Takeaway: Where there are multiple related proceedings, the Board may set a “reasonable time” for deposition testimony for the group of proceedings instead of permitting the usual amount of time for each proceeding.

In its Order, the Board addressed issues raised by the parties relating to discovery.

First, the Board addressed Petitioner’s “concern regarding unsupported evidence in the declaration of Mr. Robin Walker.” In particular, Petitioner asserted “that certain information referenced by Mr. Walker had not been produced, and the deposition of Mr. Walker was only a few days away.” Counsel for Patent Owner “indicated that some of this information was on encrypted, and double encrypted drives which they were attempting to produce, and that certain information was from Mr. Walker’s memory as opposed to physically available documents and things.” The Board explained that it “expects all available evidence that [Patent Owner] intends to rely on be produced prior to the deposition, and any additional evidence to be produced as soon as it is available.” The Board further commented that it is “fully capable of determining the appropriate weight to give certain evidence relied upon by either party” and that Petitioner “may file motions to exclude at the appropriate time should it believe it is prejudiced by late or unsupported evidence.”

The Board then addressed the length of depositions for a second group of related proceedings. The Board determined that, consistent with its determination for the current group of proceedings:

a reasonable time for each witness’s petition declaration testimony in the second group of PGS proceedings is 17 hours total, including: 12 hours for cross-examination; 3 hours for redirect examination; and 2 hours for re-cross examination. A reasonable time for reply declaration testimony for each witness in both groups of PGS proceedings is 7 hours for cross-examination; 4 hours for redirect examination; and 2 hours for re-cross examination.

Next, the Board addressed Patent Owner’s request for additional discovery with respect to alleged privity between Petitioner and a third party in view of a master purchase agreement filed after the Decisions to Institute. The Board previously addressed matters of privity and real-party-in-interest in its Decisions to Institute. Based on its review of the newly-submitted agreement and the indemnity clause therein, the Board determined that Patent Owner had not apprised it of “any new evidence demonstrating control, opportunity to control, or financial compensation for litigation, or IPR proceedings.” It was not persuaded that it “misapprehended or overlooked such evidence in [its] Decisions to Institute.” Accordingly, Patent Owner’s request for authorization for a Motion for Additional Discovery was denied.

Petroleum Geo-Services Inc. v. WesternGeco LLC, IPR2014-00687, 688, 689

Paper 67: Corrected Order – Conduct of the Proceedings

Dated: May 19, 2015

Patents: 7,162,967; 7,080,607; 7,293,520

Before: Bryan F. Moore, Scott A. Daniels, Beverly M. Bunting, and Barbara A.  Parvis

Written by: Daniels

Related Proceedings: IPR2014-01475, IPR2014-01477, IPR2014-01478, IPR2015-00565, IPR2015-00566, IPR2015-00567