`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`________________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`________________________
`
`WEATHERFORD INTERNATIONAL, LLC;
`WEATHERFORD/LAMB, INC.; WEATHERFORD US, LP; and
`WEATHERFORD ARTIFICIAL LIFT SYSTEMS, LLC
`Petitioners
`
`v.
`
`PACKERS PLUS ENERGY SERVICES, INC.,
`Patent Owner
`________________________
`
`Case IPR2016-01509
`Patent 7,861,774
`________________________
`
`PETITIONER’S OBJECTIONS TO PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE
`EVIDENCE PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b)(1)
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01509
`Patent No. 7,861,774
`
`Under the Federal Rules of Evidence and 37 C.F.R. § 42.64, Petitioners
`
`Weatherford International LLC, et al. (hereinafter “Petitioner”), timely object to
`
`evidence submitted by Exclusive Licensee Rapid Completions (hereinafter “Patent
`
`Owner”) with its Patent Owner Response in IPR2016-01509. Petitioner serves
`
`Patent Owner with these objections to provide notice that Petitioner may move to
`
`exclude the challenged exhibits under 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(c) unless Patent Owner
`
`cures the defects associated with the challenged exhibits identified below.
`
`Exhibit 2045 -- Westin, Scott, Private Property, PwC, (Jan. 2, 2013)
`Petitioner objects to Ex. 2045 under Fed. R. Evid. 901(a) as Patent Owner has
`
`not “produce[d] evidence sufficient to support a finding that the item is what the
`
`proponent claims it is.” For example, Patent Owner has not provided any evidence
`
`pursuant to Fed. R. Evid. 901(b) or otherwise satisfying the requirement of Fed. R.
`
`Evid. 901(a).
`
`Petitioner objects to Ex. 2045 under Fed. R. Evid. 801(c) and Fed. R. Evid.
`
`802. For example, Patent Owner relies on Ex. 2045 for the truth of the matter
`
`asserted therein. See, e.g., Exclusive Licensee Rapid Completions LLC’s Response,
`
`IPR2016-01509, paper 32 (hereinafter “POR”) at 29. Yet, Patent Owner has not
`
`offered any evidence that Ex. 2045 falls within any exception to the rule against
`
`hearsay of Fed. R. Evid. 802.
`
`1
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01509
`Patent No. 7,861,774
`
`Petitioner objects to Ex. 2045 as being irrelevant under Fed. R. Evid. 401 and
`
`thus inadmissible under Fed. R. Evid. 402, or as being confusing or a waste of time
`
`under Fed. R. Evid. 403 because Ex. 2045 is inadmissible under Fed. R. Evid. 801,
`
`802 and/or 901 as explained above. Furthermore, Patent Owner relies on Ex. 2045
`
`as providing evidence of commercial success and/or praise for Packers Plus’s
`
`techniques for providing zonal isolation in open hole portions of a well bore, or as
`
`providing evidence that such techniques were contrary to prevailing wisdom at the
`
`time of invention. See, e.g., POR at 29. Yet, such evidence is not relevant in the
`
`current proceeding at least because, as demonstrated in the Petition for Inter Partes
`
`Review (hereinafter “Petition”), such techniques were known in the art at the time
`
`of the invention. See, e.g., Petition at 7-14; see also Tokai Corp. v. Easton Enters.,
`
`Inc., 632 F.3d 1358, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ("If commercial success is due to an
`
`element in the prior art, no nexus exists.").
`
`Exhibit 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)
`Petitioner objects to Ex. 2046 under Fed. R. Evid. 901(a) as Patent Owner has
`
`not “produce[d] evidence sufficient to support a finding that the item is what the
`
`proponent claims it is.” For example, Patent Owner has not provided any evidence
`
`pursuant to Fed. R. Evid. 901(b) or otherwise satisfying the requirement of Fed. R.
`
`Evid. 901(a).
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01509
`Patent No. 7,861,774
`
`Petitioner objects to Ex. 2046 under Fed. R. Evid. 801(c) and Fed. R. Evid.
`
`802. For example, Patent Owner relies on Ex. 2046 for the truth of the matter
`
`asserted therein. See, e.g., POR at 29. Yet, Patent Owner has not offered any
`
`evidence that Ex. 2046 falls within any exception to the rule against hearsay of Fed.
`
`R. Evid. 802.
