`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x
` :
`PETROLEUM GEO-SERVICES, INC.; :
` :
` Petitioner, :
` :
` - v - :
` :
`WESTERNGECO, LLC., :
` :
` Patent Owner. :
`- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x
`CASES: IPR2014-01475, -01477, 01478.
` ** T E L E C O N F E R E N C E **
` (ALL PARTICIPANTS APPEARING TELEPHONICALLY)
`
`B O A R D :
` JUDGE SCOTT DANIELS
` JUDGE BEVERLY BUNTING
` JUDGE BRYAN MOORE
` JUDGE BARBARA PARVIS
`
` April 13, 2015
`
`Reported by:
`Danielle Grant
`
`Job No. 92583
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`1 2
`
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Board Exhibit 3001, pg. 1
`PGS v. WesternGeco
`IPR2014-01475
`
`
`
`Page 2
`
` April 13, 2015
` 1:00 p.m.
`
` TELEPHONIC CONFERENCE CALL, before
`Danielle Grant, a Reporter and Notary Public
`within and for the State
`of New York.
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
`
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Board Exhibit 3001, pg. 2
`PGS v. WesternGeco
`IPR2014-01475
`
`
`
`Page 3
`
`A P P E A R A N C E S :
`
`WILLIAMS & CONNOLLY
`Attorneys for Petitioner
`725 Twelfth Street, NW
`Washington, DC 20005
`BY: JESSAMYN BERNIKER, ESQ.
` CHRISTOPHER SUAREZ, ESQ.
`
`OBLON McCLELLAND MAIER & NEUSTADT
`Attorneys for Patent Owner
`1940 Duke Street
`Alexandria, Virginia 22314
`BY: MICHAEL KIKLIS, ESQ.
` KATHERINE CAPPAERT, ESQ.
`ALSO PRESENT:
` BRIGITTE ECHOLS
`
`1 2
`
`3 4
`
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Board Exhibit 3001, pg. 3
`PGS v. WesternGeco
`IPR2014-01475
`
`
`
`Page 4
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` Proceedings April 13, 2015
` JUDGE SCOTT: All right. Again,
`this is Judge Scott Daniels, and I'm
`joined on the call with Judges Parvis
`and Bunting. And this is the initial
`conference call for IPR-2014, 01475,
`01477 and 01478. And those IPRs all
`specifically relate to the -- I'll give
`the whole number, U.S. Patent 7,080
`607, and Patent 7,293,520.
` Let me ask now, who's on the line
`from Petitioner?
` MS. BERNIKER: This is Jess from
`Williams and Connolly and with me is
`Christopher Suarez also from Williams
`and Connolly.
` JUDGE SCOTT: Thank you. And from
`Williams & Connolly?
` MR. KIKLIS: Mike Kiklis, Your
`Honor, from Oblon. With me is Kate
`Cappaert of our office and I believe
`Christopher Judy is also on the line,
`as well as in-house counsel, Bridget
`Echols.
` JUDGE SCOTT: Thank you. All
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Board Exhibit 3001, pg. 4
`PGS v. WesternGeco
`IPR2014-01475
`
`
`
`Page 5
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` Proceedings April 13, 2015
`right. I think that we've been
`through -- in the first series of cases
`we have been through the entire range
`of things that would -- issues that we
`usually cover including motions to
`amend and things like that. From
`patent owner's perspective, do we need
`to go through that again?
` MR. KIKLIS: I don't believe so,
`Your Honor, but there are a motion that
`we do feel that we'll end up raising,
`potentially.
` JUDGE SCOTT: I'll get to that.
`Just wanted to make sure -- I just
`didn't want to go through, you know,
`spend ten minutes going through what
`we've been through before. Because it
`doesn't look like we've -- in the other
`cases, or this one, you still could but
`at the moment, there's no anticipated
`motion to amend?
` MR. KIKLIS: Not at this point,
`Your Honor, but of course but we may
`decide to change that later on.
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Board Exhibit 3001, pg. 5
`PGS v. WesternGeco
`IPR2014-01475
`
`
`
`Page 6
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` Proceedings April 13, 2015
` JUDGE SCOTT: Certainly. All
`right. Are there any proposed changes
`to the scheduling order? We currently
`have oral argument in these series of
`cases is for November 12, 2015. Are
`there any other -- any issues with the
`order, the scheduling order as it
`stands?
