`
`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 PRELIMINARY
`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”) prior to institution of the trial 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 2003
`
`Petitioner objects to Ex. 2003 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. 2003 under Fed. R. Evid. 801(c) and Fed. R. Evid.
`
`802. For example, Patent Owners relies on Ex. 2003 for the truth of the matter
`
`asserted therein.
`
`See, e.g., Exclusive Licensee Rapid Completions LLC’s
`
`Preliminary Response, IPR2016-01509, paper 18 (hereinafter “POPR”) at 24 and
`
`35. Yet, Patent Owner has not offered any evidence that Ex. 2003 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. 2003 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. 2003 is inadmissible under Fed. R. Evid. 801,
`
`802 and 901 as explained above. Furthermore, Patent Owner relies on Ex. 2003 as
`
`providing evidence of commercial success and/or praise for devices 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.,
`
`POPR at 24, 35. Yet, such evidence is not relevant in the current proceeding
`
`because, as demonstrated in the Petition for Inter Partes Review (hereinafter
`
`“Petition”), 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., IPR2016-01509, Institution Decision,
`
`paper 23 (hereinafter “Institution Decision”) at 30 citing Ormco Corp. v. Align Tech.,
`
`Inc., 463 F.3d 1299, 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2006). Additionally, Patent Owner cites this
`
`reference, a reference purportedly from 2006, as illustrating the conventional
`
`wisdom at the time of invention while the ‘774 patent claims priority to 2001. As
`
`such, Ex. 2003 makes no assertions regarding the conventional wisdom at the time
`
`of invention, and therefore, is irrelevant under Fed. R. Evid. 401 as it has no tendency
`
`to make any fact upon which it is relied more or less probable. Finally, Patent
`
`Owner has not proven that any system in the exhibit upon which it relies, or any
`
`activity involving such system is covered by any challenged claim. Therefore, Ex.
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01509
`Patent No. 7,861,774
`
`2003 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.
`
`Exhibit 2004
`
`Petitioner objects to Ex. 2004 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. 2004 under Fed. R. Evid. 801(c) and Fed. R. Evid.
`
`802. For example, Patent Owners relies on Ex. 2004 for the truth of the matter
`
`asserted therein. See, e.g., POPR at 27-28. Yet, Patent Owner has not offered any
`
`evidence that Ex. 2004 falls within any exception to the rule against hearsay of Fed.
`
`R. Evid. 802.
`
`Petitioner objects to Ex. 2004 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. 2004 is inadmissible under Fed. R. Evid. 801,
`
`802 and 901 as explained above. Furthermore, Patent Owner relies on Ex. 2004 as
`
`providing evidence of commercial success and/or praise for devices providing zonal
`
`isolation in open hole portions of a well bore. See, e.g., POPR at 27-28. Yet, such
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01509
`Patent No. 7,861,774
`
`evidence is not relevant in the current proceeding because, as demonstrated in the
`
`Petition, 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., Institution Decision at 30 citing
`
`Ormco Corp., 463 F.3d at 1312. Additionally, Patent Owner has not proven that
`
`any system in the exhibit upon which it relies, or any activity involving such system
`
`is covered by any challenged claim. For example, the reference purports to show
`
`that an inventor of the ‘774 patent received an award, yet Patent Owner has provided
`
`no evidence that the award was related to covered by any claim of the ‘774 patent.
`
`Therefore, Ex. 2004 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.
`
`Exhibit 2005
`
`Petitioner objects to Ex. 2005 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. 2005 under Fed. R. Evid. 801(c) and Fed. R. Evid.
`
`802. For example, Patent Owners relies on Ex. 2005 for the truth of the matter
`
`4
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01509
`Patent No. 7,861,774
`
`asserted therein. See, e.g., POPR at 26-27. Yet, Patent Owner has not offered any
`
`evidence that Ex. 2005 falls within any exception to the rule against hearsay of Fed.
`
`R. Evid. 802.
`
`Petitioner objects to Ex. 2005 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. 2005 is inadmissible under Fed. R. Evid. 801,
`
`802 and 901 as explained above. Furthermore, Patent Owner relies on Ex. 2005 as
`
`providing evidence of commercial success and/or praise for devices providing zonal
`
`isolation in open hole portions of a well bore. See, e.g., POPR at 26-27. Yet, such
`
`evidence is not relevant in the current proceeding because, as demonstrated in the
`
`Petition, 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., Institution Decision at 30 citing
`
`Ormco Corp., 463 F.3d at 1312. Additionally, Patent Owner has not proven that any
`
`system in the exhibit upon which it relies, or any activity involving such system is
`
`covered by any challenged claim. Therefore, Ex. 2005 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.