`
`Petitioner objects to Ex. 2046 as being irrelevant under Fed. R. Evid. 401 and
`
`thus inadmissible under Fed. R. Evid. 402, or as being confusing or a waste of time
`
`under Fed. R. Evid. 403 because Ex. 2046 is inadmissible under Fed. R. Evid. 801,
`
`802 and/or 901 as explained above. Furthermore, Patent Owner relies on Ex. 2046
`
`as providing evidence of commercial success and/or praise for Packers Plus’s
`
`techniques for providing zonal isolation in open hole portions of a well bore, or as
`
`providing evidence that such a technique was contrary to prevailing wisdom at the
`
`time of invention. See, e.g., POR at 29. Yet, such evidence is not relevant in the
`
`current proceeding at least because such techniques were known in the art at the time
`
`of the invention. See, e.g., Petition at 7-14; see also Tokai Corp., 632 F.3d at 1369
`
`("If commercial success is due to an element in the prior art, no nexus exists.").
`
`Exhibit 2047 -- BH00364675, CONFIDENTIAL Ball activated sliding sleeves
`report
`Petitioner objects to Ex. 2047 under Fed. R. Evid. 901(a) as Patent Owner has
`
`not “produce[d] evidence sufficient to support a finding that the item is what the
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01509
`Patent No. 7,861,774
`
`proponent claims it is.” For example, Patent Owner has not provided any evidence
`
`pursuant to Fed. R. Evid. 901(b) or otherwise satisfying the requirement of Fed. R.
`
`Evid. 901(a).
`
`Petitioner objects to Ex. 2047 under Fed. R. Evid. 801(c) and Fed. R. Evid.
`
`802. For example, Patent Owner relies on Ex. 2047 for the truth of the matter
`
`asserted therein. See, e.g., POR at 30, 40. Yet, Patent Owner has not offered any
`
`evidence that Ex. 2047 falls within any exception to the rule against hearsay of Fed.
`
`R. Evid. 802.
`
`Petitioner objects to Ex. 2047 as being irrelevant under Fed. R. Evid. 401 and
`
`thus inadmissible under Fed. R. Evid. 402, or as being confusing or a waste of time
`
`under Fed. R. Evid. 403 because Ex. 2047 is inadmissible under Fed. R. Evid. 801,
`
`802 and/or 901 as explained above. Furthermore, Patent Owner relies on Ex. 2047
`
`as providing evidence of commercial success and/or praise Packers Plus’s
`
`techniques for providing zonal isolation in open hole portions of a well bore, or as
`
`providing evidence that such a technique was contrary to prevailing wisdom at the
`
`time of invention. See, e.g., POR at 30. Yet, such evidence is not relevant in the
`
`current proceeding. See, e.g., Petition at 7-14; see also Tokai Corp., 632 F.3d at
`
`1369 ("If commercial success is due to an element in the prior art, no nexus exists.").
`
`4
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01509
`Patent No. 7,861,774
`
`Exhibits 2048 and 2049 -- J.J. Girardi Decl.
`Petitioner objects to these document under FRE 702 and/or 802 as Mr. Girardi
`
`has not yet been made available for examination during a deposition.
`
`Exhibit 2051 -- H. McGowen Decl.
`Petitioner objects to this document under FRE 702 and/or 802 as Mr.
`
`McGowen has not yet been made available for examination during a deposition.
`
`Exhibit 2052 -- Baker Hughes Design Documents
`Petitioner objects to Ex. 2052 under Fed. R. Evid. 901(a) as Patent Owner has
`
`not “produce[d] evidence sufficient to support a finding that the item is what the
`
`proponent claims it is.” For example, Patent Owner has not provided any evidence
`
`pursuant to Fed. R. Evid. 901(b) or otherwise satisfying the requirement of Fed. R.
`
`Evid. 901(a).
`
`Petitioner objects to Ex. 2052 under Fed. R. Evid. 801(c) and Fed. R. Evid.
`
`802. For example, Patent Owner relies on Ex. 2052 for the truth of the matter
`
`asserted therein. See, e.g., POR at 31-33. Yet, Patent Owner has not offered any
`
`evidence that Ex. 2052 falls within any exception to the rule against hearsay of Fed.
`
`R. Evid. 802.
`
`Petitioner objects to Ex. 2052 as being irrelevant under Fed. R. Evid. 401 and
`
`thus inadmissible under Fed. R. Evid. 402, or as being confusing or a waste of time
`
`5
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01509
`Patent No. 7,861,774
`
`under Fed. R. Evid. 403 because Ex. 2052 is inadmissible under Fed. R. Evid. 801,
`
`802 and/or 901 as explained above.
`
`Exhibit 2053 -- Packers Plus Design Document
`Petitioner objects to Ex. 2053 under Fed. R. Evid. 901(a) as Patent Owner has
`
`not “produce[d] evidence sufficient to support a finding that the item is what the
`
`proponent claims it is.” For example, Patent Owner has not provided any evidence
`
`pursuant to Fed. R. Evid. 901(b) or otherwise satisfying the requirement of Fed. R.
`
`Evid. 901(a).
`
`Petitioner objects to Ex. 2053 under Fed. R. Evid. 801(c) and Fed. R. Evid.
