throbber
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`PETROLEUM GEO-SERVICES INC.
`
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`WESTERNGECO, LLC
`Patent Owner
`
`
`Case IPR2014-01477
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,080,607
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PETROLEUM GEO-SERVICES INC.’S OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`Case IPR2014-01477
`Patent 7,080,607
`
`
`
`Petitioner Petroleum Geo-Services Inc. (“PGS”) objects pursuant to 37
`
`C.F.R. § 42.64(b)(1) and the Federal Rules of Evidence (“FRE”) to the
`
`admissibility of evidence served by Patent Owner WesternGeco, LLC on August 7,
`
`2015. PGS files these objections pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b)(1), which—as
`
`of May 19, 2015—requires objections to be filed with the Board. See 80 F.R.
`
`28,561, 28,563.
`
`The exhibits objected to, and grounds for PGS’ objections, are listed below.
`
`PGS also objects to Patent Owner’s reliance on or citation to any objected evidence
`
`in its papers.
`
`I.
`
`IDENTIFICATION OF CHALLENGED EVIDENCE AND GROUNDS
`FOR OBJECTIONS
`A. Exhibit 2053
`PGS objects to Exhibit 2053 under FRE 802 because it is inadmissible
`
`hearsay. This document appears to be from WesternGeco LLC v. ION Geophysical
`
`Corp., 4:09-cv-01827 (S.D. Tex.) (“the ION case”). PGS was not a party to the
`
`ION case and, consequently, did not have an opportunity to respond or object to
`
`these statements.
`
`PGS further objects to Exhibit 2053 under FRE 402 and FRE 403 because it
`
`is irrelevant and its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of
`
`unfair prejudice and wasting time in this compressed proceeding. Because PGS
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`was not a party to the ION case and did not have an opportunity to examine
`
`witnesses, object to evidence or present evidence or argument, PGS would suffer
`
`substantial unfair prejudice if this exhibit were admitted. Exhibit 2053 is also
`
`irrelevant because it does not demonstrate the required nexus. Therefore, Exhibit
`
`2053 should be excluded under FRE 402 and 403.
`
`PGS further objects to Exhibit 2053 because it has not been authenticated
`
`under FRE 901, is not self-authenticating under FRE 902, and is not a “duplicate”
`
`as defined by FRE 1001(e). Exhibit 2053 is therefore inadmissible under FRE 901,
`
`1002, and 1003.
`
`WesternGeco specifically cites to the declaration of Rick Workman
`
`contained in Exhibit 2053. The preceding objections regarding Exhibit 2053 apply
`
`equally to that document. Furthermore, PGS further objects because PGS was not
`
`a party to the ION case and, consequently, did not have an opportunity to examine
`
`Mr. Workman or object to his declaration. In addition, that document fails to
`
`comply with 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.53, 42.2, and 1.68.
`
`Exhibit 2057
`
`B.
`PGS objects to Exhibit 2057 under FRE 402 and FRE 403 because it is
`
`irrelevant and its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of
`
`wasting time in this compressed proceeding. The Board has instituted this IPR
`
`based on various grounds that certain claims of the patent-in-suit are anticipated
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`
`
`
`and/or obvious. The Board declined to deny institution of the petition on the basis
`
`that ION is a real party in interest or a privy of PGS in this proceeding. Because
`
`Patent Owner has cited this exhibit solely in an effort to show that ION is a real
`
`party in interest or a privy of PGS in this proceeding, this exhibit is irrelevant to
`
`the determination to be made in this IPR. Moreover, even were the question of
`
`ION’s status as a real party in interest or privy of PGS relevant to the proceeding,
`
`Exhibit 2057 is not relevant to that determination and therefore should be excluded
`
`under FRE 402. And because any relevance of Exhibit 2057 is significantly
`
`outweighed by the undue prejudice associated with ancillary litigation of the
`
`tangential and irrelevant issue of Petitioner’s relationship with ION, it should be
`
`excluded pursuant to FRE 403.
`
`C. Exhibit 2059
`
`PGS objects to Exhibit 2059 under FRE 802 because it is inadmissible
`
`hearsay. This document appears to be from the ION case. PGS was not a party to
`
`the ION case and, consequently, did not have an opportunity to examine Mr.
`
`Thompson or object to his testimony at that deposition or at trial.
`
`PGS further objects to Exhibit 2059 under FRE 402 and FRE 403 because
`
`its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice
`
`and wasting time in this compressed proceeding. Because PGS was not a party to
`
`the ION case and did not have an opportunity to examine Mr. Thompson or object
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`
`
`
`to his testimony at his deposition or at trial, PGS would suffer substantial unfair
`
`prejudice if this testimony were admitted. Moreover, because PGS was not a
`
`party to the ION case and did not have an opportunity to examine witnesses, object
`
`to evidence or present evidence or argument, PGS would suffer substantial unfair
`
`prejudice if this exhibit were admitted. Therefore, Exhibit 2059 should be
`
`excluded under FRE 402 and 403.
`
`PGS also objects to Exhibit 2059 under FRE 402 and 403 because it is
`
`irrelevant and its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of
`
`wasting time in this compressed proceeding. The Board has instituted this IPR
`
`based on various grounds that certain claims of the patent-in-suit are anticipated
`
`and/or obvious. The Board declined to deny institution of the petition on the basis
`
`that ION is a real party in interest or a privy of PGS in this proceeding. Because
`
`Patent Owner has cited this exhibit solely in an effort to show that ION is a real
`
`party in interest or a privy of PGS in this proceeding, this exhibit is irrelevant to
`
`the determination to be made in this IPR. Moreover, even were the question of
`
`ION’s status as a real party in interest or privy of PGS, relevant to the proceeding,
`
`Exhibit 2059 is not relevant to that determination and therefore should be excluded
`
`under FRE 402. And because any relevance of Exhibit 2059 is significantly
`
`outweighed by the undue prejudice associated with ancillary litigation of the
`
`tangential and irrelevant issue of Petitioner’s relationship with ION, it should be
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`
`
`
`excluded pursuant to FRE 403. For these additional reasons, Exhibit 2059 should
`
`be excluded under FRE 402 and 403.
`
`PGS further objects to the testimony contained in Exhibit 2059 to the extent
`
`particular testimony does not comply with the Federal Rules of Evidence or the
`
`Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Because PGS was not present for the testimony
`
`it was not able to make such objections at the time the testimony was elicited or
`
`offered at trial.
`
`D. Exhibit 2060
`PGS objects to Exhibit 2060 under FRE 402 and 403 because it is irrelevant
`
`and its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of wasting time in
`
`this compressed proceeding. The Board has instituted this IPR based on various
`
`grounds that certain claims of the patent-in-suit are anticipated and/or obvious.
`
`The Board declined to deny institution of the petition on the basis that ION is a real
`
`party in interest or a privy of PGS in this proceeding. Because Patent Owner has
`
`cited this exhibit solely in an effort to show that ION is a real party in interest or a
`
`privy of PGS in this proceeding, this exhibit is irrelevant to the determination to be
`
`made in this IPR. Moreover, even were the question of ION’s status as a real party
`
`in interest or privy of PGS, relevant to the proceeding, Exhibit 2060 is not relevant
`
`to that determination and therefore should be excluded under FRE 402. And
`
`because any relevance of Exhibit 2060 is significantly outweighed by the undue
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`
`
`
`prejudice associated with ancillary litigation of the tangential and irrelevant issue
`
`of Petitioner’s relationship with ION, it should be excluded pursuant to FRE 403.
`
`PGS further objects to Exhibit 2060 because it has not been properly authenticated
`
`under FRE 901, is not self-authenticating under FRE 902, and is not a “duplicate”
`
`as defined by FRE 1001(e). Exhibit 2060 is therefore inadmissible under FRE 901,
`
`1002, and 1003. Additionally, this exhibit is inadmissible hearsay under FRE 802.
`
`Exhibit 2061
`
`E.
`PGS objects to Exhibit 2061 under FRE 402 and 403 because it is irrelevant
`
`and its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of wasting time in
`
`this compressed proceeding. The Board has instituted this IPR based on various
`
`grounds that certain claims of the patent-in-suit are anticipated and/or obvious.
`
`The Board declined to deny institution of the petition on the basis that ION is a real
`
`party in interest or a privy of PGS in this proceeding. Because Patent Owner has
`
`cited this exhibit solely in an effort to show that ION is a real party in interest or a
`
`privy of PGS in this proceeding, this exhibit is irrelevant to the determination to be
`
`made in this IPR. Moreover, even were the question of ION’s status as a real party
`
`in interest or privy of PGS, relevant to the proceeding, Exhibit 2061 is not relevant
`
`to that determination and therefore should be excluded under FRE 402. And
`
`because any relevance of Exhibit 2061 is significantly outweighed by the undue
`
`prejudice associated with ancillary litigation of the tangential and irrelevant issue
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`
`
`
`of Petitioner’s relationship with ION, it should be excluded pursuant to FRE 403.
`
`PGS further objects to Exhibit 2061 because it has not been properly authenticated
`
`under FRE 901, is not self-authenticating under FRE 902, and is not a “duplicate”
`
`as defined by FRE 1001(e). Exhibit 2061 is therefore inadmissible under FRE 901,
`
`1002, and 1003. Additionally, this exhibit is inadmissible hearsay under FRE 802.
`
`Exhibit 2062
`
`F.
`PGS objects to Exhibit 2062 under FRE 402 and FRE 403 because it is
`
`irrelevant and its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of
`
`wasting time in this compressed proceeding. Patent Owner has cited this exhibit
`
`solely in an effort to show that Multi Klient Invest AS is a real party in interest or a
`
`privy of PGS in this proceeding. But Exhibit 2062 is not relevant to that
`
`determination and therefore should be excluded under FRE 402. And because any
`
`relevance of Exhibit 2062 is significantly outweighed by the undue prejudice
`
`associated with ancillary litigation of the tangential and irrelevant issue of
`
`Petitioner’s relationship with Multi Klient Invest AS, it should be excluded
`
`pursuant to FRE 403. Additionally, this exhibit is inadmissible hearsay under FRE
`
`802.
`
`G. Exhibit 2063
`PGS objects to Exhibit 2063 under FRE 402 and FRE 403 because it is
`
`irrelevant and its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`
`
`
`wasting time in this compressed proceeding. Patent Owner has cited this exhibit
`
`solely in an effort to show that Multi Klient Invest AS is a real party in interest or a
`
`privy of PGS in this proceeding. But Exhibit 2063 is not relevant to that
`
`determination and therefore should be excluded under FRE 402. And because any
`
`relevance of Exhibit 2063 is significantly outweighed by the undue prejudice
`
`associated with ancillary litigation of the tangential and irrelevant issue of
`
`Petitioner’s relationship with Multi Klient Invest AS, it should be excluded
`
`pursuant to FRE 403. Additionally, this exhibit is inadmissible hearsay under FRE
`
`802.
`
`
`
`Exhibit 2063 is a complaint filed against PGS in district court proceedings,
`
`and it has its own exhibits. PGS objects to all of the exhibits under FRE 402 and
`
`403, as described above. PGS has the following further additional objections to
`
`certain exhibits:
`
`• Exhibit E: Exhibit E purports to be PGS annual reports, but those
`
`reports are incomplete.
`
`• Exhibit F: Exhibit F purports to be registration statements filed
`
`with the Securities and Exchange Commission, but it is
`
`incomplete.
`
`• Exhibit G: Exhibit G purports to be reports filed with the
`
`Securities and Exchange Commission, but it is incomplete.
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`• Exhibit I: PGS objects to Exhibit I because it has not been
`
`authenticated under FRE 901, is not self-authenticating under FRE
`
`902, and is not a “duplicate” as defined by FRE 1001(e). Exhibit I
`
`is therefore inadmissible under FRE 901, 1002, and 1003.
`
`Additionally, this exhibit is inadmissible hearsay under FRE 802.
`
`• Exhibit J: Exhibit J purports to be a docket sheet for Case 4:13-
`
`cv-02725 (S.D. Tex.), but it is incomplete.
`
`• Exhibit L: PGS objects to Exhibit L because it has not been
`
`authenticated under FRE 901, is not self-authenticating under FRE
`
`902, and is not a “duplicate” as defined by FRE 1001(e). Exhibit L
`
`is therefore inadmissible under FRE 901, 1002, and 1003.
`
`Additionally, this exhibit is inadmissible hearsay under FRE 802.
`
`• Exhibit O: PGS objects to Exhibit O because it has not been
`
`authenticated under FRE 901, is not self-authenticating under FRE
`
`902, and is not a “duplicate” as defined by FRE 1001(e). Exhibit
`
`O is therefore inadmissible under FRE 901, 1002, and 1003.
`
`Additionally, this exhibit is inadmissible hearsay under FRE 802.
`
`• Exhibit P: PGS objects to Exhibit P because it has not been
`
`authenticated under FRE 901, is not self-authenticating under FRE
`
`902, and is not a “duplicate” as defined by FRE 1001(e). Exhibit P
`
`10
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`is therefore inadmissible under FRE 901, 1002, and 1003.
`
`Additionally, this exhibit is inadmissible hearsay under FRE 802.
`
`• Exhibit Q: PGS objects to Exhibit Q because it has not been
`
`authenticated under FRE 901, is not self-authenticating under FRE
`
`902, and is not a “duplicate” as defined by FRE 1001(e). Exhibit
`
`Q is therefore inadmissible under FRE 901, 1002, and 1003.
`
`Additionally, this exhibit is inadmissible hearsay under FRE 802.
`
`Exhibit Q purports to be a PGS presentation at Capital Markets
`
`Day 2008, but it is incomplete.
`
`• Exhibit R: PGS objects to Exhibit R because it has not been
`
`authenticated under FRE 901, is not self-authenticating under FRE
`
`902, and is not a “duplicate” as defined by FRE 1001(e). Exhibit
`
`R is therefore inadmissible under FRE 901, 1002, and 1003.
`
`Additionally, this exhibit is inadmissible hearsay under FRE 802.
`
`• Exhibit S: PGS objects to Exhibit S because it has not been
`
`authenticated under FRE 901, is not self-authenticating under FRE
`
`902, and is not a “duplicate” as defined by FRE 1001(e). Exhibit S
`
`is therefore inadmissible under FRE 901, 1002, and 1003.
`
`Additionally, this exhibit is inadmissible hearsay under FRE 802.
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`
`
`
`H. Exhibit 2064
`PGS objects to Exhibit 2064 under FRE 402 and FRE 403 because it is
`
`irrelevant and its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of
`
`wasting time in this compressed proceeding. Patent Owner has cited this exhibit
`
`solely in an effort to show that Multi Klient Invest AS is a real party in interest or a
`
`privy of PGS in this proceeding. But Exhibit 2064 is not relevant to that
`
`determination and therefore should be excluded under FRE 402. And because any
`
`relevance of Exhibit 2064 is significantly outweighed by the undue prejudice
`
`associated with ancillary litigation of the tangential and irrelevant issue of
`
`Petitioner’s relationship with Multi Klient Invest AS, it should be excluded
`
`pursuant to FRE 403.
`
`PGS objects to Exhibit 2064 because it has not been properly authenticated
`
`under FRE 901, is not self-authenticating under FRE 902, and is not a “duplicate”
`
`as defined by FRE 1001(e). Exhibit 2064 is therefore inadmissible under FRE 901,
`
`1002, and 1003. Additionally, this exhibit is inadmissible hearsay under FRE 802.
`
`Exhibit 2065
`
`I.
`PGS objects to Exhibit 2065 under FRE 402 and FRE 403 because it is
`
`irrelevant and its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of
`
`wasting time in this compressed proceeding. The Board has instituted this IPR
`
`based on various grounds that certain claims of the patent-in-suit are anticipated
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`
`
`
`and/or obvious. This exhibit, which purports to be PGS’s 2013 annual report, is
`
`irrelevant to that determination.
`
`Exhibit 2066
`
`J.
`PGS objects to Exhibit 2066 under FRE 402 and FRE 403 because it is
`
`irrelevant and its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of
`
`wasting time in this compressed proceeding. Patent Owner has cited this exhibit
`
`solely in an effort to show that Multi Klient Invest AS is a real party in interest or a
`
`privy of PGS in this proceeding. But Exhibit 2066 is not relevant to that
`
`determination and therefore should be excluded under FRE 402. And because any
`
`relevance of Exhibit 2066 is significantly outweighed by the undue prejudice
`
`associated with ancillary litigation of the tangential and irrelevant issue of
`
`Petitioner’s relationship with Multi Klient Invest AS, it should be excluded
`
`pursuant to FRE 403.
`
`K. Exhibit 2067
`PGS objects to Exhibit 2067 under FRE 402 and 403 because it is irrelevant
`
`and its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of wasting time in
`
`this compressed proceeding. The Board has instituted this IPR based on various
`
`grounds that certain claims of the patent-in-suit are anticipated and/or obvious.
`
`The Board declined to deny institution of the petition on the basis that ION is a real
`
`party in interest or a privy of PGS in this proceeding. Because Patent Owner has
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`
`
`
`cited this exhibit solely in an effort to show that ION is a real party in interest or a
`
`privy of PGS in this proceeding, this exhibit is irrelevant to the determination to be
`
`made in this IPR. Moreover, even were the question of ION’s status as a real party
`
`in interest or privy of PGS, relevant to the proceeding, Exhibit 2067 is not relevant
`
`to that determination and therefore should be excluded under FRE 402. And
`
`because any relevance of Exhibit 2067 is significantly outweighed by the undue
`
`prejudice associated with ancillary litigation of the tangential and irrelevant issue
`
`of Petitioner’s relationship with ION, it should be excluded pursuant to FRE 403.
`
`PGS further objects to Exhibit 2067 because it has not been properly authenticated
`
`under FRE 901, is not self-authenticating under FRE 902, and is not a “duplicate”
`
`as defined by FRE 1001(e). Exhibit 2067 is therefore inadmissible under FRE 901,
`
`1002, and 1003. Additionally, this exhibit is inadmissible hearsay under FRE 802.
`
`Exhibit 2068
`
`L.
`PGS objects to Exhibit 2068 under FRE 402 and 403. Exhibit 2068 is
`
`irrelevant and its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of
`
`wasting time in this compressed proceeding because it is cited for a definition in a
`
`non-technical dictionary that is not even relied upon by Dr. Triantafyllou or Mr.
`
`Walker in their statements. Additionally, this exhibit is inadmissible hearsay under
`
`FRE 802.
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`
`
`
`M. Exhibit 2070
`PGS also objects to Exhibit 2070 under FRE 802 because it is inadmissible
`
`hearsay. This document appears to be from proceedings in the European Patent
`
`Office. PGS was not a party to those proceedings and, consequently, did not have
`
`an opportunity to respond or object to these statements.
`
`PGS further objects to Exhibit 2070 under FRE 402 and FRE 403 because it
`
`is irrelevant and its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of
`
`unfair prejudice. Because PGS was not a party to those proceedings and did not
`
`have an opportunity to present evidence or argument in those proceedings, PGS
`
`would suffer substantial unfair prejudice if this exhibit were admitted. Therefore,
`
`Exhibit 2070 should be excluded under FRE 402 and 403.
`
`PGS further objects to Exhibit 2070 because it has not been properly
`
`authenticated under FRE 901, is not self-authenticating under FRE 902, and is not
`
`a “duplicate” as defined by FRE 1001(e). Exhibit 2070 is therefore inadmissible
`
`under FRE 901, 1002, and 1003. Additionally, this exhibit is inadmissible hearsay
`
`under FRE 802.
`
`N. Exhibit 2072
`PGS also objects to Exhibit 2072 under FRE 802 because it is inadmissible
`
`hearsay. This document appears to be from proceedings in the European Patent
`
`
`
`15
`
`

