` BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`Page 1
`
`- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x
` :
`PETROLEUM GEO-SERVICES, INC. ;
` :
` Petitioner, :
` :
` - v - :
` :
`WESTERNGECO, LLC., :
` :
` Patent Owner. :
` :
`- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x
`CASES: IPR2014-0687, -688, -689, and
` IPR2015-0565, -0566 and 0567.
`
` ** T E L E C O N F E R E N C E **
`
`(ALL PARTICIPANTS APPEARING TELEPHONICALLY)
`
`B O A R D :
` JUDGE SCOTT DANIELS,
` JUDGE BEVERLY BUNTING,
` JUDGE BRYAN MOORE &
` JUDGE BARBARA PARVIS.
`
` Wednesday, March 25, 2015
`
`Reported by:
`Joseph V. Connolly
`Job No. 91950
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`1
`
`23
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`WesternGeco Ex. 2007, pg. 1
`IPR2015-00566
`ION v WesternGeco
`
`
`
`Page 2
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` March 25, 2015
` 4:00 p.m.
`
` TELEPHONIC CONFERENCE CALL, before
` Joseph V. Connolly, a Reporter and
` Notary Public within and for the State
` of New York.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`WesternGeco Ex. 2007, pg. 2
`IPR2015-00566
`ION v WesternGeco
`
`
`
`Page 3
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`9
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` A P P E A R A N C E S :
`
`
`
` WILLIAMS & CONNOLLY
` Attorneys for Petitioner
` 725 Twelfth Street, NW
` Washington, DC 20005
` BY: DAVID BERL, ESQ.
` CHRISTOPHER SUAREZ, ESQ.
` THOMAS FLETCHER, ESQ.
` JESSAMYN BERNIKER, ESQ.
`
`
` OBLON, McCLELLAND, MAIER & NEUSTADT
` Attorneys for Patent Owner
` 1940 Duke Street
` Alexandria, Virginia 22314
` BY: MICHAEL KIKLIS, ESQ.
` KATHARINE CAPPAERT, ESQ.
` SCOTT McKEOWN, ESQ.
` MITCHELL BLAKELEY, ESQ.
`
` FISH & RICHARDSON
` Attorneys for ION
` 1425 K Street, NW
` Washington, DC 20005
` BY: KARL RENNER, ESQ.
` ROBERT DEVOTO, ESQ.
` DAVID HOLT, ESQ.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`WesternGeco Ex. 2007, pg. 3
`IPR2015-00566
`ION v WesternGeco
`
`
`
`Page 4
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` (Time noted: 4:00 p.m.)
` JUDGE DANIELS: Good evening,
` everyone.
` This is Judge Daniels.
` I understand that you all are
` currently giving your names for the
` Court Reporter. Let me just, before you
` continue on, let me just begin here and
` then we can introduce everybody again.
` How's that?
` (No response).
` JUDGE DANIELS: This is a
` conference call for IPR2014-01475,
` -01476 and the related cases, for which
` there is a Joiner Motion, which is the
` basis of our discussion today. Those
` cases are 2014-00687, -688 and -689.
` I do understand there's a Court
` Reporter now on the line.
` Is that correct?
` COURT REPORTER: Yes, sir.
` JUDGE DANIELS: Great.
` We're joined on the phone by
` Judges Bunting, Moore and Parvis, as
` well.
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`WesternGeco Ex. 2007, pg. 4
`IPR2015-00566
`ION v WesternGeco
`
`
`
`Page 5
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` I'm sorry to have you all do this
` again, but let me just ask who we have
` from -- who I'll refer to as the First
` Petitioner -- from PGS?
` MR. FLETCHER: Thank you, your
` Honor.
` This is Tom Fletcher, for PGS,
` with my colleague, Jessamyn Berniker.
` MR. SUAREZ: This is Christopher
` Suarez, also for PGS, on the line.
` JUDGE DANIELS: Thank you.
` And from the Second Petitioner,
` from ION?
` MR. RENNER: Yes, your Honor.
` This is Karl Renner, from Fish
` and Richardson; and Rob Devoto, who is
` also from our firm.
