`
`
`
`
`
`
` UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`PETROLEUM GEO-SERVICES INC.
` Petitioner
`
` v.
`
`WESTERNGECO LLC
` Patent Owner
`
`
`
`
` Case No. IPR2014-00679
` Patent No. 6,691,038
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PETITIONER’S RESPONSES TO PATENT OWNER’S
`INTERROGATORIES TO PETITIONERS
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.51(c), Petitioner Petroleum Geo-Services, Inc.
`
`(“PGS”), through its counsel, hereby provides the following objections and
`
`responses to “Patent Owner’s Interrogatories to Petitioners” (“Interrogatories”) as
`
`provided via email on August 28, 2014.
`
`
`
`WESTERNGECO Exhibit 2018, pg. 1
`PGS v WESTERNGECO
`IPR2014-01475
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`GENERAL OBJECTIONS
`
`The following General Objections form a part of, and are hereby
`
`incorporated into, the response to each and every question set forth below. Nothing
`
`in those responses, including any failure to recite a specific objection in response to
`
`a particular request, should be construed as a waiver of any of these General
`
`Objections.
`
`1.
`
`PGS objects to the definition of “petitioners” in the prefatory language
`
`and caption of the Interrogatories to the extent that it suggests that the petitioners in
`
`this proceeding include any entities other than Petroleum Geo-Services, Inc.
`
`Petroleum Geo-Services, Inc. is the only petitioner in this proceeding.
`
`2.
`
`PGS objects to each interrogatory, definition, and instruction as
`
`overbroad to the extent that the Interrogatories purport to include a Request For
`
`Production of Documents. Prior to serving its Interrogatories, Patent Owner had
`
`not requested —via communication with Petitioner’s counsel or the Board—to
`
`serve a Request For Production on Petitioner, and Petitioner has not agreed to
`
`provide any such discovery.
`
`3.
`
`PGS objects to each interrogatory, definition, and instruction to the
`
`extent that it attempts to impose any discovery duties on PGS beyond the scope of
`
`discovery affirmatively imposed or agreed to by any applicable rule, law, doctrine,
`
`or accepted practice.
`
`2
`
`WESTERNGECO Exhibit 2018, pg. 2
`PGS v WESTERNGECO
`IPR2014-01475
`
`
`
`
`
`4.
`
` The responses given herein to any one or more of the interrogatories
`
`shall not be deemed to waive any claim of privilege or immunity that PGS may
`
`have as to any response, document, or information, or any objection that PGS may
`
`have as to a demand for further response to these or other interrogatories. During
`
`the teleconference, the Board advised that: “The agreement is that Patent Owner
`
`will today seek to get an agreement that answering any interrogatories would not
`
`be used as a waiver of privilege in District Court litigation.” Tr. 39:16-19. Patent
`
`Owner’s statement includes Condition No. 10: “WesternGeco reserves the right to
`
`argue that PGS’s affirmative reliance on any documents or information produced in
`
`response to the interrogatories may constitute a waiver of privilege held by the
`
`producing party.” In propounding this Condition No. 10, Patent Owner
`
`affirmatively has declined to agree to the precondition of PGS’s offer to provide
`
`discovery responses.
`
`5.
`
`Petitioner objects to Condition No. 10. However, in an effort to
`
`resolve the dispute regarding the scope of discovery without the Board’s
`
`intervention, PGS nevertheless provides the responses to Patent Owner’s
`
`interrogatories, subject to the objections set forth herein, despite the fact that
`
`discovery has not been ordered by the Board and is not warranted by governing
`
`precedent.
`
`3
`
`WESTERNGECO Exhibit 2018, pg. 3
`PGS v WESTERNGECO
`IPR2014-01475
`
`
`
`
`
`6.