`
`802. For example, Patent Owner relies on Ex. 2053 for the truth of the matter
`
`asserted therein. See, e.g., POR at 33. Yet, Patent Owner has not offered any
`
`evidence that Ex. 2053 falls within any exception to the rule against hearsay of Fed.
`
`R. Evid. 802.
`
`Petitioner objects to Ex. 2053 as being irrelevant under Fed. R. Evid. 401 and
`
`thus inadmissible under Fed. R. Evid. 402, or as being confusing or a waste of time
`
`under Fed. R. Evid. 403 because Ex. 2053 is inadmissible under Fed. R. Evid. 801,
`
`802 and/or 901 as explained above.
`
`6
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01509
`Patent No. 7,861,774
`
`Exhibit 2054 -- Rigzone, Schlumberger Acquires Stake in Packers Plus
`Petitioner objects to Ex. 2054 under Fed. R. Evid. 901(a) as Patent Owner has
`
`not “produce[d] evidence sufficient to support a finding that the item is what the
`
`proponent claims it is.” For example, Patent Owner has not provided any evidence
`
`pursuant to Fed. R. Evid. 901(b) or otherwise satisfying the requirement of Fed. R.
`
`Evid. 901(a).
`
`Petitioner objects to Ex. 2054 under Fed. R. Evid. 801(c) and Fed. R. Evid.
`
`802. For example, Patent Owner relies on Ex. 2054 for the truth of the matter
`
`asserted therein. See, e.g., POR at 30, 31. Yet, Patent Owner has not offered any
`
`evidence that Ex. 2054 falls within any exception to the rule against hearsay of Fed.
`
`R. Evid. 802.
`
`Petitioner objects to Ex. 2054 as being irrelevant under Fed. R. Evid. 401 and
`
`thus inadmissible under Fed. R. Evid. 402, or as being confusing or a waste of time
`
`under Fed. R. Evid. 403 because Ex. 2054 is inadmissible under Fed. R. Evid. 801,
`
`802 and/or 901 as explained above. Furthermore, Patent Owner relies on Ex. 2054
`
`as providing evidence of commercial success and/or praise for Packers Plus’s
`
`techniques for providing zonal isolation in open hole portions of a well bore, or as
`
`providing evidence that such a technique was contrary to prevailing wisdom at the
`
`time of invention. See, e.g., POR at 30, 31. Yet, such evidence is not relevant in the
`
`7
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01509
`Patent No. 7,861,774
`
`current proceeding. See, e.g., Petition at 7-14; see also Tokai Corp., 632 F.3d at
`
`1369 ("If commercial success is due to an element in the prior art, no nexus exists.").
`
`Exhibit 2055 -- Britt, L. and Smith, M., Horizontal Well Completion,
`Stimulation Optimization, and Risk Mitigation, SPE 125526
`Petitioner objects to Ex. 2055 under Fed. R. Evid. 801(c) and Fed. R. Evid.
`
`802. For example, Patent Owner relies on Ex. 2055 for the truth of the matter
`
`asserted therein. See, e.g., POR at 36. Yet, Patent Owner has not offered any
`
`evidence that Ex. 2055 falls within any exception to the rule against hearsay of Fed.
`
`R. Evid. 802.
`
`Petitioner objects to Ex. 2055 as being irrelevant under Fed. R. Evid. 401 and
`
`thus inadmissible under Fed. R. Evid. 402, or as being confusing or a waste of time
`
`under Fed. R. Evid. 403 because Ex. 2055 is inadmissible under Fed. R. Evid. 801
`
`and/or 802 as explained above. Furthermore, Patent Owner relies on Ex. 2055 as
`
`providing evidence of copying, but this document is not relevant evidence of
`
`copying. Wyers v. Master Lock Co., 616 F.3d 1231, 1246 (Fed. Cir. 2010).
`
`Exhibit 2056 -- Packers Plus case study, StackFRAC system provides superior
`production economics
`Petitioner objects to Ex. 2056 under Fed. R. Evid. 901(a) as Patent Owner has
`
`not “produce[d] evidence sufficient to support a finding that the item is what the
`
`proponent claims it is.” For example, Patent Owner has not provided any evidence
`
`8
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01509
`Patent No. 7,861,774
`
`pursuant to Fed. R. Evid. 901(b) or otherwise satisfying the requirement of Fed. R.
`
`Evid. 901(a).
`
`Petitioner objects to Ex. 2056 under Fed. R. Evid. 801(c) and Fed. R. Evid.
`
`802. For example, Patent Owner relies on Ex. 2056 for the truth of the matter
`
`asserted therein. See, e.g., POR at 41, 42. Yet, Patent Owner has not offered any
`
`evidence that Ex. 2056 falls within any exception to the rule against hearsay of Fed.
`
`R. Evid. 802.