` Also present today is David Holt.
` JUDGE DANIELS: Thank you.
` And from the Patent Owner?
` MR. KIKLIS: This is Michael
` Kiklis, from Oblon, for Westerngeco, the
` Patent Owner.
` With me is Katherine Cappaert,
` as well as Mitchell Blakeley, who is
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`WesternGeco Ex. 2007, pg. 5
`IPR2015-00566
`ION v WesternGeco
`
`
`
`Page 6
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` In-House Counsel for the Patent Owner.
` JUDGE DANIELS: Thank you.
` We've asked in our e-mails to the
` parties that they be prepared to speak
` to this Joinder issue.
` I think I would like to structure
` this conference by first just asking PGS
` for its position on Joinder in these
` cases and then allow ION to add anything
` that they feel might be helpful to our
` deliberations. And then, finally, we'll
` ask the Patent Owner what are the
` factors it feels we should consider in
` deciding this motion or these motions.
` You all, there's a number of
` factors that are going into these
` Joinder decisions and a significant
` amount of thought and discussion that
` we, as Judges, will have on this panel,
` on both cases, as to what will help the
` efficiency of this case and not stretch
` this on, to a greater extent.
` Following this discussion, I
` think I will take a break, with the
` other Judges, for a few minutes and
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`WesternGeco Ex. 2007, pg. 6
`IPR2015-00566
`ION v WesternGeco
`
`
`
`Page 7
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` we'll discuss what we've heard.
` After that, we may have some more
` questions to follow-up on. We may.
` Other than that, I think we will
` take this under advisement for the time
` being. We're certainly not going to
` make a ruling on the phone. We'll take
` it under advisement, adjourn the call,
` and then we'll get back to you all at a
` later date with our decision.
` So, with those formalities in
` mind, let me ask Mr. Fletcher what PGS's
` position is?
` I'm assuming you're the one
` that's prepared to speak. If you'd like
` to go ahead?
` MR. FLETCHER: Yes, your Honor.
` Thank you.
` This is Tom Fletcher, for the
` Petitioner, PGS.
` Thank you for inviting us to this
` call.
` We've not previously been served
` with any of these matters. So, if
` possible, we'd appreciate the
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`WesternGeco Ex. 2007, pg. 7
`IPR2015-00566
`ION v WesternGeco
`
`
`
`Page 8
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` opportunity to say some things, that
` we're about to say now, in writing at a
` later time.
` But at this time PGS's position
` is that we oppose ION's motion for
` Joinder.
` Our opposition is firmly focused
` on the concern about what ION's
` participation would do to the time lines
` and to the scope of our proceedings.
` We know, from WesternGeCo's own
` Response that was filed on Friday, that
` WesternGeCO is going to attempt to
` introduce into these proceeding a
` substantial volume of testimony from the
` WesternGeCo versus ION litigation; trial
` transcripts, deposition transcripts,
` Hague Convention testimony from other
` countries.
` We've objected to it.
` That was material that was served
` with the preliminary Response and we'll
` expand on such objections to it when the
` time comes, with respect to what we
` received on Friday, because it's all
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`WesternGeco Ex. 2007, pg. 8
`IPR2015-00566
`ION v WesternGeco
`
`
`
`Page 9
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` hearsay as to PGS.
` In a proceeding that is just
` between WesternGeCo and PGS, I trust to
` be able to resolve this problem via any
` evidentiary motions practice.
` That would become lot more
` complicated, potentially, if ION is
` permitted to participate throughout
` these proceedings.
` WesternGeCo may argue that what
` is hearsay to PGS may not be hearsay to
` ION. In that situation, it becomes a
` lot more complicated for the Board to
` reserve what is and is not admissible in
` these proceedings.
` To the extent that any of these
` materials comes in, then it's highly
` prejudicial to PGS because we haven't
` had the opportunity to participate in
` any of these proceedings in which this
` testimony was generated.
