Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 80
`Entered: November 10, 2022
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`______________
`
`SWM INTERNATIONAL, LLC and
`NEXTIER COMPLETION SOLUTIONS INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`DYNAENERGETICS EUROPE GMBH,
`Patent Owner.
`______________
`
`PGR2021-00097
`Patent 10,844,697 B2
`______________
`
`Record of Oral Hearing
`CONFIDENTIAL
`Held Virtually: October 6, 2022
`______________
`
`
`
`
`Before ERIC C. JESCHKE, RICHARD H. MARSCHALL, and
`JASON W. MELVIN, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`SWM and NexTier Ex. 1072 - Page 1
`SWM and NexTier v. DynaEnergetics
`PGR2021-00097 - U.S. Patent No. 10,844,697
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 80
`Entered: November 10, 2022
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`______________
`
`SWM INTERNATIONAL, LLC and
`NEXTIER COMPLETION SOLUTIONS INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`DYNAENERGETICS EUROPE GMBH,
`Patent Owner.
`______________
`
`PGR2021-00097
`Patent 10,844,697 B2
`______________
`
`Record of Oral Hearing
`CONFIDENTIAL
`Held Virtually: October 6, 2022
`______________
`
`
`
`
`Before ERIC C. JESCHKE, RICHARD H. MARSCHALL, and
`JASON W. MELVIN, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`SWM and NexTier Ex. 1072 - Page 1
`SWM and NexTier v. DynaEnergetics
`PGR2021-00097 - U.S. Patent No. 10,844,697
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`
`
`
`
`PGR2021-00097
`Patent 10,844,697 B2
`
`APPEARANCES:
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:
`
`
`ALEXANDER B. STEIN, ESQ.
`C. ERIK HAWES, ESQ.
`MELISSA STORY, ESQ.
`Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP
`1400 Page Mill Road
`Palo Alto, California 94304-1124
`650-843-4000
`
`
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PATENT OWNER:
`
`
`PRESTON HEARD, ESQ.
`BARRY J. HERMAN, ESQ.
`Womble Bond Dickinson (US) LLP
`Atlantic Station
`Suite 2400
`271 17th Street NW
`Atlanta, Georgia 30363
`404-872-7000
`
`JASON M. ROCKMAN, ESQ.
`LISA J. MOYLES, ESQ.
`Moyles IP, LLC
`One Enterprise Drive, Suite 428
`Shelton, Connecticut 06484
`203-428-4420
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`The above-entitled matter came on for hearing on Thursday, October
`6, 2022, commencing at 1:00 p.m. EST, by video/by telephone.
`
`
`
`2
`
`SWM and NexTier Ex. 1072 - Page 2
`SWM and NexTier v. DynaEnergetics
`PGR2021-00097 - U.S. Patent No. 10,844,697
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`
`
`PGR2021-00097
`Patent 10,844,697 B2
`
`
`
`
`P R O C E E D I N G S
`- - - - -
` JUDGE JESCHKE: Good morning. Welcome to the Patent
`Trial and Appeal Board.
` This is a virtual hearing in PGR2021-00097 between
`Petitioner SWM International and NexTier Completion Solutions
`Inc. and Patent Owner DynaEnergetics Europe GMBH. The
`challenged patent is U.S. Patent No. 10,844,697 B2.
` I am Judge Jeschke. With me on the panel today are
`Judges Marschall and Melvin. Like counsel, we are, of
`course, located remotely.
` This is a fully confidential hearing with no public
`line or live stream open.
` For the counsel, you've probably noticed a number of
`folks you probably don't recognize, the names out in the
`counsel side. I just wanted to explain that on the record
`here. Those are -- there was a number of law clerks within
`the Patent Trial and Appeal Board that just started, so this
`is an opportunity for them to listen in. They are, of
`course, kind of within the -- you know, the -- the -- in the
`Board now, so they are able to listen in on the hearing, but
`that's -- that's what those names are.
