BAKER HUGHES, A GE COMPANY, LLC
`AND BAKER HUGHES OILFIELD
`OPERATIONS, LLC
`Exhibit 1140
`BAKER HUGHES, A GE COMPANY, LLC
`AND BAKER HUGHES OILFIELD
`OPERATIONS, LLC v. PACKERS PLUS
`ENERGY SERVICES, INC.
`IPR2016-01506
`
`Page 1 of 3
`
`

`

`
`
`Blake, Cassels & Graydon LLP
`Barristers & Solicitors
`
`Patent 8: Trademark Agents
`
`855 - 2nd Street SW.
`Suite 3500, Bankers Hall East Tower
`Calgary AB T2P4J8 Canada
`Tel: 403—260-9600 Fax: 403-260-9700
`
`Dalton W. McGrath, 0.0., FCIArb
`
`Partner
`Dir: 403-260-9654
`
`dalton.mcgrath@blakescom
`
`Reference: 966432’12
`
`‘%—
`
`January 30, 2017
`
`VIA E-MAIL
`
`Anthony Creber
`Gowling WLG
`160 Elgin Street
`Suite 2000
`
`Ottawa, Ontario K1P 103
`
`Dear Sir:
`
`RE:
`
`Federal Court File Nos. T-1569-15, T-1741-13, T-1728-15, and T-2088-15
`
`We are in receipt of your letter dated January 19, 2017 and the corresponding attachments.
`
`As you know, during the Case Management Conference on January 16, 2017, Prothonotary Aalto,
`without the benefit of having reviewed any of the documents or questions which you have now
`provided to us, gave you permission to ask questions by way of written interrogatory. He did not direct
`that answers be provided and counsel for Baker Hughes expressly stated that any questions would be
`taken under advisement.
`
`We have now had an opportunity to review the questions and the attached documents. The purported
`basis for the alleged relevance of the questions is the unfounded allegation that the Defendants
`somehow copied the alleged invention disclosed in the 072 Patent. You seem to make a series of
`false assumptions seeking to conclude that erroneous claim and then, based on that false assumption,
`claim that documents are somehow relevant. As a result, the various assumptions in your letter are
`false and none of the documents attached to your letter contradict Baker Hughes’ pleading. You asked
`a number of related discovery questions on August 12, 2016 which were refused. Your client had the
`Opportunity for months to bring a motion on those refusals and did not do so.
`
`As a result, we object to the questions on the basis of, the questions being, among other things,
`irrelevant and improper, however, are answering all but one under reserve objection pursuant to Rule
`95(2) of the Federal Courts Rules based upon Appendix "A" of your letter as numbered:
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`Exhibit 2024 is confirmed as being produced in US. litigation by Baker Hughes.
`
`Denied.
`
`Exhibit 2024 is a collection of discrete documents from Baker Hughes’ files that were selected
`by counsel for Rapid Completions for submission in the pending Inter Parties Reviews of certain
`
`312829511
`
`Page 1 of 3
`Page 1 of 3
`
`

`

`
`
`US. patents. All of Exhibit 2024 is not, as claimed. an “Engineering Change Notice" and the
`collection of separate documents by them presumes an order that is not necessarily correct.
`
`Denied and not agreed to.
`
`Unknown.
`
`Exhibit 2024 itself was assembled by US. attorneys for Rapid Completions and Packers Plus
`as noted above.
`
`The meeting did not have 25 people. Page 6 appears to be the first page of the meeting
`minutes and shows the actual attendees. Moreover,
`it does not appear to be a design team
`meeting but rather, a brainstorming meeting.
`
`Baker Hughes has no information at this juncture as to who created page 13 of 34 (of Exhibit
`2024), how it was created or for what purpose it was created.
`
`Page 13 of Exhibit 2024 speaks for itself as to what is printed on it. As indicated above, Baker
`Hughes has no information at this juncture as to who created page 13 of Exhibit 2024, how it
`was created or for what purpose it was created.
`
`It is unknown at this juncture how and when that document came into the
`See answers above.
`possession of Baker Hughes, who created it or the circumstances under which it was created.
`Baker Hughes has not found any emails or other communications,
`including native electronic
`versions, of page 13 of Exhibit 2024. Rather, it was simply located in a job book.
`
`The development of Baker Hughes’ FracPoint System was involved and independently
`developed at Baker Hughes. The interrogatory posed is simply too general and vague to
`answer.
`
`is unknown how and when that document came into the
`it
`See answers above. Again,
`possession of Baker Hughes, who created it or the circumstances under which it was created.
`
`Baker Hughes does not know whether it was marked “Confidential" by Baker Hughes or
`whether it may have been marked “Confidential" by a customer, Packers Plus or anyone else.
`
`Baker Hughes does not know why the other pages do not include a "Confidential" designation,
`nor why such a designation would be required.
`
`The term "lso-Frac” is believed to be a registered trademark of HIPPO Tanks, for low-pressure,
`modular fracking manifold designed to simplify fluid supply from storage tanks to the high-
`pressure injection equipment on oil and gas exploration fracturing sites. Beyond that,
`it
`is
`believed that SMITH International claimed certain rights in the trademark in connection with
`fracturing systems andlor services, and the term has been used by various companies at
`various times to refer to a variety of multistage fracturing systems, including by Baker Hughes in
`
`10.
`
`11.
`
`12.
`
`13.
`
`14.
`
`15.
`
`312829511
`
`Page 2 of 3
`Page 2 of 3
`
`

`

`
`
`internal and external presentations during the development of the lso-Frac Packer for 7” Liner
`project.
`
`The heading "Open Hole Pin Point Frac System" as contained on pages 12 and 14 of Exhibit
`2024 came from an engineering document related to the development of the lso-Frac Packer
`for 7’" Liner project.
`
`See answers to 15 and 16 above.
`
`No.
`
`16.
`
`17.
`
`18.
`
`’19.
`
`Gus Weinig
`
`20.
`
`Other than those slides being presented internally at Baker Hughes, Baker Hughes does not
`have sufficient knowledge at this juncture to answer that interrogatory.
`
`21.
`
`Gus Weinig
`
`Gus Weinig
`
`Unknown. See answer 20 above.
`
`Page 26 of 34 of Exhibit 2024 is a part of a Baker Hughes slide. “Proven System" in the
`PowerPoint presentation was only meant by Mr. Weini: ,
`' 9 that Packers Plus had a
`system on the market.
`
`
`
`Even if the questions asked on Exhibit 2024 are r
`way beyond Exhibit 2024. That question is wholl
`
`e denied), this question goes
`roper and is objected to.
`
`
`
`22.
`
`23.
`
`24.
`
`25.
`
`Divirjp
`
`c:
`
`
`Irath. Q.C., FClArb
`
`
`uunsel for Weatherford
`David Madsen. Q.C.!Evan NuttalllTim Webb (Borden adner).
`Andrew Bernsteini'Yael Bienenstock (Torys). Couns for Res- rce Well Completions
`Neil KatholiLaura MacFarlane {Field Law). Counse for Res rce Well Completions
`Robert MaoFarianei‘Joshua Spicer (Bereskin & Pa C . sel for Packers PlusiRapid Compietions
`Anthony CreberNVilliarn Boyer (Gowiings). Counsel for Packers PlusiRapid Completions
`Anthony PrenoliAntonio TurcoiSantosh Chari (Blakes), Counsel for Essential Energy
`Michael O'Brieni'Santosh CharilSarah O'Grady (Biakes). Counsel for Baker Hughes
`
`312829511
`
`Page 3 of 3
`Page 3 of 3
`
`