`AND BAKER HUGHES OILFIELD
`OPERATIONS, INC.
`Exhibit 1034
`BAKER HUGHES INCORPORATED
`AND BAKER HUGHES OILFIELD
`OPERATIONS, INC. v. PACKERS
`PLUS ENERGY SERVICES, INC.
`IPR2016-00596
`
`Page 1 of 4
`
`
`
`
`
`GOWLING WLG
`
`Anthony G. Creber
`Direct 613-786-0140
`Anthony.creber@gowlingwlg.com
`File no. 07376787
`
`January 19, 2017
`
`.
`.
`Via Email
`
`Dalton W. McGrath, Q.C.
`Blake, Cassels & Graydon LLP
`3500, 855 - 2nd Street SW
`Calgary AB T2P 4J8
`
`Dear Mr. McGrath:
`
`Court File Nos. T-1741-13, T-1569-15, T-1728-15 and T-2088—15
`Re:
`
`Written Interrogatories
`
`We write in following the case management conference held on January 16, 2017, where Prothonotary
`Aalto directed that we are entitled to ask questions relating to relevant documents that V 7e located from
`Baker Hughes’ US productions but that were not produced in this litigation.
`
`As you know, the Defendants have specifically pled at paragraph 55 of the Joint Counterclaim that “the
`defendants have not themselves copied the alleged invention disclosed in the 072 Patent.” This pleading
`falls under the heading of “No Commercial Success,” and therefore the Defendants acknowledge that
`copying is relevant to commercial success.
`
`On its face, the document enclosed with this letter (Ex.2024) contradicts your pleading, yet Baker
`Hughes never produced this document in the Canadian litigation. We are now left with having to
`proceed by written interrogatories a few weeks before trial. Our questions are set out in Appendix A to
`this letter. Given the urgency of this matter, we insist that you provide us with a response by
`Wednesday, January 25, 2017, failing which we will be writing to the Court to seek relief.
`
`However, in an attempt to shortcut matters, we propose two alternative solutions that would obviate the
`need for your client to answer the questions in Appendix A:
`
`1. Baker Hughes agrees to provide a formal admission in writing that it did copy the invention.
`
`2. Baker Hughes admits that (a) the document enclosed with this letter is admissible at trial
`without further proof; (b) the document at page BH00363820 is a copy of the enclosed
`document titled EX.2025, which is a final installation drawing from Packers Plus that depicts an
`embodiment of the invention of at least claim 96 of the 072 Patent; (c) Baker Hughes’ engineers
`removed “Packer Plus” in the top left corner of the document and replaced it with “Iso-Frac
`System”; and (d) Baker Hughes’ engineers relied on this Packer Plus document in developing
`the FracPoint system.
`
`GOWLING WLG (CANADA) LLP
`.
`.
`smtc 2600’ 16p Elgln street
`Ottawa, Ontario KlP 1C3 Canada
`
`_
`13) 233 1781
`T +1
`gowllngwlg.com
`
`Gowling WLG (Canada) LLP is a member of Gowling WLG, an international law firm which
`consists ofindependent and autonomous entities providing services around the world. Our
`structure is explained in more detail at gowlingwlg.comflega|.
`
`Page 1 of 4
`Page 1 of 4
`
`
`
`
`
`GOWLING WLG
`
`In addition, we have also noted answers from the discovery of Baker Hughes’ representative, Mr.
`James Gambrell King, on August 12, 2016 that require correction. I asked questions of Mr. King
`regarding Baker Hughes’ policies relating to its customers’ confidential information (Q222-225 and
`Q23 5-237). Mr. King appeared to be aware of a policy and but did not know if the policy was a written
`policy. The Plaintiffs have since produced Baker Hughes’ codes of conduct that are responsive to these
`questions (Plaintiffs’ Production #1226-1227).
`
`As you know, Rule 245 of the Federal Courts Rules requires that inaccurate or deficient answers be
`corrected without delay. While your client has delayed in making this correction, we believe the
`situation can be remedied by answering the question #25 in Appendix A relating to the Baker Hughes
`codes of conduct.