` So I just want to make sure all of those folks are
`muted as well while I'm on that topic.
`3
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`SWM and NexTier Ex. 1072 - Page 3
`SWM and NexTier v. DynaEnergetics
`PGR2021-00097 - U.S. Patent No. 10,844,697
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`
`
`
`
`PGR2021-00097
`Patent 10,844,697 B2
`
` So, with that, let's start with -- with counsel
`introductions for the Petitioner. Go ahead.
` MR. STEIN: Yeah. Hi. Good morning, Your Honors.
`You have Alex Stein on behalf of the Petitioners, and with me
`on the video feed are both Erik Hawes and Melissa Story, and
`we're all Morgan, Lewis & Bockius.
` JUDGE JESCHKE: Okay. Thank you, Mr. Stein.
` For Patent Owner.
` MR. HEARD: Good afternoon, Your Honor.
`Preston Heard here, Womble Bond Dickinson.
` And can you hear me? Just make sure the audio is
`working. Great.
` JUDGE JESCHKE: We can, Mr. Heard.
` MR. HEARD: Okay. Great. And with me is Ms. Moyles,
`who we were unsure her ability to participate, but
`Lisa Moyles, Lead Counsel for us, of Moyles IP, and she is
`able to. We've got Jason Rockman on the line as well from
`Moyles IP and Barry Herman from Womble.
` JUDGE JESCHKE: Okay. Thank you. That answers my
`next question about the LEAP issue. So it sounds like
`Patent Owner will have an extra 15 minutes, and I'll talk
`about that in a moment, but good to see you, Ms. Moyles. I'm
`glad you're feeling better.
` Okay. So, as provided in the hearing order from
`4
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`SWM and NexTier Ex. 1072 - Page 4
`SWM and NexTier v. DynaEnergetics
`PGR2021-00097 - U.S. Patent No. 10,844,697
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`
`
`
`
`PGR2021-00097
`Patent 10,844,697 B2
`
`August 31st and as in the revised order after that, after the
`prehearing conference, each side -- well, I guess Petitioner
`now is going to have 60 minutes total, and Patent Owner will
`have with its LEAP request 75 total minutes.
` And, again, this is a fully confidential hearing.
` So, as you all know, of course, the Petitioner bears
`the burden of persuasion here and will proceed first,
`followed by Patent Owner, then Petitioner again for a brief
`rebuttal and Patent Owner for a sur-rebuttal after that.
` As each presentation estimate nears its end, we will
`let you know when there are about two minutes left and when
`your time has expired.
` There are some pending motions here. Petitioner and
`Patent Owner may use some of their allotted time to discuss
`those if they'd like.
` For the clarity of the record and given the remote
`nature of the hearing here, please make sure to identify
`early and often the current slide number for the
`demonstratives, which is extremely helpful once we go back to
`the transcript to make sure we understand exactly where
`you're -- what you're discussing.
` Also, please remember to speak directly into the
`microphones. You all have been doing that well thus far.
` All of the panel members, of course, have a set of
`5
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`SWM and NexTier Ex. 1072 - Page 5
`SWM and NexTier v. DynaEnergetics
`PGR2021-00097 - U.S. Patent No. 10,844,697
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`
`
`
`
`PGR2021-00097
`Patent 10,844,697 B2
`
`demonstratives as well as access to the complete record, so
`there's no need to share on your side the demonstratives.
` Counsel, also, if after the -- after the hearing is
`complete, if you could just stay on the line for a few
`minutes to help with spellings, if the court reporter has any
`questions.
` One thing -- you know, we'd like to keep the
`arguments here focused on the merits, so counsel is reminded
`not to interrupt the other side with any objections, which
`rarely ever happens, but we just wanted to remind you all of
`that.
` And, with that, the presenting counsel for
`Petitioner, if you could provide an estimate for your opening
`and rebuttal, we could give you a good estimate on time. So
`I assume it'll be probably Mr. Stein, I guess, will be doing
`the discussions?