`
`
`
`Office. PGS was not a party to those proceedings and, consequently, did not have
`
`an opportunity to respond or object to these statements.
`
`PGS further objects to Exhibit 2072 under FRE 402 and FRE 403 because it
`
`is irrelevant and its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of
`
`unfair prejudice. Because PGS was not a party to those proceedings and did not
`
`have an opportunity to present evidence or argument in those proceedings, PGS
`
`would suffer substantial unfair prejudice if this exhibit were admitted. Therefore,
`
`Exhibit 2072 should be excluded under FRE 402 and 403.
`
`PGS further objects to Exhibit 2072 because it has not been properly
`
`authenticated under FRE 901, is not self-authenticating under FRE 902, and is not
`
`a “duplicate” as defined by FRE 1001(e). Exhibit 2072 is therefore inadmissible
`
`under FRE 901, 1002, and 1003. Additionally, this exhibit is inadmissible hearsay
`
`under FRE 802.
`
`O. Exhibit 2074
`PGS objects to Exhibit 2074 under FRE 402 and 403. Exhibit 2074 is
`
`irrelevant and its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of
`
`wasting time in this compressed proceeding because it is cited for a definition in a
`
`non-technical dictionary that is not even relied upon by Dr. Triantafyllou or Mr.
`
`Walker in their statements. Additionally, this exhibit is inadmissible hearsay under
`
`FRE 802.
`
`
`
`16
`
`

