Paper No. 23
`
`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 PRELIMINARY
`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 Preliminary Response exhibits.
`
`Case IPR2016-01506
`Patent 7,861,774
`
`Ex. Number and Patent
`Owner Description
`2004. Seale, “Effective
`Stimulation of Horizontal
`Wells—A New Completion
`Method,” SPE 106357 (2006)
`
`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 3 (“What has been witnessed in the field
`is when the horizontal wellbore is partitioned,
`each compartment has a unique pressure
`signature for fracturing or stimulating. (Figure
`2) This unique pressure signature for each stage
`provides real time evidence that the packers are
`providing the mechanical diversion for which
`they were designed.”); and that the StackFRAC
`system utilizes solid body packers to provide
`zonal isolation in open hole portions of a
`wellbore and ball activated sliding sleeves to
`provide fracturing fluid in the segments shown
`in Figure 1 of Ex. 2004 (see POPR at 19).
`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
`
`
`1 All references to Patent Owner are to be understood as referring also to its
`
`Exclusive Licensee.
`
`27980134.1
`
`1
`
`

`

`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, 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 “StackFRAC, the company’s prize
`product and primary innovation, is an open hole
`ball drop completion system that’s widely
`credited with unlocking old resource plays that
`were thought to be too expensive or too
`technically challenging to tap.” See POPR at
`21-22. 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
`
`Ex. Number and Patent
`Owner Description
`
`2005. “Exploration and
`Development,” Alberta Oil
`Magazine
`
`
`
`27980134.1
`
`2
`
`

`

`Ex. Number and Patent
`Owner Description
`
`2006. “Leading the Way:
`Multistage fracing pioneer
`Packers Plus plays major role
`in cracking the tight oil code,”
`Canadian OilPatch
`Technology Guidebook (2012)
`
`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 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 is a “multitage fracking
`pioneer,” that “[w]hen the history of all the
`business success stories emerging from the
`development of the tight oil and gas reservoirs
`in western Canada and the western United
`States is chronicled, the story of a 12-year-old
`Calgary-based company that specializes in an
`area of oilfield technology unheard of until the
`last few years might be the most remarkable,”
`and that “StackFRAC technology . . .
`revolutionized the completions section by
`introducing multistage fracturing systems in
`horizontal wells, [and is] credited with
`unlocking the potential of tight and shale oil and
`natural gas.” See POPR at 20-21. Patent Owner
`has not offered evidence sufficient to
`demonstrate that the exhibit falls within any
`exception to the rule against hearsay.
`
`27980134.1
`
`3
`
`

`

`Ex. Number and Patent
`Owner Description
`
`2007. “Entrepreneur of the
`Year: National Winner,”
`Financial Post
`
`Case IPR2016-01506
`Patent 7,861,774
`
`Objections
`
`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 in 2009, Ernst & Young awarded
`Packers Plug and Dan Themig its entrepreneur
`of the year award and highlighted Packers
`Plus’s StackFRAC system (see POPR at 19),
`and that “[w]ith Packers Plus technology, the
`Bakken oilfield went from producing 100
`barrels of oil a day in 2006 to 60,000 now” (see
`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
`
`27980134.1
`
`4
`
`

`

`Ex. Number and Patent
`Owner Description
`
`2008. “Innovation—
`Groundbreaking Innovation in
`Calgary,” Calgary Herald
`(Feb. 12, 2014)
`
`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., at 1 (“Perhaps one of the greatest
`demonstrations of game-changing innovation
`developed in Calgary is that of Packer Plus.
`Creators of the StackFRAC system, the first ball
`drop system used to complete horizontal wells
`in multiple stages, the company has truly
`revolutionized the oil and gas industry.”). See
`POPR at 21. 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
`
`27980134.1
`
`5
`
`

