throbber
Trials@uspto.gov
`Tel: 571-272-7822
`
`Paper 15
`Entered: April 23, 2015
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`ION GEOPHYSICAL CORPORATION
`and ION INTERNATIONAL S.A.R.L.,
`Petitioners,
`
`v.
`
`WESTERNGECO LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`
`Cases1
`IPR2015-00565 (Patent 7,293,520)
`IPR2015-00566 (Patent 7,162,967)
`IPR2015-00567 (Patent 7,080,607)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Before SCOTT A. DANIELS, BEVERLY M. BUNTING, and
`BARBARA A. PARVIS, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`DANIELS, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`ORDER
`Conduct of the Proceedings
`37 C.F.R. § 42.5
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1 This Order addresses issues that are the same in all three cases. Therefore,
`we exercise our discretion to issue one Order to be filed in each case. The
`parties are not authorized to use this style heading for any subsequent
`papers.
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2015-00565 (Patent 7,293,520)
`IPR2015-00566 (Patent 7,162,967)
`IPR2015-00567 (Patent 7,080,607)
`
`
`On March 17, 2015, a conference call was held in the above
`
`proceedings regarding a request via email by WesternGeco for additional
`
`discovery. Present on the call were counsel for ION, WesternGeco, and
`
`Administrative Patent Judges Bryan Moore, Scott Daniels, Beverly Bunting,
`
`and Barbara Parvis.
`
`Motion for Additional Discovery
`
`Patent Owner requested authorization to file a motion seeking
`
`additional discovery on the issue of whether Petroleum Geo-Services Inc.
`
`(“PGS”) is controlling ION in this proceeding such that it should have been
`
`named a real party in interest.2 In support of this request, Patent Owner
`
`pointed to the fact that WesternGeco has filed lawsuits against PGS and ION
`
`in district court. WesternGeco also alleges that now before the USPTO,
`
`PGS and ION have coordinated efforts to attack the validity of the ’520,
`
`’607, and ’967 patents. According to WesternGeco, an example of this
`
`coordination is that ION abandoned its appeal to the Federal Circuit when
`
`PGS filed its inter partes reviews (the “PGS IPR’s”). WesternGeco stated
`
`during the call that PGS representatives attended the trial in the ION lawsuit
`
`and that certain exhibits in the PGS IPR’s identify an indemnification
`
`agreement between PGS and ION. Specifically, WesternGeco asserted that
`
`a Master Services Agreement between PGS and ION, filed as an exhibit in
`
`the PGS IPR’s, apparently relating to the allegedly infringing DigiFin
`
`product, is indicative of the existence of an indemnification agreement.
`
`
`2 PGS is the Petitioner in IPR2014-00687, IPR2014-00688, and IPR2014-
`00689 (the “PGS IPR’s”) relating to the same patents at issue in these
`proceedings.
`
`2
`
`

`

`IPR2015-00565 (Patent 7,293,520)
`IPR2015-00566 (Patent 7,162,967)
`IPR2015-00567 (Patent 7,080,607)
`
`
`WesternGeco suggested that these circumstances and exhibits in the
`
`PGS IPR’s show that PGS at least has the opportunity to control ION in this
`
`proceeding. WesternGeco, however, was unable to point to any new
`
`evidence apart from that of record in the PGS IPR’s, or evidence of record in
`
`the present proceedings that would lead us to conclude that this proceeding
`
`is being controlled by PGS, rather WesternGeco pointed to facts and
`
`circumstances indicating that PGS and ION share a mutual interest to
`
`invalidate the patents at issue in these proceedings.
`
`Petitioners’ counsel opposed the request to file a motion. The Board
`
`took the request under advisement.
`
`As an initial matter, we note that certain exhibits, including the Master
`
`Services Agreement referred to by WesternGeco during the call are not of
`
`record in these proceedings and are sealed in the PGS IPR’s. Currently, ION
`
`does not have access to those exhibits and stated that it was unaware of the
`
`contents of these exhibits. Moreover, with the exception of the Master
`
`Services Agreement, we have already dealt with the subject matter of these
`
`exhibits and the alleged facts and circumstances apparently indicating
`
`collusion between ION and PGS, in the PGS IPR’s.3 On this record, and in
`
`the absence of any new evidence, we refer ION and WesternGeco to our
`
`decision with respect to real party in interest between ION and PGS in the
`
`PGS IPR’s. See Apple v. Mobile Telecommunications Technologies, LLC,
`
`Case IPR2014-00689, slip op. at 15–25 (PTAB Dec. 15, 2014) (Paper 32)
`
`
`3 The Master Services Agreement was filed as an exhibit in each of the PGS
`IPR’s with Westerngeco’s Patent Owner Response on March 20, 2015.
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`IPR2015-00565 (Patent 7,293,520)
`IPR2015-00566 (Patent 7,162,967)
`IPR2015-00567 (Patent 7,080,607)
`
`
`The mere allegation of WesternGeco, without more, is not enough to
`
`persuade us that something useful will result from authorizing the proposed
`
`motion. In the absence of any such showing, the request for authorization is
`
`denied at this time.
`
`
`
`It is
`
`ORDERED that Patent Owner’s request for authorization to file a
`
`motion for additional discovery under 37 C.F.R. § 42.51(b)(2) is denied.
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`IPR2015-00565 (Patent 7,293,520)
`IPR2015-00566 (Patent 7,162,967)
`IPR2015-00567 (Patent 7,080,607)
`
`
`
`
`
`For PETITIONERS:
`
`David. Berl
`Thomas S. Fletcher
`Jessamyn Berniker
`Christopher Suarez
`Williams & Connolly, LLP
`dberl@wc.com
`tfletcher@wc.com
`jberniker@wc.com
`csuarez@wc.com
`
`W. Karl Renner
`Roberto Devoto
`David L. Holt
`Fish & Richardson P.C.
`IPR37136-0004IP1@fr.com
`
`For PATENT OWNER:
`
`Michael L. Kiklis
`Scott A. McKeown
`Christopher A. Bullard
`Kevin B. Laurence
`Katherine D. Cappaert
`Christopher Ricciuti
`OBLON, SPIVAK, McCLELLAND,
`MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P.
`CPdocketMcKeown@oblon.com
`CPdocketBullard@oblon.com
`
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`

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