`
`
`
`Exhibit 2075
`
`P.
`PGS objects to Exhibit 2075, the Declaration of Dr. Triantafyllou, under
`
`FRE 402 to the extent it includes or relies on irrelevant information and under FRE
`
`403 to the extent that it includes or relies on information, the probative value of
`
`which is substantially outweighed by the danger of wasting time in this
`
`compressed proceeding. By way of non-exclusive example, Exhibit 2075 relies on
`
`exhibits and information not available to the public as of the priority date. This
`
`evidence has no relevance to what a person of ordinary skill in the art would have
`
`known by the priority date.
`
`PGS further objects to Exhibit 2075 under FRE 402 and FRE 403 because it
`
`is irrelevant and its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of
`
`unfair prejudice and the danger of wasting time. Exhibit 2075 includes or relies on
`
`testimony and exhibits from the ION case. PGS was not a party to the ION case
`
`and did not have an opportunity to examine witnesses, object to evidence, or
`
`present evidence in that case. Furthermore, reliance on this evidence is
`
`additionally irrelevant, unfairly prejudicial, and would result in a waste of time
`
`because the issues presented in the ION case were substantively different than
`
`those presented in this case. As a result, PGS would suffer substantial unfair
`
`prejudice if reliance on this evidence were permitted. For that additional reason,
`
`Exhibit 2075 should be excluded under FRE 402 and 403.
`
`
`
`17
`
`

