`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`______________
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`BAKER HUGHES INCORPORATED
`and
`BAKER HUGHES OILFIELD OPERATIONS, INC.,
`Petitioners
`
`v.
`
`PACKERS PLUS ENERGY SERVICES, INC.
`Patent Owner
`
`______________
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01496
`Patent 7,134,505
`______________
`
`
`
`PETITIONERS’ OBJECTIONS TO PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE
`EVIDENCE PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b)(1)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b)(1), Petitioners serve the following
`
`objections to Patent Owner’s1 Response exhibits.
`
`Case IPR2016-01496
`Patent 7,134,505
`
`Ex. Number and Patent
`Owner Description
`2039. Weatherford
`presentation titled, “Openhole
`Completion Systems”
`
`Objections
`
`Authentication. Fed. R. Evid. 901(a). Patent
`Owner has not produced evidence sufficient to
`support a finding that this exhibit is a true and
`correct copy of what Patent Owner purports it
`to be.
`Hearsay. Fed. R. Evid. 801(c) and Fed. R.
`Evid. 802. To the extent Patent Owner relies on
`this exhibit to prove the truth of matters
`described therein, the statements are hearsay:
`e.g., that Weatherford sells and markets open
`hole drop ball technology as shown in a figure
`of Ex. 2039 (see POR at 23); and that
`Weatherford “specifically advertises that [its]
`system employ[s] the claimed invention using
`solid body packer isolation, ball-activated
`sliding sleeves, and open hole fracturing in
`horizontal wells, i.e., the specific combination
`of elements covered by the claims” (see POR at
`28-29). Patent Owner has not offered evidence
`sufficient to demonstrate that the exhibit falls
`within any exception to the rule against
`hearsay.
`Relevance. Fed. R. Evid. 401-403. This exhibit
`is irrelevant under FRE 401, and thus
`inadmissible under FRE 402, or inadmissible as
`unfairly prejudicial, confusing, and/or a waste
`of time under FRE 403, because: (1) it is
`
`
`1 All references to Patent Owner are to be understood as referring also to its
`
`Exclusive Licensee.
`
`28372582.1
`
`1
`
`
`
`Ex. Number and Patent
`Owner Description
`
`2040. Halliburton v. Packers
`Plus, Fourth Amended Petition
`
`2041. Baker Hughes’ and
`Peak Completions’ Subpoena
`to Halliburton
`
`Case IPR2016-01496
`Patent 7,134,505
`
`Objections
`
`inadmissible under FRE 801, 802, and 901 as
`explained above, (2) Patent Owner has not
`proven that any technology in the exhibit on
`which it relies, or any activity involving such
`technology, is covered by any Challenged
`Claim, and/or (3) Patent Owner has not proven
`that any technology in the exhibit on which it
`relies, or any activity involving such
`technology, is not already known or readily
`available in the prior art.
`
`Authentication. Fed. R. Evid. 901(a). Patent
`Owner has not produced evidence sufficient to
`support a finding that this exhibit is a true and
`correct copy of what Patent Owner purports it
`to be.
`Relevance. Fed. R. Evid. 401-403. This exhibit
`is not relevant to any issue in this IPR
`proceeding, and any probative value of the
`exhibit is substantially outweighed by unfair
`prejudice and/or a waste of time, particularly
`because this exhibit is not cited in Patent
`Owner’s Response or in any declaration
`paragraph cited in Patent Owner’s Response.
`
`Authentication. Fed. R. Evid. 901(a). Patent
`Owner has not produced evidence sufficient to
`support a finding that this exhibit is a true and
`correct copy of what Patent Owner purports it
`to be.
`Relevance. Fed. R. Evid. 401-403. This exhibit
`is not relevant to any issue in this IPR
`proceeding, and any probative value of the
`exhibit is substantially outweighed by unfair
`prejudice and/or a waste of time, particularly
`because this exhibit is not cited in Patent
`Owner’s Response or in any declaration
`
`28372582.1
`
`2
`
`
`
`Ex. Number and Patent
`Owner Description
`
`2042. Rapid Completions v.
`Baker Hughes, et al. Order
`dismissing Pegasi
`
`2044. Vikram Rao Deposition
`Transcript
`
`Case IPR2016-01496
`Patent 7,134,505
`
`Objections
`
`paragraph cited in Patent Owner’s Response.
