Paper 34
`
`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 IPR2016-01517
`Patent 7,134,505
`________________________
`
`PETITIONER’S OBJECTIONS TO PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE
`EVIDENCE PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b)(1)
`
`
`
`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 IPR2016-01517
`Patent 7,134,505
`________________________
`
`PETITIONER’S OBJECTIONS TO PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE
`EVIDENCE PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b)(1)
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01517
`Patent No. 7,134,505
`
`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 IPR2016-0151. 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,
`
`IPR2016-01517, 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 IPR2016-01517
`Patent No. 7,134,505
`
`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 7-15; 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 IPR2016-01517
`Patent No. 7,134,505
`
`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 30. 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 30. 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 7-15; 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 IPR2016-01517
`Patent No. 7,134,505
`
`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, 31, 40, 41. 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, 31. Yet, such evidence is not relevant in the
`
`current proceeding. See, e.g., Petition at 7-15; 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 IPR2016-01517
`Patent No. 7,134,505
`
`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 32, 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 IPR2016-01517
`Patent No. 7,134,505
`
`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, 34. 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 IPR2016-01517
`Patent No. 7,134,505
`
`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 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 31. Yet, such evidence is not relevant in the
`
`7
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01517
`Patent No. 7,134,505
`
`current proceeding. See, e.g., Petition at 7-15; 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 IPR2016-01517
`Patent No. 7,134,505
`
`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 7-15; 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 IPR2016-01517
`Patent No. 7,134,505
`
`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 IPR2016-01517
`Patent No. 7,134,505
`
`current proceeding. See, e.g., Petition at 7-15; 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, 35, 36. 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 35, 36. Yet, such evidence is
`
`11
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01517
`Patent No. 7,134,505
`
`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 36. 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 36. Yet, such evidence is not
`
`relevant in the current proceeding. Wyers v. Master Lock Co., 616 F. 3d 1231, 1246.
`
`12
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01517
`Patent No. 7,134,505
`
`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 28. 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 28. Yet, such evidence is not relevant in the
`
`13
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01517
`Patent No. 7,134,505
`
`current proceeding. See, e.g., Petition at 7-15; 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 IPR2016-01517
`Patent No. 7,134,505
`
`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 7-15; 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, 56. 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 IPR2016-01517
`Patent No. 7,134,505
`
`current proceeding. See, e.g., Petition at 7-15; 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, 63. 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 7-15; 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 IPR2016-01517
`Patent No. 7,134,505
`
`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, 63. 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 IPR2016-01517
`Patent No. 7,134,505
`
`current proceeding. See, e.g., Petition at 7-15; 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 IPR2016-01517
`Patent No. 7,134,505
`
`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 7-15; see also Tokai Corp., 632
`
`19
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01517
`Patent No. 7,134,505
`
`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 IPR2016-01517
`Patent No. 7,134,505
`
`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 IPR2016-01517
`Patent No. 7,134,505
`
`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 IPR2016-01517
`Patent No. 7,134,505
`
`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 exhi
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