` The only potential way to cure
` that prejudice would be to open up
` Discovery, which would derail these
` proceedings, delay them substantially,
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`WesternGeco Ex. 2007, pg. 9
`IPR2015-00566
`ION v WesternGeco
`
`
`
`Page 10
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` at a substantial cost, none of which is
` in the interest of the Petitioner, PGS.
` We're currently dealing with an
` unstayed District Court action and we
` would like these IPR's to reach their
` final resolution as quickly as possible.
` And permitting ION into this case will
` certainly not expedite the resolution of
` these proceedings.
` That is the gravamen of our
` opposition to the motion.
` I'd be happy to establish it in
` more depth in papers, if we had the
` opportunity to file some additional
` materials.
` And were the Court or the Board
` to consider permitting ION to
` participate, we also have some concerns
` that ION's participation in the Motion
` Practice would certainly be more
` complicating to the proceedings.
` Therefore, it is PGS's position
` that, in the first instance, we believe
` the motion for Jointer should be denied.
` JUDGE DANIELS: Thank you. That
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`WesternGeco Ex. 2007, pg. 10
`IPR2015-00566
`ION v WesternGeco
`
`
`
`Page 11
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` was very helpful.
` I guess now I'd like to hear from
` Mr. Renner, from ION.
` MR. RENNER: Yes, your Honor.
` I think Robert Devoto is going to
` speak on our behalf and I'll comment
` when he's finished.
` Rob, if you would, please?
` MR. DEVOTO: Sure.
` As a preliminary matter, the
` Patent Owner's Responses that were filed
` were filed under seal. So, it's a
` little hard for us to assess the nature
` of the problem that is being raised here
` by PGS.
` So, we're going to have to put
` that aside. We're going to have to
` focus only on what we're aware of.
` Certainly what we have here,
` based on the evidence that we're
` acknowledging, is the basis for what we
` believe to be a proper motion for
` Joinder.
` Our Joinder Motion was not
` complicated. It was filed within the
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`WesternGeco Ex. 2007, pg. 11
`IPR2015-00566
`ION v WesternGeco
`
`
`
`Page 12
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` prescribed one month time period.
` And WesternGeCo's -- excuse me --
` it's WesternGeCo's assertion that
` somehow us filing in that time period,
` or towards the end of it, is somehow
` ineffective and, therefore, should make
` it not credible.
` Moreover, the Joining Party,
` I-O-N, we've stayed perfectly close to
` the issues raised by PGS; and, thus, we
` seek merely to become part of the
` existing proceedings, on the existing
` proceeding's schedule.
` In fact, to this point we,
` literally, copied an O-C-R version of
` the PGS Petition and we modified,
` simply, that petition to conform in the
` procedure and properly identify the
` position as to otherwise conform with
` the format compliance. And we've
` indicated both, in our Motion for
` Joinder, a willingness to join the
` ongoing proceeding without any
` modification to the schedule.
` And, finally, we've indicated
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`WesternGeco Ex. 2007, pg. 12
`IPR2015-00566
`ION v WesternGeco
`
`
`
`Page 13
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` that we're willing to accept any
` accommodation with respect to the
` Petitioner's remaining oral hearing.
` We'd certainly note in the past
` that ION or that -- excuse me -- I-O-N,
` that we've seen a joining parties being
` provided with one-half of the allotment
` afforded to Petitioners. And, really,
` one-half of the allotment, which is what
` we're focusing on, would be the areas
` that we simply disagree on.
` So, if we are not in full
` agreement on the divergence of view, we
` would have nothing to add in addition to
` the reply. There is nothing exactly
` that would be consolidated in the
` Replies.
` Moreover, when we have this
` Consolidated Reply, as we have seen in a
` similar case -- in fact, we pointed to
` IPR2013-00256 as an example that
` supports these types of consolidated
` filings -- that when we are -- when we
` do have additional set of pages directed
` to the area where we have some type of a
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`WesternGeco Ex. 2007, pg. 13
`IPR2015-00566
`ION v WesternGeco
`
`
`
`Page 14
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` divergence of views, that the Patent
` Owner, in this case WesternGeCo, would
` have a similar set of papers to respond,
` thereby minimizing the burden on them.