`
`Petitioner objects to Ex. 2056 as being irrelevant under Fed. R. Evid. 401 and
`
`thus inadmissible under Fed. R. Evid. 402, or as being confusing or a waste of time
`
`under Fed. R. Evid. 403 because Ex. 2056 is inadmissible under Fed. R. Evid. 801,
`
`802 and/or 901 as explained above. Furthermore, Patent Owner relies on Ex. 2056
`
`as providing evidence of commercial success and/or praise for Packers Plus’s
`
`techniques for providing zonal isolation in open hole portions of a well bore, or as
`
`providing evidence that such a technique was contrary to prevailing wisdom at the
`
`time of invention. See, e.g., POR at 41, 42. Yet, such evidence is not relevant in the
`
`current proceeding. See, e.g., Petition at 7-14; see also Tokai Corp., 632 F.3d at
`
`1369 ("If commercial success is due to an element in the prior art, no nexus exists.").
`
`9
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01509
`Patent No. 7,861,774
`
`Exhibit 2057 -- Packers Plus Case Study, StackFRAC HD system enables high
`stimulation rates
`Petitioner objects to Ex. 2057 under Fed. R. Evid. 901(a) as Patent Owner has
`
`not “produce[d] evidence sufficient to support a finding that the item is what the
`
`proponent claims it is.” For example, Patent Owner has not provided any evidence
`
`pursuant to Fed. R. Evid. 901(b) or otherwise satisfying the requirement of Fed. R.
`
`Evid. 901(a).
`
`Petitioner objects to Ex. 2057 under Fed. R. Evid. 801(c) and Fed. R. Evid.
`
`802. For example, Patent Owner relies on Ex. 2057 for the truth of the matter
`
`asserted therein. See, e.g., POR at 42. Yet, Patent Owner has not offered any
`
`evidence that Ex. 2057 falls within any exception to the rule against hearsay of Fed.
`
`R. Evid. 802.
`
`Petitioner objects to Ex. 2057 as being irrelevant under Fed. R. Evid. 401 and
`
`thus inadmissible under Fed. R. Evid. 402, or as being confusing or a waste of time
`
`under Fed. R. Evid. 403 because Ex. 2057 is inadmissible under Fed. R. Evid. 801,
`
`802 and/or 901 as explained above. Furthermore, Patent Owner relies on Ex. 2057
`
`as providing evidence of commercial success and/or praise for Packers Plus’s
`
`techniques for providing zonal isolation in open hole portions of a well bore, or as
`
`providing evidence that such a technique was contrary to prevailing wisdom at the
`
`time of invention. See, e.g., POR at 42. Yet, such evidence is not relevant in the
`
`10
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01509
`Patent No. 7,861,774
`
`current proceeding. See, e.g., Petition at 7-14; see also Tokai Corp., 632 F.3d at
`
`1369 ("If commercial success is due to an element in the prior art, no nexus exists.").
`
`Exhibit 2058 -- Packers Plus StackFRAC Video
`Petitioner objects to Ex. 2058 under Fed. R. Evid. 901(a) as Patent Owner has
`
`not “produce[d] evidence sufficient to support a finding that the item is what the
`
`proponent claims it is.” For example, Patent Owner has not provided any evidence
`
`pursuant to Fed. R. Evid. 901(b) or otherwise satisfying the requirement of Fed. R.
`
`Evid. 901(a).
`
`Petitioner objects to Ex. 2058 under Fed. R. Evid. 801(c) and Fed. R. Evid.
`
`802. For example, Patent Owner relies on Ex. 2058 for the truth of the matter
`
`asserted therein. See, e.g., POR at 2, 3, 34 and 35. Yet, Patent Owner has not offered
`
`any evidence that Ex. 2058 falls within any exception to the rule against hearsay of
`
`Fed. R. Evid. 802.
`
`Petitioner objects to Ex. 2058 as being irrelevant under Fed. R. Evid. 401 and
`
`thus inadmissible under Fed. R. Evid. 402, or as being confusing or a waste of time
`
`under Fed. R. Evid. 403 because Ex. 2058 is inadmissible under Fed. R. Evid. 801,
`
`802 and/or 901 as explained above. Furthermore, Patent Owner relies on Ex. 2058
`
`as providing evidence of copying. See, e.g., POR at 34 and 35. Yet, such evidence
`
`11
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01509
`Patent No. 7,861,774
`
`is not relevant in the current proceeding. Wyers v. Master Lock Co., 616 F. 3d 1231,
`
`1246.
`
`Exhibit 2059 -- Baker Hughes FracPoint Video
`Petitioner objects to Ex. 2059 under Fed. R. Evid. 901(a) as Patent Owner has
`
`not “produce[d] evidence sufficient to support a finding that the item is what the
`
`proponent claims it is.” For example, Patent Owner has not provided any evidence
`
`pursuant to Fed. R. Evid. 901(b) or otherwise satisfying the requirement of Fed. R.