`
`Authentication. Fed. R. Evid. 901(a). Patent
`Owner has not produced evidence sufficient to
`support a finding that this exhibit is a true and
`correct copy of what Patent Owner purports it
`to be.
`Relevance. Fed. R. Evid. 401-403. This exhibit
`is not relevant to any issue in this IPR
`proceeding, and any probative value of the
`exhibit is substantially outweighed by unfair
`prejudice and/or a waste of time, particularly
`because this exhibit is not cited in Patent
`Owner’s Response or in any declaration
`paragraph cited in Patent Owner’s Response.
`
`Authentication. Fed. R. Evid. 901(a). Patent
`Owner has not produced evidence sufficient to
`support a finding that this exhibit is a true and
`correct copy of what Patent Owner purports it
`to be.
`Relevance. Fed. R. Evid. 401-403. This exhibit
`concerns testimony by an expert pertaining to a
`declaration that is not an exhibit in this
`proceeding, and is therefore irrelevant under
`FRE 401, and thus inadmissible under FRE
`402, or inadmissible as unfairly prejudicial,
`confusing, and/or a waste of time under FRE
`403. Independently, this exhibit is not relevant
`to any issue in this IPR proceeding, and any
`probative value of the exhibit is substantially
`outweighed by unfair prejudice and/or a waste
`of time, particularly because this exhibit is not
`cited in Patent Owner’s Response or in any
`declaration paragraph cited in Patent Owner’s
`Response.
`
`28372582.1
`
`3
`
`
`
`Ex. Number and Patent
`Owner Description
`2045. Westin, Scott, Private
`Property, PwC, (Jan. 2, 2013)
`
`Case IPR2016-01496
`Patent 7,134,505
`
`Objections
`
`Authentication. Fed. R. Evid. 901(a). Patent
`Owner has not produced evidence sufficient to
`support a finding that this exhibit is a true and
`correct copy of what Patent Owner purports it
`to be.
`Hearsay. Fed. R. Evid. 801(c) and Fed. R.
`Evid. 802. To the extent Patent Owner relies on
`this exhibit to prove the truth of matters
`described therein, the statements are hearsay:
`e.g., that “StackFRAC was the first ball drop
`system created for open hole horizontal wells”
`(see POR at 16); that the StackFRAC
`technology “is partly responsible for creating
`access to vast reservoirs of oil and natural gas
`in North America that were previously
`considered uneconomic to produce” (see POR
`at id.); and that Packers Plus “has become
`almost a generic term for ball drop systems”
`(see POR at id.). Patent Owner has not offered
`evidence sufficient to demonstrate that the
`exhibit falls within any exception to the rule
`against hearsay.
`Relevance. Fed. R. Evid. 401-403. This exhibit
`is irrelevant under FRE 401, and thus
`inadmissible under FRE 402, or inadmissible as
`unfairly prejudicial, confusing, and/or a waste
`of time under FRE 403, because: (1) it is
`inadmissible under FRE 801, 802, and 901 as
`explained above, (2) Patent Owner has not
`proven that any technology in the exhibit on
`which it relies, or any activity involving such
`technology, is covered by any Challenged
`Claim, and/or (3) Patent Owner has not proven
`that any technology in the exhibit on which it
`relies, or any activity involving such
`technology, is not already known or readily
`
`28372582.1
`
`4
`
`
`
`Ex. Number and Patent
`Owner Description
`
`Objections
`
`available in the prior art.
`
`Case IPR2016-01496
`Patent 7,134,505
`
`2046. Yager, David, Court
`Case Now On: It’s Packers
`Plus Versus the World –
`Here’s What’s at Stake for
`Multi-stage Horizontal
`Completion Companies,
`EnergyNow Media (Feb. 23,
`2017)
`
`2047. BH003646675,
`28372582.1
`
`Authentication. Fed. R. Evid. 901(a). Patent
`Owner has not produced evidence sufficient to
`support a finding that this exhibit is a true and
`correct copy of what Patent Owner purports it
`to be.
`Hearsay. Fed. R. Evid. 801(c) and Fed. R.
`Evid. 802. To the extent Patent Owner relies on
`this exhibit to prove the truth of matters
`described therein, the statements are hearsay:
`e.g., that the patented technology is “legendary”
`and “what the investing community calls a
`‘disruptive technology’, something so useful
`and necessary the macroeconomic forces it
`unleashes creates new and powerful problems
`and challenges.” See POR at 16. Patent Owner
`has not offered evidence sufficient to
`demonstrate that the exhibit falls within any
`exception to the rule against hearsay.