` MR. STEIN: Yes, Your Honor. And I think we'd like
`to spend about 45 minutes on the opening, so I'm hoping to
`reserve 15 minutes for rebuttal; although, if it runs over a
`little bit, I'll eat into that rebuttal time a little bit.
`But if we could get the reminder around that 15-minute mark,
`I'd appreciate it.
` JUDGE JESCHKE: Sure, yeah. And that's a good point,
`Mr. Stein.
`
`
`
`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
`
`SWM and NexTier Ex. 1072 - Page 6
`SWM and NexTier v. DynaEnergetics
`PGR2021-00097 - U.S. Patent No. 10,844,697
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`
`
`
`
`PGR2021-00097
`Patent 10,844,697 B2
`
` Obviously, for both sides, it's -- you know, these
`are just estimates, so if you want to cut into your time --
`we're going to tell you where your time is, so you can decide
`from there. It's not -- we don't really care how much time
`you take on each part, you know, within a certain bounds of
`reasonableness, but -- but yeah, these are just estimates, so
`you can feel free to use less or more as you need to.
` Okay. I think -- so I think, then, we will set the
`clock, Mr. Stein, at 45 minutes, and you can begin whenever
`you're ready.
` MR. STEIN: Thank you very much, Your Honor.
` ORAL ARGUMENT ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER
` MR. STEIN: And it's my privilege to be here on
`behalf of the Petitioners, SWM International and NexTier
`Completion Solutions.
` If you have my demonstratives in front of you, if you
`could turn to slide 2. It's just sort of an overview of what
`we'll be talking about today.
` So I'll start with a very brief discussion of the
`'697 patent. I know Your Honors have already had a hearing
`on this particular patent, so I'm not going to spend much
`time on that section unless there are questions.
` JUDGE JESCHKE: Yeah. You can skip as much of that
`introduction as you'd like, Mr. Stein. You can go to
`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
`
`SWM and NexTier Ex. 1072 - Page 7
`SWM and NexTier v. DynaEnergetics
`PGR2021-00097 - U.S. Patent No. 10,844,697
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`
`
`
`
`PGR2021-00097
`Patent 10,844,697 B2
`
`slide 11 if you'd like to. I think there's probably more
`pressing things. We probably know --
` MR. STEIN: Absolutely.
` JUDGE JESCHKE: -- know the background pretty well by
`now.
` MR. STEIN: Okay. I'm happy to do that. So I'll
`just spend one moment.
` So going to slide 4, the only thing I'd like to
`highlight is what this patent really focused on, the majority
`of the patent is about this self-centralizing tool. That's
`most of the figures; that's most of the description.
` What we're talking about today -- and I'm going to
`jump right ahead in a second -- is this tandem seal adapter
`and some characteristics of that tandem seal adapter, which
`has an annotated view on slide 6. And that's really where
`Patent Owner has stretched this patent quite a bit, which is
`why we'll be talking about how they've run into the prior art
`and how they run into some pretty important issues under
`Section 112.
` Before I jump away from the patent, I just want to
`mention slide 7, which talks about an assembly process. So
`this is from the patent at column 10, lines 4 to 16. And
`what you'll see there is that the patent describes an
`assembly process where you push the tandem seal adapter into
`8
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`SWM and NexTier Ex. 1072 - Page 8
`SWM and NexTier v. DynaEnergetics
`PGR2021-00097 - U.S. Patent No. 10,844,697
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`
`
`
`
`PGR2021-00097
`Patent 10,844,697 B2
`
`one of the gun carriers, and then you then thread -- and this
`is highlighted in green text at the bottom of slide 7 -- a
`subsequent gun assembly onto the first gun assembly or you
`thread a top sub.
` So I just want to have everyone keep that in mind,
`and that'll be important when we get to one of the later
`sections.
