Free Exhibits - District Court of Colorado - Colorado

Case 1:03-cv-02579-RPM
Varco Pason Systems

Document 148-3
TREVOR

Filed 01/11/2007

Page 1 of 10
7/14/2006

Page

IN

THE UNITED FOR THE

STATES

Civil Action

No

03-M-2579

BNB

VARCO

L.P

Plaintiff

SYSTEMS

USA

Defendant
_____ ______________

VIDEOTAPE
10

30b
____

_____

DEPOSITION OF July
______________

HOLT 2006
_____

______

_____

11
12

13

14 15 16
17

PURSUANT TO NOTICE AND SUBPOENA the videotape 30b deposition of TREVOR was taken on behalf of the at 1675 Suite 2600 Broadway Denver Colorado 80202 on July 14 at 946 a.m before Tracy Masuga Registered Professional Reporter Certified Realtime Reporter and Notary Public within Colorado

APPEARANCES
ROBERT

For

the

18
19

VERNON LAWSON Matthews Lawson Bowick Al-Azem PLLC Suite 2000 Bering 77057 Houston Texas
For the Defendant

700

20 21 22

TIMOTHY Ireland Pascoe
1675

ESQ
Pryor

P.C
Suite 2600

Denver Also Present

Colorado 80202 Videographer

25__IT__
23 24

Horn

Gregg

Perkin

[email protected]

303.832.5966

800.525.8490

Case 1:03-cv-02579-RPM

Document 148-3

Filed 01/11/2007

Page Page 2 of 10

of

Holt Trevor 1323
24 25

14

BY im
patent
Way
claims that

BOWICK
briefly

you

ever at

look it not

at

the the

142

back
in

looked

14

were

lawyer

so we Have

Again question deferred to counsel
you been informed

Im

patent or one

by counsel
infringes

anybody more claims

of

Pasons AutoDriller patent

Holt Trevor

2006-07- 14
discussion from Terry was taken in its patent was be infringing on some claims that we
--

14
10 11 12 13 14 15 it

Leier

that was

if

the we

yes
his

was you

not

were in

--

know

its

only

taken

its we

opinion

to us

was

that
CC

no

specific were not
sr

So his form infringing
CCC
CC
CCC

Holt Trevor 2720
21
22 23 24

2006-07-14
Who
was working he Dolezsar on this the he litigation than Jim Hill the one

yourself
Bob

himself
was

Dave

was when
--

main

contact

talking
-C

the
CC

he was was there with Terry Leier

%C

CC

Holt Trevor 2812
13 14 15 16 17 18 19

2006-07-14
Did you
provide any input of to

Mr

Leier

or of

Mr
the

Brett

on what patent

meaning

certain

terms

were
tell never was you had what the

No
Did
or what they detailed out with that discussions Dave were and between with and and me sought Dolezsar

claim terms meant

Again Terry Leier

20 21
22 23

e-mails

him
Between you and

Mr
about

Dolezsar

Mr

Rodda
and

whos
it

most

knowledgeable

Pason

AutoDriller

24
25

operates

am

designed
CC
CCCCCC

Holt Trevor

2006-07- 14

29
of what

And

Mr

Leier

communications or your understanding secondhand was telling was Pason

Case 1:03-cv-02579-RPM
Mr
Ricas
again

Document 148-3
Mr

Filed 01/11/2007

Page Page 3 of 10

of3

Mr Hill
name
Dave

or

--

whats
it

guy

in Costa
---

Dolezsar
went

Yes
counsel

was

counsels
advice

like

say
But
--

we on

to

how
that
him on the
Did you all in these As Did you all

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

have

Did you call teleconference
think all you

c-mails

above
participating all here copied
of

And were conversations
Definitely couple That you at least these

not

you copied on

back

were

on

You

were

c-mails
originated think some the second these this and was

Yes
Or you

dont
to provide But that sent on

information

page
it

its
looks

--

clearly e-mail

you

251

p.m
Its

originated correct reply
to

30
know did

reply not

who

tell you who originated that this e-mail originate was probably asked from somebody from another to give some information to Original Bob Rodda message May