` MS. BERNIKER: Your Honor, this is
`Jessamyn Bernicker from Williams and
`Connolly. We certainly have no issue
`with the oral argument date or the
`other -- what we refer to as the fixed
`date. The parties are in the midst a
`long and arguably heated discussion
`about the other deadlines and how they
`interact with the deadlines in the
`first set of cases that are currently
`ongoing.
` I don't know if that's something
`that we're prepared to discuss today,
`because as I understand it, at least
`from our perspective, we need to settle
`on kind of making sure that the
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Board Exhibit 3001, pg. 6
`PGS v. WesternGeco
`IPR2014-01475
`
`
`
`Page 7
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` Proceedings April 13, 2015
`deadlines that are already coming up
`very quickly in phase one or the first
`set of IPRs on these patents, get
`confirmed and locked down and that has
`been a struggle between the parties.
` And I think from our perspective,
`it entirely affects the intermediate
`deadlines for this phase of the case,
`because the witnesses are the same in
`terms of our principle declarant. And
`it's argued that we should be able to
`kind of consolidate when they come into
`town for depositions and, so we haven't
`been able to work it out together at
`this point.
` If that's something that you'd
`like to hear more or WesternGeco
`intends to address that more in detail,
`I'm happy to talk about it. From our
`perspective the order of events in
`terms of how we can make this work, is
`to first resolve with issues with
`respect to the first case, which I
`believe, sometime in the next week
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Board Exhibit 3001, pg. 7
`PGS v. WesternGeco
`IPR2014-01475
`
`
`
`Page 8
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` Proceedings April 13, 2015
`we're hoping to either resolve or bring
`to your attention. And then once we
`work that out, we think we should be
`able to work out the dates for the
`second case in terms of those
`intermediate deadlines that are movable
`by agreement of the parties.
` JUDGE SCOTT: Okay. Understood.
`We can talk about that because I wanted
`to discuss that as well based on what,
`you know, we already had. One, we gave
`out one order with respect to the
`witnesses for time in the first case,
`so. Patent owner, do you want to
`respond to that?
` MR. KIKLIS: Yes, Your Honor.
`What you heard the petitioner say is
`that she's making her witnesses
`available in the second round of IPRs
`contingent upon what they decide to do
`in the first round. So as of today,
`patent owner doesn't have any specific
`date for when they can depose
`petitioner's witnesses. You also heard
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Board Exhibit 3001, pg. 8
`PGS v. WesternGeco
`IPR2014-01475
`
`
`
`Page 9
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` Proceedings April 13, 2015
`the petitioner argue that these two
`proceeding should be linked, so as to
`make it easier on their witnesses.
` And I would argue that they filed
`two sets of IPRs. We should be able to
`get -- have their witnesses for a
`deposition within a reasonable
`timeframe and they shouldn't
`necessarily combined. They filed a
`second round of IPRs. We should be
`able to know within a few days, when
`those depositions are going to be.
` JUDGE SCOTT: Do we know when, in
`the first phase, do we know in the
`first set of cases when the depositions
`are?
` MS. BERNIKER: The initial round
`of depositions have taken place. So
`patent owner has deposed the experts
`for petitioner and they have obviously
`filed their opposition. We had agreed
`to give them a five or actually a four
`week extension on their opposition
`deadline because they insisted on
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Board Exhibit 3001, pg. 9
`PGS v. WesternGeco
`IPR2014-01475
`
`
`
`Page 10
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` Proceedings April 13, 2015
`pushing the original dates that we
`proposed for those witnesses and they
`insisted on having five weeks between
`the deposition and their opposition,
`which they were granted.
` And we had agreed to that subject
`to their agreeing to put up their
`experts between a particular window of
`April 20 and May 8. They have now told
`us, that their principle expert will
`not be available in the United States
`during that window and not be available
`until May 21 or 22. So they're not
`prepared to stand by the stipulation
`and they've insisted that we fly to
`Singapore to depose him during that
`window, which is why there is a dispute
`right now as to phase one, because our
`view is that we agreed to the extension
`subject to a stipulation that we would
`be provided access to their witness for
`a deposition in sufficient time for us
`to have time to submit our reply.