`
`Evid. 901(a).
`
`Petitioner objects to Ex. 2059 under Fed. R. Evid. 801(c) and Fed. R. Evid.
`
`802. For example, Patent Owner relies on Ex. 2059 for the truth of the matter
`
`asserted therein. See, e.g., POR at 35. Yet, Patent Owner has not offered any
`
`evidence that Ex. 2059 falls within any exception to the rule against hearsay of Fed.
`
`R. Evid. 802.
`
`Petitioner objects to Ex. 2059 as being irrelevant under Fed. R. Evid. 401 and
`
`thus inadmissible under Fed. R. Evid. 402, or as being confusing or a waste of time
`
`under Fed. R. Evid. 403 because Ex. 2059 is inadmissible under Fed. R. Evid. 801,
`
`802 and/or 901 as explained above. Furthermore, Patent Owner relies on Ex. 2059
`
`as providing evidence of copying. See, e.g., POR at 35. Yet, such evidence is not
`
`relevant in the current proceeding. Wyers v. Master Lock Co., 616 F. 3d 1231, 1246.
`
`12
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01509
`Patent No. 7,861,774
`
`Exhibit 2061 -- Business News Network Packers Plus Feature
`Petitioner objects to Ex. 2061 under Fed. R. Evid. 901(a) as Patent Owner has
`
`not “produce[d] evidence sufficient to support a finding that the item is what the
`
`proponent claims it is.” For example, Patent Owner has not provided any evidence
`
`pursuant to Fed. R. Evid. 901(b) or otherwise satisfying the requirement of Fed. R.
`
`Evid. 901(a).
`
`Petitioner objects to Ex. 2061 under Fed. R. Evid. 801(c) and Fed. R. Evid.
`
`802. For example, Patent Owner relies on Ex. 2061 for the truth of the matter
`
`asserted therein. See, e.g., POR at 27. Yet, Patent Owner has not offered any
`
`evidence that Ex. 2061 falls within any exception to the rule against hearsay of Fed.
`
`R. Evid. 802.
`
`Petitioner objects to Ex. 2061 as being irrelevant under Fed. R. Evid. 401 and
`
`thus inadmissible under Fed. R. Evid. 402, or as being confusing or a waste of time
`
`under Fed. R. Evid. 403 because Ex. 2061 is inadmissible under Fed. R. Evid. 801,
`
`802 and/or 901 as explained above. Furthermore, Patent Owner relies on Ex. 2061
`
`as providing evidence of commercial success and/or praise for Packers Plus’s
`
`techniques for providing zonal isolation in open hole portions of a well bore, or as
`
`providing evidence that such a technique was contrary to prevailing wisdom at the
`
`time of invention. See, e.g., POR at 27. Yet, such evidence is not relevant in the
`
`13
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01509
`Patent No. 7,861,774
`
`current proceeding. See, e.g., Petition at 7-14; see also Tokai Corp., 632 F.3d at
`
`1369 ("If commercial success is due to an element in the prior art, no nexus exists.").
`
`Exhibits 2062-2072
`As Exs. 2062-2072 have not been cited outside of Ex. 2051, it is Petitioner's
`
`understanding that Exhibits 2062-2072 have been submitted as forming the basis of
`
`Mr. McGowen's opinion pursuant to Fed. R. Evid. 703. Should Patent Owner
`
`subsequently use any of these exhibits for any other purpose, Petitioner reserves the
`
`right to object to one or more of Exs. 2062-2072 at that time.
`
`Exhibit 2074 -- Feng Yuan, “Single-Size-Ball Interventionless Multi-Stage
`Stimulation System Improves Stimulated Reservoir Volume and Eliminates
`Milling Requirements: Case Studies, SPE171183-MS, 2014
`Petitioner objects to Ex. 2074 under Fed. R. Evid. 801(c) and Fed. R. Evid.
`
`802. For example, Patent Owner relies on Ex. 2074 for the truth of the matter
`
`asserted therein. See, e.g., POR at 39, 42. Yet, Patent Owner has not offered any
`
`evidence that Ex. 2074 falls within any exception to the rule against hearsay of Fed.
`
`R. Evid. 802.
`
`Petitioner objects to Ex. 2074 as being irrelevant under Fed. R. Evid. 401 and
`
`thus inadmissible under Fed. R. Evid. 402, or as being confusing or a waste of time
`
`under Fed. R. Evid. 403 because Ex. 2074 is inadmissible under Fed. R. Evid. 801
`
`and/or 802 as explained above. Furthermore, Patent Owner relies on Ex. 2074 as
`
`providing evidence of commercial success and/or praise for Packers Plus’s
`
`14
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01509
`Patent No. 7,861,774
`
`techniques for providing zonal isolation in open hole portions of a well bore, or as
`
`providing evidence that such a technique was contrary to prevailing wisdom at the
`
`time of invention. See, e.g., POR at 39, 42. Yet, such evidence is not relevant in the
`
`current proceeding. See, e.g., Petition at 7-14; see also Tokai Corp., 632 F.3d at
`
`1369 ("If commercial success is due to an element in the prior art, no nexus exists.").