`
`
`
`PGS further objects to Exhibit 2075 under FRE 802 because it contains and
`
`relies on inadmissible hearsay, including testimony and exhibits from the ION
`
`case. PGS did not have an opportunity to examine witnesses, object to evidence,
`
`or present evidence in that case as it was not a party to it. The probative value of
`
`this hearsay does not substantially outweigh its prejudicial effect, particularly
`
`given that the issues presented in the ION case were substantively different than
`
`those presented in this case.
`
`PGS objects to Exhibit 2075 to the extent Dr. Triantafyllou’s Declaration is
`
`being offered pursuant to FRE 702, including to the extent that he offers opinions
`
`without having demonstrated the requisite expertise, basis, methodology or
`
`foundation. To the extent Exhibit 2075 is being offered as an expert declaration,
`
`PGS objects on the ground that it does not comply with the requirements for an
`
`expert declaration. PGS also objects to Exhibit 2075 to the extent it includes
`
`subject matter that is not permitted pursuant to FRE 602 or 701, including to the
`
`extent that Dr. Triantafyllou is commenting as a fact witness on matters that are
`
`outside his personal knowledge or offering improper lay opinion testimony. To the
`
`extent that statements in Exhibit 2075 lack foundation, PGS objects under FRE
`
`602. PGS also objects to Exhibit 2075 under FRE 402 and 403 for these same
`
`reasons. PGS also objects to Exhibit 2075 to the extent that it fails to comply with
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.53.
`
`
`
`18
`
`