`
`5
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01509
`Patent No. 7,861,774
`
`Exhibit 2006
`
`Petitioner objects to Ex. 2006 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. 2006 under Fed. R. Evid. 801(c) and Fed. R. Evid.
`
`802. For example, Patent Owners relies on Ex. 2006 for the truth of the matter
`
`asserted therein. See, e.g., POPR at 25 (Ex. 2006 is erroneously cited as Ex. 2007).
`
`Yet, Patent Owner has not offered any evidence that Ex. 2006 falls within any
`
`exception to the rule against hearsay of Fed. R. Evid. 802.
`
`Petitioner objects to Ex. 2006 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. 2006 is inadmissible under Fed. R. Evid. 801,
`
`802 and 901 as explained above. Furthermore, Patent Owner relies on Ex. 2006 as
`
`providing evidence of commercial success and/or praise for devices providing zonal
`
`isolation in open hole portions of a well bore. See, e.g., POPR at 25 (Ex. 2006 is
`
`erroneously cited as Ex. 2007). Yet, such evidence is not relevant in the current
`
`proceeding because, as demonstrated in the Petition, providing zonal isolation in
`
`6
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01509
`Patent No. 7,861,774
`
`open hole portions of a well bore was known in the art at the time of the invention.
`
`See, e.g., Institution Decision at 30 citing Ormco Corp., 463 F.3d at 1312.
`
`Additionally, Patent Owner has not proven that any system in the exhibit upon which
`
`it relies, or any activity involving such system is covered by any challenged claim.
`
`Therefore, Ex. 2006 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.
`
`Exhibit 2007
`
`Petitioner objects to Ex. 2007 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. 2007 under Fed. R. Evid. 801(c) and Fed. R. Evid.
`
`802. For example, Patent Owners relies on Ex. 2007 for the truth of the matter
`
`asserted therein. See, e.g., POPR at 27. Yet, Patent Owner has not offered any
`
`evidence that Ex. 2007 falls within any exception to the rule against hearsay of Fed.
`
`R. Evid. 802.
`
`7
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01509
`Patent No. 7,861,774
`
`Petitioner objects to Ex. 2007 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. 2007 is inadmissible under Fed. R. Evid. 801,
`
`802 and 901 as explained above. Furthermore, Patent Owner relies on Ex. 2007 as
`
`providing evidence of commercial success and/or praise for devices providing zonal
`
`isolation in open hole portions of a well bore. See, e.g., POPR at 27. Yet, such
`
`evidence is not relevant in the current proceeding because, as demonstrated in the
`
`Petition, 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., Institution Decision at 30 citing
`
`Ormco Corp., 463 F.3d at 1312. Additionally, Patent Owner has not proven that any
`
`system in the exhibit upon which it relies, or any activity involving such system is
`
`covered by any challenged claim. Therefore, Ex. 2007 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.
`
`Exhibit 2008
`
`Petitioner objects to Ex. 2008 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. 2008 under Fed. R. Evid. 801(c) and Fed. R. Evid.
`
`802. For example, Patent Owners relies on Ex. 2008 for the truth of the matter
`
`asserted therein. See, e.g., POPR at 25-26. Yet, Patent Owner has not offered any
`
`evidence that Ex. 2008 falls within any exception to the rule against hearsay of Fed.
`
`R. Evid. 802.
`
`Petitioner objects to Ex. 2008 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. 2008 is inadmissible under Fed. R. Evid. 801,
`
`802 and 901 as explained above. Furthermore, Patent Owner relies on Ex. 2008 as
`
`providing evidence of commercial success and/or praise for devices providing zonal
`
`isolation in open hole portions of a well bore. See, e.g., POPR at 25-26. Yet, such
`
`evidence is not relevant in the current proceeding because, as demonstrated in the
`
`Petition, 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., Institution Decision at 30 citing
`
`Ormco Corp., 463 F.3d at 1312. Additionally, Patent Owner has not proven that any
`
`system in the exhibit upon which it relies, or any activity involving such system is
`
`covered by any challenged claim. Therefore, Ex. 2008 is irrelevant under Fed. R.
