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 IPR2016-00596
`U.S. Patent No. 7,134,505
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PETITIONERS’ OBJECTIONS TO PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE
`EVIDENCE
`PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b)(1)
`
`
`
`
`36475344.3
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`Case IPR2016-00596
`Patent 7,134,505
`
`
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b)(1), Baker Hughes Incorporated and Baker
`
`Hughes Oilfield Operations, Inc. (“Petitioners”) serve the following objections to
`
`Patent Owner’s Response exhibits. These objections are being timely served on
`
`December 9, 2016.
`
`Ex. Number and Patent
`Owner Description
`2017. Packers Plus
`advertising
`brochure (2010)
`
`2018. Baker Hughes,
`“Fracpoint
`Completion System
`Isolated Openhole
`Horizontal Well in
`Lower Huron
`Shale” (2011)
`
`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. 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
`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 there are no particular portions
`of this exhibit 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.
`Hearsay. Fed. R. Evid. 801(c) and Fed. R. Evid. 802
`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 FracPoint “eliminated the need for cementing
`the liner, coiled tubing operations, and wireline
`
`36475344.3
`
`1
`
`

`
`Case IPR2016-00596
`Patent 7,134,505
`
`Objections
`
`operations, while significantly reducing overall
`pumping time.” Patent Owner has not offered
`evidence sufficient to demonstrate that the exhibit
`falls within any exceptions to the rule against
`hearsay.
`
`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
`FracPoint “employs the same components as shown
`below.” See POR at 32-33. Patent Owner has not
`offered evidence sufficient to demonstrate that the
`exhibit falls within any exceptions to the rule against
`hearsay.
`
`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 “Dan
`Themig, President of Packers Plus, was an early
`innovator in the development of modern hydraulic
`fracturing technologies, enabling the recovery of oil
`and gas from shale and similarly challenging
`hydrocarbon reservoirs, particularly using horizontal
`wells.” Patent Owner has not offered evidence
`sufficient to demonstrate that the exhibit falls within
`any exceptions to the rule against hearsay.
`
`Ex. Number and Patent
`Owner Description
`
`2019. Baker Hughes,
`“Enhancing Well
`Performance
`Through Innovative
`Completion
`Technologies,”
`presentation, (Sept.
`10-12, 2012)
`
`  
`
`2020. Canadian Society
`for Unconventional
`Resources, Press
`Release,
`“Unconventional
`Industry Awards
`Innovative
`Thinking” (Oct. 3,
`2012)
`
`36475344.3
`
`2
`
`

`
`Ex. Number and Patent
`Owner Description
`2021. BH00364675,
`CONFIDENTIAL
`Ball activated
`sliding sleeves
`report
`
`2022. Rigzone,
`Schlumberger
`Acquires Stake in
`Packers Plus (Nov.
`22, 2005)
`
`Case IPR2016-00596
`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., at 6 (shown
`over the year 2001, “Packer Plus [sic] introduces the
`StackFrac”); at 10 (graph). Patent Owner has not
`offered evidence sufficient to demonstrate that the
`exhibit falls within any exceptions to the rule against
`hearsay.
`
`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., at ¶ 1
`(“Schlumberger has acquired a minority share in
`Packers Plus Energy Services” and “Mark Corrigan,
`president, Well Services, Schlumberger said ‘The
`Packers Plus technology will enable Schlumberger
`to tailor stage treatment designs to yield better
`production results for our customers while also
`making significant improvements in operational
`efficiencies”); at ¶ 2 (stating that Mark Corrigan
`stated “Packers Plus has established an industry
`leading reputation with their systems, which when
`combined with our services, offers a powerful
`solution”). Patent Owner has not offered evidence
`sufficient to demonstrate that the exhibit falls within
`any exceptions to the rule against hearsay.
`
`36475344.3
`
`3
`
`

`
`Ex. Number and Patent
`Owner Description
`2023. Britt, L. and Smith,
`M., Horizontal Well
`Completion,
`Stimulation
`Optimization, and
`Risk Mitigation,
`SPE 125526 (2009)
`
`2024. BH00363808,
`CONFIDENTIAL
`Baker Hughes
`Engineering
`Materials
`
`Case IPR2016-00596
`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., at 9 (“Many
`open hole horizontal wellbores utilize external
`casing packers (Packers Plus and Frac Point) to exert
`some, albeit limited, control over the completion and
`stimulation staging.”). Patent Owner has not offered
`evidence sufficient to demonstrate that the exhibit
`falls within any exceptions to the rule against
`hearsay.
`
`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., at 363833
`(that Packers Plus system has a “proven system”); at
`363820 (document). 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
`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 Petitioners’ possession of 363820
`preceded Petitioners’ development of the system
`
`36475344.3
`
`4
`
`

