Page 1
`
` UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
` BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
` PETROLEUM GEO-SERVICES, ) Case No.
` INC., ) IPR 2014-01475,
` Petitioner, ) -01476, -01477,
` vs. ) 01478.
` WESTERNGECO, LLC. )
` Patent Owner. ) Page 1-30
`
` ** T E L E C O N F E R E N C E **
`
` (ALL PARTICIPANTS APPEARING TELEPHONICALLY)
`
`BOARD MEMBERS:
` JUDGE SCOTT DANIELS
` JUDGE BEVERLY BUNTING
` JUDGE BRYAN MOORE
` JUDGE BARBARA PARVIS
`
` Monday, April 27, 2015
`
`Reported by:
`BRENDA R. COUNTZ, RPR-CRR
`JOB NO. 92981
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide - 877-702-9580
`
`1
`2
`
`3 4
`
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Board Exhibit 3002, pg. 1
`PGS v. WesternGeco
`IPR2014-01478
`
`
`
` UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
` BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
` PETROLEUM GEO-SERVICES, ) Case No.
` INC., ) IPR 2014-01475,
` Petitioner, ) -01476, -01477,
` vs. ) 01478.
` WESTERNGECO, LLC. )
` Patent Owner. ) Page 1-30
`
` ** T E L E C O N F E R E N C E **
`
` (ALL PARTICIPANTS APPEARING TELEPHONICALLY)
`
`BOARD MEMBERS:
` JUDGE SCOTT DANIELS
` JUDGE BEVERLY BUNTING
` JUDGE BRYAN MOORE
` JUDGE BARBARA PARVIS
`
` Monday, April 27, 2015
`
`Reported by:
`BRENDA R. COUNTZ, RPR-CRR
`JOB NO. 92981
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide - 877-702-9580
`
`1
`2
`
`3 4
`
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Board Exhibit 3002, pg. 1
`PGS v. WesternGeco
`IPR2014-01478
`
`
`
`Page 2
`
` Teleconference taken stenographically
`from Los Angeles, California, on Monday, April 27, 2015,
`by Brenda R. Countz, CSR No. 12563.
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide - 877-702-9580
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Board Exhibit 3002, pg. 2
`PGS v. WesternGeco
`IPR2014-01478
`
`
`
`Page 3
`
`APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL:
`
`ATTORNEYS FOR PETITIONER:
` WILLIAMS & CONNOLLY
` BY: JESSAMYN BERNIKER, ESQ.
` DAVID BERL, ESQ.
` THOMAS FLETCHER, ESQ.
` MITCHELL BLAKELEY, ESQ.
` 725 Twelfth Street, NW
` Washington, DC 20005
`
`
`
`ATTORNEYS FOR PATENT OWNER:
` OBLON, McCLELLAND, MAIER & NEUSTADT
` BY: MICHAEL KIKLIS, ESQ.
` KATHARINE CAPPAERT, ESQ.
` CHRIS RICCIUITI, ESQ.
` 1940 Duke Street
` Alexandria, Virginia 22314
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`2 3
`
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide - 877-702-9580
`
`Board Exhibit 3002, pg. 3
`PGS v. WesternGeco
`IPR2014-01478
`
`
`
`Page 4
`
`APPEARANCES (Continued)
`
`ATTORNEYS FOR ION:
` FISH & RICHARDSON
` BY: KARL RENNER, ESQ.
` ROBERTO DEVOTO, ESQ.
` One Marina Park Drive
` Boston, Massachusetts 02110
`
`
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide - 877-702-9580
`
`1
`
`2 3
`
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Board Exhibit 3002, pg. 4
`PGS v. WesternGeco
`IPR2014-01478
`
`
`
`Page 5
`
`LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA - MONDAY, APRIL 27, 2015
` 7:32 A.M.
`
` JUDGE DANIELS: Let me start off by
`asking about the issue with Mr. Walker. I think
`the last thing I see filed in the record is that
`a notice of deposition was filed.
` Does that mean, for the moment, that
`that issue is somewhat resolved for this
`deposition?
` MS. BERNIKER: Do you mean the matter
`of the hours? Is that what you are asking about
`sir.
` JUDGE DANIELS: No. I'm asking about
`in the e-mail there was a question from
`petitioner that didn't have to do with time. It
`has to do with Mr. Robin Walker's statement.