`Relevance. Fed. R. Evid. 401-403. This exhibit
`is irrelevant under FRE 401, and thus
`inadmissible under FRE 402, or inadmissible as
`unfairly prejudicial, confusing, and/or a waste
`of time under FRE 403, because: (1) it is
`inadmissible under FRE 801, 802, and 901 as
`explained above, (2) Patent Owner has not
`proven that any technology in the exhibit on
`which it relies, or any activity involving such
`technology, is covered by any Challenged
`Claim, and/or (3) Patent Owner has not proven
`that any technology in the exhibit on which it
`relies, or any activity involving such
`technology, is not already known or readily
`available in the prior art.
`
`Authentication. Fed. R. Evid. 901(a). Patent
`
`5
`
`
`
`Ex. Number and Patent
`Owner Description
`CONFIDENTIAL Ball
`activated sliding sleeves report
`
`2048. UNREDACTED J.J.
`Girardi Decl.
`
`28372582.1
`
`Case IPR2016-01496
`Patent 7,134,505
`
`Objections
`
`Owner has not produced evidence sufficient to
`support a finding that this exhibit is a true and
`correct copy of what Patent Owner purports it
`to be.
`Hearsay. Fed. R. Evid. 801(c) and Fed. R.
`Evid. 802. To the extent Patent Owner relies on
`this exhibit to prove the truth of matters
`described therein, the statements are hearsay:
`e.g., citing to and/or quoting from Ex. 2047
`(see POR at 17) ; that the third party market
`share reports indicate that [OHMS] has
`overtaken competing fracturing methods such
`as plug and perf in the Bakken formation and its
`market share has grown in other formations as
`well as shown a figure of Ex. 2011 (see POR at
`26-27). Patent Owner has not offered evidence
`sufficient to demonstrate that the exhibit falls
`within any exceptions to the rule against
`hearsay.
`Relevance. Fed. R. Evid. 401-403. This exhibit
`is irrelevant under FRE 401, and thus
`inadmissible under FRE 402, or inadmissible as
`unfairly prejudicial, confusing, and/or a waste
`of time under FRE 403, because: (1) it is
`inadmissible under FRE 801, 802, and 901 as
`explained above, (2) Patent Owner has not
`proven that any system in the exhibit on which
`it relies, or any activity involving such system,
`is covered by any Challenged Claim, and/or (3)
`Patent Owner has not proven that any system in
`the exhibit on which it relies, or any activity
`involving such system, is not already known or
`readily available in the prior art.
`
`Authentication. Fed. R. Evid. 901(a). Patent
`Owner has not produced evidence sufficient to
`support a finding that the references cited in
`
`6
`
`
`
`Ex. Number and Patent
`Owner Description
`
`2049. REDACTED J.J.
`Girardi Decl.
`
`Case IPR2016-01496
`Patent 7,134,505
`
`Objections
`
`this exhibit are true and correct copies of what
`Patent Owner or its witness purports them to be.
`Hearsay. Fed. R. Evid. 801(c) and Fed. R.
`Evid. 802. To the extent Patent Owner relies on
`this exhibit to prove the truth of matters
`described therein, the statements are hearsay:
`e.g., at 2 (citing to numerous articles attached as
`exhibits). Patent Owner has not offered
`evidence sufficient to demonstrate that the
`exhibit falls within any exceptions to the rule
`against hearsay.
`Foundation. Fed. R. Evid. 601. Patent Owner
`has not introduced evidence sufficient to
`support a finding that Mr. Girardi has personal
`knowledge of the matters asserted. For
`example, Patent Owner has not introduced
`evidence sufficient to support a finding that Mr.
`Girardi has personal knowledge sufficient to be
`“familiar with Packers Plus’ StackFRAC
`system” or on which to base his assertion that
`“[t]he StackFRAC system has been critical to
`that [asserted] success.”
`Relevance. Fed. R. Evid. 401-403. This exhibit
`is not relevant to any issue in this IPR
`proceeding, and any probative value of the
`exhibit is substantially outweighed by unfair
`prejudice and a waste of time, particularly
`because Patent Owner has not established that
`“the StackFRAC system” to which Mr. Girardi
`testifies bears any relation to the claims of the
`challenged patent.
`
`Same objects as made to Ex. 2048.
`
`2050. UNREDACTED H.