`
`Ex. Number and Patent
`Owner Description
`
`2025. RC_PAC00019434,
`CONFIDENTIAL
`Packers Plus
`Engineering
`Drawing
`
`2026. Baker Hughes 2008
`10-K Shareholder
`Report
`
`2027. Baker Hughes 2010
`10-K Shareholder
`Report
`
`2028. Baker Hughes 2013
`10-K Shareholder
`Report
`
`2029. Packers Plus case
`study, StackFRAC
`system provides
`superior production
`economies
`
`Case IPR2016-00596
`Patent 7,134,505
`
`Objections
`
`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.
`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 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.
`
`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.
`
`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.
`
`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
`
`36475344.3
`
`5
`
`

`
`Ex. Number and Patent
`Owner Description
`
`2030. Packers Plus Case
`Study, StackFRAC
`HD system enables
`high stimulation
`rates
`
`2031. Packers Plus
`StackFRAC Video,
`http://packersplus.c
`om/
`solution/stackfrac-
`hd-system/
`
`Case IPR2016-00596
`Patent 7,134,505
`
`Objections
`
`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
`perforating and fracturing in each zone for the
`number of stages requiring stimulation.” Patent
`Owner has not offered evidence sufficient to
`demonstrate that the exhibit falls within any
`exceptions to the rule against hearsay.
`
`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 formation worldwide.” Patent Owner
`has not offered evidence sufficient to demonstrate
`that the exhibit falls within any exceptions to the
`rule against hearsay.
`
`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. Patent Owner
`
`36475344.3
`
`6
`
`

`
`Ex. Number and Patent
`Owner Description
`
`2032. Baker Hughes
`FracPoint Video,
`https://www.youtube.c
`om/
`watch?v=s5ZQCRRZz
`XE
`
`
`2033. Business News
`Network Packers
`Plus Feature
`
`Case IPR2016-00596
`Patent 7,134,505
`
`Objections
`
`has not offered evidence sufficient to demonstrate
`that the exhibit falls within any exceptions to the
`rule against hearsay.
`
`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., “[T]his
`system also eliminates the need to cement the liner
`in the wellbore. Some key benefits are increased
`production, elimination of costly wireline
`operations, and lamination of costly pumping
`operations.” Patent Owner has not offered evidence
`sufficient to demonstrate that the exhibit falls within
`any exceptions to the rule against hearsay.
`
`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., “This
`Calgary based upstart has designed a downhole
`system that allows companies to fracture or frac
`their wells with accuracy undreamed of just a few
`years ago”; “After we started using Packers Plus
`technology we were getting twice the production,
`twice the reserves, and triple the value.” Patent
`Owner has not offered evidence sufficient to
`demonstrate that the exhibit falls within any
`
`36475344.3
`
`7
`
`

`
`Ex. Number and Patent
`Owner Description
`
`2034. UN-REDACTED
`H. McGowen
`Declaration
`
`Case IPR2016-00596
`Patent 7,134,505
`
`Objections
`
`exceptions to the rule against hearsay.
`
`Authentication. Fed. R. Evid. 901(a). Patent 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:
` 10 (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);
`
` 19 (quoting a third party source’s—Ex. 2038—
`alleged quote of an alleged a third-party email as
`allegedly “provid[ing] a glimpse into BP’s
`reasoning.”);
`
` 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));
`
` 19 (asserting that “it is necessary to consider
`historical failure data in an analogous situation”
`based on Calixto 2016, which has not been
`submitted as an exhibit);
`
` 21 (citing figures from third party sources,
`Ahmad and Lloyd, that have not been submitted
`
`36475344.3
`
`8
`
`

`
`Ex. Number and Patent
`Owner Description
`
`Case IPR2016-00596
`Patent 7,134,505
`
`Objections
`
`as exhibits);
`
` 22 (citing figure from unidentified third party
`source);
`
` 23 (citing figure from Ex. 2041 and quoting Ex.
`2041 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.”);
`
` 24 (citing Cramer 1987, which has not been
`submitted as an exhibit);
`
` 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,” “BH00125568,”
`“BH00188257,” “BH00001986,”
`“BH00000949”—that have not been submitted as
`exhibits)
`
`Opinion Testimony by Lay Witness. Fed. R. Evid.
`701(c). This exhibit contains 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
`
`36475344.3
`
`9
`
`

