`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`WEATHERFORD INTERNATIONAL, LLC
`
`Petitioner,
`v.
`
`BAKER HUGHES OILFIELD OPERATIONS, LLC
`
`Patent Owner.
`
`Case IPR2019-00768
`Patent RE46,137
`
`
`PETITIONER’S RESPONSE TO PATENT OWNER’S
`MOTION TO EXCLUDE EX. 1012’S 2011-USE STATEMENT
`AS HEARSAY
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Weatherford International v. Baker Hughes
`Patent No. RE46,137 - IPR2019-00768
`
`Introduction
`
`I.
`
`Patent Owner’s motion (“Mot.”) requests the Board to exclude from Ex. 1012
`
`its statement that “[t]he operator found that by employing the RDV that they could
`
`reduce the cost of their wells by eliminating the CT conveyed first-stage perforating
`
`gun run and began incorporating the valve in the second quarter of 2011” (the “2011-
`
`Use Statement”). The motion should be denied.
`
`Ex. 1012 is the Society for Petroleum Engineers (“SPE”) Paper SPE 162658,
`
`“Streamlined Completions Process: An Eagle Ford Shale Case History,” published
`
`October 2012. EX1012, 1. Petitioner and its expert Mr. Michael Chambers rely on
`
`Ex. 1012 (along with Exs. 1010 and 1011) to show simultaneous invention with the
`
`challenged ’137 Patent, which has a priority date of July 29, 2011. Paper 2 at 65-
`
`66; EX1022, ¶¶53-54. Ex. 1012 describes a tool “referred to as an initiator rupture
`
`disc valve (RDV) [that] provides a way to efficiently start the hydraulic fracturing
`
`process for the toe stage.” EX1012, 3. After explaining the RDV’s operation, Mr.
`
`Chambers states that “[t]his tool is very similar to the ’137 Patent disclosure” and
`
`concludes that the RDV is evidence that the ’137 Patent “was merely the exercise of
`
`ordinary skill in the art, not of invention.” EX1022, ¶¶54-55.
`
`Patent Owner files its motion under the belief that Ex. 1012 cannot be
`
`evidence of simultaneous invention without the 2011-Use Statement, which Patent
`
`Owner argues is hearsay. Patent Owner is wrong on both counts.
`
`1
`
`
`
`Weatherford International v. Baker Hughes
`Patent No. RE46,137 - IPR2019-00768
`
`II. The Board Need Not Determine Whether the 2011-Use Statement Is
`Hearsay to Deny Patent Owner’s Motion
`
`Patent Owner ultimately seeks to exclude the RDV as evidence of
`
`simultaneous invention by requesting the Board to exclude the 2011-Use Statement
`
`in Ex. 1012 as hearsay. Mot. at 1. The Board need not resolve the question of
`
`whether the 2011-Use Statement is hearsay, however, because Ex. 1012’s October
`
`2012 disclosure of the RDV is sufficient to show simultaneous invention whether
`
`the 2011-Use Statement is excluded or not. See Haig-Streit AG v. Eidolon Optical,
`
`LLC, IPR2018-01311, at 47 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 19, 2019) (Paper 46) (denying a motion
`
`to exclude allegedly hearsay evidence as moot because the statements were not relied
`
`upon in the final decision). That is, even if the Board ignores that second quarter
`
`2011 use of the RDV, the RDV was still publicly disclosed no later than the October
`
`2012 publication date of Ex. 1012.
`
`Fifteen months (or less) is within the amount of time courts have allowed for
`
`inventions to be considered “simultaneous.” See Geo. M. Martin Co. v. All. Mach.