` And I'll -- now I'll follow the direction and go
`right to slide 11. So we'll talk about the Petition's
`unpatentability grounds and just a brief overview of SafeJet
`with a focus on its status as prior art.
` So, turning to slide 12, this is a table of the
`grounds that we presented in the Petition. The ones that we
`focused on in our Reply brief and the ones that I'll spend
`all my time on today are the ones based on SafeJet, so that's
`Ground 1, which is an anticipation ground; and Grounds 4 and
`6, which are obviousness grounds for Claim 8, both with
`SafeJet as the primary reference; and then I'll talk about
`Grounds 8 to 10, which are the 112 issues.
` So turning --
` JUDGE JESCHKE: Mr. Stein, I had one question about
`this with the grayed-out. Are you affirmatively withdrawing
`the grayed-out grounds or no?
` MR. STEIN: We're not affirmatively withdrawing them.
`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
`
`SWM and NexTier Ex. 1072 - Page 9
`SWM and NexTier v. DynaEnergetics
`PGR2021-00097 - U.S. Patent No. 10,844,697
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`
`
`
`
`PGR2021-00097
`Patent 10,844,697 B2
`
`We still stand behind what was in the Petition, but given the
`limited space and the limited time -- limited space in our
`brief, limited time at the hearing -- our -- we feel our
`strongest grounds are 1, 4, 6, and 8 to 10, so that's where
`we'll spend our time.
` JUDGE JESCHKE: Okay.
` MR. STEIN: So turning to slide 13, just a brief
`background of the SafeJet system and how we've relied on it.
`So this is a piece of product prior art. And, you know, we
`-- I've appeared in front of the PTAB a few times, and
`product prior art is not used often, but that is what we're
`using today in this PGR.
` And so I just want to highlight that it's this system
`as a whole. And we have a lot of evidence demonstrating the
`aspects of this system, the sales of this system, the public
`uses of the system, and so it's the collective whole of this
`evidence that we're relying on.
` And one other thing to emphasize here in slide 13 is
`this is a third party's product. This is Schlumberger's
`product. This is not the Patent Owner's product. And that's
`going to become important when we talk about this
`experimental use exception, but this is a third-party
`product.
` And with that, I'll jump to slide 14. So these are
`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
`
`SWM and NexTier Ex. 1072 - Page 10
`SWM and NexTier v. DynaEnergetics
`PGR2021-00097 - U.S. Patent No. 10,844,697
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`
`
`
`
`PGR2021-00097
`Patent 10,844,697 B2
`
`sort of the key features of the SafeJet system, some of which
`I have in front of me, and I'll talk about each of the
`components. But we have what SafeJet referred to as the
`bulkhead, and we also had -- or Schlumberger, or SafeJet --
`the feedthru. This is an original feedthru. That was in the
`possession of Steve Olsen, who's one of our witnesses that
`we'll talk about in a second, a former Schlumberger employee.
` See, the way this is assembled, as you can see there,
`is you thread in the feedthru to the middle of this bulkhead,
`and then you have an assembled piece like this, which is what
`you see on the slide there.
` So, on the left, you have what Schlumberger referred
`to as the bulkhead. It has a part that supports the box end
`of a gun carrier. It has an o-ring groove with an o-ring in
`it. It has a shoulder. There's another o-ring with an
`o-ring groove, and then it has another part that supports the
`pin end. And like I just demonstrated, you have a feedthru
`that threads into the middle of that bulkhead.
` And before I leave this slide, I'll just mention some
`terminology. So while Schlumberger called that piece a
`bulkhead, the patent refers to that as a tandem seal adapter.
`We've -- those are just interchangeable to us, so I'll
`probably just use the patent's terms and call it a tandem
`seal adapter. And the feedthru, Schlumberger called that a
`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
`
`SWM and NexTier Ex. 1072 - Page 11
`SWM and NexTier v. DynaEnergetics
`PGR2021-00097 - U.S. Patent No. 10,844,697
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`
`
`
`
`PGR2021-00097
`Patent 10,844,697 B2
`
`feedthru; the patent calls that a pressure bulkhead, but
`those are mostly just interchangeable.
