IN THE 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 No. IPR2014-006891
`U.S. Patent No. 7,293,520
`
`
`
`
`
`PETITIONER PETROLEUM GEO-SERVICES INC.’S REPLY IN
`SUPPORT OF MOTION TO EXCLUDE
`
`
`David I. Berl, Reg. No. 72,751
`Jessamyn S. Berniker, Reg. No. 72,328
`Thomas S. Fletcher, Reg. No. 72,383
`Christopher A. Suarez, Reg. No. 72,553
`WILLIAMS & CONNOLLY LLP
`725 12th St., NW
`Washington, DC 20005
`Telephone:
`202-434-5000
`Fax:
`202-434-5029
`Counsel for Petitioner, Petroleum Geo-Services Inc.
`
`
`
`
`1 Case IPR2015-00565 has been joined with this proceeding.
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES .................................................................................... ii
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES .................................................................................. .. ii
`
`I. WG’s General Grievances About the Motion Are Misplaced. ....................... 1
`I.
`WG’s General Grievances About the Motion Are Misplaced. ..................... ..l
`
`II.
`II.
`
`The Walker Statement Does Not Comply with the Law. ................................ 1
`The Walker Statement Does Not Comply with the Law ............................... ..l
`
`III. Application of the Rule Against Hearsay Is Not Optional. ............................. 3
`III. Application of the Rule Against Hearsay Is Not Optional ............................ ..3
`
`IV. Rule 403 Does Apply in This Proceeding, and with Special Force. ............... 4
`IV.
`Rule 403 Does Apply in This Proceeding, and with Special Force. ............. ..4
`
`V. WG’s Supplemental Evidence Does Not Cure PGS’s Objections. ................. 5
`V. WG’s Supplemental Evidence Does Not Cure PGS’s Objections. ............... ..5
`
`
`
`i
`
`

`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`CASES
`
`Bruton v. U.S., 391 U.S. 123 (1968) .......................................................................... 5
`
`Consol. Rail Corp. v. Grand Trunk Western R.R. Co.,
`2011 WL 6004291 (E.D. Mich. Dec. 1, 2011) ..................................................... 2
`
`Harris v. Rivera, 454 U.S. 339 (1981) ....................................................................... 5
`
`Moore v. U.S., 429 U.S. 20 (1976) ............................................................................ 3
`
`Muldrow ex rel. Estate of Muldrow v. Re-Direct, Inc.,
`493 F.3d 160 (D.C. Cir. 2007) .............................................................................. 2
`
`Norman Int’l, Inc. v. Toti Testam. Trust,
`IPR2014-00283, Paper 29 (Sept. 29, 2014) ......................................................... 3
`
`Turner v. BNSF R. Co., 338 F.3d 1058 (9th Cir. 2003) ............................................. 4
`
`U.S. v. McDaniel, 398 F.3d 540 (6th Cir. 2005) ........................................................ 4
`
`OTHER AUTHORITIES
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.62(a) ................................................................................................... 4
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.6(a)(2)(iii) .......................................................................................... 1
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.64(c) ................................................................................................... 1
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.123(b) ................................................................................................ 3
`
`Fed. R. Evid. 403 ................................................................................................... 4, 5
`
`Fed. R. Evid. 602 ....................................................................................................... 2
`
`Fed. R. Evid. 703 ....................................................................................................... 4
`
`Fed. R. Evid. 801(d) ................................................................................................... 4
`
`Fed. R. Evid. 802 ....................................................................................................... 2
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`
`
`
`I. WG’s General Grievances About the Motion Are Misplaced.
`Revealingly, WG’s Opposition does not attempt to defend the admissibility
`
`of most of the contested exhibits. Rather, WG spends six pages grumbling about
`
`the form of PGS’s motion. PGS’s motion complies with 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(c).
`
`Each section identifies by number the exhibits subject to the particular objection,
`
`where WG relied on those exhibits, and the grounds for exclusion. And PGS
`
`referred the Board to its earlier-served objections, which addressed the exhibits in
`
`numerical order. Paper 85 (“Mot.”) at 2; see also Exs. 1116-18. The first page of
`
`the motion included a table (single-spaced per 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(a)(2)(iii)), listing
`
`the objectionable exhibits in order, the basis for the objection, and where it is
`
`addressed in detail. Having inundated the record with evidence so clearly
`
`inadmissible that WG does not even attempt to defend it, WG cannot properly
`
`blame PGS for the numerosity of its objections. See Paper 90 (“Opp.”) at 1.
`
`WG wrongly complains that PGS “completely ignores [WG’s] supplemental
`
`evidence.” Opp. at 3. Not so. PGS considered WG’s supplemental evidence and
`
`withdrew some of its original objections. Compare Mot. with Exs. 1116-18. But,
`
`as PGS expressly stated, see Mot. at 6-7, 10-11, WG’s efforts to cure others
`
`through supplemental evidence were insufficient. See also § V, infra.
`
`II. The Walker Statement Does Not Comply with the Law.
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`III. Application of the Rule Against Hearsay Is Not Optional.
`WG deems excluding hearsay “extraordinary” relief and urges consideration
`
`of the “full record,” apparently without regard to admissibility. Opp. at 1-2, 14-15.
`
`That is a remarkable position given the Supreme Court’s rule that, even in bench
`
`trials, courts may not consider hearsay. Moore v. U.S., 429 U.S. 20, 22 (1976).
`
`WG cannot rely upon the ION jury verdict, district court rulings, or ION case
`
`transcripts, which are all hearsay. Mot. at 7-8. Lumping all ION case materials
`
`together, WG’s only response is “PGS cannot use these litigation records as a
`
`3
`
`