`
`
`
`PGS further objects to Exhibit 2075 as irrelevant under FRE 401, and as
`
`unfairly prejudicial and needlessly presenting cumulative evidence and wasting
`
`time under FRE 403, to the extent that the opinions and conclusions expressed in
`
`the exhibit are not expressly relied on and incorporated in Patent Owner’s
`
`Response.
`
`PGS objects to Exhibit 2075 under FRE 901, 1002, and 1003 on the basis
`
`that it cites or relies on exhibits that have not been properly authenticated or lack
`
`foundation, such as Exhibit 2084. See, e.g., Ex. 2075 at 34.
`
`PGS incorporates herein by reference its objections to the exhibits relied on
`
`or cited in Exhibit 2075.
`
`Q. Exhibit 2079
`Exhibit 2079 purports to be a book entitled “Fluid-Structure Interactions:
`
`Slender Structures and Axial Flow,” but it is incomplete. The Exhibit includes
`
`only the cover page and table of contents of the book. Additionally, this exhibit is
`
`inadmissible hearsay under FRE 802.
`
`R. Exhibit 2082
`PGS objects to Exhibit 2082 under FRE 402 and FRE 403 because it is
`
`irrelevant and its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of
`
`wasting time in this compressed proceeding. Exhibit 2082 was published in 2002
`
`and, therefore, bears no relevance to what a person of ordinary skill in the art
`
`
`
`19
`
`

