Case IPR2014-00689
`Patent 7,293,520
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`PETROLEUM GEO-SERVICES INC.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`WESTERNGECO, LLC
`Patent Owner
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00689
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,293,520
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PETROLEUM GEO-SERVICES INC.’S OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PGS Exhibit 1116, pg. 1
`PGS v. WesternGeco (IPR2014-00689)
`
`
`Patent 7,293,520
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`PETROLEUM GEO-SERVICES INC.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`WESTERNGECO, LLC
`Patent Owner
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00689
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,293,520
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PETROLEUM GEO-SERVICES INC.’S OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PGS Exhibit 1116, pg. 1
`PGS v. WesternGeco (IPR2014-00689)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner Petroleum Geo-Services Inc. (“PGS”) objects pursuant to 37
`
`C.F.R. § 42.64(b)(1) and the Federal Rules of Evidence (“FRE”) to the
`
`admissibility of exhibits served by Patent Owner WesternGeco, LLC on September
`
`16, 2014. The exhibits objected to, and grounds for PGS’ objections, are listed
`
`below.
`
`I.
`
`IDENTIFICATION OF CHALLENGED EVIDENCE AND GROUNDS
`FOR OBJECTIONS
`A. Exhibit 2002
`PGS objects to Exhibit 2002 under FRE 402 and FRE 403 because it is
`
`irrelevant and its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of
`
`wasting time in this compressed proceeding. The Board has instituted the IPR
`
`based on various grounds that certain claims of U.S. Patent No. 7,293,520 (“the
`
`’520 Patent”) are anticipated and/or obvious. The Board declined to deny the
`
`petition on the basis that ION Geophysical Corp. (“ION”) is a real party in interest
`
`or a privy of PGS in this proceeding. Because Patent Owner has cited this exhibit
`
`solely in an effort to show that ION is a real party in interest or a privy of PGS in
`
`this proceeding, this exhibit is irrelevant to the determination to be made in the
`
`IPR. Moreover, even were the question of ION’s status as a real party in interest
`
`or privy of PGS relevant to the proceeding, Exhibit 2002 is not relevant to that
`
`determination and therefore should be excluded under FRE 402. And because any
`
`relevance of Exhibit 2002 is significantly outweighed by the undue prejudice
`
`
`
`2
`
`PGS Exhibit 1116, pg. 2
`PGS v. WesternGeco (IPR2014-00689)
`
`
`
`
`
`associated with ancillary litigation of the tangential and irrelevant issue of
`
`Petitioner’s relationship with ION, it should be excluded pursuant to FRE 403.
`
`PGS further objects to Exhibit 2002 under FRE 901, 1002, and 1003. It has
`
`not been authenticated under FRE 901, is not self-authenticating under FRE 902,
`
`and is not a “duplicate” as defined by FRE 1001(e). Exhibit 2002 is therefore
`
`inadmissible under FRE 901, 1002, and 1003. Additionally, this exhibit is
`
`inadmissible hearsay under FRE 802.
`
`Exhibit 2003
`
`B.
`PGS objects to Exhibit 2003 under FRE 402 and FRE 403 because it is
`
`irrelevant and its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of
`
`wasting time in this compressed proceeding. The Board has instituted the IPR
`
`based on various grounds that certain claims of the ’520 Patent are anticipated
`
`and/or obvious. The Board declined to deny the petition on the basis that ION is a
`
`real party in interest or a privy of PGS in this proceeding. Because Patent Owner
`
`has cited this exhibit solely in an effort to show that ION is a real party in interest
`
`or a privy of PGS in this proceeding, this exhibit is irrelevant to the determination
`
`to be made in the IPR. Moreover, even were the question of ION’s status as a real
`
`party in interest or privy of PGS relevant to the proceeding, Exhibit 2003 is not
`
`relevant to that determination and therefore should be excluded under FRE 402.
`
`And because any relevance of Exhibit 2003 is significantly outweighed by the
`
`
`
`3
`
`PGS Exhibit 1116, pg. 3
`PGS v. WesternGeco (IPR2014-00689)
`
`
`
`
`
`undue prejudice associated with ancillary litigation of the tangential and irrelevant
`
`issue of Petitioner’s relationship with ION, it should be excluded pursuant to FRE
`
`403.