` Now, as such, we do feel that
` Joinder is and well within the Board's
` discretion and it really seems perfectly
` appropriate. In fact, we can't imagine
` a better remedy for it.
` WesternGeCo, obviously, opposes
` this motion. But, really, their
` opposition, as laid out in both their
` Opposition Filings, really is laid out
` indirectly in the last call to the
` Board; which is, really, not an issue.
` We, quite frankly, believe they are
` non-issues.
` We can go into more detail on any
` of these. But, at a higher level, their
` position is really based on the notion
` that additional Discovery on Real
` Party-in-Interest is warranted and that
` these -- and that the additional
` briefing on Real Party-of-Interest, as
` well as res judicata and collateral
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`WesternGeco Ex. 2007, pg. 14
`IPR2015-00566
`ION v WesternGeco
`
`
`
`Page 15
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` estoppel, are appropriate for briefing.
` Then, of course, they make no
` such briefing by the Preliminary
` Response date.
` We disagree with each one of
` these notions.
` First; as to additional
` Discovery.
` We did not believe that
` WesternGeCo should be granted additional
` Discovery regarding Real
` Party-in-Interest for the reason we set
` forth in the pending briefing in this
` case.
` And if any additional Discovery
` is granted, it would be with regard to a
` very specific issue. It could be
` separately scheduled and briefed without
` disrupting the schedule of the ongoing
` proceedings.
` And then, really, frankly, to
` deny Joinder based on unproven
` allegations of Real Party-in-Interest,
` such as those pending, would,
` potentially, undermine the concept of
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`WesternGeco Ex. 2007, pg. 15
`IPR2015-00566
`ION v WesternGeco
`
`
`
`Page 16
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` Joinder, as most parties would be able
` to concoct unsupported allegations that
` a Joining Party has to be bound with a
` petition of a party who is a
` co-defendant in a co-pending litigation.
` Now, I certainly want to bring to
` the Board's attention IPR2013-00256, to
` which we've cited in our briefing, as an
` explanation of acceptable revisions on
` the joining -- on a Joining Party's
` participation.
` Now, the Patent Owner made -- in
` that case the Patent Owner made the
` exact same argument about Discovery and
` Real Party-in-Interest and privity as
` complicating and otherwise burdening the
` proceedings; and, hence, suggesting a
` Joinder should not be allowed.
` Now, the Board held that at this
` time that SoftView -- which was the
` Patent Owner -- had not adequately shown
` it would meet the necessary Interest of
` Justice standard, which calls for an
` inter-party review needed for inquiring
` into the role, if any, of this -- of
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`WesternGeco Ex. 2007, pg. 16
`IPR2015-00566
`ION v WesternGeco
`
`
`
`Page 17
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` Apple, which was alleged to be a Real
` Party-in-Interest.
` And to justify such additional
` Discovery, as the Board stated, the
` Patent Owner, SoftView, should already
` be in possession of some facts tending
` to indicate, beyond mere speculation,
` that Apple is a Real Party-in-Interest.
` Now, in our present case
` regarding additional Discovery, as the
` Board is aware from our last call,
` WesternGeCo focused primarily on
` accelerating Discovery related to
` indemnification between PGS and I-O-N.
` And let's be unambiguously clear
` here: There is no -- and has never been
` -- indemnification between PGS and I-O-N
` relative to the accused product from the
` related litigation. In fact, I-O-N has
` explicitly refused indemnification
` requests from PGS, made by PGS to I-O-N.
` During our call with
` WesternGeCo's counsel, during our last
` call with the Board, WesternGeCo
` indicated, quite clearly, that the only
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`WesternGeco Ex. 2007, pg. 17
`IPR2015-00566
`ION v WesternGeco
`
`
`
`Page 18
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` evidence that they were relying on in
` support of their assertion to additional
` Discovery is the evidence of record in a
` related proceeding, as set forth in the
` preliminary Responses and the evidence
` referred to in their Opposition.
` And opposing counsel, during that
` call, largely focused on Exhibit 2027,
` which we have not been able to review
` because it has been sealed.