`
`Ex. Number and Patent
`Owner Description
`
`Case IPR2016-00596
`Patent 7,134,505
`
`Objections
`
`to offer this opinion);
`
` 42 (opining that “This volume of sales equates to
`many millions of 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 prejudice and a waste of time,
`particularly because Mr. McGowan has not
`explained why his opinions sufficiently relate to the
`patent at issue in this proceeding or have any
`bearing on any fact of consequence in this
`proceeding. For example:
` Mr. McGowan’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
`
`36475344.3
`
`10
`
`

`
`Ex. Number and Patent
`Owner Description
`
`Case IPR2016-00596
`Patent 7,134,505
`
`Objections
`
`no explanation other than “my criticisms of those
`theories are applicable in that context as well.”
`See Ex. 2034 at 47, fn. 8.
`
` Mr. McGowan 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 (his
`statement at 7:24-25 of Ex. 2034 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”);
`
` Mr. McGowan’s opinions are premised on the
`assumption that the “the 774 Patent/Invention” is
`limited to hydraulic fracturing. See, e.g., Ex.
`2034 at 27:9-10, 29:1-17; 30:29-31:1-4, 32:14-
`20, 34:4 (confirming that Mr. McGowan does not
`include acid fracturing in his consideration of
`hydraulic fracturing), 35:10, 37:27-28, 39:20-22;
`see also Ex. 2034 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. McGowan opines
`on Petitioners’ revenue related to “FracPoint
`Open Hole Multi-Stage fracturing system
`components,” Mr. McGowan 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.
`See Ex. 2034 at 41:6-11 and 41, 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
`
`36475344.3
`
`11
`
`

`
`Ex. Number and Patent
`Owner Description
`
`Case IPR2016-00596
`Patent 7,134,505
`
`Objections
`
`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. McGowan has personal
`knowledge of the matters asserted. For example,
`Patent Owner has not introduced evidence sufficient
`to support a finding that Mr. McGowan 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 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. 2034 at 41:6-11 and 41, fn. 6 (“In arriving at
`this revenue estimate, I . . . .”). Nor has Petitioner
`satisfied the requirements of 37 CFR § 42.65(b) with
`respect to such quantitative opinions from Mr.
`McGowan. See, e.g., Ex. 2034 at 41:6-11 and 41,
`fn. 6 (“In arriving at this revenue estimate, I . . . .”).
`Similarly, Petitioner has not submitted exhibits
`showing the details of 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. McGowan’s opinions
`are predicated. Ex. 2034 at Ex. B (to Ex. 2034) at 2-
`6, 9, 11.
`
`2035. UN-REDACTED J.
`J. Girardi
`
`Authentication. Fed. R. Evid. 901(a). Patent Owner
`has not produced evidence sufficient to support a
`
`36475344.3
`
`12
`
`

`
`Ex. Number and Patent
`Owner Description
`Declaration
`
`2036. REDACTED H.
`McGowen
`Declaration
`
`2037. REDACTED J. J.
`Girardi Declaration
`
`36475344.3
`
`Case IPR2016-00596
`Patent 7,134,505
`
`Objections
`
`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: 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 objections as made to Ex. 2034.
`
`Same objections as made to Ex. 2035.
`
`13
`
`

`
`Ex. Number and Patent
`Owner Description
`2038. Ingersoll, C, “BP
`and the Deepwater
`Horizon Disaster of
`2010” (Apr. 3,
`2012)
`
`2039. Crosby, D.G.,
`“Methodology to
`Predict the
`Initiation of
`Multiple Transverse
`Fractures from
`Horizontal
`Wellbores” (2001)
`
`Case IPR2016-00596
`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.
`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 it is not cited in Patent Owner’s
`Response, and because Mr. McGowan fails to
`explain why it is sufficiently related to the
`technology at issue or have any bearing on any fact
`of consequence in this proceeding.
`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. Patent Owner
`has not offered evidence sufficient to demonstrate
`that the exhibit falls within any exceptions to the
`rule against hearsay.
`
`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 a waste of time,
`particularly because it is not cited in Patent Owner’s
`Response, and Mr. McGowan does not cite to any
`particular portion of this exhibit.
`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. Patent Owner
`
`36475344.3
`
`14
`
`

