BAKER HUGHES, A GE COMPANY, LLC
`AND BAKER HUGHES OILFIELD
`OPERATIONS, LLC
`Exhibit 1135
`BAKER HUGHES, A GE COMPANY, LLC
`AND BAKER HUGHES OILFIELD
`OPERATIONS, LLC v. PACKERS PLUS
`ENERGY SERVICES, INC.
`IPR2016-01496
`Page 1 of 4
`
`

`

`
`
`GOWLING WLG
`
`Anthony G. Creber
`Direct 613-?86—0140
`Anthony.creber@gowlingwlg.com
`File no. 073?6?87
`
`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-] 569-] 5, 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 we 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. 0111' 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; (0) 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.
`
`COW LING WLG (CANADA) LLP
`.
`.
`.
`Suite 2600’ mp Elgll‘l Street
`Ottawa, Ontario Kl P 1C3 Canada
`
`T +1 _(6i3) 233- l 781
`gowllngivlgeom
`
`h' h
`t'
`internalion I la
`Gowling WLG{Canada) LLP is a member ofGowling WLG.
`con5i5ts ofindependem and autonomous emilies providing sci-:i‘ces around [lie “(21:13er
`stmcmre is mom: in more detail at mwlingwig cumgLeggi
`
`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. MacFarlanefJoshua W. Spicer, Bereskin & Parr LLP
`
`Page 2
`
`Page 2 of 4
`Page 2 of 4
`
`

`

`
`
`. GOWLING WLG
`
`Anpendix 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.
`
`l.
`
`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 BH00363320).
`
`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) whi ch is a Packer’s Plus document relating to ajob 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 pr0posal 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-
`
`20.
`
`21.
`
`22.
`
`23-
`
`24.
`
`25.
`
`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 “Iso-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 63832 to BH00363833?
`
`Where, when, and why were these slides presented?
`
`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
`
`