`
`PGS further objects to Exhibit 2003 under FRE 901, 1002, and 1003. It has
`
`not been authenticated under FRE 901, is not self-authenticating under FRE 902,
`
`and is not a “duplicate” as defined by FRE 1001(e). Exhibit 2003 is therefore
`
`inadmissible under FRE 901, 1002, and 1003. Additionally, this exhibit is
`
`inadmissible hearsay under FRE 802.
`
`C. Exhibit 2004
`PGS objects to Exhibit 2004 under FRE 402 and FRE 403 because it is
`
`irrelevant and its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of
`
`wasting time in this compressed proceeding. The Board has instituted the IPR
`
`based on various grounds that certain claims of the ’520 Patent are anticipated
`
`and/or obvious. The Board declined to deny the petition on the basis that ION is a
`
`real party in interest or a privy of PGS in this proceeding. Because Patent Owner
`
`has cited this exhibit solely in an effort to show that ION is a real party in interest
`
`or a privy of PGS in this proceeding, this exhibit is irrelevant to the determination
`
`to be made in the IPR. Moreover, even were the question of ION’s status as a real
`
`party in interest or privy of PGS relevant to the proceeding, Exhibit 2004 is not
`
`relevant to that determination and therefore should be excluded under FRE 402.
`
`
`
`4
`
`PGS Exhibit 1116, pg. 4
`PGS v. WesternGeco (IPR2014-00689)
`
`
`
`
`
`And because any relevance of Exhibit 2004 is significantly outweighed by the
`
`undue prejudice associated with ancillary litigation of the tangential and irrelevant
`
`issue of Petitioner’s relationship with ION, it should be excluded pursuant to FRE
`
`403.
`
`D. Exhibit 2005
`PGS objects to Exhibit 2005 under FRE 402 and FRE 403 because it is
`
`irrelevant and its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of
`
`wasting time in this compressed proceeding. The Board has instituted the IPR
`
`based on various grounds that certain claims of the ’520 Patent are anticipated
`
`and/or obvious. The Board declined to deny the petition on the basis that ION is a
`
`real party in interest or a privy of PGS in this proceeding. Because Patent Owner
`
`has cited this exhibit solely in an effort to show that ION is a real party in interest
`
`or a privy of PGS in this proceeding, this exhibit is irrelevant to the determination
`
`to be made in the IPR. Moreover, even were the question of ION’s status as a real
`
`party in interest or privy of PGS relevant to the proceeding, Exhibit 2005 is not
`
`relevant to that determination and therefore should be excluded under FRE 402.
`
`And because any relevance of Exhibit 2005 is significantly outweighed by the
`
`undue prejudice associated with ancillary litigation of the tangential and irrelevant
`
`issue of Petitioner’s relationship with ION, it should be excluded pursuant to FRE
`
`403.
`
`
`
`5
`
`PGS Exhibit 1116, pg. 5
`PGS v. WesternGeco (IPR2014-00689)
`
`
`
`
`
`PGS further objects to Exhibit 2005 under FRE 901, 1002, and 1003.
`
`Exhibit 2005 contains handwritten notes imposed on top of documents in the
`
`exhibit. Neither the documents in Exhibit 2005 nor the super-imposed handwriting
`
`have been authenticated under FRE 901, nor are they self-authenticating under
`
`FRE 902, and they are not “duplicates” as defined by FRE 1001(e). Exhibit 2005
`
`is therefore inadmissible under FRE 901, 1002, and 1003. Additionally, this
`
`exhibit is inadmissible hearsay under FRE 802. And the super-imposed
`
`handwriting in this exhibit is inadmissible double hearsay under FRE 802.
`
`Exhibit 2006
`
`E.
`PGS objects to Exhibit 2006 under FRE 402 and FRE 403 because it is
`
`irrelevant and its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of
`
`wasting time in this compressed proceeding. The Board has instituted the IPR
`
`based on various grounds that certain claims of the ’520 Patent are anticipated
`
`and/or obvious. The Board declined to deny the petition on the basis that ION is a
`
`real party in interest or a privy of PGS in this proceeding. Because Patent Owner
`
`has cited this exhibit solely in an effort to show that ION is a real party in interest
`
`or a privy of PGS in this proceeding, this exhibit is irrelevant to the determination
`
`to be made in the IPR. Moreover, even were the question of ION’s status as a real
`
`party in interest or privy of PGS relevant to the proceeding, Exhibit 2006 is not
`
`relevant to that determination and therefore should be excluded under FRE 402.