`
`PGS objects to each interrogatory, definition, and instruction as overly
`
`broad, unduly burdensome, and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery
`
`of admissible evidence to the extent that it seeks information concerning any
`
`subject other than ION’s alleged participation in the preparation or prosecution of
`
`the “PGS IPR Proceedings” (defined below). In response to a request for guidance
`
`as to the appropriate scope of any potential discovery, the Board advised that:
`
`“And given that, then both sides will endeavor to negotiate on five interrogatories
`
`related to ION's participation in the IPR, hopefully by the end of this week.” Tr. at
`
`39:20-23. And Patent Owner represented to the Board that “My reaction is we are
`
`interested in communications that link ION, obviously, to this IPR effort. If the
`
`question is do we have a cutoff date, for example, once the IPR was filed, no.
`
`We’re looking at communications that lead up to the preparation of that petition.
`
`And so, you know, certainly we’re only looking for communications relating to the
`
`IPR effort.” Tr. at 36:10-19. To the extent that discovery sought does not pertain
`
`to ION’s alleged participation in the preparation or prosecution of the PGS IPR
`
`Proceedings, PGS declines to provide such information and has not included such
`
`information in its responses below.
`
`7.
`
`PGS objects to each interrogatory to the extent that it calls for the
`
`disclosure of information protected by any privilege, including, without limitation,
`
`the attorney-client privilege, the work product doctrine, the common interest
`
`4
`
`WESTERNGECO Exhibit 2018, pg. 4
`PGS v WESTERNGECO
`IPR2014-01475
`
`
`
`
`
`privilege, or any other available and valid grounds for withholding information
`
`from production. All interrogatories have been read to exclude the discovery
`
`and/or production of such privileged information
`
`8.
`
`PGS’s responses herein are based on facts presently known to PGS
`
`and represent a diligent and good faith effort to respond to the interrogatories.
`
`PGS’s discovery and investigation into the matters specified is continuing. PGS
`
`reserves the right to supplement, alter or change its responses and objections to
`
`these interrogatories and to provide additional responsive information, if any, that
`
`PGS has in its possession, custody, or control at the time the interrogatories were
`
`propounded.
`
`DEFINITIONS
`
`1.
`
`“PGS” means Petroleum Geo-Services, Inc. Although Patent Owner
`
`has not sought leave to serve discovery on PGS Geophysical AS or Petroleum
`
`Geo-Services ASA, PGS has conducted a reasonable investigation including PGS
`
`Geophysical AS and Petroleum Geo-Services ASA, and PGS’s responses below do
`
`not exclude information that would have been provided by these entities had they
`
`been required to answer the following interrogatories.
`
`2.
`
`“ION” means ION Geophysical Corporation, an employee of ION, or
`
`a person acting as an agent of ION within the scope of that agency.
`
`5
`
`WESTERNGECO Exhibit 2018, pg. 5
`PGS v WESTERNGECO
`IPR2014-01475
`
`
`
`
`
`3.
`
`“ION Litigation” means the civil action WesternGeco L.L.C. v. ION
`
`Geophysical Corp. et al., 4:09-cv-01827 (S.D. Tex.).
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`“Williams & Connolly” means Williams & Connolly LLP.
`
`“PGS IPR Proceedings” means Inter Partes Review Case Nos.
`
`IPR2014-00678; IPR2014-00687; IPR2014-00688; and IPR2014-00689.
`
`6.
`
`“Challenged Patents” means U.S. Patent Nos. 6,691,038; 7,162,967;
`
`7,080,607; and 7,293,520—the patents challenged in the PGS IPR Proceedings.
`
`7.
`
`“PGS IPR Petitions” means the petitions filed in the PGS IPR
`
`Proceedings seeking institution of Inter Partes Review.
`
`RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO SPECIFIC INTERROGATORIES
`
`INTERROGATORY NO. 1:
`
`Disclose and describe all meetings and calls between PGS (or its counsel)
`and ION (or its counsel) regarding the validity of WesternGeco’s patents, such as
`the February 14, 2014 conference call between Williams & Connolly, Porter &
`Hedges and Phil Shotts, such disclosure and description including but not limited
`to:
`
`(a)
`
`the date and time of the meeting or call;
`
`(b)
`
`the names and affiliations of the individuals involved;
`
`(c)
`
`the topics discussed, including whether any inter partes review--
`instituted, petitioned, or under consideration--was discussed;
`
`(d)
`
`any documents exchanged or discussed
`
`RESPONSE:
`
`6
`
`WESTERNGECO Exhibit 2018, pg. 6
`PGS v WESTERNGECO
`IPR2014-01475
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PGS objects to the scope of this interrogatory as set forth in General
`
`Objection No. 6. PGS further objects to this interrogatory as vague and ambiguous
`
`with respect to the meaning of “WesternGeco’s patents.” To the extent that this
`
`term refers to patents other than the Challenged Patents, PGS objects to this
`
`request as overbroad. PGS objects to this interrogatory to the extent that it calls for
`
`the disclosure of information protected by any privilege or protection.
