`___________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`___________________
`
`
`
`BAKER HUGHES INCORPORATED and
`BAKER HUGHES OILFIELD OPERATIONS LLC,
`Petitioners
`
`v.
`
`PACKERS PLUS ENERGY SERVICES INC.,
`Patent Owner
`
`___________________
`
`Case IPR2016-01506
`Patent 7,861,774
`___________________
`
`
`
`EXCLUSIVE LICENSEE RAPID COMPLETIONS LLC’S
`RESPONSE TO PETITIONERS’ MOTION TO EXCLUDE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Mail Stop “PATENT BOARD”
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`“The party moving to exclude evidence bears the burden of proving that it is
`
`entitled to the relief requested—namely, that the material sought to be excluded is
`
`inadmissible under the Federal Rules of Evidence.” Petroleum Geo-Services Inc.
`
`v. Ion Geophysical Corp., IPR2014-00688, Paper 101 at 53 (PTAB Dec. 15, 2015)
`
`(citing 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.20(c), 42.62(a)). Petitioners’ motion appears to disregard
`
`this requirement as it seeks exclusion of several exhibits by merely referring to a
`
`portion of the exhibit and stating a rule of evidence with minimal explanation. In
`
`short, Baker Hughes has failed to meet its burden, and its arguments relate at most
`
`to weight not admissibility.
`
`Exhibit 2039—Weatherford Presentation
`
`
`
`Michael Delaney authenticated this exhibit (Ex. 2082 at ¶ 8) and counsel for
`
`Weatherford has no objection to the authenticity of this document (Ex. 2103).
`
`Moreover, the document has distinctive characteristics such as the Weatherford
`
`logos and product marks. See Fed. R. Evid. 901(4),(7); see also Generico, LLC v.
`
`Dr. Falk Pharma GMBH, IPR2016-00297, Paper 55 at (PTAB May 19, 2017)
`
`(admitting website printouts based on appearance of the documents).
`
`
`
`To the extent Respondent relied on this document to demonstrate that
`
`Weatherford offers an open hole multi-stage fracturing system for sale, this use is
`
`not hearsay. Baker Hughes fails to identify a statement asserted for the truth of the
`
`matter. Rather, the fact that Weatherford has creating marketing documents for an
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`open hole ball drop system is itself evidence that it sells such a system. Liberty
`
`Mutual Ins. Co., CBM2012-00010, Paper 59 at 37 (overruling hearsay objection to
`
`industry publications because “[w]e have considered the statements therein not for
`
`the truth of the matter asserted, but for the fact that such statements were made at
`
`all.”); EMC Corp. v. Personal Web Technologies, LLC, IPR2013-00085, Paper 73
`
`at 66 (PTAB May 15, 2014).
`
`Moreover, even if the Board deems this exhibit inadmissible for any reason,
`
`it may still be considered under Rule 703. See, e.g., SK Innovation Co. v. Celgard
`
`LLC, IPR2014-00680, Paper 57 at 28 (PTAB Sept. 25, 2015) (admitting evidence
`
`of commercial success under Rule 703). Respondent’s expert Mr. McGowen
`
`offered testimony based on this exhibit by using it as evidence that Weatherford
`
`has practiced the claims at issue. See Ex. 2081 at 33-51. Under Rule 703, the
`
`evidence underlying that testimony is also admissible subject only to concerns
`
`related to jury trials that are inapplicable in IPRs.1
`
`
`1 In district court, Rule 703, requires a proponent to show that any otherwise
`inadmissible evidence underlying an expert’s testimony has “probative value in
`helping the jury evaluate the opinion [that] substantially outweighs [its] prejudicial
`effect.” This provision is inapplicable in IPRs. 37 C.F.R. § 42.62(b) (portions of
`the Federal Rules of Evidence relating to juries do not apply). Even if it were
`applicable, “because the Board is not a lay jury, and has significant experience in
`evaluating expert testimony, the danger of prejudice in this proceeding is
`considerably lower than in a conventional district court trial.” SK Innovation Co.,
`IPR2014-00680, Paper 57 at 50.
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`Exhibit 2044—Vikram Rao Deposition
`
`As an expert hired to opine on the obviousness of the very claims at issue in
`
`this proceeding, Dr. Rao’s testimony meets the minimum threshold for relevance.