` The date they're proposing in the
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Board Exhibit 3001, pg. 10
`PGS v. WesternGeco
`IPR2014-01475
`
`
`
`Page 11
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` Proceedings April 13, 2015
`U.S. is two weeks before our reply
`deadline and obviously, considering the
`lengthy extensions we have given them,
`we don't feel like that's appropriate.
`So reason of course that this is
`intertwined with what we call phase
`two, is at the time that we agreed to
`give them this long extension, we
`indicated that by giving them extension
`in phase one, we would be messing up
`the alignment of the schedule, such
`that it would be more difficult to have
`our witnesses come to do a phase two
`declaration and any reply declaration
`in phase one at the same time.
` So before we gave them an
`extension, it was kind of aligned well
`so that Dr. Evans who's located in
`Australia, could come. And if he
`submitted a supply declaration in phase
`one, he could be deposed at the same
`time in phase one and phase two. But
`when we granted them the extension we
`explained that that was going to
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Board Exhibit 3001, pg. 11
`PGS v. WesternGeco
`IPR2014-01475
`
`
`
`Page 12
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` Proceedings April 13, 2015
`necessarily result in a gap between
`those two timeframes. And that it was
`important to us that we be in a
`situation where he only had to come
`once for a deposition and only had to
`prepare him once, because we're doing
`this several times and we were giving
`them the benefit of an extension. We
`thought that's where we were with
`respect to phase two, but when I
`reminded counsel for the patent owner
`of that in our discussion last week, he
`indicated that he did not intend to
`treat it that way.
` And that he believed that our
`witnesses needed to come separately for
`phase two first, and then if they
`submit a reply declaration, to come
`back again for that. And that is why,
`in many ways. There is a dispute. Our
`position is we would like to stick with
`the schedule that was set forth in
`phase one, where they stipulated to
`make their witnesses available in the
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Board Exhibit 3001, pg. 12
`PGS v. WesternGeco
`IPR2014-01475
`
`
`
`Page 13
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` Proceedings April 13, 2015
`United States during the April 20 to
`May 8 window.
` And we would like to stick with
`what we had discussed in phase one,
`which is that our reply declaration, if
`they were submitting reply
`declarations, would also be subject to
`phase two declaration at that time, at
`the beginning of June. And that we
`would happily give patent owner the
`appropriate extension that they would
`need on their opposition brief in order
`to give them sufficient time to file an
`opposition after the declaration.
` We believe there is sufficient
`time in the schedule to push their
`original opposition brief deadline and
`our reply deadline and still not to
`have move the unmovable deadlines and
`meet the schedule comfortably. And so
`that is where we are on this issue.
` JUDGE SCOTT: All right. I can
`give you, I'm looking at what we did in
`the first set of cases here as far
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Board Exhibit 3001, pg. 13
`PGS v. WesternGeco
`IPR2014-01475
`
`
`
`Page 14
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` Proceedings April 13, 2015
`as -- as far as time. We didn't do
`anything to the schedule. Look, I've
`got to tell you that asking, asking
`people to travel more than twice is,
`you know, from one continent to another
`is a lot. That's a lot on the witness.
`I understand that there is -- there
`were two, you know, there's two series
`of cases filed here.
` But I'm thinking about the
`witnesses. You know, the time is
`relatively easy when we can do it if we
`have to, before if we need to extend
`the time, we can do that. But I would
`like you all to come to an agreement
`about the schedule. If you can't do
`that in the next -- in the next five
`days or so, then we maybe have to have
`another call and maybe submit proposed
`changes, proposed scheduling in both of
`those cases. This is going to get
`complicated in a hurry and take a lot
`of time if you all can't reach an
`agreement. What I'm going to -- let's
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Board Exhibit 3001, pg. 14
`PGS v. WesternGeco
`IPR2014-01475
`
`
`
`Page 15
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` Proceedings April 13, 2015
`go on to another subject at the moment.