`
`Sys. Int'l LLC, 618 F.3d 1294, 1305 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (period of 6-18 months based
`
`on the claimed invention date as early as 2001 compared to the reference’s invention
`
`date of June 2002); Felburn v. New York Cent. R. Co., 350 F.2d 416, 424-26 (6th
`
`Cir. 1965) (period of 12-18 months based on a reducing to practice the claimed
`
`invention as early as the summer of 1954 compared to the reference that was “printed
`
`2
`
`
`
`Weatherford International v. Baker Hughes
`Patent No. RE46,137 - IPR2019-00768
`
`in June 1955 and was mailed out during the latter part of 1955”); Trustees of
`
`Columbia Univ. v. Illumina, Inc., 620 F. App’x 916, 929 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (14 months
`
`based on October 2000 priority of the claimed invention compared to the two
`
`references that were conceived in December 2001).
`
`Further, there are other unchallenged statements in Ex. 1012 that establish the
`
`RDV was invented some time prior to October 2012, shortening any gap between its
`
`invention and the ’137 Patent filing date. For example, Ex. 1012 states that the RDV
`
`has been used “in over 300 horizontal well applications” and provides data from
`
`three example wells. EX1012, 4-5. These unchallenged statements necessarily
`
`show that the RDV was used prior to Ex. 1012’s October 2012 publication date.
`
`Finally, Patent Owner’s argument that the at most 15 months between the Ex.
`
`1012 publication date and the priority date of the ’137 Patent is too long to qualify
`
`as a simultaneous invention fails. Patent Owner cites no authority for a rule that 15
`
`months is too long because it is simply not the law as noted above. Patent Owner
`
`asserts that Petitioner set the “required ‘comparatively short space of time’” at “a
`
`few months” (Mot. at 1), but Patent Owner cites nothing from Petitioner for that
`
`proposition because Petitioner never asserted it. Patent Owner also asserts that the
`
`comparatively short space of time “cannot be as long as 9-10 months” because
`
`Petitioner and Mr. Chambers relied on a May 2011 priority date for Ex. 1010, despite
`
`its May 2012 filing date. Mot. at 1. But after noting the two different dates for Ex.
`
`3
`
`
`
`Weatherford International v. Baker Hughes
`Patent No. RE46,137 - IPR2019-00768
`
`1010 and Ex. 1011, Mr. Chambers expressly states, “I consider the ’483
`
`[Provisional] Application and the resulting ’684 Patent to be an example of
`
`simultaneous invention.” EX1022, ¶53 (emphasis added). Thus, Mr. Chambers
`
`relied on both. Even if he had not, the fact that Petitioner chose the earlier of two
`
`dates to which Ex. 1010 was entitled to priority does not admit that the latter date
`
`would not also have met the required standard.
`
`III. The 2011-Use Statement Falls Under the Residual Use Exception
`to Hearsay
`
`To the extent it is necessary to consider the 2011-Use Statement, that
`
`statement is admissible under the Residual Exception of Fed. R. Evid. 807. First,
`
`the statement is supported by sufficient guarantees of trustworthiness considering
`
`the totality of circumstances under which it was made. Fed. R. Evid. 807(a)(1). Ex.
`
`1012 is a paper authored by four SPE members that was selected for publication and
`
`presentation at 2012 SPE Conference. It provides a case history explaining that the
`
`RDV was used in “over 300 horizontal well applications,” and providing data from
`
`three of the wells. EX1012, 4-5. The widespread prior use (which is unchallenged)
`
`stated in a well-known industry publication provides sufficient guarantees of
`
`trustworthiness supporting the 2011-Use Statement. Second, to the extent the 2011-
`
`Use Statement is necessary to show the RDV is a simultaneous invention, the 2011-
`
`Use Statement is more probative on that issue than any other evidence that could be
`
`4
`
`
`
`Weatherford International v. Baker Hughes
`Patent No. RE46,137 - IPR2019-00768
`
`obtained through reasonable efforts. Fed. R. Evid. 807(a)(2). Finally, Patent Owner
`
`had reasonable notice of Petitioner’s intended offering of the 2011-Use Statement—
`
`Ex. 1012 was included in the Petition and discussed in Mr. Chambers’ declaration.
