`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`________________
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`________________
`ENSIGN US SOUTHERN DRILLING LLC,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`C&M OILFIELD RENTALS, LLC
`D/B/A C-MOR ENERGY SERVICES
`Patent Owner.
`
`Case No. IPR2023-00804
`U.S. Patent No. 10,976,016
`_____________________________________________________________
`
`PATENT OWNER’S OBJECTIONS TO SUPPLEMENTAL EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b)(1) and the Federal Rules of Evidence
`
`Case No. IPR2023-00804
`Patent 10,976,016
`
`
`(“FRE”), C&M Oilfield Rentals, LLC d/b/a C-MOR Energy Services (“Patent
`
`Owner””) submits the following objections to certain supplemental evidence served
`
`by Ensign US Southern Drilling LLC (“Petitioner”) on November 27, 2023. Patent
`
`Owner’s objections apply equally to Petitioner’s reliance on this evidence in any
`
`subsequently filed documents.
`
`Evidence
`“Business Records Declaration” from
`Sean Johnstone – Paragraph 2
`discussing Exhibit B to the Declaration
`
`Objections
`FRE 401 & 402: Patent Owner objects
`to this evidence as not relevant (FRE
`401) and inadmissible (FRE 402)
`because it contains new evidence that
`is not relevant to any ground upon
`which this proceeding was instituted,
`and it is improperly submitted in
`response to Patent Owner’s objections
`as served on November 9, 2023.
`Specifically, Paragraph 2 discusses
`Exhibit B to the Declaration, and
`Exhibit B purports to be a catalog from
`2017 on which Petitioner did not rely
`in its Petition or otherwise disclose in
`connection with its Petition and, thus,
`is irrelevant to both the instituted
`grounds and the admissibility
`objections lodged by Patent Owner
`against any Exhibits to the Petition.
`FRE 403: For the same reasons, Patent
`Owner further objects to this evidence
`because its probative value is
`substantially outweighed by a danger
`of one or more of unfair prejudice,
`confusion of the issues, undue delay,
`and waste of time.
`Patent Owner also objects to this
`evidence under 37 C.F.R. § 42.64
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2023-00804
`Patent 10,976,016
`
`
`“Business Records Declaration” from
`Sean Johnstone – Exhibit B
`(“2017 Swivelpole Catalog”)
`
`because it is untimely and does not
`support the admissibility of previously
`filed exhibits to which Patent Owner
`objected.
`FRE 401 & 402: Patent Owner objects
`to this evidence as not relevant (FRE
`401) and inadmissible (FRE 402)
`because it constitutes new evidence
`that is not relevant to any grounds upon
`which the proceeding was instituted,
`and it is improperly submitted in
`response to Patent Owner’s objections
`as served on November 9, 2023.
`Specifically, Exhibit B purports to be a
`catalog from 2017 on which Petitioner
`did not rely in its Petition or otherwise
`disclose in connection with its Petition
`and, thus, is irrelevant to both the
`instituted grounds and the admissibility
`objections lodged by Patent Owner
`against any Exhibits to the Petition.
`FRE 403: For the same reasons, Patent
`Owner further objects to this evidence
`because its probative value, if any, is
`substantially outweighed by a danger
`of one or more of unfair prejudice,
`confusion of the issues, undue delay,
`and waste of time.
`Patent Owner also objects to this
`evidence under 37 C.F.R. § 42.64
`because it is untimely, new evidence
`and does not support the admissibility
`of previously filed exhibits to which
`Patent Owner objected.
`“Certified File Wrapper of 17/409,055” FRE 401 & 402: Patent Owner objects
`to this evidence as not relevant (FRE
`401) and inadmissible (FRE 402)
`because it constitutes new evidence
`that is not relevant to any grounds upon
`which the proceeding was instituted,
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2023-00804
`Patent 10,976,016
`
`
`and it is improperly submitted in
`response to Patent Owner’s objections
`as served on November 9, 2023.
`Specifically, “Certified File Wrapper of
`17/409,055” is for a patent on which
`Petitioner did not rely in its Petition or
`otherwise disclose in connection with
`its Petition and, thus, is irrelevant to
`both the instituted grounds and the
`admissibility objections lodged by
`Patent Owner against any Exhibits to
`the Petition.
`FRE 403: Patent Owner further objects
`to this evidence because its probative
`value, if any, is substantially
`outweighed by a danger of one or more
`of unfair prejudice, confusion of the
`issues, and undue delay, and waste of
`time.
`Patent Owner also objects to this
`evidence under 37 C.F.R. § 42.64
`because it is untimely, new evidence
`and does not support the admissibility
`of previously filed exhibits to which
`Patent Owner objected.
`
`
`
`Dated: December 4, 2023.
`
`
`Respectfully Submitted,
`
` / Dion M. Bregman /
`Dion M. Bregman, Reg. No. 45,645
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(e)(4), lead counsel for Patent Owner hereby
`
`certifies that on December 4, 2023, a copy of this Patent Owner’s Objections was
`
`served to the email correspondence address of record for Petitioner’s counsel of
`
`record:
`
`Gregory L. Porter
`gregporter@HuntonAK.com
`Daniel Shanley
`danshanley@HuntonAK.com
`Neil Kelly
`neilkelly@HuntonAK.com
`
`Dated: December 4, 2023.
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully Submitted,
`
` / Dion M. Bregman /
`Dion M. Bregman, Reg. No. 45,645
`
`
`
`
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