`
`To the extent his testimony is inconsistent with assertions made by Baker
`
`Hughes—despite having an incentive to testify favorably for Baker Hughes—his
`
`testimony is highly relevant.
`
`Moreover, sworn deposition testimony is not hearsay in an IPR. Petroleum
`
`Geo-Services Inc. v. WesternGeco LLC, IPR2014-01475, Paper 71 at 61 (PTAB
`
`July 11, 2016) (ruling prior deposition and trial testimony admissible for IPR
`
`purposes). In an inter partes review, direct testimony is typically provided via
`
`affidavit, with cross examination taken via deposition. 37 C.F.R. § 42.53(a). In
`
`this respect, testimony via affidavit is considered in court testimony before the
`
`Board, in contrast to affidavit testimony in district court cases where it is
`
`considered out of court testimony. See Polaris Wireless, Inc. v. TruePosition, Inc.,
`
`Case IPR2013-00323, slip op. at 41 (PTAB Nov. 3, 2014) (Paper 62). Testimony
`
`submitted via deposition or trial transcript is no different from testimony submitted
`
`in a written affidavit. Petroleum Geo-Services Inc., IPR2014-01475, Paper 71 at
`
`61. Petitioners had an opportunity to cross examine Dr. Rao by seeking to depose
`
`him in this proceeding. The fact that they chose not to do so does not render the
`
`testimony inadmissible. Id.
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`Even if this were a district court proceeding, this testimony would be
`
`admissible as testimony from an unavailable witness given that Dr. Rao is located
`
`more than 100 miles from Washington DC and because the Board typically does
`
`not allow live testimony. Fed. R. Ev. 804(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 32(a)(4)(B),(E).
`
`This testimony is also admissible under Rule 807. It is already admitted in the
`
`IPRs filed by Weatherford. Thus, it is trustworthy and evidence of material facts.
`
`Moreover, given that Dr. Rao incentivized to give testimony favorable to
`
`Weatherford, the fact that they did no do so is more probative than any other
`
`evidence Rapid Completions could reasonably obtain. Finally, admitting this
`
`exhibit serves the interests of justice by preventing inconsistent rulings on the same
`
`patents being challenged by joint defense partners.
`
`Exhibit 2047—Rystad Energy Report
`
`
`
`Petitioners admit that they produced this exhibit in litigation. “[D]ocuments
`
`provided to a party during discovery by an opposing party are presumed to be
`
`authentic, shifting the burden to the producing party to demonstrate that the
`
`evidence that they produced was not authentic.” See, e.g., Lorraine v. Markel Am.
`
`Ins. Co., 241 F.R.D. 534, 552 (D. Md. 2007). Thus, this exhibit is presumed
`
`authentic, and Petitioners offer no evidence to rebut that presumption. Moreover,
`
`the document contains distinctive characteristics such as the marking that the
`
`document is owned by Rystad Energy and repeated references to Rystad Energy
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`analysis. Petitioners offer no evidence that Baker Hughes fabricated a Rystad
`
`Energy report or that it would have a reason to retain a fabricated Rystad Energy
`
`report. Thus, they have failed to meet their burden.
`
`
`
`With regard to Petitioners’ hearsay objection this document falls under
`
`hearsay exceptions (17) and (18). It is a market report relied upon by an expert in
`
`the field—Mr. McGowen. Moreover, the exhibit is admissible for a purpose other
`
`than proving the truth of the matter asserted. Namely, that persons in the field
`
`expected the patented technology to have had a significant market share. Even if
`
`the actual market share for this technology differed from the reported amount, the
`
`fact that practitioners expected the technology to be increasingly competitive
`
`against traditional plug and perf demonstrates that the technology has received
`
`praise and success.