`
`9
`
`
`
`Evid. 401 and thus inadmissible under Fed. R. Evid. 402, or as being confusing or a
`
`Case IPR2016-01509
`Patent No. 7,861,774
`
`waste of time under Fed. R. Evid. 403.
`
`Exhibit 2009
`
`Petitioner objects to Ex. 2009 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. 2009 under Fed. R. Evid. 801(c) and Fed. R. Evid.
`
`802. For example, Patent Owners relies on Ex. 2009 for the truth of the matter
`
`asserted therein. See, e.g., POPR at 26. Yet, Patent Owner has not offered any
`
`evidence that Ex. 2009 falls within any exception to the rule against hearsay of Fed.
`
`R. Evid. 802.
`
`Petitioner objects to Ex. 2009 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. 2009 is inadmissible under Fed. R. Evid. 801,
`
`802 and 901 as explained above. Furthermore, Patent Owner relies on Ex. 2009 as
`
`providing evidence of commercial success and/or praise for devices providing zonal
`
`isolation in open hole portions of a well bore. See, e.g., POPR at 26. Yet, such
`
`10
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01509
`Patent No. 7,861,774
`
`evidence is not relevant in the current proceeding because, as demonstrated in the
`
`Petition, 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., Institution Decision at 30 citing
`
`Ormco Corp., 463 F.3d at 1312. Additionally, Patent Owner has not proven that any
`
`system in the exhibit upon which it relies, or any activity involving such system is
`
`covered by any challenged claim. Therefore, Ex. 2009 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.
`
`Exhibit 2010
`
`Petitioner objects to Ex. 2010 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. 2010 under Fed. R. Evid. 801(c) and Fed. R. Evid.
`
`802. For example, Patent Owners relies on Ex. 2010 for the truth of the matter
`
`asserted therein. See, e.g., POPR at 28-31. Yet, Patent Owner has not offered any
`
`evidence that Ex. 2010 falls within any exception to the rule against hearsay of Fed.
`
`R. Evid. 802.
`
`11
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01509
`Patent No. 7,861,774
`
`Petitioner objects to Ex. 2010 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. 2010 is inadmissible under Fed. R. Evid. 801,
`
`802 and 901 as explained above. Furthermore, Patent Owner relies on Ex. 2010 as
`
`providing evidence of commercial success and/or praise for devices 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.,
`
`POPR at 28-31. Yet, such evidence is not relevant in the current proceeding because,
`
`as demonstrated in the Petition, 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., Institution
`
`Decision at 30 citing Ormco Corp., 463 F.3d at 1312. Additionally, Patent Owner
`
`cites this reference, a reference purportedly from 2011, as illustrating the
`
`conventional wisdom at the time of invention while the ‘774 patent claims priority
`
`to 2001. As such, Ex. 2010 makes no assertions regarding the conventional wisdom
`
`at the time of invention, and therefore, is irrelevant under Fed. R. Evid. 401 as it has
`
`no tendency to make any fact upon which it is relied more or less probable. Finally,
`
`Patent Owner has not proven that any system in the exhibit upon which it relies, or
`
`any activity involving such system is covered by any challenged claim. Therefore,
`
`Ex. 2010 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.
`
`12
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01509
`Patent No. 7,861,774
`
`Exhibit 2011
`
`Petitioner objects to Ex. 2011 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. 2011 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. 2011 is inadmissible under Fed. R. Evid. 901
`
`as explained above. Furthermore, Patent Owner has not relied upon Ex. 2011 for
`
`any purpose in the present proceeding, and has not cited Ex. 2011 in any paper
`
`submitted in this proceeding. Therefore, Ex. 2011 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. 2011 for the truth of
`
`the matter asserted therein, Ex. 2011 would be inadmissible under Fed. R. Evid.
`
`801(c) and Fed. R. Evid. 802. Patent Owner has not offered any evidence that Ex.
`
`2011 falls within any exception to the rule against hearsay of Fed. R. Evid. 802.