`
`Authentication. Fed. R. Evid. 901(a). Patent
`
`28372582.1
`
`7
`
`
`
`Ex. Number and Patent
`Owner Description
`McGowen Decl.
`
`Case IPR2016-01496
`Patent 7,134,505
`
`Objections
`
`Owner has not produced evidence sufficient to
`support a finding that the references cited in
`this exhibit are true and correct copies of what
`Patent Owner or its witness purports them to be.
`Hearsay. Fed. R. Evid. 801(c) and Fed. R.
`Evid. 802. To the extent Patent Owner relies on
`this exhibit to prove the truth of matters
`described therein, the statements are hearsay:
`for example at:
` 102 (citing figures from different sources
`without submitting sources as exhibits or
`disclosing sources with enough particularity
`to independently verify);
`
` 18 (citing figure from third party source—
`Fig. 11—without identifying source);
`
` 18 (quoting a third party source’s—Ex.
`2062—alleged quote of an alleged third-
`party email as allegedly “provid[ing] a
`glimpse into BP’s reasoning.”);
`
` 19 (citing Ex. 2070 and relying on Ex. 2070
`as providing “an analogous situation”);
`
` 19 (citing “Rogers 2003”—which has not
`been submitted as an exhibit—as “the
`seminal text on the topic,” but offering no
`explanation to support the requirements of
`FRE 803(18));
`
`
`
`2 The cited page numbers are to the 49 pages preceding the resume materials and
`
`claim charts.
`
`28372582.1
`
`8
`
`
`
`Ex. Number and Patent
`Owner Description
`
`Case IPR2016-01496
`Patent 7,134,505
`
`Objections
`
` 22 (citing figure from unidentified third
`party source—HEM);
`
` 23 (citing figure from Ex. 2066 and quoting
`Ex. 2066 for truth of the statement that:
`“Unfavorable fracture initiation may cause
`problems with both fracture execution
`(screen-out) and with product response, by
`harming the wellbore-to-fracture
`connection.”);
`
` Ex. A at 2-4, 8-9 (citing figures and
`statements from unidentified sources);
`
` Ex. B at 1-11 (citing six alleged Petitioner
`figures, a series of sleeve, packer, and ball
`names and numbers without documentary
`support, and a number of documents—
`“BH00001776,” “BH00125568,
`BH00188257,” “BH00001986,”
`“BH00000949”—that have not been
`submitted as exhibits)
`
` Ex. B at 2-6, 9, 11 (citing alleged Patent
`Owner product numbers as meeting features
`of the challenged claims—“H80915,
`H80916, H80987, H80990, EX-C, H80940,
`H80949, EXPress, H80908, H81006,
`H8008, H81009, H81045, H81070, OH MP
`. . . H81027, H81029,” packers “OH
`Packers, H40936, RE Packers, H30187,
`H30192, H30407,” or balls “H81020,
`H81021, H81022—but not providing
`sufficient explanation of the details thereof).
`
`Opinion Testimony by Lay Witness. Fed. R.
`Evid. 701(c). This exhibit contains
`
`28372582.1
`
`9
`
`
`
`Ex. Number and Patent
`Owner Description
`
`Case IPR2016-01496
`Patent 7,134,505
`
`Objections
`
`impermissible expert opinion testimony by a
`lay witness in that it that requires scientific,
`technical, or other specialized knowledge
`within the scope of Rule 702; for example, at:
` 19 (describing “Rogers 2003”—which has
`not been submitted as an exhibit—as “the
`seminal text on the topic,” but offering no
`explanation as to why his education or
`experience qualifies him to offer this
`opinion);
`
` 42 (opining that “This volume of sales
`equates to many . . . dollars of revenue for
`BH. . . . Based on this marketing data, and
`other information I have reviewed related to
`Baker Hughes sales of 774 Patent infringing
`technology, and assuming the information I
`was provided is complete and accurate,
`Baker-Hughes has accrued over . . . in
`revenue from the sale of the FracPoint Open
`Hole Multi-Stage fracturing system
`components shown in Figure 22 during the
`period from 11/14/2008 to 11 01/21/2016
`(or thereabouts),” but offering no
`explanation of why his education or
`experience qualifies him to offer the
`opinion).
`
` Ex. A at 10 and Ex. B at 11 (opining that
`claim terms are “governed by § 112 ¶ 6”
`without explaining an understanding of the
`laws related to 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 6).