`
`Exhibit 2076 -- A.W. Layne, “Insights Into Hydraulic Fracturing of a
`Horizontal Well in a Naturally Fractured Formation,” SPE 18255, 1988
`Petitioner objects to Ex. 2076 under Fed. R. Evid. 801(c) and Fed. R. Evid.
`
`802. For example, Patent Owner relies on Ex. 2076 for the truth of the matter
`
`asserted therein. See, e.g., POR at 47, 48, 55. Yet, Patent Owner has not offered
`
`any evidence that Ex. 2076 falls within any exception to the rule against hearsay of
`
`Fed. R. Evid. 802.
`
`Petitioner objects to Ex. 2076 as being irrelevant under Fed. R. Evid. 401 and
`
`thus inadmissible under Fed. R. Evid. 402, or as being confusing or a waste of time
`
`under Fed. R. Evid. 403 because Ex. 2076 is inadmissible under Fed. R. Evid. 801
`
`and/or 802 as explained above. Furthermore, Patent Owner relies on Ex. 2076 as
`
`providing evidence of commercial success and/or praise for Packers Plus’s
`
`techniques for providing zonal isolation in open hole portions of a well bore, or as
`
`providing evidence that such a technique was contrary to prevailing wisdom at the
`
`time of invention. See, e.g., POR at 47, 48. Yet, such evidence is not relevant in the
`
`15
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01509
`Patent No. 7,861,774
`
`current proceeding. See, e.g., Petition at 7-14; see also Tokai Corp., 632 F.3d at
`
`1369 ("If commercial success is due to an element in the prior art, no nexus exists.").
`
`Exhibit 2078 -- H.H. Abass, A Case History of Completing and Fracture
`Stimulating a Horizontal Well, SPE 29443
`Petitioner objects to Ex. 2078 under Fed. R. Evid. 801(c) and Fed. R. Evid.
`
`802. For example, Patent Owner relies on Ex. 2078 for the truth of the matter
`
`asserted therein. See, e.g., POR at 22, 61, 64. Yet, Patent Owner has not offered
`
`any evidence that Ex. 2078 falls within any exception to the rule against hearsay of
`
`Fed. R. Evid. 802.
`
`Petitioner objects to Ex. 2078 as being irrelevant under Fed. R. Evid. 401 and
`
`thus inadmissible under Fed. R. Evid. 402, or as being confusing or a waste of time
`
`under Fed. R. Evid. 403 because Ex. 2078 is inadmissible under Fed. R. Evid. 801,
`
`802 and/or 901 as explained above. Furthermore, Patent Owner relies on Ex. 2078
`
`as providing evidence of commercial success and/or praise for Packers Plus’s
`
`techniques for providing zonal isolation in open hole portions of a well bore, or as
`
`providing evidence that such a technique was contrary to prevailing wisdom at the
`
`time of invention. See, e.g., POR at 22. Yet, such evidence is not relevant in the
`
`current proceeding. See, e.g., Petition at 7-14; see also Tokai Corp., 632 F.3d at
`
`1369 ("If commercial success is due to an element in the prior art, no nexus exists.").
`
`16
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01509
`Patent No. 7,861,774
`
`Exhibit 2079 -- A.P. Damgaard, “A Unique Method for Perforating,
`Fracturing, and Completing Horizontal Wells, SPE 19282
`Petitioner objects to Ex. 2079 under Fed. R. Evid. 901(a) as Patent Owner has
`
`not “produce[d] evidence sufficient to support a finding that the item is what the
`
`proponent claims it is.” For example, Patent Owner has not provided any evidence
`
`pursuant to Fed. R. Evid. 901(b) or otherwise satisfying the requirement of Fed. R.
`
`Evid. 901(a).
`
`Petitioner objects to Ex. 2079 under Fed. R. Evid. 801(c) and Fed. R. Evid.
`
`802. For example, Patent Owner relies on Ex. 2079 for the truth of the matter
`
`asserted therein. See, e.g., POR at 22, 64. Yet, Patent Owner has not offered any
`
`evidence that Ex. 2079 falls within any exception to the rule against hearsay of Fed.
`
`R. Evid. 802.