` MR. BERNIKER: Yes. We have not
`resolved that issue at this point. We still
`continue to have a dispute about whether material
`will be produced in advance of his deposition.
` I'm happy to describe that more fully
`for you.
` JUDGE DANIEL: Yeah. Before we get to
`the time, if you could explain please what the
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide - 877-702-9580
`
`1
`2
`
`3 4
`
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Board Exhibit 3002, pg. 5
`PGS v. WesternGeco
`IPR2014-01478
`
`
`
`Page 6
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`issue is. I guess it looks like a potential, the
`routine discovery that we asked for.
` MR. BERNIKER: Yes. So Mr. Walker in
`his statement includes a few statements that very
`clearly site material. So for example, in
`paragraph 18 he says, "According to our global
`internal statistics."
` And then he says, "On average 16
`percent of the first pass of the survey --" et
`cetera, et cetera.
` The point being he sites to his global
`internal statistics in support of what he
`purports to be data but he does not attach any
`sort of documentation in his declaration; In his
`statement, I should say, supporting that 16
`percent number or anything that he purports to
`show as global internal statistics.
` The other thing he does repeatedly in
`his statement is appear quotes from individuals
`in the industry and he actually will put
`quotations about statements.
` So he will say, for example, Peter
`Karriger proclaimed Cumerine to be-- and then he
`has quotes, the game changer that we have been
`waiting for, end quote.
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide - 877-702-9580
`
`Board Exhibit 3002, pg. 6
`PGS v. WesternGeco
`IPR2014-01478
`
`
`
`Page 7
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` Again, when he provides these
`quotations he didn't provide any exhibit or any
`other support for where he got this statement
`from.
` So several weeks ago we addressed this
`issue with counsel for patent owner and we said
`we believe that this is routine discovery. These
`are cited in a paper or testimony and it must be
`served in connection with the citing document.
` And they have taken a position that
`it's not routine discovery. We have had some
`back and forth on that and they have indicated to
`us apparently that they are looking for this
`material.
` But it's been a few weeks now and
`somehow they have not managed to find it which
`seems surprising to us because obviously if it
`was cited in this statement, I would hope that
`they had support for it when they made the
`statement.
` But in any event, his deposition is
`coming up at the end of this week and we've asked
`them to produce the documents or represent that
`they don't exist in advance of the deposition.
` And at this point we don't have an
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide - 877-702-9580
`
`Board Exhibit 3002, pg. 7
`PGS v. WesternGeco
`IPR2014-01478
`
`
`
`Page 8
`
`agreement that they will do that and that's why
`we still have a dispute on this issue.
` JUDGE DANIELS: All right, great. His
`deposition is the 30th, April 30th --
`
` MS. BERNIKER: Yes.
` JUDGE DANIELS: And we are at the 27th
`today. So yes, we are getting a little tight.
` Patent owner, is this information
`readily available to you? Is it not?
` MR. KIKLIS: Your Honor, let me
`respond. First of all this isn't routine
`discovery because these are not exhibits, Your
`Honor.
` Mr. Walker refers to his recollection
`of the evidence that he has seen and his quotes
`could likely be quotes from conversations that
`he's had with people.
` That's part of the deposition, Your
`Honor, for petitioner's counsel to ask him where
`did he get this from et cetera.
` So the rules are very clear on what's
`routine discovery. They have to be exhibits
`cited and we have produced all exhibits.
` Nevertheless, we have this whole
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide - 877-702-9580
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`
`5 6
`
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Board Exhibit 3002, pg. 8
`PGS v. WesternGeco
`IPR2014-01478
`
`
`
`Page 9
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`conversation with the Board is premature because
`we have agreed to search for any underlying
`documents to support what Mr. Walker has said in
`his declaration in various paragraphs, about six
`paragraphs, I believe.
` So the problem, as petitioner's counsel
`knows, is that Mr. Walker is no longer an
`employee of Westerngeco. His computers have long
`since been reclaimed. We've had to take it upon
`ourselves to find those computers.
` First of all I should mention that
`petitioner didn't even make the request until two
`and a half weeks after we served Mr. Walker's
`declaration. So after we filed the declaration,
`two and a half weeks later they raised this.
` We immediately jumped on it. We tried
`to find those computers. We got back with
`counsel. We told them we were going to look for
`it. And now at great expense our client is
`searching those computers, has located them.