`
`
`
`Even if the Board deems this exhibit inadmissible, it may still be considered
`
`under Rule 703. See, e.g., SK Innovation Co. v. Celgard LLC, IPR2014-00680,
`
`Paper 57 at 28 (PTAB Sept. 25, 2015) (admitting evidence of commercial success
`
`under Rule 703). Respondent’s expert Mr. McGowen testified:
`
`Rystad Energy noted that demand for open-hole ball drop systems had
`grown from less than $100 million per year in 2008 to nearly $500
`million per year in 2012. It also explained that the technology
`accounted for 70% of the completions installed in the Bakken formation
`and it projected significant growth in other plays. This report also
`credits Packers Plus with developing open-hole ball drop technology in
`2001. BH00364675.
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`Ex. 2051 at 49. Because this document underlies that testimony, it is admissible
`
`under Rule 703.
`
`Exhibit 2051—McGowen Declaration
`
`Petitioners object to the portion of Mr. McGowen’s testimony where he lists
`
`Baker Hughes product numbers that have been used over time and documents
`
`produced by Baker Hughes that corroborate his opinions. For example, Mr.
`
`McGowen testified: “The following Baker Hughes packers are used by Baker
`
`Hughes as solid body packers with respect to this claim: OH Packers H40936 RE
`
`Packers H30187 H30192 H30407.” Ex. 2034 at 81-82. But Petitioners had an
`
`opportunity to cross examine Mr. McGowen regarding this opinion, thus, it is not
`
`hearsay. Even if the referenced product numbers were considered hearsay, they are
`
`admissible under Rule 703 as explained above.
`
`Moreover, Petitioners do not dispute that Mr. McGowen has recited the
`
`correct product numbers, nor do they assert that his testimony must be excluded as
`
`unreliable under Rule 702. Thus, they fail to identify any substantive opinions that
`
`would be affected by a ruling on this motion. For example, even if the Board were
`
`to strike certain product numbers and source citations, this objection would have
`
`no impact on Mr. McGowen’s opinions that FracPoint employs the patented
`
`technology, or that FracPoint has been commercially successful. Petitioners have
`
`not moved to exclude those opinions. Thus, Petitioners’ motion would lead to the
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`bizarre result that an expert may testify as to the commercial success of a product
`
`as long as he does not name the various components of the product.
`
`Exhibit 2052 – Baker Hughes Development Documents
`
`
`
`Petitioners’ relevance objection to this exhibit goes to weight not
`
`admissibility. First, Petitioners argue that Respondent failed to show that Baker
`
`Hughes acquired the Packers Plus design drawing while it was developing its own
`
`system. Petitioners are wrong.
`
`Petitioners do not dispute that they obtained a Packers Plus design drawing
`
`of its StackFRAC system, that the drawing is dated 2003, that they modified the
`
`drawing to remove the Packers Plus logo, or that this modified drawing was
`
`located within a collection of papers related to the early development of their
`
`competing open hole ball drop system. Petitioners had an opportunity to confront
`
`this document and offer conflicting evidence or testimony, but they offered
`
`nothing. That fact alone indicates that the evidence of copying is strong—certainly
`
`strong enough to overcome the minimal threshold of Rule 402.
`
`Moreover, Petitioners fail to acknowledge that exhibit 2052 is a collection of
`
`development documents for Baker Hughes’ open hole fracturing system. It
`
`contains numerous references to the “Iso-Frac” system in development in 2004.
`
`See Ex. 2052 at 6. It also labels the drawing of Packers Plus’s open hole ball drop
`
`system as the “Iso-Frac System.” Id. at 13. Finally, it contains slides from a
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`Power Point presentation regarding the development of “IsoFrac,” which identify
`
`Packers Plus as the only competition with a “proven system.” Id. at 25-26.
`
`Exhibit 2020 establishes that Baker Hughes actually sold its competing open hole
`
`ball drop system under the name “FracPoint,” and that by 2005, it had sold only 4
`
`such systems. Ex. 2020 at 6.
`
`Given this background, consider the logical leaps one would need to make to
`
`conclude that Baker Hughes obtained the Packers Plus drawing after it had
`
`completed development of its FracPoint system. That would mean that, after
`
`Baker Hughes had finalized its FracPoint system in late 2004 or 2005, someone at
`
`Baker Hughes obtained a confidential Packers Plus design drawing from 2003.