`
`
`
`would have known by the October 1, 1998 priority date. Therefore, Exhibit 2082
`
`should be excluded under FRE 402 and 403. Additionally, this exhibit is
`
`inadmissible hearsay under FRE 802.
`
`Exhibit 2083
`
`S.
`PGS objects to Exhibit 2083 under FRE 802 because it is inadmissible
`
`hearsay, specifically trial testimony from Simon Bittleston in the ION case. PGS
`
`was not a party to the ION case and, consequently, did not have an opportunity to
`
`examine Dr. Bittleston or object to his testimony at that trial. This exhibit also
`
`contains inadmissible hearsay under FRE 802 because it includes statements of
`
`trial counsel.
`
`PGS further objects to Exhibit 2083 under FRE 402 and FRE 403 because it
`
`is irrelevant and its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of
`
`unfair prejudice. Information regarding Dr. Bittleston’s alleged invention that was
`
`not available to the public has no relevance to what a person of ordinary skill in the
`
`art would have known by the priority date. Moreover, because PGS was not a
`
`party to the ION case and did not have an opportunity to examine Dr. Bittleston or
`
`object to his testimony at that trial, PGS would suffer substantial unfair prejudice if
`
`this testimony were admitted. Furthermore, this testimony is additionally
`
`irrelevant, unfairly prejudicial, and would result in a waste of time because the
`
`issues presented in the ION case were substantively different than those presented
`
`
`
`20
`
`

