Paper 27
`
`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 PRELIMINARY
`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 PRELIMINARY
`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”) prior to institution of the trial in IPR2016-01514. 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, IPR2016-01517, paper 18 (hereinafter “POPR”) at 22 and
`
`32. 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 IPR2016-01517
`Patent No. 7,134,505
`
`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 22, 32. 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., IPR2016-01517, Institution Decision,
`
`paper 23 (hereinafter “Institution Decision”) at 27 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 ‘505 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 IPR2016-01517
`Patent No. 7,134,505
`
`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 25-26. 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 25-26. Yet, such
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01517
`Patent No. 7,134,505
`
`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 27 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 ‘505 patent received an award, yet Patent Owner has provided no
`
`evidence that the award was related to any product covered by any claim of the ‘505
`
`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 IPR2016-01517
`Patent No. 7,134,505
`
`asserted therein. See, e.g., POPR at 24. 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 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 27 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 IPR2016-01517
`Patent No. 7,134,505
`
`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 23 (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 23 (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 IPR2016-01517
`Patent No. 7,134,505
`
`open hole portions of a well bore was known in the art at the time of the invention.
`
`See, e.g., Institution Decision at 27 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 25. 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 IPR2016-01517
`Patent No. 7,134,505
`
`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 25. 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 27 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 IPR2016-01517
`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. 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 23-24. 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 23-24. 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 27 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 IPR2016-01517
`Patent No. 7,134,505
`
`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 24. 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 24. Yet, such
`
`10
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01517
`Patent No. 7,134,505
`
`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 27 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 26-28. 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 IPR2016-01517
`Patent No. 7,134,505
`
`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 26-28. 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 27 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 ‘505 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 IPR2016-01517
`Patent No. 7,134,505
`
`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 IPR2016-01517
`Patent No. 7,134,505
`
`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 IPR2016-01517
`Patent No. 7,134,505
`
`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 27, 31-32. 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 27, 31-32. Yet, such evidence is not relevant in the current proceeding
`
`15
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01517
`Patent No. 7,134,505
`
`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 27 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 ‘505 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 IPR2016-01517
`Patent No. 7,134,505
`
`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 31. 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 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 27 citing Ormco Corp. 463 F.3d at 1312. Additionally, Patent Owner
`
`cites this reference, a reference purportedly from 2007, as illustrating the
`
`17
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01517
`Patent No. 7,134,505
`
`conventional wisdom at the time of invention while the ‘505 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 IPR2016-01517
`Patent No. 7,134,505
`
`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 22-23, 27, 29-31. 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 IPR2016-01517
`Patent No. 7,134,505
`
`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 22-23, 27, 29-31. 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 27 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).
`
`20
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01517
`Patent No. 7,134,505
`
`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
`
`asserted therein. See, e.g., POPR at 22. 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 22. 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 27 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 IPR2016-01517
`Patent No. 7,134,505
`
`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 22-23. 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 22-23. 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 IPR2016-01517
`Patent No. 7,134,505
`
`in the art at the time of the invention. See, e.g., Institution Decision at 27 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 i
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