`
`13
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01509
`Patent No. 7,861,774
`
`Exhibit 2012
`
`Petitioner objects to Ex. 2012 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. 2012 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. 2012 is inadmissible under Fed. R. Evid. 901
`
`as explained above. Furthermore, Patent Owner has not relied upon Ex. 2012 for
`
`any purpose in the present proceeding, and has not cited Ex. 2012 in any paper
`
`submitted in this proceeding. Therefore, Ex. 2012 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. 2012 for the truth of
`
`the matter asserted therein, Ex. 2012 would be inadmissible under Fed. R. Evid.
`
`801(c) and Fed. R. Evid. 802. Patent Owner has not offered any evidence that Ex.
`
`2012 falls within any exception to the rule against hearsay of Fed. R. Evid. 802.
`
`14
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01509
`Patent No. 7,861,774
`
`Exhibit 2013
`
`Petitioner objects to Ex. 2013 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. 2013 under Fed. R. Evid. 801(c) and Fed. R. Evid.
`
`802. For example, Patent Owners relies on Ex. 2013 for the truth of the matter
`
`asserted therein. See, e.g., POPR at 29, 34. Yet, Patent Owner has not offered any
`
`evidence that Ex. 2013 falls within any exception to the rule against hearsay of Fed.
`
`R. Evid. 802.
`
`Petitioner objects to Ex. 2013 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. 2013 is inadmissible under Fed. R. Evid. 801,
`
`802 and 901 as explained above. Furthermore, Patent Owner relies on Ex. 2013 as
`
`providing evidence of commercial success and/or praise for devices 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.,
`
`POPR at 29, 34. Yet, such evidence is not relevant in the current proceeding
`
`15
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01509
`Patent No. 7,861,774
`
`because, as demonstrated in the Petition, 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.,
`
`Institution Decision at 30 citing Ormco Corp., 463 F.3d at 1312. Additionally,
`
`Patent Owner cites this reference, a reference purportedly from 2013, as illustrating
`
`the conventional wisdom at the time of invention while the ‘774 patent claims
`
`priority to 2001. As such, Ex. 2013 makes no assertions regarding the conventional
`
`wisdom at the time of invention, and therefore, is irrelevant under Fed. R. Evid. 401
`
`as it has no tendency to make any fact upon which it is relied more or less probable.
`
`Finally, Patent Owner has not proven that any system in the exhibit upon which it
`
`relies, or any activity involving such system is covered by any challenged claim.
`
`Therefore, Ex. 2013 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.
`
`Exhibit 2014
`
`Petitioner objects to Ex. 2014 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).
`
`16
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01509
`Patent No. 7,861,774
`
`Petitioner objects to Ex. 2014 under Fed. R. Evid. 801(c) and Fed. R. Evid.
`
`802. For example, Patent Owners relies on Ex. 2014 for the truth of the matter
`
`asserted therein. See, e.g., POPR at 34. Yet, Patent Owner has not offered any
`
`evidence that Ex. 2014 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. 2014 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. 2014.
`
`Petitioner objects to Ex. 2014 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. 2014 is inadmissible under Fed. R. Evid. 801,
`
`802 and 901 as explained above. Furthermore, Patent Owner relies on Ex. 2014 as
`
`providing evidence that 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., POPR
`
`at 34. Yet, such evidence is not relevant in the current proceeding because, as
`
`demonstrated in the Petition, 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., Institution
`
`Decision at 30 citing Ormco Corp., 463 F.3d at 1312. Additionally, Patent Owner
`
`cites this reference, a reference purportedly from 2007, as illustrating the
`
`17
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01509
`Patent No. 7,861,774
`
`conventional wisdom at the time of invention while the ‘774 patent claims priority
`
`to 2001. As such, Ex. 2014 makes no assertions regarding the conventional wisdom
`
`at the time of invention, and therefore, is irrelevant under Fed. R. Evid. 401 as it has
`
`no tendency to make any fact upon which it is relied more or less probable.
`
`Therefore, Ex. 2014 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.
`
`Exhibit 2015
`
`Petitioner objects to Ex. 2015 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. 2015 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. 2015 is inadmissible under Fed. R. Evid. 901
`
`as explained above. Furthermore, Patent Owner has not relied upon Ex. 2015 for
`
`any purpose in the present proceeding, and has not cited Ex. 2015 in any paper
`
`submitted in this proceeding. Therefore, Ex. 2015 is irrelevant under Fed. R. Evid.
`
`18
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01509
`Patent No. 7,861,774
`
`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. 2015 for the truth of
`
`the matter asserted therein, Ex. 2015 would be inadmissible under Fed. R. Evid.