couldnt

14

922

a.m
So

to Trevor

Bolt
to in an exchange of e-mails

youre
as

responding evidenced

c-mails
10

youve

got

Yeah here

Case 1:03-cv-02579-RPM
Varco Systems

Document 148-3
TREVOR

Filed 01/11/2007

Page 4 of 10
7/14/2006

Page

Page opinions

question
Its
infringing

on issues was

the

case
of

but to

testify

as to

my

understanding

that

we

not

facts

that

the

30b6
falls

the

patent
basis

deposition

your question

BY MR
youre
not infringing

do you have

that

within

that In addition

and
his
if

MR
foundation

ATKINSON

to both

and

witness issue

has

testified

any on the

been
is

shaped
relating

by
to discussions

with with counsel

BY MR
didnt 10
if

your

attorney
tell

told

you you

There
that

an

infringe

dont want you to
independent

me

that within 10 11

believe

we
and and
that

have
is

you have

an

basis or discussions

appropriate

the

prelitigation

Pason
12 Early

communications
Leier to

with
if

an

attorney

in

on
the

in

the

project of Let

we had

to

seek
--

12 13 14 15 16 17

Terry targeted

and

so

youve
the

got questions witness

counsel and

were that

that

will

permit

MR
were
16 prefatory issues

ATKINSON

me

just to

clarify

so

answer And
focusing counsel separate

those

questions got

not getting questions so

could analyze

ask

youve

answers

that

you Molt

give

on those you to
limit

Mr
to

your

that

you cant

Mr
infringement

do you have any opinion
or noninfringement that that

regarding not

18 19

between and

what

may have

been
or

was

shaped or
counsel

subsequently

Mr
the question at

any other
will

20
21

framed by discussions
or the

you may have
points
in

had

20
21
instruct

the infringement

then
all

company

at

different

time
to the
--

you

not

answer

THE
23
the

DEPONENT

No
So separate
received

to

22 23

THE DEPONENT

Okay
Do you understand

lawyers

MR
THE

ATKINSON

MR
advice

ATKINSON

and apart from

24 25

you may have

from counsel you dont

DEPONENT

Yes

Page

Page

13

have

any

independent

analysis

or

testimony on the

subject

MR ATKINSON Okay BY MR BOWICK Mr
independent basis other

Molt

you have

any

THE

DEPONENT
ATKINSON

No
right with

provided
prior this

by your

MR
if

that

counsel Terry Pasons
of

and

ask to take one
of

break As you
that

need

to consult

not

infringe

any of the

with

my
to

cocounsel

know
not taking

new

to the

142

case
position

want

make

sure

Im
want

MR
youre
occurred 10 11 discussions

ATKINSON
your question

by independent
things that

assume

on attorney-client done
previously as

privilege with to
if

limiting

what 10

weve

these

move

the

and

forward as
permit

efficiently brief

they can and
will

so

you would

me
answer

consult or not

my
instruct

MR BOWICK
Whats

Correct

cocounsel not

and
the

whether question

question

here
Other your discussions

BY MR BOWICK
and
right correspondence

15

MR MR
THE
at

BOWICK ATKINSON
VIDEOGRAPHER you
going
off

Terry basis

Leier or other

sir record

15

you have any independent
AutoDriller
infringes

on whether

or not

Pasons

Were 956 a.m
Back

one

more claims

the

142

956
Recess taken THE VIDEOGRAPHER
to

patent

18

1000
the

a.m
at

15

MR
foundation Just claimed

ATKINSON

And

again

object

to

on

record

20

1000 a.m

20

letters

that

came from

Wildcat never those

MR
22 one
for of

ATKINSON

Counsel break would

you very much
able to couple

we were

infringing

for permitting

me

the

was
note

speak
things
this

22

letters

my

colleagues
First

BY MR BOWICK
patent 25

Did

you ever

look at the

record
not as

of all

we

have
to give

25

witness

an expert

witness

ultimate

Way

back

looked

at

it

and

Pages
[email protected]