`
`
`
`6
`
`PGS Exhibit 1116, pg. 6
`PGS v. WesternGeco (IPR2014-00689)
`
`
`
`
`
`And because any relevance of Exhibit 2006 is significantly outweighed by the
`
`undue prejudice associated with ancillary litigation of the tangential and irrelevant
`
`issue of Petitioner’s relationship with ION, it should be excluded pursuant to FRE
`
`403.
`
`PGS further objects to Exhibit 2006 under FRE 901, 1002, and 1003. It has
`
`not been authenticated under FRE 901, is not self-authenticating under FRE 902,
`
`and is not a “duplicate” as defined by FRE 1001(e). Exhibit 2006 is therefore
`
`inadmissible under FRE 901, 1002, and 1003. Additionally, this exhibit contains
`
`inadmissible hearsay under FRE 802, including the statements of Alan Faichney
`
`and Clem Guillot of ION.
`
`Exhibit 2007
`
`F.
`PGS objects to Exhibit 2007 under FRE 402 and FRE 403 because it is
`
`irrelevant and its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of
`
`wasting time in this compressed proceeding. The Board has instituted the IPR
`
`based on various grounds that certain claims of the ’520 Patent are anticipated
`
`and/or obvious. The Board declined to deny the petition on the basis that ION is a
`
`real party in interest or a privy of PGS in this proceeding. Because Patent Owner
`
`has cited this exhibit solely in an effort to show that ION is a real party in interest
`
`or a privy of PGS in this proceeding, this exhibit is irrelevant to the determination
`
`to be made in the IPR. Moreover, even were the question of ION’s status as a real
`
`
`
`7
`
`PGS Exhibit 1116, pg. 7
`PGS v. WesternGeco (IPR2014-00689)
`
`
`
`
`
`party in interest or privy of PGS relevant to the proceeding, Exhibit 2007 is not
`
`relevant to that determination and therefore should be excluded under FRE 402.
`
`And because any relevance of Exhibit 2007 is significantly outweighed by the
`
`undue prejudice associated with ancillary litigation of the tangential and irrelevant
`
`issue of Petitioner’s relationship with ION, it should be excluded pursuant to FRE
`
`403. Additionally, this exhibit is inadmissible hearsay under FRE 802.
`
`G. Exhibit 2008
`PGS objects to Exhibit 2008 under FRE 402 and FRE 403 because it is
`
`irrelevant and its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of
`
`wasting time in this compressed proceeding. The Board has instituted the IPR
`
`based on various grounds that certain claims of the ’520 Patent are anticipated
`
`and/or obvious. The Board declined to deny the petition on the basis that ION is a
`
`real party in interest or a privy of PGS in this proceeding. Because Patent Owner
`
`has cited this exhibit solely in an effort to show that ION is a real party in interest
`
`or a privy of PGS in this proceeding, this exhibit is irrelevant to the determination
`
`to be made in the IPR. Moreover, even were the question of ION’s status as a real
`
`party in interest or privy of PGS relevant to the proceeding, Exhibit 2008 is not
`
`relevant to that determination and therefore should be excluded under FRE 402.
`
`And because any relevance of Exhibit 2008 is significantly outweighed by the
`
`undue prejudice associated with ancillary litigation of the tangential and irrelevant
`
`
`
`8
`
`PGS Exhibit 1116, pg. 8
`PGS v. WesternGeco (IPR2014-00689)
`
`
`
`
`
`issue of Petitioner’s relationship with ION, it should be excluded pursuant to FRE
`
`403.
`
`PGS further objects to Exhibit 2008 under FRE 901, 1002, and 1003. It has
`
`not been authenticated under FRE 901, is not self-authenticating under FRE 902,
`
`and is not a “duplicate” as defined by FRE 1001(e). Exhibit 2008 is therefore
`
`inadmissible under FRE 901, 1002, and 1003. Additionally, this exhibit is
`
`inadmissible hearsay under FRE 802.
