UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`PETROLEUM GEO-SERVICES INC.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`WESTERNGECO, LLC
`Patent Owner
`
`
`Case IPR2014-014781
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,293,520
`
`
`
`PETITIONER PETROLEUM GEO-SERVICES INC.’S
`MOTION TO EXCLUDE
`
`
`
`1 Case IPR2014-00689 is a related proceeding.
`
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Table of Authorities ………………………………………………………………. ii
`
`C.
`
`I. Mr. Walker’s Declaration, Ex. 2099, Should Be Excluded. ........................... 2
`A. Mr. Walker’s Declaration Should Be Excluded As Irrelevant. ............ 3
`Significant Parts of Walker’s Declaration and the Exhibits
`B.
`Cited Therein Should Be Excluded as Outside His Personal
`Knowledge, Lacking Foundation, and Improper Hearsay. ................... 4
`The Walker Declaration Should Be Excluded in Its Entirety as
`Unreliable. ............................................................................................. 7
`II. Materials from the ION Case Are Inadmissible. ........................................... 11
`The ION Case Jury Verdict Is Irrelevant and Hearsay. ....................... 11
`A.
`Testimony from the ION Case Is Hearsay. ......................................... 11
`B.
`C. Other Materials from the ION Case Are Inadmissible. ....................... 12
`III. Conclusion ..................................................................................................... 15
`
`
`
`
`
`i
`
`

`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`CASES
`
`ABT Sys., LLC v. Emerson Elec. Co., 797 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ................. 3-4
`
`Arthrocare Corp. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc., 406 F.3d 1365 (Fed. Cir.
`2005) ................................................................................................................... 15
`
`Consolidated Rail Corp. v. Grand Trunk W. R. Co., 2011 WL
`6004291 (E.D. Mich. Dec. 1, 2011) ................................................................... 10
`
`Corwin v. Walt Disney Co., 475 F.3d 1239 (11th Cir. 2007) .................................... 6
`
`Gaffney v. Dep’t of Info. Tech. & Telecomms., 579 F. Supp. 2d 455
`(S.D.N.Y. 2008) ............................................................................................ 13, 14
`
`Gunville v. Walker, 583 F.3d 979 (7th Cir. 2009) ..................................................... 5
`
`Kirk v. Raymark Indus., Inc., 61 F.3d 147 (3d Cir. 1995) ................................... 6, 12
`
`Turner v. BNSF R. Co., 338 F.3d 1058 (9th Cir. 2003) ........................................... 12
`
`U.S. v. Hunt, 521 F.3d 636 (6th Cir. 2008) .............................................................. 14
`
`U.S. v. Sine, 493 F.3d 1021 (9th Cir. 2007) ............................................................. 11
`
`W. Union Co. v. MoneyGram Payment Sys., Inc., 626 F.3d 1361 (Fed.
`Cir. 2010) .............................................................................................................. 4
`
`RULES AND REGULATIONS
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.64(c) ................................................................................................... 1
`
`Federal Rule of Evidence 402 ........................................................................ 4, 14, 15
`
`Federal Rule of Evidence 602 ............................................................................ 5, 6, 7
`
`Federal Rule of Evidence 801 .......................................................................... 5, 6, 12
`
`Federal Rule of Evidence 803 .................................................................................. 13
`
`Federal Rule of Evidence 804 ............................................................................ 12, 15
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`
`
`
`Federal Rule of Evidence 703 .................................................................................. 12
`
`Federal Rule of Evidence 703 ................................................................................ ..l2
`
`Federal Rule of Evidence 901 .................................................................................. 15
`
`Federal Rule of Evidence 901 ................................................................................ ..l5
`
`iii
`
`iii
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`Pursuant to 37 C .F.R. § 42.64(c), Petitioner Petroleum Geo—Services Inc.
`
`(“PGS”) moves to exclude exhibits offered and relied on by Patent Owner
`
`WestemGeco, LLC
`
`The following table identifies the exhibits PGS
`
`moves to exclude, which are discussed in detail below.