`
`Petitioner objects to Ex. 2079 as being irrelevant under Fed. R. Evid. 401 and
`
`thus inadmissible under Fed. R. Evid. 402, or as being confusing or a waste of time
`
`under Fed. R. Evid. 403 because Ex. 2079 is inadmissible under Fed. R. Evid. 801
`
`and/or 802 as explained above. Furthermore, Patent Owner relies on Ex. 2079 as
`
`providing evidence of commercial success and/or praise for Packers Plus’s
`
`techniques for providing zonal isolation in open hole portions of a well bore, or as
`
`providing evidence that such a technique was contrary to prevailing wisdom at the
`
`time of invention. See, e.g., POR at 22. Yet, such evidence is not relevant in the
`
`17
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01509
`Patent No. 7,861,774
`
`current proceeding. See, e.g., Petition at 7-14; see also Tokai Corp., 632 F.3d at
`
`1369 ("If commercial success is due to an element in the prior art, no nexus exists.").
`
`Exhibits 2081 and 2084 – McGowen Supplemental Declaration
`Petitioner objects to these documents under FRE 702 and/or 802 as Mr.
`
`McGowen has not yet been made available for examination during a deposition.
`
`Exhibit 2082 -- Michael Delaney Declaration
`Portions of Ex. 2082 appear to be an untimely attempt to cure Petitioner's
`
`timely objections to Patent Owner's Exs. 2003, 2013, 2015, 2018, 2019 and 2039.
`
`Petitioner objects to Ex. 2082 as untimely under 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.64(b)(2) and
`
`42.123(b).
`
`Exhibit 2083 -- William Diggons Declaration
`Exhibit 2083 appears to be an untimely attempt to cure Petitioner's timely
`
`objection to Patent Owner's Ex. 2010. Petitioner objects to Ex. 2083 as untimely
`
`under 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.64(b)(2) and 42.123(b).
`
`Exhibit 2085 -- Ali Daneshy Deposition Transcript
`Petitioner objects to Ex. 2085 under Fed. R. Evid. 901(a) as Patent Owner has
`
`not “produce[d] evidence sufficient to support a finding that the item is what the
`
`proponent claims it is.” For example, Patent Owner has not provided any evidence
`
`pursuant to Fed. R. Evid. 901(b) or otherwise satisfying the requirement of Fed. R.
`
`Evid. 901(a).
`
`18
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01509
`Patent No. 7,861,774
`
`Petitioner objects to Ex. 2085 under Fed. R. Evid. 801(c) and Fed. R. Evid.
`
`802. For example, Patent Owner relies on Ex. 2085 for the truth of the matter
`
`asserted therein. See, e.g., POR at 15. Yet, Patent Owner has not offered any
`
`evidence that Ex. 2085 falls within any exception to the rule against hearsay of Fed.
`
`R. Evid. 802. For example, unlike the Inter Partes Reviews filed by Baker Hughes,
`
`the author of Ex. 2085 is not a declarant in the proceeding subject to cross
`
`examination. Therefore, neither of Fed. R. Evid. 801(d) or Fed. R. Evid. 806 are
`
`applicable to Ex. 2085.
`
`Petitioner objects to Ex. 2085 as being irrelevant under Fed. R. Evid. 401 and
`
`thus inadmissible under Fed. R. Evid. 402, or as being confusing or a waste of time
`
`under Fed. R. Evid. 403 because Ex. 2085 is inadmissible under Fed. R. Evid. 801,
`
`802 and/or 901 as explained above. Furthermore, Patent Owner relies on Ex. 2085
`
`as providing evidence that Packers Plus’s techniques for providing zonal isolation
`
`in open hole portions of a well bore was contrary to the prevailing wisdom at the
`
`time of invention. See, e.g., POR at 15. Yet, such evidence is not relevant in the
`
`current proceeding at least because, as demonstrated in the Petition, such techniques
`
`for providing zonal isolation in open hole portions of a well bore was known in the
`
`art at the time of the invention. See, e.g., Petition at 7-14; see also Tokai Corp., 632
`
`19
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01509
`Patent No. 7,861,774
`
`F.3d at 1369 ("If commercial success is due to an element in the prior art, no nexus
`
`exists.").
`
`Exhibit 2086 -- Rigzone TRAINING, How Does Acidizing Work to Stimulate
`Production?
`Petitioner objects to Ex. 2086 under Fed. R. Evid. 901(a) as Patent Owner has
`
`not “produce[d] evidence sufficient to support a finding that the item is what the
`
`proponent claims it is.” For example, Patent Owner has not provided any evidence
`
`pursuant to Fed. R. Evid. 901(b) or otherwise satisfying the requirement of Fed. R.
`
`Evid. 901(a).