`
`Ex. Number and Patent
`Owner Description
`
`2040. Kaiser, P.
`“Hydraulic Mine
`Back Trials –
`Design Rationale
`and Project Status”
`(2013)
`
`2041. Stoltz, L.R.,
`“Probabilistic
`Reserves
`Assessment Using
`A Filtered Monte
`Carlo Method In a
`Fractured
`Limestone
`Reservoir” SPE
`29714 (1998)
`
`2042. Emanuele, M.A.,
`“A Case History:
`36475344.3
`
`Case IPR2016-00596
`Patent 7,134,505
`
`Objections
`
`has not offered evidence sufficient to demonstrate
`that the exhibit falls within any exceptions to the
`rule against hearsay.
`
`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. Patent Owner
`has not offered evidence sufficient to demonstrate
`that the exhibit falls within any exceptions to the
`rule against hearsay.
`
`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 a waste of time,
`particularly because it is not cited in Patent Owner’s
`Response, and Mr. McGowan does not cite to any
`particular portion of this exhibit.
`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. Patent Owner
`has not offered evidence sufficient to demonstrate
`that the exhibit falls within any exceptions to the
`rule against hearsay.
`
`Authentication. Fed. R. Evid. 901(a). Patent Owner
`has not produced evidence sufficient to support a
`
`15
`
`

`
`Ex. Number and Patent
`Owner Description
`Completion and
`Stimulation of
`Horizontal Wells
`with Multiple
`Transverse
`Hydraulic Fractures
`in the Lost Hills
`Diatomite” SPE
`39941 (1998)
`
`2043. Gaynor, Tom M.,
`“Tortuosity Versus
`Micro-Toruosity –
`Why Little Things
`Mean a Lot”
`SPE/IADC 67818
`(2001)
`
`Case IPR2016-00596
`Patent 7,134,505
`
`Objections
`
`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. Patent Owner
`has not offered evidence sufficient to demonstrate
`that the exhibit falls within any exceptions to the
`rule against hearsay.
`
`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 a waste of time,
`particularly because it is not cited in Patent Owner’s
`Response, and Mr. McGowan does not cite to any
`particular portion of this exhibit.
`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. Patent Owner
`has not offered evidence sufficient to demonstrate
`that the exhibit falls within any exceptions to the
`rule against hearsay.
`
`2044. Cramer, David,
`“Stimulating
`Unconventional
`Reservoirs: Lessons
`Learned, Successful
`Practices, Areas for
`Improvement” SPE
`
`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
`
`36475344.3
`
`16
`
`

`
`Ex. Number and Patent
`Owner Description
`114172 (2008)
`
`2045. M. Delaney
`Declaration
`
`Case IPR2016-00596
`Patent 7,134,505
`
`Objections
`
`outweighed by unfair prejudice and a waste of time,
`particularly because it is not cited in Patent Owner’s
`Response, and Mr. McGowan does not cite to any
`particular portion of this exhibit.
`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. 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
`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 it is not cited in Patent Owner’s
`Response.
`Foundation. Fed. R. Evid. 601. Patent Owner has
`not introduced evidence sufficient to support a
`finding that Mr. Delaney has personal knowledge of
`the matters asserted.
`
`
`
`Dated: December 9, 2016
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/Eagle H. Robinson/
`Eagle H. Robinson, Back-up Counsel
`
`36475344.3
`
`17
`
`

`
`Case IPR2016-00596
`Patent 7,134,505
`
`Certificate of Service
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(e), the undersigned certifies that on December
`
`9, 2016 complete copies of Petitioners’ Objections to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`Evidence were served on Lead Counsel and Back-Up Counsel for Patent Owner
`
`via email (by agreement) to:
`
`Hamad M. Hamad (Reg. No. 64,641)
`Bradley W. Caldwell (pro hac vice)
`Justin T. Neumaitis (pro hac vice)
`CALDWELL CASSADY CURRY, P.C.
`2101 Cedar Springs Road, Suite 1000
`Dallas, Texas 75201
`Tel: 214.888.4848
`Fax: 214.888.4849
`hhamad@caldwellcc.com
`bcaldwell@caldwellcc.com
`jnemunaitis@caldwellcc.com
`rapid@caldwellcc.com
`
`Dr. Gregory Gonsalves, Reg. No. 43,639
`GONSALVES LAW FIRM
`2216 Beacon Lane
`Falls Church, Virginia 22043
`Telephone: 571.419.7252
`gonsalves@gonsalveslawfirm.com
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/Eagle H. Robison/
`Eagle H. Robinson (Reg.