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 IPR2014-014781
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,293,520
`
`
`
`PETITIONER PETROLEUM GEO-SERVICES INC.’S REPLY IN
`SUPPORT OF MOTION TO EXCLUDE
`
`
`1 Case IPR2014-00689 is a related proceeding.
`
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES .................................................................................... ii
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES .................................................................................. .. ii
`
`I.
`I.
`
`The Walker Declaration Does Not Comply with the Law. ............................. 1
`The Walker Declaration Does Not Comply with the Law. ........................... ..l
`
`II. WG Disavows Most of Its Evidence as Not Being Offered for Its
`II. WG Disavows Most of Its Evidence as Not Being Offered for Its
`Truth. ................................................................................................................ 3
`Truth ............................................................................................................... ..3
`
`III. The ION Case Materials Cited by WG Are Inadmissible Hearsay. ................ 4
`III.
`The ION Case Materials Cited by WG Are Inadmissible Hearsay ............... ..4
`
`IV. WG’s Supplemental Evidence Does Not Cure PGS’s Objections. ................. 4
`IV. WG’s Supplemental Evidence Does Not Cure PGS’s Objections. ............... ..4
`
`
`
`i
`
`

`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`CASES
`Consol. Rail Corp. v. Grand Trunk W. R.R. Co., 2011 WL 6004291
`(E.D. Mich. Dec. 1, 2011) ..................................................................................... 1
`
`U.S. v. McDaniel, 398 F.3d 540 (6th Cir. 2005) ........................................................ 4
`
`OTHER AUTHORITIES
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.64(c) ................................................................................................... 1
`
`Fed. R. Evid. 801(d) ................................................................................................... 4
`
`Fed. R. Evid. 602 ....................................................................................................... 1
`
`Fed. R. Evid. 802 ................................................................................................... 1, 4
`
`
`
`ii
`
`
`

`
`
`
`WG devotes much of its brief to complaining that PGS filed a motion to
`
`exclude and questioning the form of the motion. PGS’s motion, which complies
`
`with 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(c), appropriately addresses the myriad improper and
`
`inadmissible exhibits that WG has sought to introduce.
`
`I.
`
`The Walker Declaration Does Not Comply with the Law.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`lII
`
`2
`
`
` 2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`II. WG Disavows Most of Its Evidence as Not Being Offered for Its Truth.
`WG’s primary response to PGS’s well-founded hearsay objections is to
`
`assert that the cited materials are not being offered for their truth but rather
`
`exclusively as evidence of “praise.” Opp. at 13-14. On this basis WG disavows
`
`substantive reliance on the truth of no fewer than 25 exhibits—Exhibits 2063,
`
`2083, 2085, 2087, 2101-09, 2115-20, 2123, 2127-31. Opp. at 12-15. But many of
`
`them are cited precisely for their truth and have nothing to do with praise.
`
`3
`
`
`

`
`
`
`materials being cited for their truth, and are thus inadmissible under Rule 802.
`
`
`
` These are hearsay
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`III. The ION Case Materials Cited by WG Are Inadmissible Hearsay.
`Lumping all ION case materials together, WG responds that “PGS cannot
`
`use these litigation records as a sword and then credibly argue that Patent Owner’s
`
`citation to such documents for a non-hearsay purpose is improper.” Opp. at 15.
`
`This is not improper—it is how the hearsay rule works. PGS’s reliance on WG’s
`
`briefs and testimony from the ION case is permitted because they are WG’s
`
`admissions, and thus are “not hearsay.” FRE 801(d). That does not make other
`
`ION case documents admissible against PGS, who was not a party to the
`
`proceedings. U.S. v. McDaniel, 398 F.3d 540, 545 (6th Cir. 2005). Nor is it an
`
`answer to say that the ION jury verdict—a document that is plainly inadmissible,
`
`Mot. at 11—is rendered admissible because PGS addressed it in its papers in order
`
`to respond to WG’s improper reliance on it. Opp. at 15; Reply at 22.
`
`IV. WG’s Supplemental Evidence Does Not Cure PGS’s Objections.
`
`4
`
`
`

`
`
`
`WG wrongly accuses PGS of “stubbornly ignoring [supplemental]
`
`evidence.” Opp. at 3. Not so. PGS considered WG’s supplemental evidence and
`
`withdrew some of its original objections. Compare Mot. with Paper 43. But WG’s
`
`efforts to cure others through supplemental evidence were insufficient, and remain
`
`so. Mot. at 13-15. The declarations of WG’s outside counsel, Exs. 2137 and 2148,
`
`cannot authenticate ION and Fugro documents, Exs. 2060, 2061, 2067, 2107, and
`
`2118. Being unable to swear to what they actually are, he merely attests that those
`
`exhibits are trial exhibits, see Mot. at 15; Ex. 2137 ¶¶ 4, 5, 7, 24; Ex. 2148 ¶ 5,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`which does not establish that they are what WG proffers them to be.
`
` Similarly, Mr. Walker’s supplemental declaration, Ex. 2135, cannot
`
`establish that various WG documents were “business records,”
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated: November 4, 2015
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
` /Jessamyn Berniker/
`
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Jessamyn Berniker
`Reg. No. 72,328
`Williams & Connolly LLP
`725 Twelfth Street, N.W.
`Washington, DC 20005
`
`Phone: 202-434-5474
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`The undersigned hereby certifies that the above-captioned Petitioner
`
`Petroleum Geo-Services Inc.’s Reply in Support of Motion to Exclude was served
`
`on November 4, 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
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`Dated: November 4, 2015

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