` MR. KIKLIS: Your Honor, may
`I just --
` JUDGE SCOTT: Hang on for a
`second. I'm going to go off line here
`when done and discuss this with the
`other judges, because we have to find a
`way to simplify the scheduling order so
`that there's not a lot of burden on
`these witnesses. Mr. Kiklis. Go
`ahead. If you had a thought.
` MR. KIKLIS: Yes, I just wanted to
`mention that yes, there is a
`stipulation that we entered into that
`we would make Dr. Transbluth (ph)
`available between April 30 and May 8.
`Unfortunately, an emergency has arisen.
`He is the CEO of the University of
`Athens. And apparently due to the
`Greece economic crisis, the university,
`it's entire wellbeing was being
`threatened. So he had to travel to
`Greece part of this timeframe, which
`made it very difficult for him to then
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Board Exhibit 3001, pg. 15
`PGS v. WesternGeco
`IPR2014-01475
`
`
`
`Page 16
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` Proceedings April 13, 2015
`come to the United States because he's
`on a long term contract with the
`government of Singapore. So he's over
`in Singapore, he has to go to Greece
`and he and will not be able to come
`back to the United States until May 22
`or May 23.
` That's why when we originally had
`proposed May 22, May 23 in the United
`States, we received push back from the
`petitioner so we tried to accommodate
`them, we're making him available in
`Singapore on the seventh or eighth.
`Mr. Transbluth is rather advanced in
`years and he's also facing a health
`issue which sometimes makes it
`impossible for him to travel. So right
`now, it's a very difficult thing to
`commit to his travel and that's why we
`were offering him over in Singapore
`only for the benefit of the witness.
`And for the emergency that has arisen.
` Since that time we have also
`offered to the petitioner, that while
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Board Exhibit 3001, pg. 16
`PGS v. WesternGeco
`IPR2014-01475
`
`
`
`Page 17
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` Proceedings April 13, 2015
`in Singapore, the parties would agree
`to take Dr. Transbluth's deposition in
`Singapore and May 7 and 8, we can stop
`by western Australia, which is only a
`five hour plane ride on the way back
`and kill two birds with one stone.
`That way everybody would get the
`depositions early, there would only be
`this one charge for both sides incurred
`to fly out to another hemisphere.
`That's the proposal on the table and I
`think it would adequately address both
`parties.
` JUDGE SCOTT: Do you have any
`thoughts on this?
` MS. BERNIKER: Well, I think for a
`start, the agreement to extend the
`schedule in the first instance was
`contingent on the dates in the United
`States and having some parity in terms
`of fairness and how much time was
`provided for each side for taking the
`depositions, between taking them and
`submitting their responses.
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Board Exhibit 3001, pg. 17
`PGS v. WesternGeco
`IPR2014-01475
`
`
`
`Page 18
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` Proceedings April 13, 2015
` I think the suggestion that we now
`have to fly 24 hours to Singapore,
`handle a 12 hour time change to depose
`a witness who lives in Boston is not
`reasonable or fair. And I don't think
`it makes it any easier to tack on
`having to go to Australia in the
`meantime, somehow prepare our witness
`for his deposition, just so that he can
`fly back to the United States, a few
`weeks later, potentially, to be deposed
`again if he submits a reply
`declaration. It seems like that's not
`really bringing efficiency to the
`table. It seems like, with all respect
`to the patent owner's witness, Dr.
`Transbluth, I apologize for not
`pronouncing it right, he seems
`available or it seems like he able to
`travel the world for other obligations
`and this is an obligation on the books
`in this proceeding for several months.
`And we think he should be made
`available when they originally
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Board Exhibit 3001, pg. 18
`PGS v. WesternGeco
`IPR2014-01475
`
`
`
`Page 19
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` Proceedings April 13, 2015
`committing it to him being available.
` And I'm sorry if that creates
`other problems for him in terms of his
`obligations, but this is an important
`proceeding to our clients. And I don't
`think that we should bear the brunt of
`what they characterize as emergencies
`in Greece and apparently in Singapore.
`I do think that ultimately for our part
`with respect to the schedule on phase
`two is, you know, these were scheduled
`originally in a way that our witnesses
`would have to come once. That's
`tremendously efficient for everybody.