` But even without reviewing this
` exhibit, we can tell you what the Board
` has already properly concluded in the
` related proceeding; that this piece of
` evidence is necessarily ambiguous and
` speculative. Because there is no
` indemnification between I-O-N and PGS
` relative to the accused product.
` At best, what this evidence would
` be -- and we're guessing here because we
` haven't seen it -- it would be PGS
` saying, "We want indemnification." And
` I can tell you that it was refused.
` That request was refused.
` Indeed, any evidence offered by
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`WesternGeco Ex. 2007, pg. 18
`IPR2015-00566
`ION v WesternGeco
`
`
`
`Page 19
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` WesternGeCo is necessarily speculative
` and ambiguous because, again, there is
` no indemnification between I-O-N and
` PGS.
` The only evidence brought forward
` by WesternGeCo is, probably -- and,
` again, we're guessing -- from the
` different parties, PGS to I-O-N,
` requesting indemnification.
` But there has not been
` indemnification granted by I-O-N
` relative to these accused products.
` As such, this speculative
` evidence cannot serve as the proper
` basis for additional Discovery.
` And, respectfully, we believe
` that this Real Party-in-Interest issue
` is simply being offered as an attempt to
` create an artificial burden on the
` Joinder.
` And, moreover, even with
` additional Discovery granted, the time
` and burden that is being imposed, or
` that WesternGeCo has asserted would be
` imposed, is really WesternGeCo's own
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`WesternGeco Ex. 2007, pg. 19
`IPR2015-00566
`ION v WesternGeco
`
`
`
`Page 20
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` fault. It should not be used to
` undermine this Joinder.
` WesternGeCo's argument is that
` this additional Discovery should not
` necessarily count against the Joinder
` because the burden imposed on the
` proceeding was largely the result of
` their un -- of their intentional delay.
` They sat on their additional Discovery
` Request for three weeks. So much of the
` time and the pressure stems from
` WesternGoCo's obligation.
` It's also notable that they
` haven't covered to the test for a Real
` Party-in-Interest to our knowledge.
` Incidently, they lost on this
` issue in December.
` Now, just to indicate when
` WesternGeCo first raised additional
` Discovery to us: It was on February 11,
` 2015.
` We had agreed to a
` meet-and-confer on February 13th. They
` pulled out of it and we didn't hear
` anything back from them until March 3rd.
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`WesternGeco Ex. 2007, pg. 20
`IPR2015-00566
`ION v WesternGeco
`
`
`
`Page 21
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` Then we had the original or final
` conference call on March 6th.
` Moreover, even if additional
` Discovery were deemed appropriate -- and
` it's not -- this could be done in an
` entirely parallel process. It should
` cause minimal disruption to the Joined
` proceeding.
` So, this is the first burden that
` was raised on the Joinder. That was the
` first burden that was identified in the
` Opposition by WesternGeCo to the
` Joinder.
` The second burden was this
` raising of the res judicata and
` collateral estoppel issues. But these
` two issues are purely legal issues.
` In fact, we believe that there's
` already been enough briefing on these
` issues to, really, dismiss them as
` issues.
` The Fresenius case, which is a
` case that's entirely on point; that
` relates directly to facts that are
` virtually identical to the facts that
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`WesternGeco Ex. 2007, pg. 21
`IPR2015-00566
`ION v WesternGeco
`
`
`
`Page 22
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` are presented in this proceeding. And
` it indicated that a Final Judgment is
` not made by a competing District Court
` decision, as well as a lack of appeal of
` validity, but maintenance of the appeal
` on other issues, like damages or
` standing; that that alone does not rise
` to a Final Judgment.
` Therefore, both res judicata and
` collateral estoppel are not triggered by
` what they're pointing to as happening in
` the co-pending litigation, which the
` Federal Circuit has not even rendered a
` Final Judgment on.
` So, those issues really should be
` dismissed off-hand as a non-issue, as
` yet another attempt to burden Joinder
` artificially.
