Paper No. 53
`
`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 IPR2016-01506
`Patent 7,861,774
`______________
`
`
`
`PETITIONERS’ OBJECTIONS TO PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE
`EVIDENCE PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b)(1)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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 IPR2016-01506
`Patent 7,861,774
`______________
`
`
`
`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 IPR2016-01506
`Patent 7,861,774
`
`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 37); 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
`42-43). 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.
`
`28372920.1
`
`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 IPR2016-01506
`Patent 7,861,774
`
`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
`
`28372920.1
`
`2
`
`
`
`Ex. Number and Patent
`Owner Description
`
`2042. Rapid Completions v.
`Baker Hughes, et al. Order
`dismissing Pegasi
`
`2044. Vikram Rao Deposition
`Transcript
`
`Case IPR2016-01506
`Patent 7,861,774
`
`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.
`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:
`see, e.g., POR at 6, 51, and 66.
`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, to the extent Patent Owner
`relies on testimony in this exhibit concerning an
`opinion not rendered in Ex. 1007 of IPR2016-
`
`28372920.1
`
`3
`
`
`
`Ex. Number and Patent
`Owner Description
`
`2045. Westin, Scott, Private
`Property, PwC, (Jan. 2, 2013)
`
`Case IPR2016-01506
`Patent 7,861,774
`
`Objections
`
`01509, such testimony 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.
`
`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 29); 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
`
`28372920.1
`
`4
`
`
`
`Ex. Number and Patent
`Owner Description
`
`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)
`
`Case IPR2016-01506
`Patent 7,861,774
`
`Objections
`
`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.
`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 30. 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
`
`28372920.1
`
`5
`
`
`
`Ex. Number and Patent
`Owner Description
`
`2047. BH003646675,
`CONFIDENTIAL Ball
`activated sliding sleeves report
`
`Case IPR2016-01506
`Patent 7,861,774
`
`Objections
`
`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.
`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 30-31) ; 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
`40). 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
`
`28372920.1
`
`6
`
`
`
`Ex. Number and Patent
`Owner Description
`
`2048. UNREDACTED J.J.
`Girardi Decl.
`
`Case IPR2016-01506
`Patent 7,861,774
`
`Objections
`
`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
`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.
`
`28372920.1
`
`7
`
`
`
`Ex. Number and Patent
`Owner Description
`2049. REDACTED J.J.
`Girardi Decl.
`
`2050. UNREDACTED H.
`McGowen Decl.
`
`Case IPR2016-01506
`Patent 7,861,774
`
`Objections
`
`Same objects as made to Ex. 2048.
`
`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:
` 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
`
`
`2 The cited page numbers are to the 49 pages preceding the resume materials and
`
`claim charts.
`
`28372920.1
`
`8
`
`
`
`Ex. Number and Patent
`Owner Description
`
`Case IPR2016-01506
`Patent 7,861,774
`
`Objections
`
`seminal text on the topic,” but offering no
`explanation to support the requirements of
`FRE 803(18));
`
` 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
`
`28372920.1
`
`9
`
`
`
`Ex. Number and Patent
`Owner Description
`
`Case IPR2016-01506
`Patent 7,861,774
`
`Objections
`
`sufficient explanation of the details thereof).
`
`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 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).
`
`28372920.1
`
`10
`
`
`
`Ex. Number and Patent
`Owner Description
`
`Case IPR2016-01506
`Patent 7,861,774
`
`Objections
`
`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. McGowen has not explained why
`his opinions sufficiently relate to the patent at
`issue in this proceeding (U.S. Patent No.
`7,861,774) or have any bearing on any fact of
`consequence in this proceeding. For example:
` 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”);
`
` 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 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
`
`28372920.1
`
`11
`
`
`
`Ex. Number and Patent
`Owner Description
`
`Case IPR2016-01506
`Patent 7,861,774
`
`Objections
`
`“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 ’774 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
`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.
`
`28372920.1
`
`12
`
`
`
`Ex. Number and Patent
`Owner Description
`
`2051. REDACTED H.
`McGowen Decl.
`
`2052. Baker Hughes Design
`Documents
`
`Case IPR2016-01506
`Patent 7,861,774
`
`Objections
`
`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
`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 32-
`33). 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
`
`28372920.1
`
`13
`
`
`
`Ex. Number and Patent
`Owner Description
`
`2053. Packers Plus Design
`Document
`
`Case IPR2016-01506
`Patent 7,861,774
`
`Objections
`
`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
`POR at 33-34. 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
`
`28372920.1
`
`14
`
`
`
`Ex. Number and Patent
`Owner Description
`
`2054. Rigzone, Schlumberger
`Acquires Stake in Packers Plus
`(Nov. 22, 2005)
`
`Case IPR2016-01506
`Patent 7,861,774
`
`Objections
`
`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
`as providing the technology for its open hole
`ball drop system—StageFRAC—when it
`negotiated rights to distribute the technology
`(see POR at 31); 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 id.). Patent Owner has not offered evidence
`sufficient to demonstrate that the exhibit falls
`within any exceptions to the rule against
`
`28372920.1
`
`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 IPR2016-01506
`Patent 7,861,774
`
`Objections
`
`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
`and Frac Point).” See POR at 36-37 (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
`
`28372920.1
`
`16
`
`
`
`Ex. Number and Patent
`Owner Description
`
`2056. Packers Plus case study,
`StackFRAC system provides
`superior production economics
`
`Case IPR2016-01506
`Patent 7,861,774
`
`Objections
`
`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
`perforating and fracturing in each zone for the
`number of stages requiring stimulation.” See
`POR at 42. 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
`
`28372920.1
`
`17
`
`
`
`Ex. Number and Patent
`Owner Description
`
`2057. Packers Plus Case
`Study, StackFRAC HD system
`enables high stimulation rates
`
`Case IPR2016-01506
`Patent 7,861,774
`
`Objections
`
`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 42. 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,
`
`28372920.1
`
`18
`
`
`
`Ex. Number and Patent
`Owner Description
`
`2058. Packer Plus StackFRAC
`Video,
`http://packersplus.com/solution
`/stackfrac-hd-system/
`
`Case IPR2016-01506
`Patent 7,861,774
`
`Objections
`
`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., showing image from Ex. 2031 and reciting
`that “[e]ach fracture initiates in the open hole
`where breakdown pressure is lowest within the
`isolated stage” (see POR at 2-3) (citing Ex.
`2031 at 3:15); 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 35); and that both
`Packers Plus and Baker Hughes have
`specifically advertised their systems as
`designed for open hole fracturing (see POR at
`36). 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
`
`28372920.1
`
`19
`
`
`
`Ex. Number and Patent
`Owner Description
`
`2059. Baker Hughes FracPoint
`Video,
`http://www.youtube.com/
`watch?v=s5ZQCRRZzXE
`
`Case IPR2016-01506
`Patent 7,861,774
`
`Objections
`
`inadmissible under FRE 801, 802, and 901 as
`explained above
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
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.
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.
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