`

`Ex. Number and Patent
`Owner Description
`
`2009. Chury, “Packers Plus
`Technology Becoming the
`Industry Standard,” The Oil
`Patch Report (Dec. 2010/Jan.
`2011)
`
`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 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 technology [is]
`becoming the industry standard;” and that
`“[a]fter 10 years of marketing their innovative
`StackFRAC system, Packers Plus has become
`the darling of the oil and gas sector, not just in
`North America, but worldwide.” See POPR at
`19-20. 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 system in the exhibit on which
`it relies, or any activity involving such system,
`
`27980134.1
`
`6
`
`

`

`Ex. Number and Patent
`Owner Description
`
`2010. Roche, “Open-Hole or
`Cased and Cemented,” New
`Technology Magazine (Nov.
`2011)
`
`2011. Ghiselin, “Sleeves v.
`27980134.1
`
`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., that the “open-hole ball drop system is
`typically associated with Calgary-based Packers
`Plus Energy Services Inc.” See POPR at 20.
`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 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
`
`7
`
`

`

`Ex. Number and Patent
`Owner Description
`Shots—The Debate Rages,”
`Qittitut Consulting (Aug.
`2011)
`
`Case IPR2016-01506
`Patent 7,861,774
`
`Objections
`
`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 “this technology has made a
`significant imprint on the hydraulic fracturing
`market”; that “[this technology] has been
`recognized as one of just two alternatives used
`for fracture stimulating most oil and gas wells
`in the United States”; and that the “two most
`popular multistage completion methods” in the
`United States were traditional cased hole plug-
`and-perf fracturing systems, and open hole
`multistage fracturing systems. See POPR at 22-
`23. 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 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.
`
`2013. “Proven Performance: Authentication. Fed. R. Evid. 901(a). Patent
`27980134.1
`
`8
`
`

`

`Ex. Number and Patent
`Owner Description
`Read how Packers Plus
`systems and solutions have
`delivered results around the
`world,” Packers Plus Energy
`Services Inc.,
`http://packersplus.com/proven-
`performance/?type=case-
`study&system=stackfrac-hd-
`system&pag=3%20#p3,
`accessed May 24, 2016.
`
`
`2014. Casero, “Open Hole
`Multi-Stage Completion
`System in Unconventional
`Plays: Efficiency,
`Effectiveness and Economics,”
`SPE 164009 (2013)
`
`Case IPR2016-01506
`Patent 7,861,774
`
`Objections
`
`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 Preliminary 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:
`e.g., POPR at 23, citing Ex. 2014 at 5 (“The
`P&P approach is the more widely utilised
`approach; this likely reflects a reluctance to
`move from an historically established comfort
`zone to an unknown lower completion
`approach. The P&P approach was the initial
`lower completion methodology that allowed the
`effective deployment of multi-fracture
`treatments in horizontal wells and it is difficult
`to progress from an established, standardized
`and successful technique; unless there are
`significant tangible benefits that can be
`demonstrated via different method.”), and
`POPR at 28, citing Ex. 2014 at 5 (“Some of the
`features of the OHMS approach are often
`depicted as disadvantages, such as . . . the
`
`27980134.1
`
`9
`
`

`

`Ex. Number and Patent
`Owner Description
`
`2015. “Encyclopedia of
`Hydrocarbons,” Ch. 3.1,
`Upstream Technologies
`
`Case IPR2016-01506
`Patent 7,861,774
`
`Objections
`
`question of the reliability of the open hole
`packer in providing zonal isolation, . . .”).
`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 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.
`
`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 8 (“[W]henever completion operations
`require hydraulic fracturing, the horizontal
`holes are in fact cased, cemented, and
`perforated to facilitate effective fracturing.”).
`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
`
`27980134.1
`
`10
`
`