`
`
`
`sword and then credibly argue that Patent Owner’s citation to such documents is
`
`somehow improper.” Opp. at 11, n.5. This is not improper—it is how the hearsay
`
`rule works. PGS’s reliance on WG’s briefs and testimony from the ION case is
`
`permitted because they are WG’s admissions, and thus are “not hearsay.” FRE
`
`801(d). This in no way makes other ION documents—e.g., the jury verdict, district
`
`court’s rulings, and other witnesses’ testimony—admissible, because they are not
`
`PGS admissions. U.S. v. McDaniel, 398 F.3d 540, 545 (6th Cir. 2005).
`
`As to transcripts cited by Dr. Triantafyllou, Rule 703 only permits an expert
`
`opinion to rely upon hearsay to form an opinion—it does not permit an expert to
`
`read hearsay into the record, as Dr. Triantafyllou does in his declaration. See, e.g.,
`
`Turner v. BNSF R. Co., 338 F.3d 1058, 1061-62 (9th Cir. 2003).
`
`IV. Rule 403 Does Apply in This Proceeding, and with Special Force.
`PGS previously explained that any evidence that is hearsay as to PGS but
`
`not as to ION, e.g., Ex. 2149, must be excluded under Rule 403. See Mot. at 12-
`
`15. WG offers two responses, neither of which has merit.
`
`1. WG suggests that the public-at-large will be prejudiced if evidence is
`
`expunged. See Opp. at 14-15. PGS is not asking the Board to purge inadmissible
`
`evidence from the public record—it is simply asking the Board not to consider it.
`
`2. WG wrongly argues that Rule 403 does not apply in the absence of a
`
`jury. Opp. at 15. The federal rules, including Rule 403, explicitly apply here. 37
`
`4
`
`

`
`
`
`C.F.R. § 42.62(a). It is true that “judges routinely hear inadmissible evidence that
`
`they are presumed to ignore.” Harris v. Rivera, 454 U.S. 339, 346 (1981). The
`
`problem here, however, is that no limiting instruction or mental “cordoning off” of
`
`evidence is possible, because the sole issue in this proceeding—whether claims
`
`should be canceled—is a unitary issue, identical and indivisible as to all parties.
`
`Mot. at 12-15. Rule 403 applies with special force to such situations, Bruton v.
`
`U.S., 391 U.S. 123, 135-36 (1968), and PGS should not be prejudiced by the
`
`Board’s consideration of evidence that is admissible only against ION.
`
`V. WG’s Supplemental Evidence Does Not Cure PGS’s Objections.
`WG did not serve supplemental evidence to authenticate Exs. 2003, 2005,
`
`2006, and 2019 and does not address PGS’s authentication objection. These
`
`exhibits must be excluded. Next, the Gilman declaration describes Exs. 2085 and
`
`2096 as nothing but “trial exhibits,” see Mot. at 11; Ex. 2101 ¶¶ 16, 22, which does
`
`not establish that they are what WG proffers them to be,
`
`
`
` Ex. 2096 on its face plainly indicates that it
`
`is not a “Business plan,” but some incomplete draft. See, e.g., Ex. 2096 at 4, 6-9.
`
`Similarly, PGS explained that Mr. Walker’s authenticating declaration (Ex. 2104)
`
`could not show that various WG documents were “business records,”
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
` /David Berl/
`David Berl
`Reg. No. 72,751
`Williams & Connolly LLP
`725 Twelfth Street, N.W.
`Washington, DC 20005
`
`Phone: 202-434-5491
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated: July 13, 2015
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`The undersigned hereby certifies that the above-captioned Petitioner
`
`Petroleum Geo-Services Inc.’s Reply in Support of Motion to Exclude was served
`
`on July 13, 2015, by delivering a copy via electronic mail upon the following
`
`attorneys of record.
`
`For Petitioner ION Geophysical Corporation and ION International S.A.R.L.:
`
`Michael L. Kiklis
`CPDocketKiklis@oblon.com
`Scott McKeown
`CPDocketMcKeown@oblon.com
`Kevin Laurence
`CPDocketLaurence@oblon.com
`Katherine Cappaert
`CPDocketCappaert@oblon.com
`Christopher Ricciuti
`CPDocketRicciuti@oblon.com
`
`Oblon
`1940 Duke Street
`Alexandria, Virginia 22314
`703-413-3000
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`W. Karl Renner
`Roberto Devoto
`IPR37136-0004IP1@fr.com
`
`Fish & Richardson P.C.
`3200 RBC Plaza
`60 South Sixth Street
`Minneapolis, MN 55402
`202-783-5070
`
`
`
`
`
`For Patent Owner:
`
`
`

`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
` /David Berl/
`David Berl
`Reg. No. 72,751
`Williams & Connolly LLP
`725 Twelfth Street, N.W.
`Washington, DC 20005
`
`Phone: 202-434-5491
`
`
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated: July 13, 2015