` So slide 15, just an introduction to Mr. Steve Olsen,
`one of the former Schlumberger employees that's offered
`testimony in this case. He worked at Schlumberger for well
`over a decade. He was a field specialist when SafeJet was
`introduced. He oversaw uses of SafeJet in the field for
`customers in 2009 and other times, and he personally provided
`these components. This is the charge tube that Mr. Olsen had
`in his possession, and this is the original feedthru that we
`talked about, and these were used to then create the bulkhead
`based on these components and also the testimony of
`Mr. Markel.
` If you turn to slide 16, Daniel Markel was also an
`employee of Schlumberger for almost 20 years. He was the
`mechanical engineer that actually designed the SafeJet tandem
`seal adapter and the pressure bulkhead. He actually built
`those, and it was his recollections that were used to, like I
`said, produce this evidence.
` If we turn to slide 17, how did we rely on the
`SafeJet system as prior art? So looking at post AIA 102,
`there's kind of three buckets that we have now. We have
`public use, we have on sale, and we have otherwise available
`to the public. We relied on all three of them. That's a
`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
`
`SWM and NexTier Ex. 1072 - Page 12
`SWM and NexTier v. DynaEnergetics
`PGR2021-00097 - U.S. Patent No. 10,844,697
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`
`
`
`
`PGR2021-00097
`Patent 10,844,697 B2
`
`quote from the Petition. We really only need one for it to
`be prior art. We relied on all three, and I want to
`emphasize that just for a moment because some of the
`experimental use stuff we'll talk about really has no impact
`to the "otherwise available to the public" and very little
`impact on the "on sale" bar as well, and I'll get into those
`details.
` So, turning to slide 18, who was the SafeJet system
`sold to? Well, it was sold to a number of --
` JUDGE JESCHKE: Mr. Stein, I had a question about
`this one. So you have in the top here of this slide, it
`says, Bought the SafeJet system. I'm wondering what really
`supports that idea.
` So here's my -- my thinking is, Did rights in the gun
`ever actually transfer to anyone, from Schlumberger to
`anyone? This is a system claim -- Claim 1 is, at least -- so
`it would seem under the law that it would require that
`transfer. It seems from the documents that we have -- for
`example, Exhibit 1032, which is that ticket -- it shows --
` MR. STEIN: Yeah.
` JUDGE JESCHKE: -- rental, rental of a SafeJet gun
`system.
` So my question for you is, Was there an actual sale
`or was this a payment for, I don't know, a service provided?
`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
`
`SWM and NexTier Ex. 1072 - Page 13
`SWM and NexTier v. DynaEnergetics
`PGR2021-00097 - U.S. Patent No. 10,844,697
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`
`
`
`
`PGR2021-00097
`Patent 10,844,697 B2
`
`In other words, you know, for Schlumberger to come and
`detonate this gun within ConocoPhillips, let's say, you know,
`wellbore. Could you address that issue?
` MR. STEIN: Yeah, absolutely. And I'd like to draw
`Your Honors' attention to that piece of evidence, slide 20,
`where it does mention rental. And if you -- if you look
`there, there's a few things that I would say.
` These -- these perf guns just aren't rented at all
`because once -- once you fire them, they're destroyed.
`That's the end of the gun. So there's not much to rent. So
`it does transfer to whoever's using it. You run it down
`hole, it explodes, and that's the end of it. There's nothing
`that can then be returned. So in the sake of sort of
`understanding what a rental means, there wouldn't be anything
`to give back. So just as to the premise of that, it doesn't
`make much sense.