` It is massive amounts of data on there.
`It's all encrypted. In fact, today we found out
`that at least one of the drives is double
`encrypted.
` That information we are locating, we
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide - 877-702-9580
`
`Board Exhibit 3002, pg. 9
`PGS v. WesternGeco
`IPR2014-01478
`
`
`
`Page 10
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`are searching it and we are trying to produce
`documents as soon as we possibly can. But again,
`this is additional discovery that we are, out of
`the spirit of cooperation, we are trying to
`provide to the other side.
` JUDGE DANIELS: Okay.
` MR. KIKLIS: If I may, Your Honor--
` JUDGE DANIELS: Sure.
` MR. KIKLIS: Again, your honor, this is
`premature. We have an agreement with the other
`side. The other side didn't properly meet and
`confer on this issue.
` Moreover, when they contacted the Board
`they didn't even give me the courtesy of finding
`out what my available was which forced me-- I
`was supposed to be on a plane right now which
`forced my client to incur a $400 change fee so I
`could make this phone call.
` MS. BERNIKER: And I apologize for
`that, Your Honor. We had inadvertently
`overlooked that but that was certainly not
`intentional.
` JUDGE DANIELS: All right. This
`potential additional document, the problem of
`course that patent owner is going to have is that
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide - 877-702-9580
`
`Board Exhibit 3002, pg. 10
`PGS v. WesternGeco
`IPR2014-01478
`
`
`
`Page 11
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`if this stuff is produced late, these documents
`are produced late, then potentially petitioner is
`going to need a follow-up deposition.
` So, at the moment, what I would urge
`the parties to do is produce the information that
`they have so that it can be used in this
`deposition. If there is evidence that is
`unsupported well then that's up to the Board to
`decide whether or not it is persuasive evidence.
` If there is evidence without support,
`then that is our job to figure out what weight to
`give it. So I leave the parties with that and
`we'll let you decide how you want to handle this
`deposition and the material that is with respect
`to Mr. Walker.
` If there is a follow-up deposition
`needed because there is material later then we
`can have that discussion in the future.
` So with that said, let's go on to the
`times for these depositions, of the remaining
`depositions.
` Mr. Kiklis, are the times accurate for
`the initial that was in the e-mail? Are the
`times accurate for the first round of
`cross-examinations of Dr. Evans and Mr. Cole.
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide - 877-702-9580
`
`Board Exhibit 3002, pg. 11
`PGS v. WesternGeco
`IPR2014-01478
`
`
`
`Page 12
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` MR. KIKLIS: Your Honor, I haven't
`double-checked that. So what I would respond is
`that simply an efficient use of time shouldn't be
`used as a reason to penalize us.
` The Board has ordered 1232 in these
`cases in the first round of IPRs and we think
`that that rule should continue. We don't see any
`reason for departing from that.
` Because if there's a departure from
`that rule, that seriously prejudices the patent
`owner because, as you know, the petitioner has
`the ability to serve and file declarations in not
`only the petition itself but also in z reply
`brief.
` Our opportunity is only with a good
`cross-examination of their witnesses. So a
`reduction of the hours serves to prejudice us and
`benefit the petitioner. And this is consistent
`with what you see with the petitioner.
` We simply want a fair fight, Your
`Honor. I mean we are a property owner here of
`three U.S. patents and you see the petitioner at
`every turn trying to hamstring us and make this
`not a fair fight and try to tie one of our hands
`behind our backs.
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide - 877-702-9580
`
`Board Exhibit 3002, pg. 12
`PGS v. WesternGeco
`IPR2014-01478
`
`
`
`Page 13
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` This board has already ruled on the
`1232 rule and we think that that rule should
`suffice. If we use the time efficiently, great.
`But an efficient use in one deposition should not
`be used as a penalty in a subsequent deposition.
` MS. BERNIKER: May I respond, Your
`Honor?
` JUDGE DANIELS: Yes, please. Go ahead.
` MS. BERNIKER: So, in the first
`instance we do not believe that the first ruling
`was designed to address reply declarations or
`even to address the second phase of IPRs.
` With respect to reply declarations,
`there is absolutely no bases for concluding that
`Westerngeco will need more time. They haven't
`even been served yet and they certainly can't
`look at them and say that they are sufficiently
`extensive that they require more time.