`
`Petitioner objects to Ex. 2086 as being irrelevant under Fed. R. Evid. 401 and
`
`thus inadmissible under Fed. R. Evid. 402, or as being confusing or a waste of time
`
`under Fed. R. Evid. 403 because Ex. 2086 is inadmissible under Fed. R. Evid. 901
`
`as explained above. Furthermore, Patent Owner has not relied upon Ex. 2086 for
`
`any purpose in the present proceeding, and has not cited Ex. 2086 in any paper
`
`submitted in this proceeding. Therefore, Ex. 2086 is irrelevant under Fed. R. Evid.
`
`401 and thus inadmissible under Fed. R. Evid. 402, or as being confusing or a waste
`
`of time under Fed. R. Evid. 403.
`
`Finally, should Patent Owner subsequently rely on Ex. 2086 for the truth of
`
`the matter asserted therein, Ex. 2086 would be inadmissible under Fed. R. Evid.
`
`20
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01509
`Patent No. 7,861,774
`
`801(c) and Fed. R. Evid. 802. Patent Owner has not offered any evidence that Ex.
`
`2086 falls within any exception to the rule against hearsay of Fed. R. Evid. 802.
`
`Exhibit 2087 -- Carl T. Montgomery, Hydraulic Fracturing—History of an
`Enduring Technology, 2010
`Petitioner objects to Ex. 2087 under Fed. R. Evid. 901(a) as Patent Owner has
`
`not “produce[d] evidence sufficient to support a finding that the item is what the
`
`proponent claims it is.” For example, Patent Owner has not provided any evidence
`
`pursuant to Fed. R. Evid. 901(b) or otherwise satisfying the requirement of Fed. R.
`
`Evid. 901(a).
`
`Petitioner objects to Ex. 2087 as being irrelevant under Fed. R. Evid. 401 and
`
`thus inadmissible under Fed. R. Evid. 402, or as being confusing or a waste of time
`
`under Fed. R. Evid. 403 because Ex. 2087 is inadmissible under Fed. R. Evid. 901
`
`as explained above. Furthermore, Patent Owner has not relied upon Ex. 2087 for
`
`any purpose in the present proceeding, and has not cited Ex. 2087 in any paper
`
`submitted in this proceeding. Therefore, Ex. 2087 is irrelevant under Fed. R. Evid.
`
`401 and thus inadmissible under Fed. R. Evid. 402, or as being confusing or a waste
`
`of time under Fed. R. Evid. 403.
`
`Finally, should Patent Owner subsequently rely on Ex. 2087 for the truth of
`
`the matter asserted therein, Ex. 2087 would be inadmissible under Fed. R. Evid.
`
`21
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01509
`Patent No. 7,861,774
`
`801(c) and Fed. R. Evid. 802. Patent Owner has not offered any evidence that Ex.
`
`2087 falls within any exception to the rule against hearsay of Fed. R. Evid. 802.
`
`Exhibit 2088 -- R.E. Hurst, “Development and Application of ‘Frac’
`Treatments in the Permian Basin,” SPE 405 (1954)
`Petitioner objects to Ex. 2088 as being irrelevant under Fed. R. Evid. 401 and
`
`thus inadmissible under Fed. R. Evid. 402, or as being confusing or a waste of time
`
`under Fed. R. Evid. 403. Patent Owner has not relied upon Ex. 2088 for any purpose
`
`in the present proceeding, and has not cited Ex. 2088 in any paper submitted in this
`
`proceeding. Therefore, Ex. 2088 is irrelevant under Fed. R. Evid. 401 and thus
`
`inadmissible under Fed. R. Evid. 402, or as being confusing or a waste of time under
`
`Fed. R. Evid. 403.
`
`Finally, should Patent Owner subsequently rely on Ex. 2088 for the truth of
`
`the matter asserted therein, Ex. 2088 would be inadmissible under Fed. R. Evid.
`
`801(c) and Fed. R. Evid. 802. Patent Owner has not offered any evidence that Ex.
`
`2088 falls within any exception to the rule against hearsay of Fed. R. Evid. 802.
`
`Exhibit 2089 -- U.S. Patent No. 556,669
`Patent Owner has not relied upon Ex. 2089 for any purpose in the present
`
`proceeding, and has not cited Ex. 2089 in any paper submitted in this proceeding.
`
`Therefore, Ex. 2089 is irrelevant under Fed. R. Evid. 401 and thus inadmissible
`
`22
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01509
`Patent No. 7,861,774
`
`under Fed. R. Evid. 402, or as being confusing or a waste of time under Fed. R. Evid.
`
`403.
`
`Exhibit 2090 -- Rebecca Stacha Declaration
`Patent Owner has not relied upon Ex. 2090, filed Ex. 2090 or served Ex. 2090.
`
`Accordingly, Petitioner believes that Ex. 2090 was included on Patent Owner
`
`Exhibit List in error. Nevertheless, Petitioner reserves the right to object to Ex. 2090
`
`should Patent Owner relied upon, file or serve such an ex