`
`That person decided to keep the document, and he or she then modified it to make
`
`it look like a Baker Hughes document. But instead of applying the actual name of
`
`Baker Hughes’s completed system, he or she applied the prototype name of the
`
`system—Iso-Frac. Then that person stuffed the drawing into a stack of papers
`
`created during the initial design period for Iso-Frac. The fact that Baker Hughes
`
`would even attempt to imply this far-fetched scenario—without offering any
`
`evidence to back it up—may be the strongest evidence yet that Baker Hughes
`
`copied Packers Plus.
`
`In fact, Rapid Completions made this exact same argument on April 28,
`
`2017. IPR2016-00598, Paper 42 at 6. And although Baker Hughes decided to
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`submit additional testimony from its expert in this proceeding on August 17, 2017,
`
`it did not submit testimony from a Baker Hughes employee on this issue. If Baker
`
`Hughes had some plausible explanation for this exhibit, it could have backed it up
`
`with evidence. The fact that it was unable to find a fact witness to swear to such an
`
`explanation and sit for cross examination is further proof that this exhibit is
`
`evidence of copying.
`
`Second, Petitioners argue that the tools used in its Fracpoint system are
`
`similar to the tools used in Lane-Wells. Petitioners fail to explain how this issue
`
`relates to their relevance objection, but it appears to be a recitation of Petitioners’
`
`“no nexus” argument from their reply. However, the Federal Circuit has already
`
`rejected Petitioners’ misinterpretation of the law:
`
`Kohler’s argument relies on an incorrect interpretation of our case law.
`We have held that ‘[w]hile objective evidence of nonobviousness lacks
`a nexus if it exclusively relates to a feature that was ‘known in the prior
`art,’ the obviousness inquiry centers on whether ‘the claimed invention
`as a whole’ would have been obvious.’ Where the allegedly obvious
`patent claim is a combination of prior art elements, we have
`explained that the patent owner can show that it is the claimed
`combination as a whole that serves as a nexus for the objective
`evidence; proof of nexus is not limited to only when objective evidence
`is tied to the supposedly “new” feature(s).
`
`
`WBIP, LLC v. Kohler Co., 829 F.3d 1317, 1331–32 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (internal
`
`citations omitted, emphasis added). Here, the patented invention combines various
`
`prior art tools such as packers and sliding sleeves in a new way—it uses them for
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`multi-stage open hole fracturing. Thus, there is a nexus between the claim and
`
`Exhibit 2052 if the exhibit combines all of the elements of the claims. It does, it
`
`depicts graduated ball-operated sleeves separated by solid body packers in an open
`
`hole, horizontal well. Not even Baker Hughes contends that this combination of
`
`elements is present in Lane-Wells as it has not even asserted an anticipation theory
`
`based on Lane-Wells. Moreover, to the extent this document does not speak for
`
`itself, Mr. McGowen’s testimony establishes the relevance of this document
`
`rendering it admissible under Rule 703 as well. Ex. 2081 at 25-29.
`
`Exhibit 2053 – Packers Plus Design Drawing
`
`
`
`Petitioners fail to mention that this document has been authenticated by
`
`Packers Plus employee Ken Paltzat. Ex. 2101. Petitioners also recite the same
`
`relevance objections asserted against exhibit 2052 which are addressed above.
`
`Exhibit 2054—Article Regarding Schlumberger
`
`
`
`To establish authenticity, Rule 901 requires that “the proponent must
`
`produce evidence sufficient to support a finding that the item is what the proponent
`
`claims it is.” Here, Respondent claims that exhibit 2022 is an online Rigzone
`
`article. The exhibit itself contains distinctive marks such as the URL for the article
`
`and the layout of a Rigzone article. Accordingly, it is authentic under Rule
`
`901(b)(4) and it is self-authenticating as a periodical under Rule 903(6). See, e.g.,
`
`Generico, LLC v. Dr. Falk Pharma GMBH, IPR2016-00297, Paper 55 at (PTAB
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`May 19, 2017) (admitting website printouts based on the appearance of the
`
`documents); Ciampi v. City of Palo Alto, 790 F. Supp. 2d 1077, 1091 (N.D. Cal.
