Mark J. DeBoy
`
`From:
`Sent:
`To:
`Cc:
`Subject:
`
`Attachments:
`
`Jason,
`
`Justin Nemunaitis <jnemunaitis@caldwellcc.com>
`Friday, December 09, 2016 8:46 AM
`Jason Shapiro
`Hamad Hamad; Brad Caldwell; rapid@caldwellcc.com; Patrick Finnan; Gregory Gonsalves
`Re: Weatherford Int'l v. Packers Plus Energy Svcs./Case Nos. IPR2016-01509,
`IPR2016-01514, IPR2016-01517
`RC's First Set of RFAs to WFD.PDF
`
`We are available for a call with the Board on the afternoons of December 14th or 15th. On the phone yesterday you had
`proposed 12/21 rather than 12/19 so I will check on 12/19 and try to get back to you later today.
`
`In the next day or two, could you please send us any evidence you intend to seek authorization to file with the
`Board? We will need that to be prepared for a call if the Board grants one.
`
`Also, please let me know if you will agree to respond to the attached requests for admission. We intend to ask the
`Board for the option to file a surreply, to obtain responses to the attached discovery requests, and we may also serve
`some additional discovery requests once we know what evidence you intend to submit to the Board.
`
`Regards,
`Justin
`
`From: Jason Shapiro <js@usiplaw.com>
`Date: Thursday, December 8, 2016 at 9:08 PM
`To: Justin Nemunaitis <jnemunaitis@caldwellcc.com>
`Cc: Hamad Hamad <hhamad@caldwellcc.com>, Brad Caldwell <bcaldwell@caldwellcc.com>, "rapid@caldwellcc.com"
`<rapid@caldwellcc.com>, Patrick Finnan <PJF@usiplaw.com>
`Subject: Weatherford Int'l v. Packers Plus Energy Svcs./Case Nos. IPR2016-01509, IPR2016-01514, IPR2016-01517
`
`Counsel,
`
`Thanks for returning my call earlier today. I look forward to receiving confirmation of your availability for a call with the
`Board on the following dates:
`
`Tuesday, December 13th – late morning or early afternoon (Eastern)
`
`Wednesday, December 14th – afternoon (Eastern)
`
`Thursday, December 15th – afternoon (Eastern)
`
`Monday, December 19th – late morning or afternoon (Eastern)
`
`As I told you, we would like confirmation by tomorrow (Friday) morning so that we can give the Board adequate lead
`time to consider our proposed dates.
`
`Thanks,
`
`1
`
`Weatherford International LLC et al.
`Exhibit 1030
`Weatherford International LLC et al. v. Packers Plus Energy Services Inc.
`IPR2016-01517
`Page 1
`
`

`
`Jason Shapiro
`
`Jason Shapiro
`Partner
`
`js@usiplaw.com
`Direct: 240-864-2434
`Fax: 301-762-4056
`
`Information contained within this email and its attachments, if any, may be confidential and/or privileged. This email is intended to be reviewed only by the individual
`to whom it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient or an authorized representative of the intended recipient, please be aware that any review,
`dissemination, or copying of the information contained within this email and its attachments, if any, is prohibited. If you have received this email in error, please
`immediately notify me by return email and delete this email from your system.
`
`2
`
`Weatherford International LLC et al.
`Exhibit 1030
`Weatherford International LLC et al. v. Packers Plus Energy Services Inc.
`IPR2016-01517
`Page 2
`
`

`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`TYLER DIVISION
`
`RAPID COMPLETIONS LLC,
`
`Civil Action No. 6:15-cv-724-RWS-KNM
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`
`
`
`§§§§§§§§§§
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`v.
`
`BAKER HUGHES INCORPORATED, et
`al.
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PLAINTIFF’S FIRST SET OF REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION TO WEATHERFORD
`
`Plaintiff Rapid Completions LLC pursuant to Rules 26 and 36 of the Federal Rules of Civil
`
`Procedure and this Court’s Discovery Order, serve the following Requests for Admission on
`
`Defendants Weatherford International, LLC, Weatherford/Lamb, Inc., Weatherford US, LP and
`
`Weatherford Artificial Lift Systems LLC (collectively, “Weatherford”). By operation of the rules,
`
`a written response to each request is due within thirty (30) days of service, but Plaintiff has
`
`requested a response by 5 PM on September 19, 2016.
`
`DEFINITIONS & INSTRUCTIONS
`
`The following terms and definitions shall apply to each Interrogatory contained herein:
`
`1.
`
`The term “Rapid Completions” is defined as Rapid Completions LLC, the Plaintiff
`
`in this litigation, and should be understood to include any and all officers, directors, partners,
`
`associates, employees, staff members, agents, representatives, attorneys, subsidiaries, parents,
`
`affiliates, divisions, successors, predecessors, or other related entities.
`
`2.
`
`The term “Weatherford” should be understood to refer to Weatherford
`
`International, LLC, Weatherford/Lamb, Inc., Weatherford US, LP, Weatherford Artificial Lift
`
`-1-
`
`Weatherford International LLC et al.
`Exhibit 1030
`Weatherford International LLC et al. v. Packers Plus Energy Services Inc.
`IPR2016-01517
`Page 3
`
`