` And if you look at slide 20, you'll see that there's
`sort of two line items. We've highlighted one in green in
`the bottom left, and then there's one above it. So the one
`above it says rental, but the one below it says flat charge,
`prepayment, final order. So there might be multiple things
`discussed here, but what's pretty clear to us is that there
`was a sale, there was a flat charge, and there was a
`prepayment.
`
`
`
`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
`
`SWM and NexTier Ex. 1072 - Page 14
`SWM and NexTier v. DynaEnergetics
`PGR2021-00097 - U.S. Patent No. 10,844,697
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`
`
`
`
`PGR2021-00097
`Patent 10,844,697 B2
`
` And then specifically on the rental piece -- and I
`want to find the quotation here -- but Mr. Olsen during his
`deposition talked about that, and he explained that that was
`sort of a placeholder because they didn't kind of have a SKU
`number. So if you look at Exhibit 2033 --
` JUDGE JESCHKE: When you say "that," do you mean the
`line item 20 on slide 20?
` MR. STEIN: Yes, that's what I mean.
` JUDGE JESCHKE: Okay.
` MR. STEIN: So if you look at Exhibit 2033 -- and
`it's a condensed transcript, so I'm -- I'm going to point to
`the little quadrant page, not the lower right-hand corner
`page -- so 2033, page 2, quadrant page 217, and that's
`line 8, and you'll see this was a discussion during his
`deposition.
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`SWM and NexTier Ex. 1072 - Page 15
`SWM and NexTier v. DynaEnergetics
`PGR2021-00097 - U.S. Patent No. 10,844,697
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`
`
`PGR2021-00097
`Patent 10,844,697 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
` So, again, just sort of a placeholder on that field
`ticket, but it doesn't mean that this was rented and then
`returned. It was sold. That's what the testimony shows.
`And I think it's also clear that if you sort of divide off
`that line item from the one below it, about a flat charge,
`prepayment, it's very clear that this was sold. It was not
`-- it was not a rental.
` And I'd also draw Your Honors' attention, then, to
`slide 21. So it wasn't just this one purchase order that we
`have that's -- you know, we have a snippet on slide 20.
`Slide 21 is an email exchange from Schlumberger, which --
`with its customers, which comes after that field ticket. And
`you can see that it says in the middle there, Last job we did
`was in August. There we consumed 75 SafeJet.
` And I think the act of consumption would tell you
`that it's not a rental. You don't -- you don't normally
`refer to something as being consumed if you're renting it and
`then returning it. And I think that -- on top of the
`descriptions here talking about there was a certain stock,
`there was a prepurchase, there was new stock -- I think the
`evidence is very clear that this was sold. It exchanged
`hands, and it didn't come back, and I think that's what the
`evidence shows.
`
`
`
`16
`
`SWM and NexTier Ex. 1072 - Page 16
`SWM and NexTier v. DynaEnergetics
`PGR2021-00097 - U.S. Patent No. 10,844,697
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`
`
`
`
`PGR2021-00097
`Patent 10,844,697 B2
`
` So, continuing -- continuing on, if you go to
`slide 22, the other thing I'd like to mention as well is some
`additional evidence from Mr. Olsen concerning the payment and
`the exchange of money before these items were produced.
` So if you look at, for example, Exhibit 2033, page --
`quadrant page 22, lines 2 to 5,
`
`
`
`
`
`
` So they had to pay, and then it was produced.
` Oh, and hopefully I got that citation right. It's
`Exhibit 2033, quadrant page 222 -- I might've said 22 --
`lines 2 to 5.
` And then the other part that I would flag is also on
`that same Exhibit 2033, page 57, lines 2 to 14, where
`Mr. Olsen talks about him being present when these sale
`discussions were being had because he was there to support
`the tech side of it. His quote was, I was there to back them
`up for the tech side of it. So he was at these discussions.
`He was at the table because he was part of the negotiations
`and he was supporting the sales people.