to

13

HUNTER

GEIST

303.832.5966

800.525.8490

Case 1:03-cv-02579-RPM
Varco

Document 148-3
TREVOR

Filed 01/11/2007

Page 5 of 10
7/14/2006

Page claims that

Page

16

were

in

not to

And

whats

of

e-mails

lawyer so we deferred Have anybody you ever

counsel
counsel
infringes

May
or
identified

2004 May 14
you

been

And
in

know who

Ford

Brett is

whos

else that

one

some

of

e-mails

more claims

patent

Ive never
as to attorney-client used
--

met him

Hes

expert

witness

MR
privilege

ATKINSON
Limiting
it

to

non-counsel go ahead

and

Pasons Witness

expert

answer
believe 10 11 Leier saying broadest but patentable patentable 15 opinion to us
-it

yeah
you communicate
with regarding AutoDriller to

there
if

was
patent

discussion

Terry
its

And
10 structure

that

was taken
infringing

in

and

methods

of

the

Pason
off

yes we may be
was
his

on
not
its

claims

11

believe

few e-mails

him

opinion

that
--

was

when

had Ask

questions

we
taken
in

you

know

you to
section to

the

second

page

there an

specific

form

14 15

Ive highlighted e-mail which
it

yellow

believe Leier to Ford

was

that

no
that
--

not infringing
is

appears

be from Terry
cc

BY MR
17

yourself

Trevor

Holt

on the

first

claims upon on

if

they

upon

for

Pason be

device
invalid

page

Do

you see that

18

the

claims

Yes
In
this

do
e-mail does Mr Leler
highlight
-tell

prior

Ford

20
to

MR
foundation You can understanding counsel
that

Again
testify

Im

going

to object

as

20 21

Brett

and

yourself
If

the

highlighted

as to your
talking

section

you just read that

for

me
want him to read

22 23

again
to or

about 23 So you 25

MR
document

ATKINSON

simply

interpret

may have meant
you have

25

give

your understanding

if

one

MR BOWICK MR ATKINSON

Okay

Page

Page
it

My understanding was yeah

prior for

would seem would

to

me

that

the

control

BY MR
infringement

So the only
prior art

not

algorithm

of Pason

operate of

least

some

of

was

on

invalidity not

time within

parameters

14
explanation within the

infringement

Consequently
to think
it

the technical system at
least

MR
foundation testimony
also

both the

appears

to

be of

Pason 14
is

operates

mischaracterizes

parameters

some

of

time

he just gave

Unless
into

basis to

invalidate

Yeah
sure

Im

getting

areas

where

not

claim within

the operation the scope

of

Pason

system appears
if

to

fall

here

of the hearing to

Therefore

10

BY MR BOWICK
Im
not

make
lawyer

it

easy

10

Markman/construction there does not

that affirms the

seem

me

to

be any other

12
this

MR
as Exhibit

Ask and
Ill

the

court

reporter of

mark

12

issues

provide

you

BY MR BOWICK
of 15

you have any understanding

as well 15

Tim
Deposition

saying there

was

marks
to

MR
No
their

ATKINSON
leave us
--

of
let

question counsel should going

BY MR BOWICK
been 18
read with

going
Ill

hand

you whats
to 18

marked
it

as Exhibit over
it

you
familiarize

chance
yourself

whether

we

and

look

to

forward

it

BY MR BOWICK
The
Have you had
it

Did

you provide

Mr

Leier

an
the

20 21 22

the to

document
review Exhibit

20

explanation structure of

of

Pason

AutoDriller

operates

Yeah What
an exchange
is

over
Is
-it

Yes
looks Isnt saying of
at least right

Exhibit

here AutoDriller

appears
it

24
it

that Claim

Pawns

reads

on

25

Yeah

looks

like

chain

of

e-mails

25

some

of the

Pages
[email protected]