`
`Yours very truly,
`
`Anthony Creber
`
`cc:
`
`Robert H.C. MacFarlane/Joshua W. Spicer, Bereskin & Parr LLP
`
`Page 2
`
`Page 2 of 4
`Page 2 of 4
`
`
`
`
`
`GOWLHNG WLG
`
`Appendix A — Written interrogatories
`
`In answering these questions, we expect that inquiries will need to be made of the following individuals
`who we understand are still employed at Baker Hughes: Jim Doane, Hector Mireles, Greg Badke, Doug
`Murray, Chuck Pleasants, Cliff Mills, Dale Cockrell, Gus Weinig, Steve Shirk, and Frank Maenza.
`
`1.
`
`Please confirm that Exhibit 2024 (attached hereto) and entitled “Engineerring Change Notice”
`and consists of 34 pages was found in the files of Baker Hughes and was produced as part of the
`counterpart US litigation by Baker Huges.
`
`
`
`
`Please identify Exhibit 2024 as an Engineering Change Notice relating to the development of a
`system to be competitive with the Packer’s Plus STackFRAC system.
`
`.
`
`If you deny the above question 2, please identify what Exhibit 2024 is.
`
`Please identify page 13 of 34 in Exhibit 2024 as an example of Baker Hughes’s Iso-Frac system
`and agree to mark that page as a separate Exhibit (Baker Hughes bates number BH003 63 820).
`
`
`
`
`For what purpose was Exhibit 2024 created?
`
`
`Who created Exhibit 2024?
`
`
`
`
`On page 5 of Exhibit 2024, it would appear that there was a meeting where at least 25 people
`were present at the meeting who cast votes. Please identify who these individuals were and
`which group or committee constituted the said design team meeting.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Please confirm that page 13 of 34 (of Exhibit 2024) was derived from Exhibit 2025 (attached
`hereto) which is a Packer’s Plus document relating to a job on a Petro Canada well site as
`identified as the “Shaw” site at 14-21-49-22W5.
`
`
`
`
`Please confirm that the statement on the Packer’s Plus document Exhibit 2025 of “contains
`
`confidential information this proposal and quote is governed by Packer’s Plus general terms and
`conditions”, was present on the documents when it was obtained by Baker Hughes and still
`appears on page 13 of Exhibit 2024.
`
`
`
`
`How, when and from whom did Baker Hughes acquire the original Packer’s Plus version of
`page 13 of Exhibit 2024. Provide all emails and other communications relating to Baker Hughes
`acquisition of the Packer’s Plus document, including any native electronic versions of the
`documents that Baker Hughes acquired.
`
`Please confirm that the work discussed in Exhibit 2024 was part of the development of the Iso-
`Frac system, which eventually came to market in 2005.
`
`
`
`Why was the Packers Plus’ logo removed from page 13 of Exhibit 2024 and replaced with the
`statement “Iso-Frac System”.
`
`
`
`
`10.
`
`11.
`
`12.
`
`Page 3
`
`Page 3 of 4
`Page 3 of 4
`
`
`
`
`
`GOWLING WLG
`
`13.
`
`14.
`
`15.
`
`16.
`
`17.
`
`18.
`
`19.
`
`Why is page 13 of Exhibit 2024 marked “Confidential” by Baker Hughes?
`
`Why are the other pages of Exhibit 2024 not marked “Confidential”?
`
`What is the “lso-Frac System”?
`
`What is the “Open Hole Pin Point Frac System”?
`
`Are the “Iso-Frac System” and “Open Hole Pin Point Frac System” early iterations of Baker
`Hughes’ FracPoint system?
`
`Prior to October, 2004, did Baker Hughes have a system for implementing multiple hydraulic
`fracture treatments in an uncased, open, non-vertical wellbore in zones separated by packers that
`used a ball drop system to open sliding sleeves to implement the fracture treatments? If so,
`provide the name of the system, how it worked, who created it, and when it was created.
`
`Who created the slide presentation at BH003 63 832 to BH003 63 833?
`
`. Where, when, and why were these slides presented?
`
`21.
`
`22.
`
`23.
`
`24.
`
`25.
`
`Who included the information “Competition: Packer Plus: Proven System”?
`
`Who created the side presentation at page 25 of Exhibit 2024?
`
`Where, when, and why were these slides presented?
`
`Please confirm that the information on the last slide on page 26 of 34 of Exhibit 2024 is correct,
`namely, that Packers Plus was perceived as the competition for this market and that Packer’s
`Plus was a proven system.
`
`Please identify the documents attached as Exhibits l4 and 15 as the codes of conduct of Baker
`Hughes.
`
`Page 4
`
`Page 4 of 4
`Page 4 of 4
`
`