`
`Section Addressed
`
`:ases for Exclusion
`
`Section Addressed
`
`: ases for Exclusion
`
`2053
`
`2059
`
`2060
`
`2061
`
`2063
`
`2067
`
`2083
`
`2085
`
`2087
`
`2096
`
`2097
`
`2099
`
`2101
`
`2102
`
`2103
`
`2104
`
`2105
`
`2106
`
`2107
`
`II.C H, R
`
`II.B H
`
`II.C A, H
`
`II.C A, H
`
`II.C (H)
`II.C A, H
`
`II.B H
`
`II.B
`
`II_B H
`
`II.C H
`
`II.C H
`
`I, I.A, I.B, I.C, H, R, F, P
`
`II.C
`
`II.C H
`
`II.C H
`
`I.B, II.C H
`
`I.B, II.C H
`
`I.B, II.B H
`
`II.C A, H
`
`r—Iv—r—tr—-v—Ir—A>—Ir—-r—Ir—Ar—-tx.)n—In—Ir—In—-o—a©©U1-BU)O\DOO\10\U1\DOO
`
`
`
`I019l\Jt\Jl\.>l\.)l\.>I\Jl\.>
`
`
`
`NMNNNNNNNNr—«r—-r—-v—Ir—¢r—tr—Ih—‘AwwwmwwNNNNOl\.>v—O\ooo\l—-
`
`II.C
`
`II.C H
`
`II.C H
`
`II.C
`
`II.C (H)
`II.C A,H
`
`I.B,II.C H
`
`II.C
`
`II.A H,R
`
`II.C
`
`II.B H
`
`H.B H
`
`II.C
`
`II.C
`
`II.C H
`
`H.C H
`
`H.C H
`
`H.C H
`
`II.B H
`
`Key: A — Authentication; H — Hearsay; F — Lacks Foundation; R— Relevance;
`P — Lacks Personal Knowledge
`
`PGS timely objected to each of these exhibits, on the grounds identified
`
`above, on Aug. 14, 2015. See IPR2014-01475 (“-01475”), Paper 42 at 2-11, 13,
`
`

`
`
`
`14, 19-57; IPR2014-01477 (“-01477”), Paper 42 at 2-11, 13, 14, 20-55; IPR2014-
`
`01478 (“-01478”), Paper 43 at 2-11, 13, 14, 17-54.
`
`I. Mr. Walker’s Declaration, Ex. 2099, Should Be Excluded.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`
`I
`
` 4
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` 1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`II. Materials from the ION Case Are Inadmissible.
`A. The ION Case Jury Verdict Is Irrelevant and Hearsay.
`WG cites the ION jury’s verdict and lost profits award, Ex. 2121, in an effort
`
`to support its secondary considerations arguments. -01475/Paper 39 at 46, -
`
`01477/Paper 39 at 49-50, -01478/Paper 40 at 45. It is well established that court
`
`and jury determinations are inadmissible hearsay. U.S. v. Sine, 493 F.3d 1021,
`
`1036-37 & n.16 (9th Cir. 2007). Moreover, this exhibit is entirely irrelevant
`
`because the ION jury did not address the claims at issue in these proceedings—
`
`Claims 16-23 of U.S. Patent No. 7,080,607; Claims 3, 5, 13-17, 20, 22, 30-34 of
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,293,520; and Claim 4 of U.S. Patent No. 7,162,967—and
`
`therefore the jury’s award does not reflect a conclusion that DigiFIN embodies the
`
`invention claimed in these claims and cannot support WG’s secondary
`
`considerations argument. See Ex. 2121.
`
`Testimony from the ION Case Is Hearsay.
`
`B.
`WG cites testimony from the ION case, Exs.
`
`, 2083,
`
`, 2087, 2106,
`
`2124-25, 2140—including testimony from an inventor, from a WG expert, and
`
`from ION witnesses. WG cites this for the truth of the matter asserted. See -
`
`01475/Paper 39 at 44, 45, 52, 53, 55, -01477/Paper 39 at 33, 48, 49, 54-57, -
`
`01478/Paper 40 at 43, 44, 51, 52, 54 (citing ION witness testimony (Exs.
`
`
`
`2125, 2140) re: RPI/privity and secondary considerations and WG’s expert
`
`testimony (Ex. 2087) re: Kalman filters); Ex. 2075 (Triantafylou Decl.) (¶¶ 51, 53,
`11
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`54, 80, 155 citing named inventors (Exs. 2083,
`
`) re: alleged invention and
`
`WG’s expert testimony (Ex. 2087) re: Kalman filters);2 Ex. 2099 (Walker Decl.)
`
`
`
`(WG does not cite Exhibits 2124 in any of its papers.) This prior testimony is
`
`hearsay, and WG has not even attempted to meet the prior testimony exception
`
`because it plainly does not apply.3 See FRE 804(b)(1); Kirk, 61 F.3d at 164-66.
`
`C. Other Materials from the ION Case Are Inadmissible.
`WG also offers various documents allegedly created by the parties to the
`
`ION case—including internal documents, emails, presentations, and pleadings—
`
`produced by ION (Exs.