`The witness doesn't have to fly around
`the world multiple times. Our two
`witness have already been deposed once,
`I should know note, and they were
`permitted 12 hours of cross-examination
`of them on issues that are highly
`related, to what is going to happen in
`the second phase.
` But obviously, we're going to
`bring them back for a second
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Board Exhibit 3001, pg. 19
`PGS v. WesternGeco
`IPR2014-01475
`
`
`
`Page 20
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` Proceedings April 13, 2015
`deposition. We think it's reasonable
`to have that at the same time that they
`would have a deposition on any apply
`declaration that they submit then.
` And I think there's no prejudice
`to patent owner, because there's enough
`time in the schedule to move their
`opposition deadline and have all the
`dates work out pretty comfortably, so
`I'm not really sure what the problem is
`on that front.
` MR. KIKLIS: Your Honor if I may,
`an emergency came up. That's all I can
`say. We're trying to do our best to
`accommodate the other side, but again,
`I would note that they're the
`petitioner and they filed two rounds of
`IPRs. They did that all knowing of
`course, what that would mean for their
`witnesses and they selected their
`witnesses. So I don't think that their
`argument of prejudice or the
`inconvenience of bringing the witness
`here really should be that important.
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Board Exhibit 3001, pg. 20
`PGS v. WesternGeco
`IPR2014-01475
`
`
`
`Page 21
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` Proceedings April 13, 2015
`And also we've offered, this solution,
`which is we all fly out and get this
`done over a ten day period or so, and
`that the schedule doesn't -- shouldn't
`have to change basically at all.
` JUDGE SCOTT: Ms. Berniker, let me
`ask a couple of questions here and then
`I'll go offline and discuss it with the
`other judges.
` It seems to me that if counsel can
`travel, you'd have your deposition --
`you'd have your deposition in Singapore
`and you'd have it quicker. Or there's
`still the potential, as I understand
`it, to do the -- have the deposition
`here in -- here in the U.S. but it
`would be later and push up against your
`reply due date?
` MS. BERNIKER: Correct.
` JUDGE SCOTT: Which is less --
` MS. BERNIKER: I think they're
`both onerous. We're certainly not
`excited about having only two weeks for
`a reply due date for obvious reasons,
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Board Exhibit 3001, pg. 21
`PGS v. WesternGeco
`IPR2014-01475
`
`
`
`Page 22
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` Proceedings April 13, 2015
`considering we were very gracious in
`giving patent owner a long period of
`time on that. The travel is certainly
`not ideal, but it's also extremely
`expensive. The patent owner bought
`three people to the deposition of our
`experts and we had intended to do the
`same with respect to their experts.
`And a flight to Singapore and back is
`extremely expensive, not to mention
`time-consuming. So if you're asking me
`to pick between them, is that what
`you're asking me to do?
` JUDGE SCOTT: It's possible, we.
`Could make -- we could move the --
`potentially move the reply date a
`little bit.
` MS. BERNIKER: So we have looked
`at the schedule with an eye toward
`whether that would be possible, and the
`principal problem -- well there's
`several problems.
` For one, we've pushed the dates
`back in the first phase and there's
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Board Exhibit 3001, pg. 22
`PGS v. WesternGeco
`IPR2014-01475
`
`
`
`Page 23
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` Proceedings April 13, 2015
`very little fat left in terms of giving
`the parties time to submit their
`filings. We had proposed to
`WesternGeco that we could push the
`reply date by two weeks to deal with
`this two week loss that we would have.
`The problems is that Dr. Evans is only
`available in the first week in June,
`the week -- we had, I think it's the 11
`and 12. We actually indicated to them
`back in January that he would be
`available for a deposition those dates,
`because we knew that his schedule was
`tight, and he could come to the United
`States and be deposed those days.
` So if he submits a reply
`declaration, the problem is that he
`would be available to be deposed on it
`before patent owner's cross-examination
`or comments on cross-examination
`deadline. We had indicated that we
`would be comfortable moving the
`deadline if they agreed to waive
`deposing him on a reply declaration and
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Board Exhibit 3001, pg. 23
`PGS v. WesternGeco
`IPR2014-01475
`
`
`
`Page 24
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` Proceedings April 13, 2015
`they weren't interested in that, as I
`understand it. But I don't know how to
`deal with the problem of his
`unavailability that would be created if
`we pushed our reply deadline.