`Relevance. Fed. R. Evid. 401-403. This exhibit
`is not relevant to any issue in this IPR
`proceeding, and any probative value of the
`exhibit is substantially outweighed by unfair
`
`28372582.1
`
`10
`
`
`
`Ex. Number and Patent
`Owner Description
`
`Case IPR2016-01496
`Patent 7,134,505
`
`Objections
`
`prejudice and a waste of time, particularly
`because Mr. McGowen has not explained why
`his opinions sufficiently relate to the patent at
`issue in this proceeding (U.S. Patent No.
`7,134,505) or have any bearing on any fact of
`consequence in this proceeding. For example:
` Mr. McGowen’s detailed opinions are
`limited to U.S. Patent No. 7,861,774 (“the
`’774 Patent”), which is not at issue in this
`proceeding, and the only mention of the
`’505 Patent at issue in this proceeding is in a
`footnote expressly limited to claims 23 and
`27 of the ’505 Patent and having no
`explanation other than “my criticisms of
`those theories are applicable in that context
`as well.” See Ex. 2050 at 47, fn. 8.
`
` Setting aside his failure to address the
`claims of the ’505 Patent, Mr. McGowen
`has not explained the scope of the “774
`Patent/Invention” on which he opines and,
`thus, has not established that his opinions
`relate to the scope of what is actually
`claimed in the ’774 Patent (his statement at
`7:24-25 of Ex. 2050 regarding “the
`technology claimed in at least Claim 1 of the
`774 Patent/Invention” indicates that he
`views the claims as a subset of—rather than
`coextensive with—“the 774
`Patent/Invention”);
`
` Setting aside his failure to address the
`claims of the ’505 Patent, Mr. McGowen’s
`opinions are premised on the assumption
`that the “the 774 Patent/Invention” is limited
`to hydraulic fracturing or otherwise does not
`cover acid fracturing. See, e.g., Ex. 2050 at
`
`28372582.1
`
`11
`
`
`
`Ex. Number and Patent
`Owner Description
`
`Case IPR2016-01496
`Patent 7,134,505
`
`Objections
`
`27:9-10, 29:1-17; 30:29-31:4, 32:14-20,
`34:4 (confirming that Mr. McGowen does
`not include acid fracturing in his
`consideration of hydraulic fracturing),
`35:10, 37:27-28, 39:20-22; see also Ex.
`2050 at 7:9-10, 8:22-25, 9:6-12, 12:2-5,
`12:16-18, 15:8-11, 16:3-5, 23:2-3.
`
` Further, to the extent that Mr. McGowen
`opines on Petitioners’ revenue related to
`“FracPoint Open Hole Multi-Stage
`fracturing system components,” Mr.
`McGowen has not explained which
`components were included/excluded or how
`those components sufficiently relate to the
`claims of the patent at issue in this
`proceeding (the ’505 Patent). See Ex. 2050
`at 42:6-11 and 42, fn. 6 (“In arriving at this
`revenue estimate, I . . . .”).
`
` Ex. A at 12-14 and Ex. B at 13-15
`(referencing “505 patent 25b”-“505 patent
`25h,” but not addressing ‘505 patent claim
`terms 25b-h anywhere in the declaration).
`Foundation. Fed. R. Evid. 601 & 37 C.F.R.
`§ 42.65. Patent Owner has not introduced
`evidence sufficient to support a finding that Mr.
`McGowen has personal knowledge of the
`matters asserted. For example, Patent Owner
`has not introduced evidence sufficient to
`support a finding that Mr. McGowen has
`sufficient personal knowledge to opine on
`Baker Hughes revenue related to “FracPoint
`Open Hole Multi-Stage fracturing system
`components,” nor has Patent Owner disclosed
`to Petitioners or the Board the details of the
`“Baker Hughes confidential data,” “ASCII text
`
`28372582.1
`
`12
`
`
`
`Ex. Number and Patent
`Owner Description
`
`2051. REDACTED H.
`McGowen Decl.
`
`2052. Baker Hughes Design
`Documents
`
`Case IPR2016-01496
`Patent 7,134,505
`
`Objections
`
`searching tools,” “specific text,” “MS Access
`database,” “Basic program written in MS
`Access,” “relational database,” “filtered queries
`and reports,” or “particular types/configurations
`of equipment” on which these opinions are
`predicated. See Ex. 2050 at 42:6-11 and 42, fn.