`
`
`
`in this case. For that additional reason, Exhibit 2083 should be excluded under
`
`FRE 402 and 403.
`
`PGS further objects to the testimony contained in Exhibit 2083 to the extent
`
`particular testimony does not comply with the Federal Rules of Evidence or the
`
`Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Because PGS was not present for the testimony
`
`it was not able to make such objections at the time the testimony was elicited.
`
`Given that Exhibit 2083 is only a portion of Dr. Bittleston’s testimony, if this
`
`exhibit is not excluded, Petitioner reserves the right to provide counter-
`
`designations at an appropriate time.
`
`Exhibit 2084
`
`T.
`PGS objects to Exhibit 2084 under FRE 402 and FRE 403 because it is
`
`irrelevant and its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of
`
`wasting time in this compressed proceeding. Information regarding Dr.
`
`Bittleston’s alleged invention that was not available to the public has no relevance
`
`to what a person of ordinary skill in the art would have known by the priority date.
`
`Therefore, Exhibit 2084 should be excluded under FRE 402 and 403.
`
`PGS also objects to Exhibit 2084 under FRE 901, 1002, and 1003. It has not
`
`been properly authenticated and lacks proper foundation under FRE 901, is not
`
`self-authenticating under FRE 902, and is not a “duplicate” as defined by FRE
`
`1001(e). Exhibit 2084 additionally appears to be an improper compilation of
`
`
`
`21
`
`