`
`H. Exhibit 2009
`PGS objects to Exhibit 2009 under FRE 402 and FRE 403 because it is
`
`irrelevant and its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of
`
`wasting time in this compressed proceeding. The Board has instituted the IPR
`
`based on various grounds that certain claims of the ’520 Patent are anticipated
`
`and/or obvious. The Board declined to deny the petition on the basis that ION is a
`
`real party in interest or a privy of PGS in this proceeding. Because Patent Owner
`
`has cited this exhibit solely in an effort to show that ION is a real party in interest
`
`or a privy of PGS in this proceeding, this exhibit is irrelevant to the determination
`
`to be made in the IPR. Moreover, even were the question of ION’s status as a real
`
`party in interest or privy of PGS relevant to the proceeding, Exhibit 2009 is not
`
`relevant to that determination and therefore should be excluded under FRE 402.
`
`And because any relevance of Exhibit 2009 is significantly outweighed by the
`
`
`
`9
`
`PGS Exhibit 1116, pg. 9
`PGS v. WesternGeco (IPR2014-00689)
`
`
`
`
`
`undue prejudice associated with ancillary litigation of the tangential and irrelevant
`
`issue of Petitioner’s relationship with ION, it should be excluded pursuant to FRE
`
`403.
`
`PGS further objects to Exhibit 2009 under FRE 901, 1002, and 1003. It has
`
`not been authenticated under FRE 901, is not self-authenticating under FRE 902,
`
`and is not a “duplicate” as defined by FRE 1001(e). Exhibit 2009 is therefore
`
`inadmissible under FRE 901, 1002, and 1003. Additionally, this exhibit is
`
`inadmissible hearsay under FRE 802.
`
`Exhibit 2010
`
`I.
`PGS objects to Exhibit 2010 under FRE 402 and FRE 403 because it is
`
`irrelevant and its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of
`
`wasting time in this compressed proceeding. The Board has instituted the IPR
`
`based on various grounds that certain claims of the ’520 Patent are anticipated
`
`and/or obvious. The Board declined to deny the petition on the basis that ION is a
`
`real party in interest or a privy of PGS in this proceeding. Because Patent Owner
`
`has cited this exhibit solely in an effort to show that ION is a real party in interest
`
`or a privy of PGS in this proceeding, this exhibit is irrelevant to the determination
`
`to be made in the IPR. Moreover, even were the question of ION’s status as a real
`
`party in interest or privy of PGS relevant to the proceeding, Exhibit 2010 is not
`
`relevant to that determination and therefore should be excluded under FRE 402.
`
`
`
`10
`
`PGS Exhibit 1116, pg. 10
`PGS v. WesternGeco (IPR2014-00689)
`
`
`
`
`
`And because any relevance of Exhibit 2010 is significantly outweighed by the
`
`undue prejudice associated with ancillary litigation of the tangential and irrelevant
`
`issue of Petitioner’s relationship with ION, it should be excluded pursuant to FRE
`
`403. Additionally, this exhibit is inadmissible hearsay under FRE 802.
`
`Exhibit 2011
`
`J.
`PGS objects to Exhibit 2011 under FRE 402 and FRE 403 because it is
`
`irrelevant and its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of
`
`wasting time in this compressed proceeding. The Board has instituted the IPR
`
`based on various grounds that certain claims of the ’520 Patent are anticipated
`
`and/or obvious. The Board declined to deny the petition on the basis that ION is a
`
`real party in interest or a privy of PGS in this proceeding. Because Patent Owner
`
`has cited this exhibit solely in an effort to show that ION is a real party in interest
`
`or a privy of PGS in this proceeding, this exhibit is irrelevant to the determination
`
`to be made in the IPR. Moreover, even were the question of ION’s status as a real
`
`party in interest or privy of PGS relevant to the proceeding, Exhibit 2011 is not
`
`relevant to that determination and therefore should be excluded under FRE 402.
`
`And because any relevance of Exhibit 2011 is significantly outweighed by the
`
`undue prejudice associated with ancillary litigation of the tangential and irrelevant
`
`issue of Petitioner’s relationship with ION, it should be excluded pursuant to FRE
`
`403.