` And on top of that I do think it's
`meaningful that in the first round of the first
`set of depositions the longest deposition they
`took was just over seven hours which is the
`default time limit.
` You may remember that the way we ended
`up with the 12 hours of cross-examination is that
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide - 877-702-9580
`
`Board Exhibit 3002, pg. 13
`PGS v. WesternGeco
`IPR2014-01478
`
`
`
`Page 14
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Westerngeco originally insisted that they needed
`21 hours of cross-examination. They then lowered
`the number to 14, eventually were granted 12 and
`still only used just over seven.
` And so what we find is that they have
`been exaggerating their need for time from the
`beginning which is burdensome for everybody in
`terms of preparing and blocking out time for the
`witnesses that ends up not being used.
` And it's quite clear to us that now
`that they have had an opportunity to depose
`doctors Evans and Cole on this subject matter and
`they only required seven hours for the one
`witness and only three hours for Dr. Cole that
`it's not reasonable to conclude that they would
`need extensively more than that for any reply
`declaration.
` The same goes for the second round of
`IPRs. As you know there is a lot of overlap in
`subject matter between the second round of IPRs
`and the first round of IPRs.
` Their declarations are very similar in
`the second round than they were for the first
`round. So they have already had an opportunity
`to depose both witnesses and they have had an
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide - 877-702-9580
`
`Board Exhibit 3002, pg. 14
`PGS v. WesternGeco
`IPR2014-01478
`
`
`
`Page 15
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`opportunity to depose them for 12 hours on this
`subject matter.
` The idea that they would need an
`additional 12 hours seems pretty extreme to us,
`especially because, as we've seen, they didn't
`require that much the first time.
` So we think it's clear that the default
`should apply for their second round deposition
`and for any reply declarations. And certainly we
`don't think there is any basis for the reply
`declarations to be any longer without at least
`having them in our hand to look at them and
`provide some sort of articulation for why it
`should be longer than the default.
` MR. KIKLIS: Your Honor, may I please
`respond?
` JUDGE DANIELS: Yes, Mr. Kiklis, go
`ahead.
` MR. KIKLIS: Your Honor, the second
`round of petitions which the petitioner filed,
`they filed these petitions on different art and
`the Board instituted on different art, different
`claims.
` And of course the 742 rule is for a
`single IPR proceeding, not the three proceedings.
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide - 877-702-9580
`
`Board Exhibit 3002, pg. 15
`PGS v. WesternGeco
`IPR2014-01478
`
`
`
`Page 16
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`That's how we ended up with the 1232 rule.
` Again, Your Honor, I've been practicing
`for 22 years, I have never heard of this high
`watermark argument where you only used a certain
`amount of deposition and so that's all you get in
`a subsequent deposition. I've never heard of in
`that.
` This is prejudicial to the patent owner
`because all we get is really the opportunity to
`depose these witnesses. And we should be
`afforded the full 12 hours whether we use it or
`not. There is no reason here to penalize the
`patent owner.
` We have a property right and the rules
`provide for us to have sufficient deposition time
`and moreover this raises due process issues.
` We have a property right. We have the
`right to be heard and to protect that property
`right. This is raising serious due process
`issues.
` JUDGE DANIELS: Let me remind both
`parties that the lack of civility and the raising
`of voices during phone conferences with the Board
`will not be tolerated.
` Some of what I'm hearing here is taking
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide - 877-702-9580
`
`Board Exhibit 3002, pg. 16
`PGS v. WesternGeco
`IPR2014-01478
`
`
`
`Page 17
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`up a significant amount of time which we are
`trying to be ultimately fair within the rules and
`the law to both parties.
` I'm going to go on hold. I'm going to
`discuss with the panel and we will be back in a
`few minutes.
` (Discussion held off the record.)
` JUDGE DANIELS: Hi, this is judge
`Daniels back on the line. Can everybody hear me?
` MS. BERNIKER: Yes, Your Honor.
` JUDGE DANIELS: I apologize. I must
`have gotten dropped off the call.
` The thing I don't understand is the
`hotly contested issues here and that this is a
`case which has gone for several rounds in the
`district courts. We want to make sure that the
`parties continue to deal with each other and the
`Board similarly so that we can resolve this for
`everybody's efficient use of time.
` With that said, let me ask,
`Ms. Berniker, is there a particular issue with
`giving more than the 742.