`

`Ex. Number and Patent
`Owner Description
`
`2016. Lohoefer,
`“Comparative Study of
`Cemented versus Uncemented
`Multi-Stage Fractured Wells in
`the Barnett Shale,” SPE
`135386 (2010)
`
`2017. A. Daneshy Depo. Tr.
`(11/9/2016)
`
`2018. Packers Plus
`advertising brochure (2010)
`
`Case IPR2016-01506
`Patent 7,861,774
`
`Objections
`
`inadmissible under FRE 801 and 802 as
`explained above, and/or (2) Patent Owner has
`not proven that the aspect of the exhibit on
`which it relies concerns “conventional wisdom
`at the time [of the invention].” See POPR at 36.
`
`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 Preliminary Response.
`
`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., POPR at 10-11, 18, 19, 23, 26, 27, 33,
`37, 38.
`Relevance. Fed. R. Evid. 401-403. To the extent
`Patent Owner relies on testimony in this exhibit
`concerning an opinion not rendered in Ex. 1005,
`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
`
`27980134.1
`
`11
`
`

`

`Ex. Number and Patent
`Owner Description
`
`2019. Baker Hughes,
`“Fracpoint Completion System
`Isolated Openhole Horizontal
`Well in Lower Huron Shale”
`(2011)
`
`Case IPR2016-01506
`Patent 7,861,774
`
`Objections
`
`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 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 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) no
`particular portion of this exhibit is cited in
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary 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. Patent Owner has not
`offered evidence sufficient to demonstrate that
`
`27980134.1
`
`12
`
`

`

`Case IPR2016-01506
`Patent 7,861,774
`
`Objections
`
`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 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) this
`exhibit is not cited in Patent Owner’s
`Preliminary 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;
`e.g., that the FracPoint system employs the
`same components as the StackFRAC system
`(see POPR at 19); and that Baker Hughes
`claims to have installed over 40,000 FracPoint
`sleeves in North America between 2005 and
`2012 (see POPR at 22). Patent Owner has not
`offered evidence sufficient to demonstrate that
`the exhibit falls within any exception to the rule
`
`Ex. Number and Patent
`Owner Description
`
`2020. Baker Hughes,
`“Enhancing Well Performance
`Through Innovative
`Completion Technologies,”
`presentation, (Sept. 10-12,
`2012)
`
`
`
`27980134.1
`
`13
`
`

`

`Ex. Number and Patent
`Owner Description
`
`2021. Canadian Society for
`Unconventional Resources,
`Press Release,
`“Unconventional Industry
`Awards Innovative Thinking”
`(Oct. 3, 2012)
`
`Case IPR2016-01506
`Patent 7,861,774
`
`Objections
`
`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
`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 Dan Themig received the Sproule
`Innovation Award because he “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.” See POPR at 21. 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
`
`27980134.1
`
`14
`
`

`

`Ex. Number and Patent
`Owner Description
`
`Case IPR2016-01506
`Patent 7,861,774
`
`Objections
`
`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
`technology, is not already known or readily
`available in the prior art.
`
`
`
`Dated: February 18, 2017
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/Mark T. Garrett/
`Mark T. Garrett, Lead Counsel
`
`
`27980134.1
`
`15
`
`

`

`Case IPR2016-01506
`Patent 7,861,774
`
`Certificate of Service
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(e), the undersigned certifies that on February
`
`18, 2017 complete copies of Petitioners’ Objections to Patent Owner’s Preliminary
`
`Response Evidence were served on Lead Counsel and Back-Up Counsel for Patent
`
`Owner via email (by consent) to:
`
`Lead Counsel: Hamad M. Hamad (Reg. No. 64,641),
`hhamad@caldwellcc.com
`
`
`Backup Counsel: Dr. Gregory J. Gonsalves (Reg. No. 43,639)
`gonsalves@gonsalveslawfirm.com
`
`Bradley W. Caldwell
`bcaldwell@caldwellcc.com
`
`Justin T. Nemunaitis
`jnemunaitis@caldwellcc.com
`
`/Mark T. Garrett/
`Mark T. Garrett (Reg. No. 44,699)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`