`
`Systems LLC, and includes any officers, directors, partners, associates, employees, staff members,
`
`agents, representatives, in-house or outside attorneys, consultants, subsidiaries foreign or
`
`domestic, parents, affiliates, divisions, successors, predecessors, and any others acting on behalf
`
`of Weatherford or under Weatherford’s direction and control.
`
`3.
`
`The term “Baker Hughes” should be understood to refer to Baker Hughes
`
`Incorporated, Baker Hughes Oilfield Operations, Inc.,, and includes any officers, directors,
`
`partners, associates, employees, staff members, agents, representatives, in-house or outside
`
`attorneys, consultants, subsidiaries foreign or domestic, parents, affiliates, divisions, successors,
`
`predecessors, and any others acting on behalf of Weatherford or under Weatherford’s direction
`
`and control.
`
`4.
`
`The term “discussed” includes in-person and over the phone discussions, as well as
`
`written correspondence such as through email.
`
`5.
`
`The term “patents-in-suit” refers to U.S. Patent Nos. 6,907,936 (“the ’936 Patent”),
`
`7,134,505 (“the ’505 Patent”), 7,543,634 (“the ’634 Patent”), 7,861,774 (“the ’774 Patent”),
`
`8,657,009 (“the ’009 patent”), 9,074,451 (“the ’451 patent”), and 9,303,501 (“the ’501 patent”).
`
`6.
`
`Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 36, your answers must either admit the
`
`matter in question, specifically deny it, or state in detail why you cannot truthfully admit or deny
`
`it. A denial must fairly respond to the substance of the matter; and when good faith requires that
`
`you qualify an answer or deny only a part of a matter, your answers must specify the part admitted
`
`and qualify or deny the rest. You may assert lack of knowledge or information as a reason for
`
`failing to admit or deny only if you state that you have made a reasonable inquiry and that the
`
`information you know or can readily obtain is insufficient to enable you to admit or deny.
`
`-2-
`
`Weatherford International LLC et al.
`Exhibit 1030
`Weatherford International LLC et al. v. Packers Plus Energy Services Inc.
`IPR2016-01517
`Page 4
`
`

`
`REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION
`
`1.
`
`Before Weatherford filed its IPRs against the patents-in-suit, Weatherford discussed with
`
`Baker Hughes that it might file its own IPRs against one or more of the patents-in-suit.
`
`RESPONSE:
`
`2.
`
`Before Weatherford filed its IPRs against the patents-in-suit, Weatherford and Baker
`
`Hughes discussed which references would be included in Weatherford's IPRs.
`
`RESPONSE:
`
`3.
`
`Before Weatherford filed its IPRs against the patents-in-suit, Baker Hughes suggested to
`
`Weatherford that it should include one or more of the invalidity theories contained Weatherford's
`
`IPRs.
`
`RESPONSE:
`
`4.
`
`With regard to at least one IPR filed by Baker Hughes against a patent-in-suit,
`
`Weatherford and Baker Hughes discussed which references would be included in that IPR.
`
`RESPONSE:
`
`5.
`
`With regard to at least one IPR filed by Baker Hughes against a patent-in-suit,
`
`Weatherford suggested to Baker Hughes that it should include one or more of the invalidity
`
`theories contained in that IPR.
`
`RESPONSE:
`
`6.
`
`Weatherford did not decide to file its own IPRs against the patents-in-suit until after it
`
`-3-
`
`discussed that idea with Baker Hughes.
`
`
`
`RESPONSE:
`
`
`
`Weatherford International LLC et al.
`Exhibit 1030
`Weatherford International LLC et al. v. Packers Plus Energy Services Inc.
`IPR2016-01517
`Page 5
`
`

`
`September 16, 2016
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`CALDWELL CASSADY & CURRY P.C.
`
`/s/Justin T. Nemunatis
`Bradley W. Caldwell
`Texas State Bar No. 24040630
`Email: bcaldwell@caldwellcc.com
`Jason D. Cassady
`Texas State Bar No. 24045625
`Email: jcassady@caldwellcc.com
`John Austin Curry
`Texas State Bar No. 24059636
`Email: acurry@caldwellcc.com
`Justin Nemunaitis
`Texas State Bar No. 24065815
`Email: jnemunaitis@caldwellcc.com
`CALDWELL CASSADY CURRY P.C.
`2101 Cedar Springs Road, Suite 1000
`Dallas, Texas 75201
`Telephone: (214) 888-4848
`Facsimile: (214) 888-4849
`
`ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF
`RAPID COMPLETIONS LLC
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`Dated:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`The undersigned certifies that the foregoing document was served via electronic mail on
`all counsel of record on September 16, 2016.
`
`
`/s/ Justin T. Nemunaitis
`Justin T. Nemunaitis
`
`
`
`
`
`-4-
`
`Weatherford International LLC et al.
`Exhibit 1030
`Weatherford International LLC et al. v. Packers Plus Energy Services Inc.
`IPR2016-01517
`Page 6