`
`, 2103, 2107, 2117-2118, 2096, 2097,
`
`), Fugro (Exs. 2104-2105, 2119) and WG (Exs. 2063,
`
`,
`
`
`
`2115-16, 2120,
`
`). WG also offers the demonstratives of its expert in the
`
`ION case (Ex. 2123) and Mr. Walker (Ex. 2132), which excerpt various internal
`
`documents and testimony. All of these materials are hearsay under Rule 801. WG
`
`
`2 It is irrelevant that Dr. Triantafyllou cites Exs. 2083,
`
`, and 2087 in his
`
`expert report. Rule 703 only permits an expert to rely upon hearsay to form an
`
`opinion; it does not permit him to read hearsay into the record, as Dr. Triantafyllou
`
`does. See, e.g., Turner v. BNSF R. Co., 338 F.3d 1058, 1061-62 (9th Cir. 2003).
`
`3 It should be noted that ION is not a party to these proceedings.
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`
`
`
`relies on them for the truth of the matters asserted in them, in support of WG’s
`
`arguments regarding (1) real party in interest/privity (Exs.
`
` 2063,
`
`
`
`2096, 2097, cited in -01475/Paper 39 at 52, 53, 58, -01477/Paper 39 at 55, 56, 60, -
`
`01478/Paper 40 at 51, 52, 58,
`
` and (3) secondary considerations of nonobviousness
`
`(Exs. 2101-05,
`
`, 2115-2120, 2123,
`
`
`
`
`
`in -01475/Paper 39 at 44, 45, -01477/Paper 39 at 48, -01478/Paper 40 at 43, 44).
`
`, and Exhibits 2123,
`
` cited
`
`
`
`No hearsay exception applies to these documents. Pleadings from the ION
`
`case are inadmissible hearsay. Gaffney v. Dep’t of Info. Tech. & Telecomms., 579
`
`F. Supp. 2d 455, 459 (S.D.N.Y. 2008). And as to the vast majority of other
`
`documents, WG has not even attempted to lay an 803(6) business records
`
`foundation, which would require a showing that the records were, inter alia, “kept
`
`in the course of a regularly conducted activity of a business,” as verified “by the
`
`testimony of the custodian or another qualified witness, or by a certification . . . .”
`
`FRE 803(6). As to Exs. 2101-02, 2108, 2115, 2116, 2127-30, WG asked Mr.
`
`Walker to lay a business records foundation in his supplemental declaration, Ex.
`
`2135,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Here
`
`again Mr. Walker’s relationship with accuracy proves tenuous. Even as to these
`
`documents, WG cannot establish that a hearsay exception applies.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Finally, Ex.
`
`, 2107, and 2118, which were purportedly
`
`produced by ION in the ION case also are inadmissible under Rule 901, which
`
`requires one to propound “[t]estimony that an item is what it is claimed to be.”
`
`Despite PGS’s timely objections, WG made no effort to authenticate Exs.
`
`
`
` and 2118. WG did attempt to authenticate Ex. 2107 with a declaration
`
`from WG’s outside counsel, but he only attested to it being an ION trial exhibit,
`
`not an ION-prepared document. None of these exhibits is properly authenticated.
`
`III. Conclusion
`For the foregoing reasons, this Motion should be granted.
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
` /Jessamyn Berniker/
`Jessamyn Berniker
`Reg. No. 72,328
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`15
`
`Dated: October 14, 2015
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Williams & Connolly LLP
`725 Twelfth Street, N.W.
`Washington, DC 20005
`
`Phone: 202-434-5474
`
`
`
`16
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`The undersigned hereby certifies that the above-captioned Petroleum Geo-
`
`Services Inc.’s Motion to Exclude was served on October 14, 2015, by delivering a
`
`copy via electronic mail upon the following attorneys of record.
`
`
`
`
`
`Michael L. Kiklis
`CPDocketKiklis@oblon.com
`Scott McKeown
`CPDocketMcKeown@oblon.com
`Kevin Laurence
`CPDocketLaurence@oblon.com
`Katherine Cappaert
`CPDocketCappaert@oblon.com
`Christopher Ricciuti
`CPDocketRicciuti@oblon.com
`
`Oblon
`1940 Duke Street
`Alexandria, Virginia 22314
`703-413-3000
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`/Jessamyn Berniker/
`Jessamyn Berniker
`Reg. No. 72,328
`Williams & Connolly LLP
`725 Twelfth Street, N.W.
`Washington, DC 20005
`
`Phone: 202-434-5474
`
`
`
`17
`
`Dated: October 14, 2015