` If the Board, however, disagrees
` or is thinking that further scrutiny
` should be applied here, we would
` consider that simply as a parallel
` briefing, as a self-contained paralegel
` briefing, on this very issue be applied.
` It should not be extensive and should
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`WesternGeco Ex. 2007, pg. 22
`IPR2015-00566
`ION v WesternGeco
`
`
`
`Page 23
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` not disrupt the PGS proceeding.
` JUDGE DANIELS: Let me just
` interrupt for a second here.
` I think, for the moment, we know
` in both cases -- we know in both cases,
` sort of -- where we're at, at least from
` the evidence that we have; where we are
` at with the RPI issue and that that
` collateral estoppel and res judicata,
` you know, issue has merely been raised
` here from a, sort of, as a potential
` issue.
` Let me ask this question of
` I-O-N: Would you be willing -- would
` you be willing to, if the Joinder was
` restricted to the same grounds of
` institution and there was no additional
` briefing without authorization sought by
` I-O-N, would that be something that
` I-O-N would be willing to do?
` MR. RENNER: Karl Renner, from
` Fish Richardson.
` Yes, your Honor.
` We would ask that, to the extent
` there were divergence in the position,
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`WesternGeco Ex. 2007, pg. 23
`IPR2015-00566
`ION v WesternGeco
`
`
`
`Page 24
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` that we might have additional briefing,
` but of limited pages, much like what
` we've seen in some of the precedents.
` Yet, if the Board is disinclined
` toward that, we would be willing --
` we're a Joining Party and we understand
` our position as such -- and, in that
` sense, we don't want to affect the flow;
` we don't want to delay things or
` complicate the proceeding anymore than
` absolutely necessary.
` JUDGE DANIELS: Let me ask
` another question.
` Mr. Fletcher -- I'm sorry, before
` we get to WesternGeCo -- Mr. Fletcher, I
` mean, there is -- we do not look forward
` to extending these proceedings. You all
` know we don't have much leeway. We want
` to get these done as quickly as possible
` too.
` Does that change your thought?
` I mean, if we keep this on a fast
` track, the track that it's on -- I mean,
` these can be moved. We have the ability
` to move these dates around.
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`WesternGeco Ex. 2007, pg. 24
`IPR2015-00566
`ION v WesternGeco
`
`
`
`Page 25
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` But if we were able to complete
` this in the same time, does that change
` your position at all?
` MR. FLETCHER: Not substantially.
` It helps a little bit, in that we,
` obviously, want to get this resolved
` quickly.
` It does not address our
` evidentiary prejudice issue.
` It also doesn't address,
` completely, our concerns about the role
` ION has proposed.
` To this end, it cites for this
` Motorola versus SoftView, the
` 2013-00265, and that case was not
` clouded by these Real Party-in-Interest
` insinuation, the same way ours is.
` We have zero desire to share our
` briefing with ION; we don't want to
` share our deposition time with ION; we
` don't want to prepare for arguments with
` ION; we don't want to work with ION;
` and, we don't believe we should be
` forced to have to work with ION.
` To the extent the Board is
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`WesternGeco Ex. 2007, pg. 25
`IPR2015-00566
`ION v WesternGeco
`
`
`
`Page 26
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` considering the motions for Joinder, in
` any sense, we think the applicable
` precedent, with respect to their role,
` should be -- I've got a few case cited
` here for Sony Corp. versus Network One,
` at IPR2013-00495, Paper 13; and a more
` recent one, from a few days ago, Samsung
` versus Arendi, IPR2014-1518, Paper 26.
` In both of those cases the
` Joining Party was circumscribed to a
` role, as the Court described it, as the
` "understudy." The understudy could
` watch; the understudy could listen; but
` the understudy can't talk.
` The understudy doesn't get to
` file any briefs; the understudy doesn't
` get to participate in any depositions or
` argument, unless the Primary Party
` leaves the case.
` That would be, what we think is,
` the appropriate ruling, were ION to be
` added to these proceedings.
` But we remain opposed to ION"s
` Joinder Motions because of the
` evidentiary prejudice issue that was
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`WesternGeco Ex. 2007, pg. 26
`IPR2015-00566
`ION v WesternGeco
`
`
`
`Page 27
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` outlined at the beginning of the call.