` JUDGE SCOTT: Mr. Kiklis, what was
`the date again that your witness could
`be available in the U.S.? I believe
`you said in Singapore from -- is it
`April 20 through May 8?
` MR. KIKLIS: I don't think he's
`back in the United States until the
`week of the 22, that's the way I
`understand it. We can make him
`available on May 22, and May 23, which
`is 16 days or so before the petitioner
`would have to file its reply.
` MS. BERNIKER: Maybe I was unclear
`on this Mr. Kiklis. I understood that
`he was coming to the United States
`earlier that week, but wasn't available
`for deposition until the 22 or 23; is
`that right?
` MR. KIKLIS: That's correct. He's
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Board Exhibit 3001, pg. 24
`PGS v. WesternGeco
`IPR2014-01475
`
`
`
`Page 25
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` Proceedings April 13, 2015
`going to be in the United States a
`little bit before then, as I understand
`it. I don't know the exact day that he
`arrives but he can be available on May
`22 or May 23.
` JUDGE SCOTT: So how about --
`we're talking about a matter of days
`here. If -- do you have -- can he be
`made available some time before, it
`sounds like he's gone until May 8. We
`have quite a few days between the
`eighth and 22 and 23. Is there
`somewhere we can find to the petitioner
`a little bit of breathing room so we
`don't have to move that date?
` MR. KIKLIS: He's in Singapore
`traveling to Greece, going back to
`Singapore. I don't believe he can make
`it to the United States until the week
`of the 22, Your Honor, that's my
`understanding. And then as of right
`now, that week, I believe he has a
`couple of days where he is prescheduled
`where he has to be at the university
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Board Exhibit 3001, pg. 25
`PGS v. WesternGeco
`IPR2014-01475
`
`
`
`Page 26
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` Proceedings April 13, 2015
`responding to dissertation defenses or
`what have you which has prescheduled
`and what have you. He arrives here
`that week and some of those dates are
`already committed.
` JUDGE SCOTT: All right. Let me
`go off line for a few minutes and
`discuss this with the panel and I will
`be right back.
` (Off the record.)
` JUDGE SCOTT: We're back. All
`right. This is what -- this is what
`we're going to do. What I'm going to
`say in our summary here is that this --
`patent owner, your witness needs to be
`made available on May 22 and 23. I'll
`let you all work out any dates that may
`potentially have to change from the
`time perspective. And also on the
`hand, petitioner's witness who's
`traveling here from Australia, should
`be able to -- we should be able to have
`all the depositions for them taking
`place at one particular time.
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Board Exhibit 3001, pg. 26
`PGS v. WesternGeco
`IPR2014-01475
`
`
`
`Page 27
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` Proceedings April 13, 2015
` So that's where we're going go.
`If there's any particular changes that
`need to be made to the due date, then
`the due dates and things, I'll leave
`that to you all to make changes, to
`stipulate to changes. So that's what
`would we've got on that. Let me --
`let's move on to the proposed or the
`anticipated motions. Both parties
`filed anticipated motions. And the one
`that sticks out is of course, was
`patent owner, you seem like you may
`also want to have me -- the motion for
`additional discovery?
` MR. KIKLIS: Correct, Your Honor,
`as you saw from our responses that we
`filed in the first round of IPRs, we
`consider this to be a serious issue.
`There is indemnification agreement of
`our exhibits. There are interrogatory
`answers where I should have been named
`as a real party of interest. We intend
`to have a meet and confer later this
`week to try to discuss initial
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Board Exhibit 3001, pg. 27
`PGS v. WesternGeco
`IPR2014-01475
`
`
`
`Page 28
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` Proceedings April 13, 2015
`discovery that could be agreed to
`between the parties, and if that
`reaches an impasse then we would seek
`intervention by the board.