` So, with that, I'll kind of breeze through the -- we
`think the sales are very definitive. And, like I said, we
`really only need one for this to qualify as prior art. We
`17
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`SWM and NexTier Ex. 1072 - Page 17
`SWM and NexTier v. DynaEnergetics
`PGR2021-00097 - U.S. Patent No. 10,844,697
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`
`
`
`
`PGR2021-00097
`Patent 10,844,697 B2
`
`have much more than that. We also have public uses. And I
`don't want to spend too much time here because I think it's
`pretty clear, but I just want to emphasize a few things.
` So slide 23 shows that, you know, there is evidence
`of when, where, and by whom this SafeJet system was used, and
`there's even comments in this record showing how much the
`clients liked it. You can see on slide 23, the bottom right
`corner, Client liked gun system. Client was impressed.
` And then if we continue on, in slides 24 and 25 --
` JUDGE JESCHKE: Mr. Stein, my -- my -- I have a
`question about these uses, and I guess it's the public nature
`of the uses.
` MR. STEIN: Sure.
` JUDGE JESCHKE: And should we be concerned in any way
`about the fact that -- I think that these strings come
`assembled to the site -- and correct me if I'm wrong on that
`-- such that even someone in the public, let's say, who
`happened to be on this land, which I suspect is private land
`anyway, that they aren't able to see, for example, some of
`the claimed features. Why should we not be concerned about
`that as negating, if you will, the public use of this
`product?
` MR. STEIN: Sure. So I'll say two things. So, one,
`this wouldn't affect the sales. The sales are clear it's
`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
`
`SWM and NexTier Ex. 1072 - Page 18
`SWM and NexTier v. DynaEnergetics
`PGR2021-00097 - U.S. Patent No. 10,844,697
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`
`
`
`
`PGR2021-00097
`Patent 10,844,697 B2
`
`prior art for the sales. Now going back to --
` JUDGE JESCHKE: I understand.
` MR. STEIN: Yeah. So public uses, the first thing I
`would point to, just to address your question about assembly,
`they don't come assembled. They're assembled at the well
`site.
` So we looked at that portion from the patent at
`column 10, and that's the same way that SafeJet is assembled.
`You bring the carriers, you push the tandem seal adapter in,
`and you screw on top. And there was -- there's significant
`discussion from Mr. Olsen concerning how this assembly took
`place, where it took place on site, and that many, many
`people came and saw him assembling it.
` And I'm going to pull -- let me -- I think the --
` JUDGE JESCHKE: People -- people from the -- from
`ConocoPhillips, for example, or the --
` MR. STEIN: From the customers. There was -- so the
`-- the one site to look at is Exhibit 2033, again,
`Mr. Olsen's deposition, quadrant page 158, and that's
`line 52, where -- again, this is Patent Owner's counsel
`talking to Mr. Olsen. And you can see he's talking about --
`starting at line 2 -- he's talking about who the models were
`seen to. And the part I wanted to draw your attention to --
`I'm not seeing immediately -- is -- oh, quadrant page 159,
`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
`
`SWM and NexTier Ex. 1072 - Page 19
`SWM and NexTier v. DynaEnergetics
`PGR2021-00097 - U.S. Patent No. 10,844,697
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`
`
`
`
`PGR2021-00097
`Patent 10,844,697 B2
`
`line 15.
` When you showed the models -- for instance, to
`ConocoPhillips -- was there any expectation of
`confidentiality?
` No.
` And then the -- I want to find the other citation
`too. I may have to come back to that in a second, but he has
`significant testimony also about the fact that he took these
`pieces, laid them out, and showed everyone how to put them
`together. I'll -- I'll have to maybe ask someone on my team
`to pull those cites, and then I'll get them to you in a
`minute.
` But hopefully -- did that -- did that address your
`question?
` JUDGE JESCHKE: Yeah, I think so. I think that's the
`issue that is in my head about these uses. I think it's --
`it's -- it's well supported that there were uses, certainly,
`that took place. It's just a public nature of them that I'm
`trying to unpack fully, but I think -- I think the cites that
`you've given are helpful. Thank you.