`
`
`
`11
`
`PGS Exhibit 1116, pg. 11
`PGS v. WesternGeco (IPR2014-00689)
`
`
`
`
`
`K. Exhibit 2012
`PGS objects to Exhibit 2012 under FRE 402 and FRE 403 because it is
`
`irrelevant and its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of
`
`wasting time in this compressed proceeding. The Board has instituted the IPR
`
`based on various grounds that certain claims of the ’520 Patent are anticipated
`
`and/or obvious. The Board declined to deny the petition on the basis that ION is a
`
`real party in interest or a privy of PGS in this proceeding. Because Patent Owner
`
`has cited this exhibit solely in an effort to show that ION is a real party in interest
`
`or a privy of PGS in this proceeding, this exhibit is irrelevant to the determination
`
`to be made in the IPR. Moreover, even were the question of ION’s status as a real
`
`party in interest or privy of PGS relevant to the proceeding, Exhibit 2012 is not
`
`relevant to that determination and therefore should be excluded under FRE 402.
`
`And because any relevance of Exhibit 2012 is significantly outweighed by the
`
`undue prejudice associated with ancillary litigation of the tangential and irrelevant
`
`issue of Petitioner’s relationship with ION, it should be excluded pursuant to FRE
`
`403. Additionally, this exhibit is inadmissible hearsay under FRE 802.
`
`Exhibit 2013
`
`L.
`PGS objects to Exhibit 2013 under FRE 402 and FRE 403 because it is
`
`irrelevant and its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of
`
`wasting time in this compressed proceeding. The Board has instituted the IPR
`
`
`
`12
`
`PGS Exhibit 1116, pg. 12
`PGS v. WesternGeco (IPR2014-00689)
`
`
`
`
`
`based on various grounds that certain claims of the ’520 Patent are anticipated
`
`and/or obvious. The Board declined to deny the petition on the basis that ION is a
`
`real party in interest or a privy of PGS in this proceeding. Because Patent Owner
`
`has cited this exhibit solely in an effort to show that ION is a real party in interest
`
`or a privy of PGS in this proceeding, this exhibit is irrelevant to the determination
`
`to be made in the IPR. Moreover, even were the question of ION’s status as a real
`
`party in interest or privy of PGS relevant to the proceeding, Exhibit 2013 is not
`
`relevant to that determination and therefore should be excluded under FRE 402.
`
`And because any relevance of Exhibit 2013 is significantly outweighed by the
`
`undue prejudice associated with ancillary litigation of the tangential and irrelevant
`
`issue of Petitioner’s relationship with ION, it should be excluded pursuant to FRE
`
`403.
`
`PGS further objects to Exhibit 2013 under FRE 901, 1002, and 1003. It has
`
`not been authenticated under FRE 901, is not self-authenticating under FRE 902,
`
`and is not a “duplicate” as defined by FRE 1001(e). Exhibit 2013 is therefore
`
`inadmissible under FRE 901, 1002, and 1003. Additionally, this exhibit is
`
`inadmissible hearsay under FRE 802.
`
`M. Exhibit 2014
`PGS objects to Exhibit 2014 under FRE 402 and FRE 403 because it is
`
`irrelevant and its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of
`
`
`
`13
`
`PGS Exhibit 1116, pg. 13
`PGS v. WesternGeco (IPR2014-00689)
`
`
`
`
`
`wasting time in this compressed proceeding. The Board has instituted the IPR
`
`based on various grounds that certain claims of the ’520 Patent are anticipated
`
`and/or obvious. The Board declined to deny the petition on the basis that PGS
`
`Americas, Inc. (“PGSAI”) is an unnamed real party in interest in this proceeding.
`
`Because Patent Owner has cited this exhibit solely in an effort to show that PGSAI
`
`is an unnamed real party in interest in this proceeding, this exhibit is irrelevant to
`
`the determination to be made in the IPR. Moreover, even were the question of
`
`PGSAI’s status as a real party in interest relevant to the proceeding, Exhibit 2014
`
`is not relevant to that determination and therefore should be excluded under FRE
`
`402. And because any relevance of Exhibit 2014 is significantly outweighed by
`
`the undue prejudice associated with the tangential and irrelevant issue of
`
`Petitioner’s relationship with PGSAI, it should be excluded pursuant to FRE 403.
`
`Additionally, this exhibit contains inadmissible hearsay under FRE 802, including
`
`the statements of Phillip Shotts of ION.