`
`
`
`documents. Exhibit 2084 is therefore inadmissible under FRE 901, 1002, and
`
`1003. Additionally, this exhibit is inadmissible hearsay under FRE 802.
`
`U. Exhibit 2085
`PGS objects to Exhibit 2085 under FRE 802 because it is inadmissible
`
`hearsay, specifically deposition testimony from Oyvind Hillesund in the ION case.
`
`PGS was not a party to the ION case and, consequently, did not have an
`
`opportunity to examine Mr. Hillesund or object to his testimony at that deposition
`
`or at trial.
`
`PGS further objects to Exhibit 2085 under FRE 402 and FRE 403 because it
`
`is irrelevant and its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of
`
`unfair prejudice. Information regarding Mr. Hillesund’s alleged invention that was
`
`not available to the public has no relevance to what a person of ordinary skill in the
`
`art would have known by the priority date. Moreover, because PGS was not a
`
`party to the ION case and did not have an opportunity to examine Mr. Hillesund or
`
`object to his testimony at his deposition or at trial, PGS would suffer substantial
`
`unfair prejudice if this testimony were admitted. For that additional reason,
`
`Exhibit 2085 should be excluded under FRE 402 and 403.
`
`PGS further objects to the testimony contained in Exhibit 2085 to the extent
`
`particular testimony does not comply with the Federal Rules of Evidence or the
`
`Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Because PGS was not present for the testimony
`
`
`
`22
`
`

`
`
`
`it was not able to make such objections at the time the testimony was elicited or
`
`offered at trial.
`
`Given that Exhibit 2085 is only a portion of Mr. Hillesund’s testimony, if
`
`this exhibit is not excluded, Petitioner reserves the right to provide counter-
`
`designations at an appropriate time.
`
`V. Exhibit 2086
`PGS objects to Exhibit 2086 under FRE 901, 1002, and 1003. Exhibit 2086
`
`purports to be a trial demonstrative exhibit from the ION case, which purports to
`
`excerpt a separate document that is not attached. It lacks proper foundation under
`
`FRE 901, and it is incomplete. Exhibit 2086 is therefore inadmissible under FRE
`
`901, 1002, and 1003. Additionally, this exhibit is inadmissible hearsay under FRE
`
`802.
`
`PGS further objects to Exhibit 2086 under FRE 402 and 403. Because PGS
`
`was not a party to the ION case and did not have an opportunity to examine
`
`witnesses, object to evidence, or present evidence in that case, PGS would suffer
`
`substantial unfair prejudice if this exhibit were admitted. PGS also objects to
`
`Exhibit 2086 under FRE 402 and 403 because it is irrelevant and its probative
`
`value is substantially outweighed by the danger of wasting time in this compressed
`
`proceeding. Furthermore, this demonstrative is additionally irrelevant, unfairly
`
`prejudicial, and would result in a waste of time because the issues presented in the
`
`
`
`23
`
`

`
`
`
`ION case were substantively different than those presented in this case. For that
`
`additional reason, Exhibit 2086 should be excluded under FRE 402 and 403.
`
`W. Exhibit 2087
`PGS objects to Exhibit 2087 under FRE 802 because it is inadmissible
`
`hearsay, specifically trial testimony from John Leonard in the ION case. PGS was
`
`not a party to the ION case and, consequently, did not have an opportunity to
`
`examine Dr. Leonard or object to his testimony at that trial. This exhibit also
`
`contains inadmissible hearsay under FRE 802 because it includes statements of
`
`trial counsel.
`
`PGS further objects to Exhibit 2087 under FRE 402 and FRE 403 because it
`
`is irrelevant and its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of
`
`unfair prejudice. Because PGS was not a party to the ION cas

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

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.

throbber

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.

Become a Member

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

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket