Free Exhibits - District Court of Colorado - Colorado

Case 1:03-cv-02579-RPM
Varco L.P

Document 148
BENJAMIN

Filed 01/11/2007

Page 1 of 16
10/24/2006

Pagel

IN

THE FOR THE COLORADO

Civil Action

No

03-cv-02579-RPM-BNB

VARCO

L.P

in1tuif
PASON SYSTEMS USA

Defendant
VIDEOTAPE

30b

DEPOSITION OF
October

THOMAS

24

2006

10

PURSUANT deposition
12

TO

NOTICE

the

videotape was taken

30b
on

of at

BENJAMIN
1675

THOMAS Suite
at

behalf Colorado Barbara

Plaintiff

Broadway

2500

Denver
before

80202
13

on

October

24

916

a.m

Birger
Reporter

Registered Merit Reporter Notary Public

Certified Colorado

14

20

rTl
[email protected]

HUNTER

Case 1:03-cv-02579-RPM

Document 148

Filed 01/11/2007

Page 2 ofPage 16

of

Thomas Ben
44
in the
10

BY MS
any discussions was that they or findings in

MICHAELS

Mr
at

Thomas
Pason

were regarding the

involved

anyone infringe the

AutoDriller might

any patents call where patents or
--

attorney

11
12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

investigating his giving was of the

was was

telling his for that there
it

Who attorney out Was

attorney
his
--

dont
this

remember or

name
it

Yeah

was

an

Toronto

was

Canadian

attorney

Mr
was and

Terry

Leier

was
Who
Do conference you call in the that

remember

approximately

21
22 23 24 25

was
give me even

No
Can you and

year
give to you the

No
sitting down

cant
was

year
best look of like

not

without

putting

45

And what in recollection whether

said

your

call
infringement
or US or not Canadian

it Basically the patent was even valid And he was referring to

patents

patents dont
But

recall
Canadian

think

both

hes
you

Yes
10 11 12 13

Do Rodda

remember

questions

Hill

or

Bob

No
of

was long time the conversation we

ago

dont
doing that

remember walking we be

remember

14
15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23

feeling shouldnt be that guess went even that up know
It

away

werent

anything you

doing
might

And so what were you concerned be doing you shouldnt

Well
--

had

in

didnt
And

there
what the an

cant
--

even

so patent until that many concerns dont if -remember them But to call or some when the opinion reason Terry Wildcat

Leier

brought might have

what

inspired

been

to

customer
attorney for is Jim Hill Bob Rodda in to

dont
an like felt

for

24
25

opinion
whatever

away gave was

from

46

good Now

me
in

Canada

Yes
Is

Canada
US was of
it

Yes
And youre
involved involved

operations

Yes
And the
attorney in operations seems to me

Yes
10 11 12

Did you
seek any opinion from did

general manager US lawyer some

No

not

reason

Case 1:03-cv-02579-RPM
13 14 15 16 17 18 19

Document 148

Filed 01/11/2007

Page 3 of Page 16

of

that

Terry

Leier

had

talked

to

somebody
talked

on

the

US

Who had Terry

Leier think

with

dont
What Because

know
you
--

makes

that
if

mean

walked that we

away

from

that

20
21 22 23 24 25

meeting with sense of anything wrong would
in there the that US side as you

werent
we looked

doing at

would

know

what

from

well that
assumed

Why would you think My nature guess
So or believed to that
--

the

best

47

Terry

Leier

of your recollection you told you that had

with
Leier we had

US said

lawyer
That Terry that

to the of my recollection that something me to be addressed on the US side as well But you dont know who US lawyer

No
fl
bV

Thomas Ben
10513
14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23

The We have looked to ourselves

next at be

this

states
not consider that Do you

Mr Bowdens
close

quote

sentence

Yes
who sentence

maam
the we11 that was earlier to referenced to in that

would that

referring which was
if

when
were

we talked talked to for doing the

Leier
and

that

that phone call in the room sitting was the attorney we feeling at that we

walked away

24
25

thing

106

claims
the

When you said We have you didnt mean yourself
meant
--

Bowdens

we

has but

to not

infer

team When
you

myself as part of -- not unadvised without at at to here our
is

certainly

claims

say

We

have

Bowdens
looked at

are

Mr Bowdens
with Jim Hill
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19

you
--

saying that anyone in his patent

what and

Im

Bob

referring Rodda

discussed

official

stance
is

what

do we we

believe

response an the e-mail

were doing back with
So Hill

here
told

Okay
that we claims and

and

you

to

send on an

essentially do not consider how we

We
should and

looked

at

Bowdens
infringing

ourselves

to be

patent
asked and this
is

agreed-upon

response Agreed upon

between

you

Jim Hill

and

Rodda Yes
What He
is

20
21 22

Mr
the general manager of Canadian

Case 1:03-cv-02579-RPM

Document 148

Filed 01/11/2007

Page 4 ofPage 16

of

23

business

unit
And was
he December Rodda manager of Canadian unit in

25

107
the

Yes
So Canadian

Mr

was

in

essence

your

counterpart

at

company
you

Yes
When

say quote

We

have

looked

at to

Mr Bowdens Mr Leier the Mr Bowdens claims
He
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17