`6 (“In arriving at this revenue estimate, I . . . .”).
`Nor has Patent Owner satisfied the
`requirements of 37 CFR § 42.65(b) with respect
`to such quantitative opinions from Mr.
`McGowen. See, e.g., Ex. 2050 at 42:6-11 and
`42, fn. 6 (“In arriving at this revenue estimate, I
`. . . .”). Similarly, Patent Owner has not
`submitted exhibits showing the details of
`BH00001776, BH00125568, BH00188257,
`BH00125568, BH00188257, BH00001986, or
`BH00000949, nor sleeves “H80915, H80916,
`H80987, H80990, EX-C, H80940, H80949,
`EXPress, H80908, H81006, H8008, H81009,
`H81045, H81070, OH MP . . . H81027,
`H81029,” packers “OH Packers, H40936, RE
`Packers, H30187, H30192, H30407,” or balls
`“H81020, H81021, H81022, or a sufficient
`explanation of the details thereof, on which Mr.
`McGowen’s opinions are predicated. Ex. 2050
`at Ex. B (to Ex. 2050) at 2-6, 9, 11.
`
`Same objects as made to Ex. 2050.
`
`Authentication. Fed. R. Evid. 901(a). Patent
`Owner has not produced evidence sufficient to
`support a finding that this exhibit is a true and
`correct copy of what Patent Owner purports it
`to be.
`Hearsay. Fed. R. Evid. 801(c) and Fed. R.
`Evid. 802. To the extent Patent Owner relies on
`
`28372582.1
`
`13
`
`
`
`Ex. Number and Patent
`Owner Description
`
`2053. Packers Plus Design
`Document
`
`Case IPR2016-01496
`Patent 7,134,505
`
`Objections
`
`this exhibit to prove the truth of matters
`described therein, the statements are hearsay:
`e.g., citing to and/or quoting from Ex. 2052 at
`363833, 363820 (document) (see POR at 18-
`20). Patent Owner has not offered evidence
`sufficient to demonstrate that the exhibit falls
`within any exceptions to the rule against
`hearsay.
`Relevance. Fed. R. Evid. 401-403. This exhibit
`is irrelevant under FRE 401, and thus
`inadmissible under FRE 402, or inadmissible as
`unfairly prejudicial, confusing, and/or a waste
`of time under FRE 403, because: (1) it is
`inadmissible under FRE 801, 802, and 901 as
`explained above, (2) Patent Owner has not
`proven that any system in the exhibit on which
`it relies, or any activity involving such system,
`is covered by any Challenged Claim, (3) Patent
`Owner has not proven that any system in the
`exhibit on which it relies, or any activity
`involving such system, is not already known or
`readily available in the prior art, and/or (4)
`Patent Owner has not established that
`Petitioners’ possession of 363820 preceded
`Petitioners’ development of the system alleged
`to be a copy of the claimed invention.
`
`Authentication. Fed. R. Evid. 901(a). Patent
`Owner has not produced evidence sufficient to
`support a finding that this exhibit is a true and
`correct copy of what Patent Owner purports it
`to be.
`Hearsay. Fed. R. Evid. 801(c) and Fed. R.
`Evid. 802. To the extent Patent Owner relies on
`this exhibit to prove the truth of matters
`described therein, the statements are hearsay:
`e.g., reproducing portion of document. See
`
`28372582.1
`
`14
`
`
`
`Ex. Number and Patent
`Owner Description
`
`2054. Rigzone, Schlumberger
`Acquires Stake in Packers Plus
`(Nov. 22, 2005)
`
`Case IPR2016-01496
`Patent 7,134,505
`
`Objections
`
`POR at 20. Patent Owner has not offered
`evidence sufficient to demonstrate that the
`exhibit falls within any exceptions to the rule
`against hearsay.
`Relevance. Fed. R. Evid. 401-403. This exhibit
`is irrelevant under FRE 401, and thus
`inadmissible under FRE 402, or inadmissible as
`unfairly prejudicial, confusing, and/or a waste
`of time under FRE 403, because: (1) it is
`inadmissible under FRE 801, 802, and 901 as
`explained above, (2) Patent Owner has not
`proven that any system in the exhibit on which
`it relies, or any activity involving such system,
`is covered by any Challenged Claim, (3) Patent
`Owner has not proven that any system in the
`exhibit on which it relies, or any activity
`involving such system, is not already known or
`readily available in the prior art, and/or (4)
`Patent Owner has not established that
`Petitioners’ possession of Ex. 2024 (363820)
`preceded Petitioners’ development of the
`system alleged to be a copy of the claimed
`invention.