to

17

HUNTER

GEIST

303.832.5966

800.525.8490

Case 1:03-cv-02579-RPM
Varco

Document 148-3
TREVOR HOLT

Filed 01/11/2007

Page 6 of 10
7/14/2006

Page

Page 28

Claim

14

He Again form what he says

is

MR BY MR
Thats

Do you know Somewhere Do you know
it
in

he
Costa

is

now

BOWICK

Thats

Rica working
his

what

e-mail

says
repeating

hes
runs

MR
objection

Same
there

Last runs
it

heard

own

place

BY MR
operate the way
previous that This starts

Does you describe on
to

Pason

Systems
the

still

business believe Related 10

or

--

Mr

so
in

the

field

or

tools

10
11

one

here
the one thats originated you
to

No
or something Did

Entertainment
like

or

know

like

motel

Correct Terry Leier

12 13

dated

May
it

2004

sent

251 p.m

Or

12
13

you provide any input to Mr
of claim

or

can just rephrase
Since

Mr
the

on what the
patent

terms of

14 2004
operates tweaks
to

Pason

changed

way

14

were
meant

the Pason 16 Theres Not major changes

15
our algorithm yes
16 17 or

No
Did they

you what

the

terms

though
if

what they covered Again
never

Do you know
you 20 had
with

was

the

communication

18 19 Terry

had detailed
sought out with that

with

Mr

Brett

That was had

Dave

Dolezsar

and

No
You dont know
or

Bob do you two
to

few e-mails

were between

me and

know
years

21

him
Between you and
Dolezsar about

No
cant 25

dont
talked

Have you

him since

ago then

22

and Pason

Mr Rodda
AutoDriller

whos how
it

most knowledgeable operates

recall position

Do you know what

on

25

am

designed

it

Page infringement

Page

29

was
position

And was
that

the

communications was
or
telling

or your

understanding

heard infringing

we

not

of

Mr

Leier

Pason whats

was secondhand
the

Mr Rodda
Ricas

Mr

Hill

Mr

--

guy

in

On what
dont Do you know
if

Dave

Dolezsar

it

was

counsels

--

like

Mr
--

concurred that concurred

with

again

say we went
But

to counsel

to get advice

--

Mr

Leier

that

14
if

strike

how
you
call

Do you know

Mr

with within 10 11 12

--

on that on the phone
Did

Mr
10

Leier

that

Pasons

AutoDriller operates

Did

you

all

parameters of Claim

14

have

teleconference think
all

you

all

exchange

e-mails

MR
document and
dont

of

above
participating

And
conversations

were

these

know How
did

13

BY MR BOWICK
15

you was

find

out that

14 15 16 17
least

Definitely

not

all

of here

As you can see back and
forth

Mr

Brett

had
told

infringement

theres

e-mails

Somebody

me
It

That you were copied e-mails

You were copied

on

Who
cant remember
19

was
this
this

--

there

was

15 19

Yes
Or you originated dont think asked to provide
But indicates sent originated

number

working

on on

e-mails
this

20
21 yourself

Who
Bob

was

working

litigation

20 21

e-mail

was

some

information

and
its
--

was the main

Jim

Hill

22 one 23 24 25

on the second

page
it

clearly

23

himself that

Dave
talking Is

when
the
--

was
Terry

there he was

the

that

you originated

looks

like

e-mail

was

with

251 p.m correct
Its reply

he

Pason

Pages
[email protected]