`
`2011) (admitting Internet printouts that “contain sufficient indicia of authenticity,
`
`including distinctive newspaper and website designs, dates of publication, page
`
`numbers, and web addresses”). The testimony of Mr. Delaney also confirms that
`
`the exhibit is a Rigzone article. Fed. R. Ev. 901(1); Ex. 2045. Although
`
`Petitioners question the basis for this testimony, they have not shown it to be
`
`inaccurate. Thus, they have not met their burden.
`
`
`
`With regard to Petitioners’ hearsay objection, this exhibit falls under
`
`exception (18) for the same reasons as exhibit 2021 discussed above—it is a
`
`periodical relied upon by Mr. McGowen. See Ex. 2051 at 50.
`
`Moreover, even if the Board deems this exhibit inadmissible for any reason,
`
`it may still be considered under Rule 703. Mr. McGowen testified:
`
`Some of the best evidence of the commercial and technological
`
`significance of the 774 Patent/Invention is that Schlumberger, a
`
`technology leader itself and one of the world’s largest oil and gas
`
`service companies, purchased a stake in Packers Plus and negotiated
`
`exclusive rights to deploy and market Packer Plus technology
`
`worldwide, excluding North America.
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`Ex. 2051 at 50. Again, Petitioners have not moved to exclude this testimony and
`
`the evidence underlying this testimony is probative of commercial success and
`
`praise and Petitioners identify no prejudicial effect from admitting the evidence.
`
`Exhibits 2081 and 2084—McGowen Supplemental Declaration
`
`Petitioners move to exclude McGowen’s testimony regarding commercial
`
`success because they contend that Mr. McGowen provided insufficient evidence
`
`that the systems sold by Baker Hughes and Weatherford were actually used.
`
`However, Mr. McGowen offered similar testimony in his original declaration (Ex.
`
`2051), to which Petitioners have not objected. Thus, this objection is moot. It is
`
`also incorrect.
`
`Petitioners foundation objection is inapplicable because this rule applies to
`
`fact witnesses testifying as to matters within their personal knowledge. Fed. R.
`
`602. This Rule “does not apply to a witness’s expert testimony under Rule 703.”
`
`Id. Similarly, 37 C.F.R. § 42.65 is not a valid basis for excluding expert testimony.
`
`Corning Inc. v. DSM IP Assets BV, IPR2013-0048, Paper 94 at 74 (PTAB May 9,
`
`2014) (“Whether a witness’s testimony fails to include underlying facts or data on
`
`which an opinion is based goes to the weight that should be accorded the
`
`testimony, and not its admissibility.”).
`
`With regard to Petitioners’ relevance objection, Mr. McGowen’s testimony
`
`meets the minimal threshold of Rule 401. He relied on marketing documents,
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`technical papers, sales records, and in the case of Baker Hughes, records of jobs
`
`actually performed. The fact that Baker Hughes and Weatherford have repeatedly
`
`claimed to have performed open hole multi-stage fracturing, and actually generated
`
`hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue from selling their systems is a very
`
`strong indicator that they have actually done what they said they did. Indeed, it is
`
`difficult to imagine a plausible set of facts that would lead one to conclude that
`
`Baker Hughes and Weatherford, or their customers, have not actually used their
`
`advertised systems. Certainly, Baker Hughes offers no evidence to support that
`
`theory. But even if Baker Hughes had generated hundreds of millions of dollars
`
`selling unused systems, the fact that it was able to do so by offering an infringing
`
`use for sale is still probative of commercial success. Thus, Mr. McGowen’s
`
`testimony that Baker Hughes and Weatherford have generated commercial success
`
`from the patented method is at least relevant to this proceeding.
`
`Exhibit 2082—Michael Delaney Declaration
`
`Baker Hughes criticizes Mr. Delaney’s testimony as lacking foundation (and
`
`thus irrelevant), but this is merely an authentication affidavit. As a paralegal for
`
`Respondent’s outside counsel, he is fully capable of accessing the Internet and
`
`identifying documents produced by the parties. Petitioners offer no plausible basis
`
`to conclude otherwise, and thus they have failed to meet their burden.
