed in TXSD on 01/23/15 Page 14 of 23
`
`direct infringers under § 271(a), they contributed to and/or induced such infringement under §
`
`271(b) and/or (c). For example, they have induced and contributed to each other’s conduct
`
`regarding the Triton survey(s) as set forth in PGS’ permit applications and as alleged herein.
`
`54.
`
`Upon information and belief, Multi Klient, PGS Inc., and PGS AS imported,
`
`offered to sell, sold, or used products within the United States which were made by the method
`
`patented in the ’223 patent in violation of at least 35 U.S.C. § 271(g). For example, PGS has
`
`alleged in other proceedings, that “data products, including potentially large volumes of recorded
`
`seismic data” are covered by § 271(g). To the extent PGS is correct, its importation of seismic
`
`data and products generated by the patented methods infringe under § 271(g).
`
`55.
`
`None of Multi Klient, PGS Inc., or PGS AS has any license or other authority
`
`from WesternGeco or any other person or entity to practice the subject matter claimed by the
`
`’223 patent.
`
`56. WesternGeco has, at all relevant times, complied with the notice provisions of 35
`
`U.S.C. § 287(a) with respect to the ’223 patent.
`
`57.
`
`Upon information and belief, Multi Klient, PGS Inc., and PGS AS have been
`
`aware of the ’223 patent at all relevant times. Their actions as set forth herein raised an
`
`objectively high risk of infringing WesternGeco’s ’223 patent, and they were aware or should
`
`have been aware of this risk.
`
`58.
`
`Upon information and belief, Multi Klient, PGS Inc., and PGS AS have willfully
`
`infringed the ’223 patent. Multi Klient’s, PGS Inc.’s, and PGS AS’s willful infringement of the
`
`’223 patent renders this an exceptional case pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 285.
`
`
`
`498772.1
`
`14
`
`PGS Exhibit 1103, pg. 14
`PGS v. WesternGeco (IPR2014-00689)
`
`

`

`Case 4:14-cv-03118 Document 15 Filed in TXSD on 01/23/15 Page 15 of 23
`
`COUNT IV - INFRINGEMENT OF THE ’552 PATENT
`
`59. WesternGeco repeats and incorporates by reference the allegations set forth in
`
`paragraphs 1-58 above.
`
`60. Multi Klient, PGS Inc., and PGS AS have infringed the ’552 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 and EEZ products and services
`
`incorporating eBird—or components thereof—and/or inducing and/or contributing to such
`
`conduct by each other and/or other PGS entities, without authority and in violation of 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 271(a), (b), (c) and/or (f).
`
`61.
`
`Upon information and belief, Multi Klient, PGS Inc., and PGS AS have
`
`performed within the EEZ marine seismic surveys covered by the ’552 patent in violation of at
`
`least 35 U.S.C. § 271(a). For example, the Triton FAZ Survey conducted by Multi Klient, PGS
`
`Inc., and PGS AS commenced in November 2013 and is covered by the ’223 patent in violation
`
`of at least 35 U.S.C. § 271(a). To the extent any of Multi Klient, PGS Inc. or PGS AS are not
`
`direct infringers under § 271(a), they contributed to and/or induced such infringement under §
`
`271(b) and/or (c). For example, they have induced and contributed to each other’s conduct
`
`regarding the Triton survey(s) as set forth in PGS’ permit applications and as alleged herein.
`
`62.
`
`Upon information and belief, Multi Klient, PGS Inc., and PGS AS imported,
`
`offered to sell, sold, or used products within the United States which were made by the method
`
`patented in the ’552 patent in violation of at least 35 U.S.C. § 271(g). For example, PGS has
`
`alleged in other proceedings, that “data products, including potentially large volumes of recorded
`
`seismic data” are covered by § 271(g). To the extent PGS is correct, its importation of seismic
`
`data and products generated by the patented methods infringe under § 271(g).
`
`
`
`498772.1
`
`15
`
`PGS Exhibit 1103, pg. 15
`PGS v. WesternGeco (IPR2014-00689)
`
`

`

`Case 4:14-cv-03118 Document 15 Filed in TXSD on 01/23/15 Page 16 of 23
`
`63.
`
`None of Multi Klient, PGS Inc., or PGS AS has any license or other authority
`
`from WesternGeco or any other person or entity to practice the subject matter claimed by the
`
`’552 patent.
`
`64. WesternGeco has, at all relevant times, complied with the notice provisions of 35
`
`U.S.C. § 287(a) with respect to the ’552 patent.
`
`65.
`
`Upon information and belief, Multi Klient, PGS Inc., and PGS AS have been
`
`aware of the ’552 patent at all relevant times. Their actions as set forth herein raised an
`
`objectively high risk of infringing WesternGeco’s ’552 patent, and they were aware or should
`
`have been aware of this risk.
`
`66.
`
`Upon information and belief, Multi Klient, PGS Inc., and PGS AS have willfully
`
`infringed the ’552 patent. Multi Klient’s, PGS Inc.’s, and PGS AS’s willful infringement of the
`
`’552 patent renders this an exceptional case pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 285.
`
`COUNT V - INFRINGEMENT OF THE ’520 PATENT
`
`67. WesternGeco repeats and incorporates by reference the allegations set forth in
`
`paragraphs 1-66 above.
`
`68. Multi Klient, PGS Inc., and PGS AS 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 and EEZ products and services
`
`incorporating eBird—or components thereof—and/or inducing and/or contributing to such
`
`conduct by each other and/or other PGS entities, without authority and in violation of 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 271(a), (b), (c) and/or (f).
`
`69.
`
`Upon information and belief, Multi Klient, PGS Inc., and PGS AS have
`
`performed within the EEZ marine seismic surveys covered by the ’520 patent in violation of at
`
`
`
`498772.1
`
`16
`
`PGS Exhibit 1103, pg. 16
`PGS v. WesternGeco (IPR2014-00689)
`
`

`

`Case 4:14-cv-03118 Document 15 Filed in TXSD on 01/23/15 Page 17 of 23
`
`least 35 U.S.C. § 271(a). For example, the Triton FAZ Survey conducted by Multi Klient, PGS
`
`Inc., and PGS AS commenced in November 2013 and is covered by the ’520 patent in violation
`
`of