`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`PETROLEUM GEO-SERVICES INC.
`
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`WESTERNGECO, LLC
`Patent Owner
`
`
`Case IPR2014-01478
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,293,520
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PETROLEUM GEO-SERVICES INC.’S OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-01478
`Patent 7,293,520
`
`
`
`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 2075
`
`L.
`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
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`
`
`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.
`
`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.
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`
`
`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.
`
`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.
`
`
`
`16
`
`
`
`
`
`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.
`
`M. 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.
`
`N. 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
`
`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.
`
`O. Exhibit 2083
`PGS objects to Exhibit 2083 under FRE 802 because it is inadmissible
`
`hearsay, specifically trial testimony from Simon Bittleston in the ION case. PGS
`17
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`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.
`
`
`
`18
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`P.
`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
`
`documents. Exhibit 2084 is therefore inadmissible under FRE 901, 1002, and
`
`1003. Additionally, this exhibit is inadmissible hearsay under FRE 802.
`
`Q. 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
`
`
`
`19
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`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.
`
`
`
`20
`
`
`
`
`
`R. 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
`
`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.
`
`Exhibit 2087
`
`S.
`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
`
`
`
`21
`
`
`
`
`
`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 case and did not have
`
`an opportunity to examine Dr. Leonard 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 in this case. For that additional reason,
`
`Exhibit 2087 should be excluded under FRE 402 and 403.
`
`PGS further objects to the testimony contained in Exhibit 2087 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 2087 is only a portion of Dr. Leonard’s testimony, if this
`
`exhibit is not excluded, Petitioner reserves the right to provide counter-
`
`designations at an appropriate time.
`
`
`
`22
`
`
`
`
`
`Exhibit 2096
`
`T.
`PGS objects to Exhibit 2096 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 respond or object
`
`to these statements.
`
`PGS also objects to Exhibit 2096 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 2096 is not relevant to that determination and therefore should be excluded
`
`under FRE 402. And because any relevance of Exhibit 2096 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.
`
`
`
`23
`
`
`
`
`
`U. Exhibit 2097
`PGS objects to Exhibit 2097 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 respond or object
`
`to these statements.
`
`PGS also objects to Exhibit 2097 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