`
`Exhibits 2074, 2078, 2079, 2092, 2093, 2098, 2099—Various Articles
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`As technical articles, these articles are offered to show what information
`
`they would have conveyed to a person of ordinary skill in the art, and the
`
`background knowledge and expectations of such a person. The truth of the
`
`contents of these articles is not relevant to this inquiry. HTC Corp. v. Advanced
`
`Audio Devices, LLC, IPR2014-01156, Paper 36 at 27 (PTAB Dec. 29, 2015); EMC
`
`Corp. v. Personal Web Techs., LLC, Case IPR2013-00085, slip op. at 66 (PTAB
`
`May 15, 2014) (Paper 73) (“a prior art document submitted as a ‘printed
`
`publication’ under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) is offered simply as evidence of what it
`
`described, not for proving the truth of the matters addressed in the document.”);
`
`see also Fed. R. Evid. 801(c) 1997 Adv. Comm. Note (“If the significance of an
`
`offered statement lies solely in the fact that it was made, no issue is raised as to the
`
`truth of anything asserted, and the statement is not hearsay.”).
`
`Indeed, Respondent is expressly not relying on statements from several of
`
`these articles for the truth of the matter, because the patented invention requires
`
`them to be false. For example, Owens states: “A horizontal well that is to be
`
`fracture stimulated over multiple zones must be cased and cemented.” Ex. 2099 at
`
`2. Abass states: “Casing and cementing a horizontal well is essential to provide
`
`zone selectivity and isolation during fracture stimulation.” Ex. 2078 at 9. Today,
`
`these statements are recognized to be false. Inventor Dan Themig and his
`
`StackFRAC system have been credited with proving them false. Ex. 2045 at 1
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`(“StackFRAC was the first ball drop system created for open hole horizontal
`
`wells” that is “partly responsible for creating access to vast reservoirs of oil and
`
`natural gas in North America that were previously considered uneconomic to
`
`produce.”) Respondent has relied on these statements to demonstrate that, prior to
`
`2001 when these statements were made, they were believed to have been true by
`
`persons of skill in the art. And not just believed to be true, but recited with such
`
`certainty that the authors did not even feel the need to justify the statements. This
`
`is evidence that the claimed invention would not have been obvious in 2001. Thus,
`
`this hearsay objection should be overruled. At any rate, to the extent Mr.
`
`McGowen offered similar testimony about these articles, they are admissible under
`
`Rule 703. Ex. 2081 at 23-25.
`
`Exhibit 2100—Murray
`
`
`
`While Respondent did not cite this article in its response, it did rely on Mr.
`
`McGowen’s testimony that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have avoided
`
`open hole multi-stage fracturing prior to 2001. Mr. McGowen cited this article to
`
`support that testimony. Ex. 2081 at 24. Thus, it is admissible under Rule 703.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`Dated: October 12, 2017
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`Rapid Completions LLC
`
`By /Justin T. Nemunaitis/
`
`Hamad M. Hamad, Reg. No. 64,641
`Bradley W. Caldwell (pro hac vice)
`Justin T. Nemunaitis (pro hac vice)
`CALDWELL CASSADY CURRY,
`P.C.
`2101 Cedar Springs Road, Suite 1000
`Dallas, Texas 75201
`Telephone: 214.888.4848
`Facsimile: 214.888.4849
`hhamad@caldwellcc.com
`bcaldwell@caldwellcc.com
`jnemunaitis@caldwellcc.com
`rapid@caldwellcc.com
`
`Dr. Gregory Gonsalves, Re. No.
`43,639
`GONSALVES LAW FIRM
`2216 Beacon Lane
`Falls Church, Virginia 22043
`Telephone: 571.419.7252
` gonsalves@gonsalveslawfirm.com
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATION OF SERVICE
`
`
`
`The undersigned hereby certifies that the foregoing document was served
`
`electronically via e-mail in its entirety on the following counsel of record for
`
`Petitioner:
`
`Mark T. Garrett (Lead Counsel)
`Eagle H. Robinson (Back-up Counsel)
`NORTON ROSE FULBRIGHT US LLP
`
`
`
`16
`
`
`
`mark.garrett@nortonrosefulbright.com
`eagle.robinson@nortonrosefulbright.com
`
`
`
`
`Date: October 12, 2017
`
`
`
`
`/Hamad M. Hamad/
`Hamad M. Hamad, Reg. No. 64,641
`
`
`
`
`17
`
`