UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`____________
`
`PETROLEUM GEO-SERVICES INC.
`and
`ION GEOPHYSICAL CORPORATION
`AND ION INTERNATIONAL S.A.R.L,
`
`
`Petitioners,
`
`v.
`
`WESTERNGECO LLC
`
`Patent Owner.
`
`____________
`
`Case IPR2014-006891
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,293,520
`____________
`
`PATENT OWNER’S OPPOSITION TO PETITIONER
`PETROLEUM GEO-SERVICES INC.’S MOTION TO EXCLUDE
`
`
`
`
`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 LLC
`
`Patent Owner.
`
`____________
`
`Case IPR2014-006891
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,293,520
`____________
`
`PATENT OWNER’S OPPOSITION TO PETITIONER
`PETROLEUM GEO-SERVICES INC.’S MOTION TO EXCLUDE
`
`
`
`
`1 Case IPR2015-00565 has been joined with this proceeding.
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00689
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................... 1
`
`PGS’S MOTION FAILS TO COMPLY WITH THE ESTABLISHED
`REQUIREMENTS FOR MOTIONS TO EXCLUDE ............................... 2
`
`A. PGS Fails To Explain Each Objection With Specificity Or Identify
`Where Its Objections Were Originally Made ............................................. 4
`B. PGS’s Motion Improperly Challenges The Sufficiency Of Patent
`Owner’s Evidence ...................................................................................... 6
`III. TO THE EXTENT THEY ARE COMPREHENSIBLE, PGS’S
`OBJECTIONS ARE WITHOUT MERIT .................................................. 6
`
`A. PGS’s Attempt To Exclude Mr. Walker’s Declaration And The Exhibits
`Cited Therein Is Unfounded ....................................................................... 6
`1. PGS’s Arguments Are Not Directed to Admissibility ....................... 7
`2. PGS’s Evidentiary Analysis Is Deeply Flawed .................................. 8
`3. Exhibit 2077 Is A Proper Declaration .............................................. 10
`B. PGS’s Objections To “Many Other Exhibits” Also Fail .......................... 11
`1. PGS Fails To Establish The Inadmissibility Of The ION Litigation
`Records Or ION, Fugro, and WesternGeco Documents At Issue .... 11
`2. There Is No Basis To Exclude Exhibits That Were Timely-Filed
`With Patent Owner’s POPR Against ION ........................................ 13
`IV. PGS’S RULE 403 ARGUMENTS DO NOT APPLY TO THIS
`PROCEEDING ............................................................................................ 14
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00689
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`At the outset of this proceeding, the Board cautioned the parties that
`
`“motions to exclude are extraordinary remedies” and encouraged the parties to
`
`“consider issues of admissibility of evidence, in light of the Board’s experience
`
`and diligence in applying appropriate weight to evidence, before filing any motion
`
`to exclude.” Paper 36 at 4 (emphasis added); see also Exhibit 3002 at 11.
`
`WesternGeco LLC (“Patent Owner” or “WesternGeco”) heeded the Board’s advice
`
`and has not objected to or moved to exclude evidence from the oral hearing.
`
`Unfortunately, the same cannot be said for Petitioner Petroleum Geo-Services
`
`(“PGS”). After burdening Patent Owner throughout this proceeding with baseless
`
`objections to numerous exhibits and forcing Patent Owner to expend significant
`
`resources compiling and serving responsive supplemental evidence, PGS has
`
`ignored all of that supplemental evidence and now seeks to exclude nearly all of
`
`Patent Owner’s underlying exhibits. PGS’s kitchen-sink request is both
`
`procedurally and substantively defective and, accordingly, should be denied.
`
`As a threshold matter, PGS’s motion runs afoul of the procedural
`
`requirements governing motions to exclude, which require PGS to identify, inter
`
`alia, where each objection was originally made and explain each objection with
`
`specificity. PGS’s incomprehensible laundry list of scattershot objections and
`
`tortured maze of conclusory, vague arguments do not come close to meeting those
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00689
`
`requirements. PGS’s attempt to shift the burden onto Patent Owner and the Board
`
`to navigate well over a hundred pages of objections and arguments to decipher how
`
`they relate to each of the 44 exhibits PGS seeks to exclude is impermissible, and
`
`PGS’s motion may be denied on that basis alone.
`
`If considered, PGS’s objections are without merit. Indeed, the vast majority
`
`of PGS’s arguments go to the weight of the evidence at issue, not its admissibility.
`
`The Board, however, is perfectly capable of considering and weighing the evidence
`
`for itself. Tellingly, PGS does not cite a single case in which the Board has
`
`excluded any evidence, much less the type of material PGS challenges here, and
`
`instead relies almost exclusively upon inapposite district court rulings excluding
`
`evidence from juries. In any event, PGS’s analysis, which is riddled with legal
`
`errors and factual misstatements, fails to establish an evidentiary basis for
`
`exclusion in any forum. The Board should see PGS’s motion for what it is—an
`
`attempt to both disrupt WesternGeco’s preparation for the July 30 Oral Hearing
`
`and avoid the merits of WesternGeco’s unrebutted evidence of secondary
`
`considerations—and deny the extraordinary relief PGS seeks.
`
`II. PGS’S MOTION FAILS TO COMPLY WITH THE ESTABLISHED
`REQUIREMENTS FOR MOTIONS TO EXCLUDE
`The Board’s requirements for motions to exclude are clear. The motion
`
`“must identify the objections in the record in order and must explain the
`
`objections.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(c). The Office Patent Trial Practice (“OPTP”)
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00689
`
`Guide offers further guidance by providing four criteria that a motion to exclude
`
`must meet. Specifically, “[a] motion to exclude evidence must: (a) [i]dentify
`
`where in the record the objection originally was made; (b) [i]dentify where in the
`
`record the evidence sought to be excluded was relied upon by an opponent; (c)
`
`[a]ddress objections to exhibits in numerical order; and (d) [e]xplain each
`
`objection. OPTP Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48756, 48767 (Aug. 14, 2012). PGS’s
`
`Motion fails to meet these requirements.
`
`Moreover, PGS completely ignores Patent Owner’s supplemental evidence.
`
`As Rule 42.64(b)(2) allows, throughout this trial, Patent Owner served
`
`supplemental evidence on PGS that is responsive to many of the exhibits PGS now
`
`seeks to exclude. Specifically, on January 14, 2015, and in response to PGS’s
`
`December 30, 2014 objections, Patent Owner served its first set of supplemental
`
`evidence on PGS. See Ex. 2166. Next, in response to PGS’s March 27, 2015
`
`objections, Patent Owner served PGS with Exs. 2101-2127 on April 9, 2015. See
`
`Ex. 2167. PGS then recursively objected to Patent Owner’s supplemental
`
`evidence, requiring Patent Owner to waste further time and resources compiling
`
`and serving additional supplemental evidence (Exs. 2129-2135) on April 30, 2015.
`
`See Ex. 2168. PGS filed yet another set of recursive objections to Patent Owner’s
`
`supplemental evidence, to which Patent Owner served PGS with Ex. 2140. See Ex.
`
`2169. Lastly, in response to PGS’s June 8, 2015 objections to evidence, Patent
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00689
`
`Owner served PGS with Exs. 2163 and 2165.2 See Ex. 2170.
`
`Supplemental evidence is usually not filed at the time of service because the
`
`Board anticipates that many objections will become moot, and motions to exclude
`
`unnecessary, in light of the supplemental evidence. Handi-Quilter, Inc. v. Bernina
`
`Int’l AG, IPR2013-00364, Paper 30 at 3 (PTAB June 12, 2014). In other words,
`
`the Board expects the parties to act reasonably and not needlessly compound the
`
`proceedings. Unfortunately, PGS appears incapable of meeting the Board’s
`
`expectations.
`
`A.
`
`PGS Fails To Explain Each Objection With Specificity Or
`Identify Where Its Objections Were Originally Made
`Tellingly, for Patent Owner or the Board to even attempt to make sense of
`
`PGS’s objections, a decryption key is needed. See Mot. at 1. However, PGS’s
`
`table of exhibits—PGS’s only attempt to provide any semblance of an exhibit-by-
`
`exhibit analysis—fails to articulate a single argument or rationale in support of the
`
`stated bases for exclusion. It merely groups the exhibits into four broad categories
`
`of objections and includes a catch all noting that “[a]ll listed exhibits are also
`
`addressed in Part III, regarding Rule 403 objections.” Mot. at 1-2. This is
`
`
`2 At least Exs. 2101, 2103-2106, 2108, 2113-2126, 2129-2135, 2140, and 2163
`
`filed herewith, and previously served as supplemental evidence in response to
`
`PGS’s objections, are directly responsive to PGS’s Motion.
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00689
`
`woefully deficient under the Board’s rules.3
`
`The remainder of PGS’s Motion fares no better. PGS makes overly broad,
`
`blanket statements followed by a laundry list of citations without any explanation
`
`as to why the cited exhibits should be excluded. In particular, PGS provides
`
`conclusory statements that broad categories of exhibits (see, e.g., Mot. at 3-5, 7-12)
`
`should be excluded without identifying the portion of the exhibit that is allegedly
`
`objectionable, or why the exhibit should be excluded. The paragraph-long string
`
`cites contained within these pages are unclear, unwieldy, and incomprehensible.
`
`See, e.g., Mot. at 8. The burden “should not be placed on the Board [or Patent
`
`Owner] to sort through the entirety of each exhibit and determine which portion of
`
`the exhibit [PGS] believes to be [objectionable].” EMC Corp. v. PersonalWeb
`
`Techs., LLC, IPR2013-00086, Paper 66 at 35 (PTAB May 15, 2014). As in EMC,
`
`PGS’s scattershot approach fails to adequately “explain [its] objections” (see 37
`
`C.F.R. § 42.64(c)) and, accordingly, PGS’s Motion should be denied.
`
`Moreover, PGS’s motion merely feigns compliance with the requirement
`
`3 Moreover, PGS’s table is single-spaced and therefore violates the Board’s general
`
`formatting rules. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(a)(2)(iii). As this table is noncompliant, it
`
`should be expunged under Rule 42.7 or PGS should be required to submit a motion
`
`that complies with the rules. See CBS Interactive Inc. et al. v. Helferich Patent
`
`Licensing, LLC, IPR2013-00033, Paper 84 at 3-4 (PTAB Aug. 30, 2013).
`
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00689
`
`that it identify its objections in the record, simply stating that it “timely objected to
`
`each of these exhibits, on the grounds identified [in its chart on page 1].” Mot. at
`
`2. As noted above, the chart PGS refers to provides no specific information
`
`regarding PGS’s objections, nor where in the record PGS previously objected to
`
`the evidence. Instead, PGS forces this Board and Patent Owner to navigate well
`
`over a hundred pages of its objections to attempt to decipher what specific portion
`
`of each exhibit PGS alleges to be objectionable, and why PGS is moving to
`
`exclude it. This is improper under Rule 42.64(c).
`
`B.
`
`PGS’s Motion Improperly Challenges The Sufficiency Of Patent
`Owner’s Evidence
`Although filed under the guise of a Motion to Exclude, PGS’s Motion is no
`
`more than an unauthorized brief on the merits. The OPTP guide is crystal clear on
`
`this issue: a motion to exclude “may not be used to challenge the sufficiency of
`
`the evidence to prove a particular fact.” OPTP Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. at 48767. But,
`
`as explained in greater detail below, that is all PGS attempts to do with its Motion.
`
`III. TO THE EXTENT THEY ARE COMPREHENSIBLE, PGS’S
`OBJECTIONS ARE WITHOUT MERIT
`A.
`PGS’s Attempt To Exclude Mr. Walker’s Declaration And The
`Exhibits Cited Therein Is Unfounded
`PGS’s arguments regarding the Walker Declaration and its cited exhibits are
`
`almost entirely directed to weight and not admissibility. And, the few evidentiary
`
`bases PGS does provide simply lack merit. Mr. Walker’s declaration is proper and
`
`should not be excluded.
`
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00689
`
`1.
`PGS’s Arguments Are Not Directed to Admissibility
`Ignoring well-established precedent that the Board is a “non-jury tribunal
`
`with administrative expertise” that “is well-positioned to determine and assign
`
`appropriate weight to evidence presented,” and the Board’s explicit warnings in
`
`this case regarding the proper use and content of motions to exclude, PGS
`
`inundates the Board with misplaced arguments concerning the weight of the
`
`Walker Declaration and exhibits cited therein. See Gnosis S.P.A v. S. Ala. Med.
`
`Sci. Found., IPR2013-00118, Paper 64 at 43 (PTAB Jun. 20, 2014) (arguments
`
`addressing the weight of evidence are improper in a motion to exclude); see also
`
`BioMarin Pharma. Inc. v. Genzyme Therapeutic Prods. Ltd. P’Ship., IPR2013-
`
`00537, Paper 79 at 24-25 (PTAB Feb. 23, 2015).
`
`Rather than address issues of admissibility, PGS spends numerous pages
`
`attempting to attack the alleged sufficiency of Mr. Walker’s declaration to prove
`
`secondary considerations of non-obviousness and twisting Mr. Walker’s testimony
`
`in an effort to undermine his credibility and reliability. “Contending that the
`
`evidence is inadequate for a determination of nexus, however, is not sufficient to
`
`establish the impropriety of the evidence, much less the inadmissibility of the
`
`evidence under the Federal Rules of Evidence.” Smith & Nephew, Inc. v. Convatec
`
`Techs., Inc., IPR2013-00097, Paper 90 at 58 (PTAB May 29, 2014). Moreover,
`
`even a cursory read of the record reveals the egregious nature of PGS’s distortions
`
`
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00689
`
`of Mr. Walker’s testimony.
`
`For instance, PGS’s bold assertion that Mr. Walker “made no effort to
`
`confirm the accuracy of his statement” is plainly contradicted by the very
`
`testimony PGS cites for this proposition. See Ex. 1089 at 23-24 (“Q. . . what did
`
`you do to confirm the accuracy of your declaration before you signed it? A. What
`
`do you mean by ‘confirm the accuracy’? I read it, I reviewed it, I was comfortable
`
`that what I said was correct, and I signed it.”) In any event, the Board need not sift
`
`through these misrepresentations and mischaracterizations, which have no place in
`
`a motion to exclude. At most, any concerns raised by PGS go to the appropriate
`
`weight that should be given to Mr. Walker’s declaration. As the Board has
`
`repeatedly told the parties, it is capable of determining that weight for itself.
`
`2.
`PGS’s Evidentiary Analysis Is Deeply Flawed
`Instead of specifying its objections on an exhibit-by-exhibit basis as it is
`
`required to do, PGS argues in conclusory fashion that Mr. Walker’s statement
`
`includes “large amounts of inadmissible hearsay and materials outside his personal
`
`knowledge.” PGS’s purported objections have no basis in fact or law.
`
`As an initial matter, PGS identifies no reason to doubt that Mr. Walker
`
`prepared his declaration based on his personal knowledge and understanding, as
`
`his declaration makes abundantly clear. See, e.g., Ex. 2077 at ¶¶ 16, 20, 24, 46.
`
`Even PGS concedes that Mr. Walker relies on his “memory” of events he observed
`
`
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00689
`
`first-hand. The notion that Mr. Walker’s memory may not be perfect (according to
`
`PGS) goes to the weight of his testimony at most, not its admissibility.
`
`PGS’s robotic application of the hearsay rule to broad swaths of Mr.
`
`Walker’s declaration and cited exhibits—including customer and industry praise of
`
`Q-Marine;4 ION and Fugro documents lauding their commercial embodiments of
`
`the patented invention; and other portions of the record from the ION litigation—is
`
`also misguided. In order to qualify as hearsay, the document or statement in
`
`question must be offered into evidence “to prove the truth of the matter asserted.”
`
`Fed. R. Evid. 801(c); see also EMC Corp., Paper 66 at 32 (finding a document
`
`“offered simply as evidence of what it described, not for proving the truth of the
`
`matters addressed in the document” was not hearsay); see also Fed. R. Evid. 801(c)
`
`1997 Adv. Comm. Note (“If the significance of an offered statement lies solely in
`
`the fact that it was made, no issue is raised as to the truth of anything asserted, and
`
`the statement is not hearsay.”).
`
`4 Notably, PGS demanded that Patent Owner locate and produce all available
`
`written support for these statements and the Board so ordered. Paper 59 at 2.
`
`Patent Owner spent considerable time and resources retrieving and producing these
`
`documents to PGS. Having insisted on this discovery and having had the benefit
`
`of questioning Mr. Walker with it at his deposition, PGS should not be permitted to
`
`seek its exclusion now.
`
`
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00689
`
`The evidence at issue is being proffered to support secondary considerations
`
`factors that turn on public recognition of the claimed invention, such as praise from
`
`others, commercial success, and long-felt need, not for the truth of the matter
`
`asserted. Courts routinely admit such evidence for this legitimate non-hearsay use.
`
`See, e.g., Hynix Semiconductor Inc. v. Rambus Inc., No. C-00-20905 RMW, 2009
`
`WL 112834, at *14 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 16, 2009), aff’d, 645 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2011) (“[T]he article does not constitute hearsay because it was admitted not for its
`
`truth, but as a proper secondary consideration of nonobviousness in the form of
`
`praise from others in the industry.”). Tellingly, PGS does not even attempt to
`
`address this well-established precedent, which is fatal to PGS’s motion.
`
`3.
`Exhibit 2077 Is A Proper Declaration
`Mr. Walker’s declaration (Ex. 2077) complies with the requirements for a
`
`declaration in these proceedings. Mr. Walker testified in his deposition that he
`
`understood that he was under oath when he wrote and signed this declaration. Ex.
`
`1090 at 425:25 (“I wrote [my declaration] under oath”). Thus, Mr. Walker’s
`
`declaration complies with the rules requiring a declarant to be warned that willful
`
`false statements and the like are punishable by fine or imprisonment or both under
`
`18 U.S.C. § 1001. See 37 C.F.R. § 1.68. While Mr. Walker did not realize he
`
`needed to include a written oath with his declaration, as soon as Patent Owner was
`
`alerted to the omission of such an oath via PGS’s objections, Patent Owner served
`
`
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00689
`
`the Corrected Declaration of Robin C. Walker (Ex. 2103) on PGS and sought the
`
`Board’s approval to file the Corrected Declaration in this proceeding. Ex. 2171.
`
`PGS simply ignores Mr. Walker’s testimony and the Corrected Declaration, and
`
`this last-ditch effort to block WesternGeco’s substantial evidence of secondary
`
`considerations from this proceeding should also be rejected.
`
`B.
`PGS’s Objections To “Many Other Exhibits” Also Fail
`PGS’s attempt to exclude “many other exhibits”—including records from
`
`the ION litigation; ION, Fugro and WesternGeco documents; and the exhibits filed
`
`with the POPR against ION—is also without merit and should be denied.
`
`1.
`
`PGS Fails To Establish The Inadmissibility Of The ION
`Litigation Records Or ION, Fugro, and WesternGeco
`Documents At Issue
`In arguing that transcripts and rulings from the ION litigation5 and ION,
`
`
`5 PGS’s contention that any “court pleadings from other litigations” should be
`
`excluded ignores PGS’s own reliance on over a dozen court pleadings from the
`
`ION litigation. See, e.g., Exs. 1013-16, 1019-20, 1022-24, 1053, 1063, 1078-79,
`
`1095-97, 1099, 1100, and1102. Indeed, both parties have relied on numerous
`
`documents and excerpts from Patent Owner’s previous trial against ION, including
`
`the jury verdict to which PGS now objects. See Ex. 1013. PGS cannot use these
`
`litigation records as a sword and then credibly argue that Patent Owner’s citation to
`
`such documents is somehow improper.
`
`
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00689
`
`Fugro, and WesternGeco documents are hearsay, for example, PGS once again
`
`makes sweeping allegations regarding wholesale categories of documents without
`
`providing any specificity as to why they constitute hearsay, much less any genuine
`
`analysis showing that a hearsay exception would not apply. Instead, PGS leaves it
`
`to Patent Owner and the Board to surmise PGS’s bases for its objections contained
`
`within a paragraph-long string cite. See Mot. at 8-9. As discussed above,
`
`however, the burden should not be on Patent Owner and the Board to determine
`
`what portions of the exhibits PGS believes to be hearsay. EMC Corp., Paper 66 at
`
`35. It is PGS’s responsibility to identify “the specific portions of the evidence and
`
`provide[] sufficient explanations as to why they constitute hearsay.” Id. PGS’s
`
`broad objections, lacking any support, simply fail to satisfy the Board’s rules.
`
`Moreover, PGS’s blanket assertions of hearsay are plainly incorrect. For
`
`instance, Patent Owner does not rely upon communications and agreements
`
`between PGS and ION for the truth of the matters asserted in those documents.
`
`Rather, such documents go to the fact that statements concerning coordination
`
`were made, which is relevant to WesternGeco’s arguments regarding real party in
`
`interest and privity. PGS acknowledges that these documents relate to real party in
`
`interest and privity (Mot. at 8), yet fails to recognize this legitimate non-hearsay
`
`use. In objecting to documents relied upon by Patent Owner’s expert, Dr.
`
`Triantafyllou, PGS also fails to account for Rule 703, which permits expert
`
`
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00689
`
`witnesses to rely upon otherwise inadmissible evidence, including hearsay. Fed. R.
`
`Evid. 703. PGS likewise ignores Patent Owner’s supplemental evidence
`
`establishing that many of the exhibits at issue are business records and would
`
`therefore fall within a hearsay exception. Fed. R. Evid. 803(6).