` I understand that the patent owners
`didn't use it all but is there a particular
`timing issue or problem with allowing whatever
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide - 877-702-9580
`
`Board Exhibit 3002, pg. 17
`PGS v. WesternGeco
`IPR2014-01478
`
`
`
`Page 18
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`the 1232 rule that we came up with?
` MS. BERNIKER: The principal issue is
`one of scheduling. It just makes it much harder
`for both the attorneys and the witnesses to
`schedule much larger blocks of time.
` And as you know, we've had scheduling
`issues in the past in this case in terms of one
`of our witnesses is coming from Australia. So
`when we have the 1232 we are blocking off three
`days of deposition because you can never really
`tell if it's going to lead on to the third day
`and this is simply a long period of time.
` Not to mention that it's obviously
`difficult for the witnesses. Our witnesses are
`not spring chickens, so to speak. And it's hard
`for them to go a lot of time every day. So three
`days in a row of very long days is difficult for
`them as well, particularly with the time change
`for Dr. Evans.
` MR. KIKLIS: Your Honor, may I respond
`please?
` JUDGE DANIELS: Yes, please.
` MR. KIKLIS: Your Honor, convenience
`takes a back seat to due process. These are
`three patents to file for 742. The Board has
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide - 877-702-9580
`
`Board Exhibit 3002, pg. 18
`PGS v. WesternGeco
`IPR2014-01478
`
`
`
`Page 19
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`already ruled on 1232. We are comfortable with
`that.
` You haven't heard a compelling reason
`to depart from that rule that this Board has
`already issued.
` JUDGE DANIELS: All right, thank you.
`We're not going to do a ruling on the phone here.
`We're going to take the matter under advisement.
`But we will issue an order today or tomorrow with
`respect to the time.
` Apart from that, were there any other
`issues at the present time?
` MR. KIKLIS: Yes, Your Honor. This is
`Mike Kiklis again for the patent owner. We do
`have another issue that is ripe for this Board's
`consideration and that is additional discovery on
`real party in interest against PGS.
` I told the Board in our scheduling
`conference a week or so ago that we were going to
`try to work it out with the petitioner who have
`not been able to do so.
` This Board has heard that we were
`willing to work with PGS and provide them with
`additional discovery willingly even though our
`client has had to incur a vast amount of
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide - 877-702-9580
`
`Board Exhibit 3002, pg. 19
`PGS v. WesternGeco
`IPR2014-01478
`
`
`
`Page 20
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`resources and time and money in trying to
`resurrect computers that have long since gone to
`try to find documents to assist PGS.
` What we are looking for --
` JUDGE DANIELS: Excuse me, Mr. Kiklis,
`are we back on the discovery issue of additional
`discovery relating to real party in interest?
` MR. KIKLIS: Yes, Your Honor.
` JUDGE DANIELS: Have you all met and
`conferred on this? Is this a new issue?
` MR. KIKLIS: We have exchanged
`communications over it, yes. And PGS has refused
`our request for additional discovery.
` May I continue, Your Honor?
` JUDGE DANIELS: Is there some new
`evidence of additional discovery?
` I'm sorry, I've got to go back and look
`at what we did previously in this case.
` MR. KIKLIS: Yes, Your Honor, the new
`evidence is --
` JUDGE DANIELS: As I understand it, the
`request for additional evidence, was there a
`motion earlier on in these, in the 688 series of
`cases?
` MR. KIKLIS: I believe the parties
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide - 877-702-9580
`
`Board Exhibit 3002, pg. 20
`PGS v. WesternGeco
`IPR2014-01478
`
`
`
`Page 21
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`agreed on some interrogatories. And I was
`involved with the case, so forgive me but that's
`my recollection and I have read all the back and
`forth.
` But I think that there was no
`Board-ordered additional discovery. The parties
`worked out some interrogatories.
` MS. BERNIKER: If I may, Your Honor, it
`was in this case, the second case, the 1475 case
`where there was a set of briefing that went to
`the Board and the Board did, in fact, rule on the
`issue and determine that no additional discovery
`would be provided. There was no motion
`permitted.
` JUDGE DANIELS: All right. That's my
`recollection as well. I'm looking at both these
`cases and you will have to be patient with us.
` So, I guess my question then Mr. Kiklis
`is is there something that is bringing this issue
`up again in particular.