` JUDGE SCOTT: All right. That's
`understandable. So you know we're
`taking the issue seriously as well and
`we'll look at all the evidence as we
`have in the past. There is a joint
`motion for entry of the default
`protective technical order, I think,
`which is the only thing that jumps out
`at me as outstanding that we need to
`give you. Does that sound right?
` MS. BERNIKER: Yes.
` JUDGE SCOTT: It's the same
`default protective order as in the
`first series of cases.
` MS. BERNIKER: Yes, Your Honor.
` MR. KIKLIS: That's my
`understanding.
` JUDGE SCOTT: I'll address that in
`the conference summary as well. All
`right. Oral arguments we talked about
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Board Exhibit 3001, pg. 28
`PGS v. WesternGeco
`IPR2014-01475
`
`
`
`Page 29
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` Proceedings April 13, 2015
`the schedule. If there's a problem
`with -- if there is a problem with the
`due dates, a real problem and you can't
`work out what the directions that we
`give you as far as the depositions, I
`mean obviously, you can call us back
`and we'll take -- we'll have another go
`at it. But for the moment, let's see
`if that enables you to get to a
`resolution of these witnesses.
` MR. KIKLIS: Your Honor, may I ask
`a question or clarification? One of
`the proposals that you heard from the
`petitioner is that the patent owner
`foregoes the deposition of petitioner's
`witnesses that's been filed as a
`supplement declaration to a reply
`brief. I just wanted to clarify that
`our position is we're entitled to such
`a deposition and we'll not willing to
`forego those depositions, however we're
`very willing to move dates as we need,
`so with the one caveat, we're very
`amenable to moving dates.
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Board Exhibit 3001, pg. 29
`PGS v. WesternGeco
`IPR2014-01475
`
`
`
`Page 30
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` Proceedings April 13, 2015
` JUDGE SCOTT: Will that still be
`able to be done here in the United
`States at the same time? Are you
`talking about Dr. Evans?
` MS. BERNIKER: We are talking
`about Dr. Evans. We have heard your
`pronouncement and we'll attempt to make
`this work. I'm not sure how it's going
`to work because Doctor Evans does have
`very limited availability at the
`beginning of June as we indicated to
`the patent owner back in January.
`That's why we had originally said that
`if they want to move our reply
`deadline, they may have to forego his
`deposition because we don't see how it
`will work with his schedule. But we
`will certainly continue to work with
`them to try to make it work.
` JUDGE SCOTT: Is it because
`there's not enough time when he's here?
` MS. BERNIKER: His schedule in
`June is relatively busy and right now
`his availability for a deposition, it'd
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Board Exhibit 3001, pg. 30
`PGS v. WesternGeco
`IPR2014-01475
`
`
`
`Page 31
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` Proceedings April 13, 2015
`be the end of the week -- essentially
`the 11 and 12 of June which is a few
`days after our reply is due. But if
`you move our reply deadline which we
`think is necessary, given the
`deposition of their expert is being
`pushed, then the reply would come in
`after his deposition, which obviously
`doesn't make any sense.
` And then he's not available again
`until the very beginning of July and if
`we move that far in the schedule, then
`we're not going to be able to hold the
`argument date which is obviously
`critical. So that's kind of how we
`ended up in the issue with respect to
`June. But of course, we knew this in
`January when we gave them their
`extension. We told them this in
`January and that's why we said it was
`important that we get their expert
`during the window that they're now not
`putting him up. That's how we got
`here.
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`Board Exhibit 3001, pg. 31
`PGS v. WesternGeco
`IPR2014-01475
`
`
`
`Page 32
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` Proceedings April 13, 2015
` MR. KIKLIS: I just want to point
`out that if we combine depositions then
`it's likely going to be a four-day
`deposition for this it witness.
` JUDGE SCOTT: Here's what we'll
`do. If you all are going to have five
`days to work this out. If -- if you
`all can't determine how to make this
`happen in five days, then let's see --
`that takes us into -- today's the 14.
`If you can't work this out seven days
`from now, by the 21, then what I'd like
`by the close of business on the 21, is
`a proposed schedule from each of you by
`the close of business on the 21. And
`then you can leave it to us, the panel,
`to decide if you can't work it out.
` I have a final oral hearing that
`has to go on at