` MR. STEIN: Okay. And I'll come back and pull a few
`more because there's a lot of testimony in the record, as
`well, about him laying components out, people coming in,
`seeing him doing that -- so people saw the whole system, and
`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
`
`SWM and NexTier Ex. 1072 - Page 20
`SWM and NexTier v. DynaEnergetics
`PGR2021-00097 - U.S. Patent No. 10,844,697
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`
`
`
`
`PGR2021-00097
`Patent 10,844,697 B2
`
`they saw it being assembled as well.
` I'm looking at if we have the cites.
` Oh, here. So here it is. So Exhibit 2033, quadrant
`page 163, line 13, Did -- this was again being asked by
`Patent Owner's counsel -- Did you then separately demonstrate
`how to actually put the guns together? Did Schlumberger do
`that and then deliver it to the rig?
` Same sort of question you were asking, Your Honor.
` JUDGE JESCHKE: Mm-hmm.
` MR. STEIN: And Mr. Olsen says, We did show them the
`-- all the components and how it went together after, during
`that. It was a long day of testing and proving to them that
`it worked, and showed them everything. Again, with
`explosives, you don't have unnecessary people in the area.
` And then line -- quadrant page 164, line 3, So they
`saw all the hardware. But we didn't have to assemble all the
`hardware for this purpose to demonstrate what we were showing
`them, that it would work.
` There's some other citations too. I'll -- let me --
`let me come back to that later.
` So let's continue. So, now, moving past the public
`uses, I want to go to this proposition of experimental use,
`and I just want to talk about it just for a second.
` So the argument that was presented in the
`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
`
`SWM and NexTier Ex. 1072 - Page 21
`SWM and NexTier v. DynaEnergetics
`PGR2021-00097 - U.S. Patent No. 10,844,697
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`
`
`
`
`PGR2021-00097
`Patent 10,844,697 B2
`
`Patent Owner's Response, which is reproduced on slide 27,
`focused explicitly on this thing called the experimental use
`doctrine. If you look at their brief, you'll see they really
`only have one supporting citation. It's to MPEP 2133.03(e),
`which is about this experimental use doctrine. This doctrine
`has no applicability to a third party's uses, and I just want
`to flag that. It's in the briefs.
` And we've reproduced on slides 28 and 29 the case law
`showing that this would apply to things that the Patent Owner
`might've done; it does not apply to what a third party is
`doing. So it's normally a Patent Owner that says, yeah, I
`was using this, but I was using it for purposes of
`experimentation, so I can still keep my patent. It's not
`used for a Patent Owner to point to what a third party is
`doing, and the case law is very clear on that.
` And then turning to slide 30, I'll just briefly
`mention that in the Sur-Reply, the argument completely
`shifted. You'll see they never mentioned experimental use
`doctrine. They're now arguing about the Pfaff factors and
`some other cases.
` But even that belated argument, which I think
`could've been waived since it wasn't made in the
`Patent Owner's Response, that even that, it doesn't save this
`position because those cases, again, they don't cover what a
`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
`
`SWM and NexTier Ex. 1072 - Page 22
`SWM and NexTier v. DynaEnergetics
`PGR2021-00097 - U.S. Patent No. 10,844,697
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`
`
`
`
`PGR2021-00097
`Patent 10,844,697 B2
`
`third party is doing. They're all about the inventor's
`activity, the experimental nature of what the inventor
`might've been doing; it's not about third parties. So even
`those cases don't save that position.
` And continuing on to slide 31, I think this is very
`strong evidence as well. This is a snippet from
`Exhibit 1060. And I think if there's really any question
`that this was not -- you know, whether this was commercial,
`whether it was secret, I think it pretty much falls apart in
`view of this article. This is something Schlumberger
`published. Schlumberger was trumpeting how great this
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