` MR. KIKLIS: Yes, Your Honor. In our
`patent owner response in the first round of cases
`we filed as Exhibit 2069 a master services
`agreement which has an indemnification provision.
` We also filed the interrogatory answers
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide - 877-702-9580
`
`Board Exhibit 3002, pg. 21
`PGS v. WesternGeco
`IPR2014-01478
`
`
`
`Page 22
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`that PGS served on patent owner which say that
`there are multiple indemnification agreements
`that exist between PGS related entities and Ion.
` And we are seeking additional discovery
`on those agreements because those agreements can
`be case dispositive in showing privity between
`Ion and PGS.
` And I would site to this latest
`decision by the Board in IPR 2014-01559, paper 23
`where the mere inclusion of an IP defense
`provision was sufficient to raise a privity issue
`and it was case dispositive in terminating the
`cases under 315-B.
` We have evidence that there are
`agreements out there, Your Honor. We want those
`agreements and the petitioner is not willing to
`provide those to us.
` JUDGE DANIELS: So, what you are saying
`is that this Exhibit 2069, is that the number.
` MR. KIKLIS: It is, Your Honor, and I
`don't believe that we had that in possession at
`the time that you entered that order. We
`certainly made it of record in our response. So
`I don't think the Board had it in front of it.
` MS. BERNIKER: May I respond, Your
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide - 877-702-9580
`
`Board Exhibit 3002, pg. 22
`PGS v. WesternGeco
`IPR2014-01478
`
`
`
`Page 23
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Honor, briefly?
` JUDGE DANIELS: Yes, please.
` MS. BERNIKER: So we have now gone
`through several rounds of discussions about
`discovery on the alleged RPI issue. In the first
`IPR 679, the parties negotiated this issue and
`PGS agreed to provide pretty extensive
`interrogatory responses which we served on the
`other side and that describe in detail all
`conversations we had between PGS and Ion.
` Any agreements-- It goes in great
`detail. In those interrogatories we identified
`any agreements that we had. We gave them the
`Bates numbers because the documents had already
`been produced in the District Court litigation.
` That was before Westerngeco. When they
`then requested additional discovery the first
`time in phase 2 in the 1475 matter. We then
`agreed to provide supplemental interrogatories.
`We provided supplemental interrogatories that
`described any agreement.
` Just to be clear, these are not
`indemnification agreements. These are agreements
`that have provisions that relate to
`indemnification. So it is not correct to
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide - 877-702-9580
`
`Board Exhibit 3002, pg. 23
`PGS v. WesternGeco
`IPR2014-01478
`
`
`
`Page 24
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`represent, as I believe counsel for Westerngeco
`did that there is some agreement to indemnify in
`place.
` These are simply agreements that have
`kind of standard indemnification provisions in
`them. So we have provided then additional
`interrogatory responses in this phase 2 prior to
`institution.
` And then patent owner requested
`additional information and in that request, that
`was before Your Honors. And at that time you did
`order in paper number 10 in the 1475 matter.
` Again, you said the patent owner had
`not produced factual evidence beyond speculation
`that Ion was controlling the proceeding and that
`you were persuaded that what was available at
`that point by way of information was sufficient
`even too authorize a motion.
` So from our perspective, we have seen
`this movie. We have done this a number of times.
`We have provided the information and the
`suggestion that we haven't been forthcoming in
`terms of providing documents and information I
`think is inappropriate. From our perspective
`there is nothing new here.
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide - 877-702-9580
`
`Board Exhibit 3002, pg. 24
`PGS v. WesternGeco
`IPR2014-01478
`
`
`
`Page 25
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` MR. KIKLIS: Your Honor, may I please
`respond?
` JUDGE DANIELS: So, the original -- I
`believe you referenced, if I'm recollecting
`everything correctly, I believe you referenced
`the master services agreement in the evidence
`that we ruled upon initially; is that right,
`Mr. Kiklis.
` MR. KIKLIS: There was a communication
`that referred to it and now we've shown the
`actual master services agreement. That's the new
`evidence.
` And I would, Your Honor, like to
`respond to the other side when you have a chance.
` JUDGE DANIELS: Okay. Briefly, please.
` MR. KIKLIS: Sure, Your Honor. We
`served interrogatories on the petitioner and when
`we got back we got what they called interrogatory
`answers. But what they conveniently did is we
`had defined in our interrogatories PGS and
`related companies knowing that there was going to
`be a number of agreements between the Ion
`entities and the PGS entities.