`
`IV. Even If the 2011-Use Statement Is Hearsay, Mr. Chambers May
`Rely on It
`
`Regardless of whether the 2011-Use Statement is Hearsay, Mr. Chambers
`
`may rely on it to form his ultimate opinion that the RDV shows simultaneous
`
`invention. Under Rule 703 of the Federal Rules of Evidence, an expert witness may
`
`rely on otherwise inadmissible “facts or data” in formulating opinions if “experts in
`
`the particular field would reasonably rely on those kinds of facts or data in forming
`
`an opinion on the subject.” Fed. R. Evid. 703; see also i4i Ltd. P’ship v. Microsoft
`
`Corp., 598 F.3d 831, 856 (Fed. Cir. 2010), aff’d, 564 U.S. 91 (2011) (holding the
`
`challenged document “was properly admitted over Microsoft’s hearsay objection
`
`under Federal Rule of Evidence 703”); Nestle Healthcare Nutrition, Inc. v. Steuben
`
`Foods, Inc., IPR2015-00249, at 13 (P.T.A.B. June 2, 2016) (Paper 76) (concluding
`
`that expert could rely on otherwise inadmissible hearsay evidence and that the caveat
`
`in FRE 703 limiting disclosure of that evidence to juries does not apply under 37
`
`C.F.R. § 42.62(b)).
`
`SPE publications are regularly relied upon by experts to form opinions; for
`
`example, Mr. Chambers has attended and presented at numerous SPE conferences
`
`5
`
`
`
`Weatherford International v. Baker Hughes
`Patent No. RE46,137 - IPR2019-00768
`
`throughout his career. See EX1022, ¶9. Patent Owner’s own expert, Dr.
`
`Fleckenstein, touts being named as a “Distinguished Lecturer in 2018 by the Society
`
`of Petroleum Engineers (SPE)” and receiving the “SPE Regional Completions
`
`Optimization and Technology Award in 2019” among his qualifications to testify in
`
`this case. EX2001, ¶12. In fact, Dr. Fleckenstein relies extensively on statements
`
`in SPE 100572 and 125365 in his own analysis, asserting that such disclosures
`
`evidence that a POSITA would have found the facts therein “reasonable,” conceding
`
`that such reliance is reasonable. EX2001, ¶¶54-71. After reviewing Ex. 1012, Mr.
`
`Chambers concludes that the RDV valve is “very similar to the ’137 Patent
`
`disclosure” and relies on the statements in Ex. 1012, including the 2011-Use
`
`Statement among others, to conclude the RDV invention was “developed very nearly
`
`in time to the filing date of the ’137 Patent.” EX1022, ¶53.
`
`V. Conclusion
`
`For the foregoing reasons, Patent Owner’s motion should be denied.
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`ARMOND WILSON LLP
`
`Dated: May 27, 2020
`
`
`
`
`
`By: /Douglas R. Wilson/
`Douglas R. Wilson (Reg. No. 54,542)
`Attorney for Petitioner
`Weatherford International, LLC
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`Weatherford International v. Baker Hughes
`Patent No. RE46,137 - IPR2019-00768
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`The undersigned certifies that pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(e), and with the
`
`agreement of counsel for Patent Owner, a true and correct copy of the foregoing
`
`PETITIONER’S RESPONSE TO PATENT OWNER’S MOTION TO
`
`EXCLUDE EX. 1012’S 2011-USE STATEMENT AS HEARSAY is being
`
`served electronically on May 27, 2020 to the following lead and back-up counsel
`
`for Patent Owner to the following email addresses:
`
`
`Mark T. Garrett
`Mark.garrett@nortonrosefulbright.com
`
`Eagle H. Robinson
`Eagle.robinson@nortonrosefulbright.com
`
`Jeremy Albright
`Jeremy.albright@nortonrosefulbright.com
`
`Michael Pohl
`Michael.pohl@nortonrosefulbright.com
`
`
`
`
`Dated: May 27, 2020
`
`
`
`
`
`By: /Douglas R. Wilson/
`Douglas R. Wilson (Reg. No. 54,542)
`Attorney for Petitioner
`Weatherford International, LLC
`
`
`
`7
`
`