`
`N. Exhibit 2015
`PGS objects to Exhibit 2015 under FRE 402 and FRE 403 because it is
`
`irrelevant and its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of
`
`wasting time in this compressed proceeding. The Board has instituted the IPR
`
`based on various grounds that certain claims of the ’520 Patent are anticipated
`
`and/or obvious. The Board declined to deny the petition on the basis that PGSAI is
`
`
`
`14
`
`PGS Exhibit 1116, pg. 14
`PGS v. WesternGeco (IPR2014-00689)
`
`
`
`
`
`an unnamed real party in interest in this proceeding. Because Patent Owner has
`
`cited this exhibit solely in an effort to show that PGSAI is an unnamed real party in
`
`interest in this proceeding, this exhibit is irrelevant to the determination to be made
`
`in the IPR. Moreover, even were the question of PGSAI’s status as a real party in
`
`interest relevant to the proceeding, Exhibit 2015 is not relevant to that
`
`determination and therefore should be excluded under FRE 402. And because any
`
`relevance of Exhibit 2015 is significantly outweighed by the undue prejudice
`
`associated with the tangential and irrelevant issue of Petitioner’s relationship with
`
`PGSAI, it should be excluded pursuant to FRE 403. Additionally, this exhibit is
`
`inadmissible hearsay under FRE 802.
`
`O. Exhibit 2016
`PGS objects to Exhibit 2016 under FRE 402 and FRE 403 because it is
`
`irrelevant and its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of
`
`wasting time in this compressed proceeding. The Board has instituted the IPR
`
`based on various grounds that certain claims of the ’520 Patent are anticipated
`
`and/or obvious. The Board declined to deny the petition on the basis that PGSAI is
`
`an unnamed real party in interest in this proceeding. Because Patent Owner has
`
`cited this exhibit solely in an effort to show that PGSAI is an unnamed real party in
`
`interest in this proceeding, this exhibit is irrelevant to the determination to be made
`
`in the IPR. Moreover, even were the question of PGSAI’s status as a real party in
`
`
`
`15
`
`PGS Exhibit 1116, pg. 15
`PGS v. WesternGeco (IPR2014-00689)
`
`
`
`
`
`interest relevant to the proceeding, Exhibit 2016 is not relevant to that
`
`determination and therefore should be excluded under FRE 402. And because any
`
`relevance of Exhibit 2016 is significantly outweighed by the undue prejudice
`
`associated with the tangential and irrelevant issue of Petitioner’s relationship with
`
`PGSAI, it should be excluded pursuant to FRE 403. Additionally, this exhibit
`
`contains inadmissible hearsay under FRE 802, including the statements of Phillip
`
`Shotts of ION.
`
`Exhibit 2017
`
`P.
`PGS objects to Exhibit 2017 under FRE 402 and FRE 403 because it is
`
`irrelevant and its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of
`
`wasting time in this compressed proceeding. The Board has instituted the IPR
`
`based on various grounds that certain claims of the ’520 Patent are anticipated
`
`and/or obvious. The Board declined to deny the petition on the basis that PGSAI is
`
`an unnamed real party in interest in this proceeding. Because Patent Owner has
`
`cited this exhibit solely in an effort to show that PGSAI is an unnamed real party in
`
`interest in this proceeding, this exhibit is irrelevant to the determination to be made
`
`in the IPR. Moreover, even were the question of PGSAI’s status as a real party in
`
`interest relevant to the proceeding, Exhibit 2017 is not relevant to that
`
`determination and therefore should be excluded under FRE 402. And because any
`
`relevance of Exhibit 2017 is significantly outweighed by the undue prejudice
`
`
`
`16
`
`PGS Exhibit 1116, pg. 16
`PGS v. WesternGeco (IPR2014-00689)
`
`
`
`
`
`associated with the tangential and irrelevant issue of Petitioner’s relationship with
`
`PGSAI, it should be excluded pursuant to FRE 403. Additionally, this exhibit
`
`contains inadmissible hearsay under FRE 802, including the statements of Phillip
`
`Shotts of ION.