26

to

29

HUNTER

GEIST

303.832.5966

800.525.8490

Case 1:03-cv-02579-RPM
Varco Systems

Document 148-3
TREVOR

Filed 01/11/2007

Page 7 of 10
7/14/2006

Page reply to

30

Page

32

who
you who
this

what

projects
First

were

assigned

to
SideKtk

couldnt

worked was

on

know
asked

did

not originate

e-mail another

was

probably to give

And what

SideKick
display
it

some May
at the

smaller Basically displays
--

could the
stuff

used our
it

information

to

Terry

Original

message Bob
an exchange

mimicked
the

14
e-mails

a.m

to Trevor to of

EDR
to
flip

in

doghouse

and

allowed

So youre

use

to
in

do

user

interface

so they could

around
--

the of

screens

zero weight

on

bit

the

Yeah
10
11

as evidenced

in this

line

of 10

stuff

or

lot

functionality

youve

got

here
for got

could

be

on the SideKick And when was your work finished on the

Describe

me

educational

background

11

Well went

high school

diploma
engineering with 13 14 engineering 16

SideKick The
the majority of probably

university

was

finished

computer

minor

graduated degree

in

1989
electrical

end

of

So you
16 with

have

in

Was
elements

the Sidekick

to handle the

minor
In

in

computers

and

be

doghouse
handle

computer--yeah

Yes
Could 19 elements
if it

And
19

when

you graduate

the

EDR

the

Pason

1989
what
did

was

outside

doghouse
The

20 21 22 Geo-X

you do

after

that as

far

as

20

Not comprises

really

on the

EDR
are
in

employment
worked Systems
for

everything out

on the rig so sensors which
cables
referring

two years with dash Thats
position

company
were

called

22 data

already the

on the
Are

computers

that

are

They

seismic

shacks

you

to our

doghouse

acquisition

25

company What was

we developed
there
25

display

Yes

the

display

Page 31 Design

Page 33

worked
FracMaster
in

at

We
problems

have

--

we

have

few out on

rigs

where we have
floor
It

company

called

as

design

used our doghouse
with

display

the

has

Are these

Canada

sunlight

though and
its

Yes What partofCanada
Calgary And you worked
at FracMaster
for

environmental
practice Is

ingress so

been

but

we dont

the Sidekick
plugs
into

basically just

second

two years

display

that
It

Eightyears
Eight

has

little

your EDR system more functionality
that plugs but

years

Sothattakesusto10
that

It

second
third

display

the EDR
of
its

10

99
--

and and

and whole

display

size

1999

when you

employed

by

11

that

new

interface to

and

whole

new

Pason
13

12

communications Can
the

base had
Sidekick

be

developed without an

Yes
Approximately recall

13

EDR

what

in

if

you

14
15

EDR
Im
to just trying to figure

out where

you want

16

May
And
Design

16 was your position FracMaster 17 18
position

use

it

without

EDR
question also
--

guess
Sidekick without

could

rent

Pason
also

engineer

and

use

it

without

19

And on at Pason

what

was your

when you

hired

19 20 21
so

EDR
No
communicate So
it

20

Its

designed you found

to

communicate
else

with

Design

unless

would answer an
is

22 patents

Have

you ever

applied

for or obtained

any

22 23

the

same way
other

guess
other

the

no

has no

use on

than

EDR

No
25

24 you employed
at

We
And

actually

use

it

our service
with

also
else

When

Pason

in

of

25

communicates

something

Pages
[email protected]