`
`
`
`Subject to and without waiving the foregoing specific objections and the
`
`General Objections, and based on the non-privileged information reasonably
`
`available to PGS, PGS states that:
`
`
`
`There were no meetings between PGS and ION concerning the PGS IPR
`
`Proceedings.
`
`
`
`There was only one call between counsel for PGS and counsel for ION
`
`regarding validity of any Challenged Patent and that related in any way to the PGS
`
`IPR Proceedings. The conference call was requested by counsel for PGS to learn
`
`particular facts about the ION Litigation. Regarding this single conference call:
`
`(a) The conference call occurred on February 14, 2014 at approximately
`
`11:30 AM EST, and lasted no more than 30 minutes.
`
`(b)
`
`Jessamyn Berniker, William Doffermyre, and Alec Swafford from
`
`Williams & Connolly were on the call. Kevin Hart from PGS was on
`
`7
`
`WESTERNGECO Exhibit 2018, pg. 7
`PGS v WESTERNGECO
`IPR2014-01475
`
`
`
`
`
`the call. To the best of PGS’s knowledge, Phillip Shotts of ION and
`
`Jonathan Pierce from Porter & Hedges were on the call.
`
`(c) Consistent with the purpose of the call, counsel for PGS asked counsel
`
`for ION whether, and if so on what basis, WesternGeco had disputed
`
`during the ION Litigation the prior art status of PCT Application No.
`
`WO98/28636 (the ’636 PCT) in relation to Patent Nos. 7,162,967,
`
`7,080,607, and 7,293,520. In this context, the statute 35 U.S.C. § 363
`
`was also discussed. Neither the substance of, nor the disclosures
`
`contained in, the ’636 PCT or any other prior art reference were
`
`discussed.
`
`(d) No documents were exchanged during the conference call. In two
`
`follow-up email messages from Jonathan Pierce to Kevin Hart and
`
`Philip Shotts, Mr. Pierce identified two cases relating to 35 USC §
`
`363 that Mr. Pierce represented had been discussed with WesternGeco
`
`counsel in the context of discussing jury instructions during the ION
`
`Litigation: (1) Broad. Innovation, L.L.C. v. Charter Communications,
`
`Inc., 420 F.3d 1364, 1365-69 (Fed. Cir. 2005); and (2) Sanitec Indus.
`
`v. Micro-Waste Corp., CIV.A. H-04-3066, 2006 WL 3455000 (S.D.
`
`Tex. Nov. 28, 2006) aff'd sub nom. Sanitec Indus., Inc. v. Micro-
`
`Waste Corp., 296 F. App’x 44 (Fed. Cir. 2008) - Sanitec Indus., Inc. v.
`
`8
`
`WESTERNGECO Exhibit 2018, pg. 8
`PGS v WESTERNGECO
`IPR2014-01475
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Micro-Waste Corp., 296 F. App’x 44, 45 (Fed. Cir. 2008). PGS cited
`
`neither case in the IPR Petitions.
`
`Although not a call or meeting between PGS and ION, PGS in-house
`
`counsel Kevin Hart left a voicemail for ION in-house counsel Phillip Shotts on or
`
`about June 2, 2014. Mr. Hart left the voicemail in response to an unsolicited email
`
`from Mr. Shotts, which was produced in district court litigation between Patent
`
`Owner and PGS (PGSI-T2725-0047296). In his email, transmitted after the PGS
`
`IPR Petitions had been filed, Mr. Shotts stated that he had been contacted by a
`
`company dealing in technology developed in the former Soviet Union that claimed
`
`to possess prior art to the Challenged Patents. In the email, Mr. Shotts inquired
`
`about deadlines in the PGS IPR Proceedings. In his voicemail, Mr. Hart
`
`acknowledged receipt of the email but declined at the time to engage in a
`
`discussion concerning the company referenced in the email or any prior art. And
`
`Mr. Hart has not had any discussions with Mr. Shotts concerning these topics since
`
`then.