`
`Q. Exhibit 2018
`PGS objects to Exhibit 2018 under FRE 402 and FRE 403 because it is
`
`irrelevant and its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of
`
`wasting time in this compressed proceeding. The Board has instituted the IPR
`
`based on various grounds that certain claims of the ’520 Patent are anticipated
`
`and/or obvious. The Board declined to deny the petition on the basis that PGSAI is
`
`an unnamed real party in interest in this proceeding. Because Patent Owner has
`
`cited this exhibit solely in an effort to show that PGSAI is an unnamed real party in
`
`interest in this proceeding, this exhibit is irrelevant to the determination to be made
`
`in the IPR. Moreover, even were the question of PGSAI’s status as a real party in
`
`interest relevant to the proceeding, Exhibit 2018 is not relevant to that
`
`determination and therefore should be excluded under FRE 402. And because any
`
`relevance of Exhibit 2018 is significantly outweighed by the undue prejudice
`
`associated with the tangential and irrelevant issue of Petitioner’s relationship with
`
`PGSAI, it should be excluded pursuant to FRE 403.
`
`
`
`17
`
`PGS Exhibit 1116, pg. 17
`PGS v. WesternGeco (IPR2014-00689)
`
`
`
`
`
`R. Exhibit 2019
`PGS objects to Exhibit 2019 under FRE 402 and FRE 403 because it is
`
`irrelevant and its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of
`
`wasting time in this compressed proceeding. The Board has instituted the IPR
`
`based on various grounds that certain claims of the ’520 Patent are anticipated
`
`and/or obvious. The Board declined to deny the petition on the basis that PGSAI is
`
`an unnamed real party in interest in this proceeding. Because Patent Owner has
`
`cited this exhibit solely in an effort to show that PGSAI is an unnamed real party in
`
`interest in this proceeding, this exhibit is irrelevant to the determination to be made
`
`in the IPR. Moreover, even were the question of PGSAI’s status as a real party in
`
`interest relevant to the proceeding, Exhibit 2019 is not relevant to that
`
`determination and therefore should be excluded under FRE 402. And because any
`
`relevance of Exhibit 2019 is significantly outweighed by the undue prejudice
`
`associated with the tangential and irrelevant issue of Petitioner’s relationship with
`
`PGSAI, it should be excluded pursuant to FRE 403.
`
`PGS further objects to Exhibit 2019 under FRE 901, 1002, and 1003. It has
`
`not been authenticated under FRE 901, is not self-authenticating under FRE 902,
`
`and is not a “duplicate” as defined by FRE 1001(e). Exhibit 2019 is therefore
`
`inadmissible under FRE 901, 1002, and 1003. Additionally, this exhibit is
`
`inadmissible hearsay under FRE 802.
`
`
`
`18
`
`PGS Exhibit 1116, pg. 18
`PGS v. WesternGeco (IPR2014-00689)
`
`
`
`
`
`Exhibit 2020
`
`S.
`PGS objects to Exhibit 2020 under FRE 402 and FRE 403 because it is
`
`irrelevant and its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of
`
`wasting time in this compressed proceeding. The Board has instituted the IPR
`
`based on various grounds that certain claims of the ’520 Patent are anticipated
`
`and/or obvious. The Board declined to deny the petition on the basis that PGSAI is
`
`an unnamed real party in interest in this proceeding. Because Patent Owner has
`
`cited this exhibit solely in an effort to show that PGSAI is an unnamed real party in
`
`interest in this proceeding, this exhibit is irrelevant to the determination to be made
`
`in the IPR. Moreover, even were the question of PGSAI’s status as a real party in
`
`interest relevant to the proceeding, Exhibit 2020 is not relevant to that
`
`determination and therefore should be excluded under FRE 402. And because any
`
`relevance of Exhibit 2020 is significantly outweighed by the undue prejudice
`
`associated with the tangential and irrelevant issue of Petitioner’s relationship with
`
`PGSAI, it should be excluded pursuant to FRE 403.
`
`PGS further objects to Exhibit 2020 under FRE 901, 1002, and 1003. It has
`
`not been authenticated under FRE 901, is not self-authenticating under FRE 902,
`
`and is not a “duplicate” as defined by FRE 1001(e). Exhibit 2020 is therefore
`
`inadmissible under FRE 901, 1002, and 1003. Additionally, this exhibit is
`
`inadmissible hearsay under FRE 802.