to

33

HUNTER

GEIST

INC

303.832.5966

800.525.8490

Case 1:03-cv-02579-RPM

Document 148-3
Trevor Holt

Filed 01/11/2007

Page 8 of 10

Page

115

IN

STATES FOR THE DISTRICT

DISTRICT
OF

COURT

COLORADO
____

_______________

Civil Action

No

03M-2579

VARCO

L.P
Plaintiffs

10

vs
12

PASON
14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
____

SYSTEMS

CORP

_____

CONTINUED SEPTEMBER
BY

TREVOR

HOLT

21

2006

MR

JR

ESQ
HENDERSON LLP

HELD AT

OFFICES

LAFLEUR CANADA

CALGARY
__________________________________

Legalink

Merrill

Company
www.legalink.com

1-888-513-9800

Case 1:03-cv-02579-RPM

Document 148-3

Filed 01/11/2007

Page Page 9 of 10

of

Holt Trevor 183

2006-09-21

MR
that the 142 patent is electrical

Mr Holt
limited

is

to devices

your opinion that use an

relay

Holt Trevor 18311
12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

2006-09-21 dont know
never

really..
Do an opinion

MR
whether or not is that My opinion

you have the infringes does not of

patent

Why
Because formed the What

were

--

first

Ive

--

our think

counsel we do things

my opinion
is was that

Secondly
that

dont
your

same
counsel
it

opinion

Initially Who after guess

Terry

Leier

that
Stapleton

Ireland

Case 1:03-cv-02579-RPM

Document 148-3
Trevor
Halt

Filed 01/11/2007

Page 10 of 10

Page
--

Page

182

wouldnt

be

relay

your

dont Didnt you

understand
testify

--

that

part
--

of

it

definition

on July 16th
volt
--

sorry July

MR
ahead

Form

question

14th
pulses to the

sends
stepper look

or approximately

motor
within

OBJECTION
would
not consider that

You will

if

you

see 70-volt

no
would you consider

pulses

MR
relay would
10 consider
volts relay

So you agree
volts

that

volts

goes in and

sometimes

goes out correct
high
--

basically into

switch

So

if

You
10

you

get

some

high

had

120

and

going

one 120
to the
call driver

going
it

amplitudes

on those

signals

Thats

can say to

another
12
it

gave switch

signal

and

11 12 13 14

that Object 70
it

would

Nonresponsive
volts

Isnt

how

the

stepper

motor

goes

in

and

70

volts

goes out

doesnt

dont Doesnt coming
Its 18 volts But
it

so
have an input of approximately 70

Holt

15 16

OBJECTION
some
out
point

time you could

get

70

volts

coming

powered

power

supply

17 18

BOWICK
Approximately

Sometimes 70 volts

69 volts

doesnt go through
these
tiny electrical

the

19

20
21

through it Its those
It It

components

does

20
21 to
--

zero sometimes
as indicated current
in

30

Again
to

youre trying keep

would

burn

it

youre
the

monitored

and

probably

it

does go through

some

of

22 23

wind ings of the motor Counsel have
to

components go through motor driver

COZEA
tape Thank
This

change

some

but

70

volts

goes

into

this

24 25

you
the

25

stepper

correct

end

of

number

The

time

Page
It
is

181

Page

183

what

powers

the stepper
it

driver

there

on the monitor

shows

115224

And you dont know
thats

has

second

power supply

DISCUSSION

ThE RECORD

volts
this

BRIEF ADJOURNMENT
again
possible

Id have to go over
is

MR

COZEA

We Mr

are

back

on the record

from
using that
for

Time shows power supply or not
volts

its

the that

115919 MR BOWICK
the patent
is

Thank

you
is

Holt

your

opinion use

So you do agree
70
If

come

in

that

limited

to devices

that

go out you look at the you
Not
signal

electrical

with

phonetic
10 11

MR

ATKINSON

Foundation

ahead

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19

dont Object

see that

OBJECTION
dont
never
really..

responsive

OBJECTION
This-13

MR
Does
driver in

BOWICK
or not Pason
is

Do you have an
infringes

opinion

whether

the

patent

MR
stepper

go

into

the

14 15

My

that

it

does not

the

Pason
supply of

driller

Why
Because

70

goes

into

the

power

that
17

were

--

first

of

Ive

--

our counsel

formed my opinion
the

Secondly

dont

we do

things

And

is

to the stepper representing

motor
two representing

18

same
counsel
is

wires phase

phase

What
20

that Leier

formed your opinion

20
21

Initially

was Terry that
Ireland

What

type

of

signal

is

induced

to those
its 20-kilohertz

Who
chopped
guess

22 23 24 25 waved

remember

here

Stapleton

Mr
24
the

Atkinson

here
Barbara before

How many volts
where
in

There
Barbara

was

you

right

wave

form

youre looking

Again

Laff

18

Pages

to

183

Legalink 1-888-513-9800

Company
www.legalink.com