`
`In a continued pattern of ignoring Patent Owner’s supplemental evidence,
`
`PGS further claims that Patent Owner “made no effort” to authenticate Exs. 2003,
`
`2005-06, and 2019. Patent Owner, however, provided PGS with the entire ION
`
`litigation trial transcript, in part, to authenticate these exhibits. See Ex. 2166.
`
`Accordingly, PGS’s objections based on the purported lack of authentication fail.
`
`2.
`
`There Is No Basis To Exclude Exhibits That Were Timely-
`Filed With Patent Owner’s POPR Against ION
`Finally, PGS’s claim that the exhibits filed in its POPR against ION are
`
`untimely is simply incorrect. The Board ordered Patent Owner to file its POPR
`
`against ION in these proceedings. Paper 68 at 3. Moreover, the exhibits cited in
`
`the ION POPR (Exs. 2143, 2149-53, and 61) all contain ION admissions, which
`
`were issues ripe for argument in a POPR. Patent Owner was following the Board’s
`
`Order when it filed these exhibits and should not be penalized.
`
`Apparently recognizing the lack of any legitimate basis to exclude these
`
`exhibits, PGS resorts to suggesting that they should not be considered because they
`
`allegedly fail to “support the required showing of nexus” between Patent Owner’s
`
`commercial embodiment and the claimed invention. Mot. at 9. As discussed with
`
`
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00689
`
`respect to the Walker Declaration, however, such contentions regarding the
`
`sufficiency of evidence to establish nexus do not establish the impropriety of such
`
`evidence, much less its inadmissibility. See Smith & Nephew, Paper 90 at 58.
`
`PGS has had ample opportunity to articulate its positions regarding the
`
`appropriate weight that should be afforded these exhibits, having demanded
`
`additional pages in its Reply for exactly this purpose. The Board is perfectly
`
`capable of considering the parties’ respective assertions and weighing this
`
`evidence for itself. PGS’s request should be denied.
`
`IV. PGS’S RULE 403 ARGUMENTS DO NOT APPLY TO THIS
`PROCEEDING
`PGS speaks out of both sides of its mouth when it claims that documents6
`
`otherwise admissible against ION should be excluded under Fed. R. Evid. 403.
`
`While PGS claims it is prejudiced by Patent Owner’s reliance on documents from a
`
`proceeding that PGS was not a named party to, ION is a party to this proceeding.
`
`Moreover, PGS was served with process in the ION litigation, appeared before the
`
`court, and provided discovery. See Paper 26 at 6-9. Fairness and “the strong
`
`public policy for making all information filed in an administrative proceeding
`
`available to the public” demands that these documents (cited by both PGS and
`
`
`6 Patent Owner notes that at no point in the four pages PGS devotes to the issue
`
`does PGS ever specifically list the exhibits it seeks to exclude on this basis.
`
`
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00689
`
`Patent Owner) remain in the record. BioMarin, Paper 79 at 24-25.
`
`Additionally, PGS’s argument that the Board is incapable of considering this
`
`evidence is misplaced. Not only does PGS attempt to re-argue joinder, an
`
`argument it should have made in a request for rehearing months ago, PGS ignores
`
`the Board’s ability to weigh evidence as an administrative panel of judges.
`
`Instead, PGS cites to jury cases where evidence was excluded because the jury
`
`could not properly evaluate the evidence.7 Such cases are inapposite here.
`
`Exclusion of this evidence only works to prejudice Patent Owner. These
`
`exhibits support U.S. Patent No. 7,293,520’s validity and must be included in order
`
`to provide the Board with a full record when rendering a final decision.
`
`
`Dated: July 6, 2015
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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.
`
`
`7 Additionally, the only patent case cited by PGS to support its position is
`
`completely inapplicable to the facts here. See Minemyer v. B-Roc Representatives,
`
`Inc., 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS12808 at *14-21 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 2, 2012) (finding that a
`
`jury could not properly assess the weight to give a USPTO reexamination
`
`proceeding file history when assessing willful infringement).
`
`
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00689
`
`
`
`
`Customer Number
` 22850
`Tel. (703) 413-3000
`Fax. (703) 413-2220
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`16
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00689
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(e), the undersigned certifies service of
`
`PATENT OWNER’S OPPOSITION TO PETITIONER PETROLEUM GEO-
`
`SERVICES INC.’S MOTION TO EXCLUDE AND EXHIBITS FILED
`
`THEREWITH on the counsel of record for the Petitioners by delivering a copy via
`
`electronic mail to the following addresses:
`
`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)
`
`
`
`
`Dated: July 6, 2015
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`17
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