`
`
`
`19
`
`PGS Exhibit 1116, pg. 19
`PGS v. WesternGeco (IPR2014-00689)
`
`
`
`
`
`Exhibit 2021
`
`T.
`PGS objects to Exhibit 2021 under FRE 402 and FRE 403 because it is
`
`irrelevant and its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of
`
`wasting time in this compressed proceeding. The Board has instituted the IPR
`
`based on various grounds that certain claims of the ’520 Patent are anticipated
`
`and/or obvious. The Board declined to deny the petition on the basis that PGSAI is
`
`an unnamed real party in interest in this proceeding. Because Patent Owner has
`
`cited this exhibit solely in an effort to show that PGSAI is an unnamed real party in
`
`interest in this proceeding, this exhibit is irrelevant to the determination to be made
`
`in the IPR. Moreover, even were the question of PGSAI’s status as a real party in
`
`interest relevant to the proceeding, Exhibit 2021 is not relevant to that
`
`determination and therefore should be excluded under FRE 402. And because any
`
`relevance of Exhibit 2021 is significantly outweighed by the undue prejudice
`
`associated with the tangential and irrelevant issue of Petitioner’s relationship with
`
`PGSAI, it should be excluded pursuant to FRE 403.
`
`PGS further objects to Exhibit 2021 under FRE 901, 1002, and 1003.
`
`Exhibit 2021 purports to be repair orders and shipping invoices, but it is
`
`incomplete. It has not been authenticated under FRE 901, is not self-authenticating
`
`under FRE 902, and is not a “duplicate” as defined by FRE 1001(e). Exhibit 2021
`
`
`
`20
`
`PGS Exhibit 1116, pg. 20
`PGS v. WesternGeco (IPR2014-00689)
`
`
`
`
`
`is therefore inadmissible under FRE 901, 1002, and 1003. Additionally, this
`
`exhibit is inadmissible hearsay under FRE 802.
`
`U. Exhibit 2022
`PGS objects to Exhibit 2022 under FRE 402 and FRE 403 because it is
`
`irrelevant and its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of
`
`wasting time in this compressed proceeding. The Board has instituted the IPR
`
`based on various grounds that certain claims of the ’520 Patent are anticipated
`
`and/or obvious. The Board declined to deny the petition on the basis that PGSAI is
`
`an unnamed real party in interest in this proceeding. Because Patent Owner has
`
`cited this exhibit solely in an effort to show that PGSAI is an unnamed real party in
`
`interest in this proceeding, this exhibit is irrelevant to the determination to be made
`
`in the IPR. Moreover, even were the question of PGSAI’s status as a real party in
`
`interest relevant to the proceeding, Exhibit 2022 is not relevant to that
`
`determination and therefore should be excluded under FRE 402. And because any
`
`relevance of Exhibit 2022 is significantly outweighed by the undue prejudice
`
`associated with the tangential and irrelevant issue of Petitioner’s relationship with
`
`PGSAI, it should be excluded pursuant to FRE 403. Additionally, this exhibit
`
`contains inadmissible hearsay under FRE 802, including the statements of Phillip
`
`Shotts and Dave Gentle of ION.
`
`
`
`21
`
`PGS Exhibit 1116, pg. 21
`PGS v. WesternGeco (IPR2014-00689)
`
`
`
`
`
`V. Exhibit 2023
`PGS objects to Exhibit 2023 under FRE 402 and FRE 403 because it is
`
`irrelevant and its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of
`
`wasting time in this compressed proceeding. The Board has instituted the IPR
`
`based on various grounds that certain claims of the ’520 Patent are anticipated
`
`and/or obvious. The Board declined to deny the petition on the basis that PGSAI is
`
`an unnamed real party in interest in this proceeding. Because Patent Owner has
`
`cited this exhibit solely in an effort to show that PGSAI is an unnamed real party in
`
`interest in this proceeding, this exhibit is irrelevant to the determination to be made
`
`in the IPR. Moreover, even were the question of PGSAI’s status as a real party in
`
`interest relevant to the proceeding, Exhibit 2023 is not relevant to that
`
`determination and therefore should be excluded under FRE 402. And because any
`
`relevance of Exhibit 2023 is significantly outweighed by the undue prejudice
`
`associated with the tangen
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