`
`Authentication. Fed. R. Evid. 901(a). Patent
`Owner has not produced evidence sufficient to
`support a finding that this exhibit is a true and
`correct copy of what Patent Owner purports it
`to be.
`Hearsay. Fed. R. Evid. 801(c) and Fed. R.
`Evid. 802. To the extent Patent Owner relies on
`this exhibit to prove the truth of matters
`described therein, the statements are hearsay:
`e.g., that the largest oil and gas service
`company in the world—Schlumberger—opted
`to work with Packers Plus to provide this
`technology. It specifically credited Packers Plus
`
`28372582.1
`
`15
`
`
`
`Ex. Number and Patent
`Owner Description
`
`2055. Britt, L. and Smith, M.,
`Horizontal Well Completion,
`Stimulation Optimization, and
`Risk Management, SPE
`125526 (2009)
`
`Case IPR2016-01496
`Patent 7,134,505
`
`Objections
`
`as providing the technology for its open hole
`ball drop system—StageFRAC—when it
`negotiated rights to distribute the technology
`(see POR at 17); and that “Packers Plus has
`established an industry leading reputation with
`their systems, which when combined with our
`services, offers a powerful solution.” (see POR
`at 17-18). Patent Owner has not offered
`evidence sufficient to demonstrate that the
`exhibit falls within any exceptions to the rule
`against hearsay.
`Relevance. Fed. R. Evid. 401-403. This exhibit
`is irrelevant under FRE 401, and thus
`inadmissible under FRE 402, or inadmissible as
`unfairly prejudicial, confusing, and/or a waste
`of time under FRE 403, because: (1) it is
`inadmissible under FRE 801, 802, and 901 as
`explained above, (2) Patent Owner has not
`proven that any system in the exhibit on which
`it relies, or any activity involving such system,
`is covered by any Challenged Claim, and/or (3)
`Patent Owner has not proven that any system in
`the exhibit on which it relies, or any activity
`involving such system, is not already known or
`readily available in the prior art.
`
`Authentication. Fed. R. Evid. 901(a). Patent
`Owner has not produced evidence sufficient to
`support a finding that this exhibit is a true and
`correct copy of what Patent Owner purports it
`to be.
`Hearsay. Fed. R. Evid. 801(c) and Fed. R.
`Evid. 802. To the extent Patent Owner relies on
`this exhibit to prove the truth of matters
`described therein, the statements are hearsay:
`e.g., that open hole drop systems are “an open
`hole with external packer system (Packers Plus
`
`28372582.1
`
`16
`
`
`
`Ex. Number and Patent
`Owner Description
`
`2056. Packers Plus case study,
`StackFRAC system provides
`superior production economics
`
`Case IPR2016-01496
`Patent 7,134,505
`
`Objections
`
`and Frac Point).” See POR at 23 (citing Ex.
`2055 at 9). Patent Owner has not offered
`evidence sufficient to demonstrate that the
`exhibit falls within any exceptions to the rule
`against hearsay.
`Relevance. Fed. R. Evid. 401-403. This exhibit
`is irrelevant under FRE 401, and thus
`inadmissible under FRE 402, or inadmissible as
`unfairly prejudicial, confusing, and/or a waste
`of time under FRE 403, because: (1) it is
`inadmissible under FRE 801, 802, and 901 as
`explained above, (2) Patent Owner has not
`proven that any system in the exhibit on which
`it relies, or any activity involving such system,
`is covered by any Challenged Claim, and/or (3)
`Patent Owner has not proven that any system in
`the exhibit on which it relies, or any activity
`involving such system, is not already known or
`readily available in the prior art.
`
`Authentication. Fed. R. Evid. 901(a). Patent
`Owner has not produced evidence sufficient to
`support a finding that this exhibit is a true and
`correct copy of what Patent Owner purports it
`to be.
`Hearsay. Fed. R. Evid. 801(c) and Fed. R.
`Evid. 802. To the extent Patent Owner relies on
`this exhibit to prove the truth of matters
`described therein, the statements are hearsay:
`e.g., that “Packers Plus StackFRAC systems
`use RockSEAL hydraulically set mechanical
`packers to isolate zones together with ball-
`actuated, hydraulically activated FracPORT
`sleeves to provide access to the formation. . . .