`
`
`
`PGS is also aware of an email chain that was produced in district court
`
`litigation between Patent Owner and PGS (PGSI-T2725-WG-0046686). This
`
`email chain begins with a request by PGS in-house counsel Kevin Hart on behalf
`
`of “PGS/Irell” (Irell & Manella LLP is PGS’s trial counsel) for copies of ION’s
`
`invalidity contentions from the ION Litigation because “receiving them from WG
`
`9
`
`WESTERNGECO Exhibit 2018, pg. 9
`PGS v WESTERNGECO
`IPR2014-01475
`
`
`
`
`
`[Patent Owner] would take some time.” ION’s outside counsel Jonathan Pierce
`
`provided copies of ION’s non-confidential invalidity contentions to Irell &
`
`Manella LLP and Mr. Hart. Patent Owner subsequently produced these materials
`
`to PGS in the district court proceedings approximately three weeks after ION’s
`
`counsel provided them to Irell & Manella. Mr. Hart did not refer to or use these
`
`materials in connection with the PGS IPR Proceedings. Williams & Connolly did
`
`not refer to or use these materials in connection with the PGS IPR Proceedings.
`
`INTERROGATORY NO. 2:
`
`Disclose and describe any common interest privilege alleged to exist over
`communications between PGS or its representatives and ION or its representatives
`regarding the validity of WesternGeco’s patents, such disclosure and description
`including but not limited to:
`
`(a)
`
`the common interest(s) alleged to exist;
`
`(b)
`
`the date the common interest(s) began;
`
`(c)
`
`the date the common interest(s) ended;
`
`(d)
`
`any joint defense or other agreement related to any common interest
`
`RESPONSE:
`
`
`
`PGS objects to the scope of this interrogatory as set forth in General
`
`Objection No. 6.
`
`
`
`Subject to and without waiving the foregoing specific objections and the
`
`General Objections, and based on the non-privileged information reasonably
`
`available to PGS, PGS states that:
`
`10
`
`WESTERNGECO Exhibit 2018, pg. 10
`PGS v WESTERNGECO
`IPR2014-01475
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PGS does not contend, and never has contended, that any form of common
`
`interest privilege exists between PGS and ION in connection with the PGS IPR
`
`Proceedings. Accordingly, there is no date on which a common interest in
`
`connection with the PGS IPR proceedings began or ended, and there is no joint
`
`defense or other agreement related to any such common interest.
`
`INTERROGATORY NO. 3:
`
`Disclose and describe any agreements regarding William & Connolly’s
`retention in connection with the Petitions, including but not limited to:
`
`(a)
`
`any retention agreement;
`
`(b)
`
`any invoices or remittances;
`
`(c)
`
`(d)
`
`any cost-sharing or indemnity agreements, including between PGS
`and ION;
`
`any ION contributions or reimbursements for any expenses related to
`the Petitions or the preparations thereof.
`
`RESPONSE:
`
`
`
`PGS objects to the scope of this interrogatory as set forth in General
`
`Objection No. 6. PGS objects to this interrogatory to the extent that it calls for the
`
`disclosure of information protected by any privilege or protection.
`
`
`
`Subject to and without waiving the foregoing specific objections and the
`
`General Objections, and based on the non-privileged information reasonably
`
`available to PGS, PGS states that:
`
`11
`
`WESTERNGECO Exhibit 2018, pg. 11
`PGS v WESTERNGECO
`IPR2014-01475
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Williams & Connolly has no retention agreement with ION in connection
`
`with the PGS IPR Proceedings. Williams & Connolly has no agreements of any
`
`kind with ION.
`
`
`
`Williams & Connolly has not provided any invoices to ION or received any
`
`remittances from ION, directly or indirectly, in connection with the PGS IPR
`
`Proceedings.