`
`801(c) and Fed. R. Evid. 802. Patent Owner has not offered any evidence that Ex.
`
`2015 falls within any exception to the rule against hearsay of Fed. R. Evid. 802.
`
`Exhibit 2016
`
`Petitioner objects to Ex. 2016 under Fed. R. Evid. 801(c) and Fed. R. Evid.
`
`802. For example, Patent Owners relies on Ex. 2016 for the truth of the matter
`
`asserted therein. See, e.g., POPR at 24, 29, 31-34. Yet, Patent Owner has not offered
`
`any evidence that Ex. 2016 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 subject of Ex. 2016 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. 2016.
`
`Petitioner objects to Ex. 2016 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. 2016 is inadmissible under Fed. R. Evid. 801
`
`and 802 as explained above. Furthermore, Patent Owner relies on Ex. 2016 as
`
`19
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01509
`Patent No. 7,861,774
`
`providing evidence of commercial success and/or praise for devices 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.,
`
`POPR at 24, 29, 31-34. Yet, such evidence is not relevant in the current proceeding
`
`because, as demonstrated in the Petition, 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.,
`
`Institution Decision at 30 citing Ormco Corp., 463 F.3d at 1312. Additionally,
`
`Patent Owner has not proven that any system in the exhibit upon which it relies, or
`
`any activity involving such system is covered by any challenged claim. Therefore,
`
`Ex. 2016 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.
`
`Exhibit 2017
`
`Petitioner objects to Ex. 2017 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. 2017 under Fed. R. Evid. 801(c) and Fed. R. Evid.
`
`802. For example, Patent Owners relies on Ex. 2017 for the truth of the matter
`
`20
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01509
`Patent No. 7,861,774
`
`asserted therein. See, e.g., POPR at 24. Yet, Patent Owner has not offered any
`
`evidence that Ex. 2017 falls within any exception to the rule against hearsay of Fed.
`
`R. Evid. 802.
`
`Petitioner objects to Ex. 2017 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. 2017 is inadmissible under Fed. R. Evid. 801,
`
`802 and 901 as explained above. Furthermore, Patent Owner relies on Ex. 2017 as
`
`providing evidence of commercial success and/or praise for devices providing zonal
`
`isolation in open hole portions of a well bore. See, e.g., POPR at 24. Yet, such
`
`evidence is not relevant in the current proceeding because, as demonstrated in the
`
`Petition, 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., Institution Decision at 30 citing
`
`Ormco Corp., 463 F.3d at 1312. Additionally, Patent Owner has not proven that any
`
`system in the exhibit upon which it relies, or any activity involving such system is
`
`covered by any challenged claim. Therefore, Ex. 2017 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.
`
`21
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01509
`Patent No. 7,861,774
`
`Exhibit 2018
`
`Petitioner objects to Ex. 2018 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. 2018 under Fed. R. Evid. 801(c) and Fed. R. Evid.
`
`802. For example, Patent Owners relies on Ex. 2018 for the truth of the matter
`
`asserted therein. See, e.g., POPR at 24. Yet, Patent Owner has not offered any
`
`evidence that Ex. 2018 falls within any exception to the rule against hearsay of Fed.
`
`R. Evid. 802.
`
`Petitioner objects to Ex. 2018 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. 2018 is inadmissible under Fed. R. Evid. 801,
`
`802 and 901 as explained above. Furthermore, Patent Owner relies on Ex. 2018 as
`
`providing evidence of commercial success and/or praise for devices providing zonal
`
`isolation in open hole portions of a well bore. See, e.g., POPR at 24. Yet, such
`
`evidence is not relevant in the current proceeding because, as demonstrated in the
`
`Petition, providing zonal isolation in open hole portions of a well bore was known
`
`22
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01509
`Patent No. 7,861,774
`
`in the art at the time of the invention. See, e.g., Institution Decision at 30 citing
`
`Ormco Corp., 463 F.3d at 1312. Additionally, Patent Owner has not proven that any
`
`system in the exhibit upon which it relies, or any activity involving such system is
`
`covered by any challenged claim. Therefore, Ex. 2018 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.
`
`Exhibit 2019
`
`Petitioner objects to Ex. 2019 under Fed. R. Evid. 901(a) as Patent Owner has
`
`not “produce[d] evidence sufficient to support a finding that the item is what