`In contrast, CLPP completions require
`cementing of the casing, pumping down bridge
`plugs to isolate section, followed by repeated
`
`28372582.1
`
`17
`
`
`
`Ex. Number and Patent
`Owner Description
`
`2057. Packers Plus Case
`Study, StackFRAC HD system
`enables high stimulation rates
`
`Case IPR2016-01496
`Patent 7,134,505
`
`Objections
`
`perforating and fracturing in each zone for the
`number of stages requiring stimulation.” See
`POR at 28. Patent Owner has not offered
`evidence sufficient to demonstrate that the
`exhibit falls within any exceptions to the rule
`against hearsay.
`Relevance. Fed. R. Evid. 401-403. This exhibit
`is irrelevant under FRE 401, and thus
`inadmissible under FRE 402, or inadmissible as
`unfairly prejudicial, confusing, and/or a waste
`of time under FRE 403, because: (1) it is
`inadmissible under FRE 801, 802, and 901 as
`explained above, (2) Patent Owner has not
`proven that any system in the exhibit on which
`it relies, or any activity involving such system,
`is covered by any Challenged Claim, and/or (3)
`Patent Owner has not proven that any system in
`the exhibit on which it relies, or any activity
`involving such system, is not already known or
`readily available in the prior art.
`
`Authentication. Fed. R. Evid. 901(a). Patent
`Owner has not produced evidence sufficient to
`support a finding that this exhibit is a true and
`correct copy of what Patent Owner purports it
`to be.
`Hearsay. Fed. R. Evid. 801(c) and Fed. R.
`Evid. 802. To the extent Patent Owner relies on
`this exhibit to prove the truth of matters
`described therein, the statements are hearsay:
`e.g., that “[t]he Packers Plus StackFRAC®
`system is an open hole, multi-stage ball-drop
`completion that has been used in over 180
`formations worldwide.” See POR at 28. Patent
`Owner has not offered evidence sufficient to
`demonstrate that the exhibit falls within any
`
`28372582.1
`
`18
`
`
`
`Ex. Number and Patent
`Owner Description
`
`2058. Packer Plus StackFRAC
`Video,
`http://packersplus.com/solution
`/stackfrac-hd-system/
`
`Case IPR2016-01496
`Patent 7,134,505
`
`Objections
`
`exceptions to the rule against hearsay.
`Relevance. Fed. R. Evid. 401-403. This exhibit
`is irrelevant under FRE 401, and thus
`inadmissible under FRE 402, or inadmissible as
`unfairly prejudicial, confusing, and/or a waste
`of time under FRE 403, because: (1) it is
`inadmissible under FRE 801, 802, and 901 as
`explained above, (2) Patent Owner has not
`proven that any system in the exhibit on which
`it relies, or any activity involving such system,
`is covered by any Challenged Claim, and/or (3)
`Patent Owner has not proven that any system in
`the exhibit on which it relies, or any activity
`involving such system, is not already known or
`readily available in the prior art.
`
`Authentication. Fed. R. Evid. 901(a). Patent
`Owner has not produced evidence sufficient to
`support a finding that this exhibit is a true and
`correct copy of what Patent Owner purports it
`to be.
`Hearsay. Fed. R. Evid. 801(c) and Fed. R.
`Evid. 802. To the extent Patent Owner relies on
`this exhibit to prove the truth of matters
`described therein, the statements are hearsay:
`e.g., that the StackFRAC system uses solid
`body packers to provide zonal isolation in open
`hole portions of a wellbore and ball activated
`sliding sleeves to provide fracturing fluid in
`those segments as shown in figure 1 of Ex.
`2004 (see POR at 21-22); and that both Packers
`Plus and Baker Hughes have specifically
`advertised their systems as designed for open
`hole fracturing (see POR at 22). Patent Owner
`has not offered evidence sufficient to
`demonstrate that the exhibit falls within any
`
`28372582.1
`
`19
`
`
`
`Ex. Number and Patent
`Owner Description
`
`2059. Baker Hughes FracPoint
`Video,
`http://www.youtube.com/
`watch?v=s5ZQCRRZzXE
`
`Case IPR2016-01496
`Patent 7,134,505
`
`Objections
`
`exceptions to the rule against hearsay.
`Relevance. Fed. R. Evid. 401-403. This exhibit
`is irrelevant under FRE 401, and thus
`inadmissible under FRE 402, or ina