` In their response they redefined PGS
`and excluded the related companies.
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide - 877-702-9580
`
`Board Exhibit 3002, pg. 25
`PGS v. WesternGeco
`IPR2014-01478
`
`
`
`Page 26
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` Then they say in their interrogatory
`answers that there are agreements out there, yet
`we only have one.
` Moreover, the interrogatories that they
`served on us aren't even verified. So yes, they
`claim to have provided these great
`interrogatories but they lack specificity. They
`lack any detail and they certainly haven't even
`provided to us the very agreements that we
`sought.
` Knowing that the agreement is based on
`the case that I cited to this board can be case
`dispositive, we are talking about privity here.
`And indemnification agreement can serve to
`provide enough privity, or in the context of a
`CBM for an indemnification agreement for one
`company to have standing for CBM we want to be
`able to make the privity argument here through
`these agreements, that privity alone can be shown
`through these agreements if we can get our hands
`on them.
` JUDGE DANIELS: Well, let me--
` MR. KIKLIS: Your Honor, if I may, we
`are just looking for the opportunity to brief it.
`That's all. We just want to brief it.
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide - 877-702-9580
`
`Board Exhibit 3002, pg. 26
`PGS v. WesternGeco
`IPR2014-01478
`
`
`
`Page 27
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
` JUDGE DANIELS: Well, that was going to
`be my question, what you were looking for.
` MR. KIKLIS: We just want the
`opportunity to brief it, Your Honor, just the
`opportunity to brief it.
` JUDGE DANIELS: Let me take this
`opportunity to remind everybody again that the
`42.51, if there is any information that is
`inconsistent with positions that have been
`advanced by the parties that they need to make
`them discoverable.
` And this requirement extends to issues
`in the rule such as corporate officers and anyone
`involved in the preparation and filing of these
`documents.
` So, with that caveat, since this is a
`request for briefing we are going to take it
`under advisement. I will take a look at 2061.
` It looks like we looked at a lot of
`this evidence before so we will take a look and
`see what's in 2061. I'm sorry, 2069.
` MR. KIKLIS: I'm sorry, Your Honor, is
`it 2069?
` JUDGE DANIELS: 2069; is that correct?
` MR. KIKLIS: Yes. And the
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide - 877-702-9580
`
`Board Exhibit 3002, pg. 27
`PGS v. WesternGeco
`IPR2014-01478
`
`
`
`Page 28
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`interrogatory answers that says that there are
`multiple agreements between PGS related entities
`is page 14 of Exhibit 2018.
` May I ask a housekeeping matter too,
`Your Honor.
` JUDGE DANIELS: Yes.
` MR. KIKLIS: The patent owner has paid
`to have this call transcribed as well as the
`previous call. We would request permission from
`the Board to use board exhibit numbers so that we
`can file those transcripts.
` JUDGE DANIELS: I don't think that's a
`problem. I haven't had that request before but I
`will let the parties know about that. I don't
`want to say yes without allowing that. That
`would make some sense though.
` MR. KIKLIS: We have had other panels
`do that, Your Honor. It just makes it easier.
`It doesn't screw up our exhibit numbering.
` JUDGE DANIELS: Okay. I'll tell you
`what. Let's go ahead and do it. If it's a
`problem I will contact you and let you know. I
`will contact both parties and tell you how to do
`it.
` MR. KIKLIS: Thank you, Your Honor.
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide - 877-702-9580
`
`Board Exhibit 3002, pg. 28
`PGS v. WesternGeco
`IPR2014-01478
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Page 29
`
` JUDGE DANIELS: All right. We are
`going to take that request under advisement. I
`will let you know about the times for the
`deposition.
` So at this time we will go ahead and
`adjourn the call. Thank you everyone for the
`call. Have a great day.
` MS. BERNIKER: Thank you, Your Honor.
` MR. KIKLIS: Thank you, Your Honor.
` (Whereupon, the teleconference was
` concluded at 8:11 o'clock p.m.)
`
`TSG Reporting - Worldwide - 877-702-9580
`
`Board Exhibit 3002, pg. 29
`PGS v. WesternGeco
`IPR2014-01478
`
`
`
`Page 30
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`
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