`
`
`
`PGS does not have any cost sharing or indemnity agreements with ION in
`
`connection with the PGS IPR Proceedings.
`
`
`
`ION has not provided Williams & Connolly or PGS with any contributions
`
`or reimbursements for any expenses of any kind related to the PGS IPR
`
`Proceedings.
`
`INTERROGATORY NO. 4:
`
`Disclose and describe any prior art references that ION or its counsel
`disclosed to PGS or its counsel, such disclosure and description including but not
`limited to:
`
`(a)
`
`the identity of the reference;
`
`(b)
`
`the date of the disclosure;
`
`(c)
`
`the names and affiliations of the people involved;
`
`(d)
`
`any discussions associated with or subsequent to the disclosure.
`
`RESPONSE:
`
`
`
`PGS objects to the scope of this interrogatory as set forth in General
`
`Objection No. 6. PGS objects to this interrogatory to the extent that it calls for the
`
`12
`
`WESTERNGECO Exhibit 2018, pg. 12
`PGS v WESTERNGECO
`IPR2014-01475
`
`
`
`
`
`disclosure of information protected by any privilege or protection. PGS further
`
`objects to this interrogatory to the extent that its use of the word “counsel” is
`
`ambiguous; PGS interprets it to mean PGS’ in-house counsel or PGS’ counsel in
`
`the PGS IPR Proceedings, Williams & Connolly.
`
`
`
`Subject to and without waiving the foregoing specific objections and the
`
`General Objections, and based on the non-privileged information reasonably
`
`available to PGS, PGS states that:
`
`
`
`No prior art references have been disclosed by ION or its counsel to PGS or
`
`Williams & Connolly in connection with the PGS IPR Proceedings. Any
`
`communications in connection with the PGS IPR Proceedings with ION
`
`concerning prior art references are described in PGS’s Response to Interrogatory
`
`No. 1.
`
`INTERROGATORY NO. 5:
`
`Disclose and describe all communications between PGS or its counsel and
`ION or its counsel regarding indemnification for infringement of WesternGeco’s
`patents, including but not limited to:
`
`(a)
`
`(b)
`
`(c)
`
`any agreements related to indemnity for infringement of
`WesternGeco’s patents;
`
`any claims or requests for indemnity for infringement of
`WesternGeco’s patents;
`
`any discussions regarding litigation funding or expenses patent
`disputes with WesternGeco.
`
`RESPONSE:
`
`13
`
`WESTERNGECO Exhibit 2018, pg. 13
`PGS v WESTERNGECO
`IPR2014-01475
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PGS objects that the scope of this interrogatory as set forth in General
`
`Objection No. 6. PGS objects to this interrogatory to the extent that it calls for the
`
`disclosure of information protected by any privilege or protection.
`
`
`
`Subject to and without waiving the foregoing specific objections and the
`
`General Objections, and based on the non-privileged information reasonably
`
`available to PGS, PGS states that:
`
`There are no agreements relating to indemnity, requests for indemnity, or
`
`“discussions regarding litigation funding or expenses [sic] patent disputes”
`
`between PGS and ION relating to the PGS IPR Proceedings.
`
`ION is a supplier to PGS affiliates of, inter alia, software and devices.
`
`Accordingly, PGS affiliates do have agreements with ION that contain warranty or
`
`indemnity provisions that, for example, protect against claims “made by third
`
`parties.” The PGS IPR Proceedings were filed by PGS. Although a PGS affiliate
`
`has informed ION that Patent Owner has asserted a claim relating to the use of
`
`devices provided by ION, neither PGS nor its affiliates have made demands to ION
`
`concerning the Challenged Patents under any such warranty or indemnity
`
`provision.
`
`
`
` /s/ David I. Berl
`By:
`David I. Berl
`Attorney for Petitioner
`Petroleum Geo-Services, Inc.
`Registration No. 72,751
`
`Date: September 4, 2014
`
`14
`
`WESTERNGECO Exhibit 2018, pg. 14
`PGS v WESTERNGECO
`IPR2014-01475
`
`