` JUDGE DANIELS: All right.
` MR. RENNER: Your Honor, if may
` I? I would love to add a few comments
` to that.
` This is Karl Renner, again.
` JUDGE DANIELS: Yes. Sure.
` If you just give us a minute or
` so, Mr. Renner, that would be great.
` MR. RENNER: Okay, your Honor.
` Certainly.
` So, two things:
` One: This goes to your question
` and to the point just made by the
` counsel with respect to our role.
` We had -- I wanted to make sure
` our position was clear; as on what we
` perceived our role would be where we had
` limited briefing.
` But we were also trying to be
` clear that it is within the Board's
` discretion -- and we appreciate the
` discussion by the Board -- to determine
` what role we have.
` So, if it were determined to be
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`WesternGeco Ex. 2007, pg. 27
`IPR2015-00566
`ION v WesternGeco
`
`
`
`Page 28
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` that we shouldn't have briefings or that
` we should play more of a watching and
` listening understudy role, then that
` would be a role that we would be willing
` to accept. Obviously, that's going to
` be, without saying.
` It is our position that we would
` prefer to be able to put in some limited
` number of pages, when appropriate, to
` address issues where any divergence
` occurs.
` Then, as to any evidentiary issue
` that was outstanding, that's, you know,
` determined by us here today, I would
` simply suggest our position is that when
` evidence is raised, and it's hearsay or
` otherwise, that is a question that
` shouldn't have any delay in its impact;
` and, frankly, it is a question that we
` don't think should prejudice Joinder.
` It would give -- you know, it
` would be a decision where, if that was
` controlling, it would give the
` Petitioners a awful lot of control over
` whether the party attempting to join in
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`WesternGeco Ex. 2007, pg. 28
`IPR2015-00566
`ION v WesternGeco
`
`
`
`Page 29
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` the future could, in fact, achieve
` Joinder.
` You could imagine why this
` Petitioner would be putting all kinds of
` evidence forward, much like we see here,
` to create and cloud the issues, if the
` guidance from the Court was that was a
` controlling factor.
` JUDGE DANIELS: All right.
` This is helpful. I mean, at the
` end of the day Joinder can be very --
` and if there is a way for us, at the
` Board, to handle some of these issues,
` for sure, then our initial consideration
` might be something along those lines.
` You know, sometimes people refer
` to it as sitting on one's butt and, sort
` of, sitting quietly while the, you know,
` the First Petitioner drives the bus.
` And it might not be for any
` briefings.
` And if there was a requirement --
` if there was a briefing that I-O-N
` thought was necessary, they would have
` to come to us for that authorization.
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`WesternGeco Ex. 2007, pg. 29
`IPR2015-00566
`ION v WesternGeco
`
`
`
`Page 30
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` But that's just a little insight
` into what we were considering,
` potentially.
` MR. RENNER: Yes, your Honor.
` JUDGE DANIELS: Let me see if I
` could -- I left WesternGeCo out.
` So, let me hear from the Patent
` Owner at this time.
`
` MR. KIKLIS: This is Michael
` Kiklis.
` You heard about a bunch of issues
` from ION, such as Real
` Party-in-Interest.
` Let me address, I guess, that
` first, your Honor, based on our phone
` call with the Board last week.
` In this phone call we talked
` about there being existing
` indemnification agreements between an
` ION affiliate and a PGS affiliate.
` In our Response filed on Friday,
` I would direct the Board's attention to
` Exhibit 2069, on page 14. There, in
` paragraph 1.17, under the heading
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide 877-702-9580
`
`WesternGeco Ex. 2007, pg. 30
`IPR2015-00566
`ION v WesternGeco
`
`
`
`Page 31
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` "Patent Infringement," where, at the end
` of the first paragraph, it expressly
` says they would indemnify PGS from any
` claim by third-parties.
` So, it's clear, in unambiguous
` language.
` It's also argued on our Response.
` So, I wanted to direct t