quote

youre
having

referring at

would

part Hill look

of at

decision-making

process
as far

of as

course
Did

Mr Mr

Mr Bowdens Mr Bowdens
do not

claims

you know

dont
Did
as far as Rodda look at patent

claims

know
Separately

independently
you are

dont
consider on the ourselves one had whether

Mow when
to be

We

18
19 20

infringing
you

basing

conference

had with

Mr Leier
evidently know knowledge the Bowden

And
prior or not to writing So the you Pason

21
22 23
flYWW

conversation resulting this e-mail

dont

your AutoDriller

patent

Thomas Ben 2006-10-24
108
Repeat the

BY MS

question Do MICHAELS
Pason

directly as to whether Bowden patent

you have any AutoDriller

knowledge infringes the

SW

Thomas Ben 2006-10-24
108

No
BY MS
conversation
on
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17

you

Youre MICHAELS had with Mr Leier
conversations you

basing over

that the had

on

the and

telephone

any subsequent and/or Bob Did you that that

may have

with

ever

discuss patent

whether

AutoDriller US

was

infringing

the Not

with

recall

Its

any hard

lawyer
to remember this and since this e-mail which

conversations

may have
so take it one say at that

before

all

subsequently

started
was sent out

18
19

Lets
themselves to be

time
Pason

Before does not

where

you

consider US

20 21
22 23 24 25

infringing

had you

talked

with any

lawyer dont
And USA had
sent you know any US lawyer anyone before else this within e-mail Pason was

out

Case 1:03-cv-02579-RPM
109
No So

Document 148

Filed 01/11/2007

Page 5 ofPage 16

of

dont
You have

know no idea
you

idea
when referring to

claims youre

We have Mr Bowdens
is the

at

Mr Bowdens
claims
this

patent

which is the 142 patent lawsuit that right
would
--

that

subject

guess saying

so

And when
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17

you

Weve
that you saying basing to be that

looked

at

Bowdens
looked

claims youre
at the patent

personally

claims

No
does not

Im

not

at

all
conclusion that on

Okay
consider you you

Youre

conversation conversation

had with had with

Mr Mr

Leier Hill

the oral infringing and any subsequent

Mr Rodda

Yes

Thomas Ben
114
review
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19

BY MS
any opinion

MICHAELS
letters think so recall

Mr
but

Thomas did by Terry
might you

you

ever

dont
recall
You

Leier have dont
one

dont

did

way or

the

other

No
You

dont
indicated

recall
that Leier you had which

conversation

Mr
--

Mr

telephone Hill was and

on

the

phone
It was sitting around

Mr Hill Mr
table

Rodda

conference all were that

Mr
the

myself were Leier had phoned

20
21 22 23

in
Were
you

No
And was had

in Denver at in Calgary

time
that you out have in my

conununication

24
25

Mr Leier
so
Its
the one that stands Prior to that summed doing your you up reviewed when wrong that for
--

115

mind anyway

Mr Leiers
out of not

letters opinion All details of thinking infringing

walked

were
based

anything

here
is

Were
no
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

Okay
infringement You on

you that

conclusion

there

certain
that we

dont think know what
--

call one conference could say that either
did and

didnt
as

review the that

the

out secured infringing

in my mind

thing thought And to that to have

werent

you and we stuff

know
were moving looked

fact

may have
summed
it

that

at prior

exactly
up All to know recollection after

saying in my mind we under view oath here

All

Im

good and we

go
right
your that best you So

youre
your

recollection based

is

Is your best the AutoDriller

Case 1:03-cv-02579-RPM
21
22 23

Document 148

Filed 01/11/2007

Page 6 of Page 16

of

did not
telephone

infringe

on

the

conversation

with
That

Mr Leier
when read know
if

you

had

on

the to the

my decision
letters looked the they at

24
25

116

Mr Leier
different and

my recollection Had you

dont
things cant tell

them
of

are

Ive
you

read where

course

lawsuit
And

dont

know
You just just

dont dont
ever

know
any e-mails from possible as well

Did you

read

Mr Leier

Thats
10 11 12 13 14 15 16

But Do

dont
you

you dont remember remember
remember that at least any one e-mails of claims possible of

Mr

Leier was

patent

infringed by the dont recall that

no

Its

that

Thomas Ben
117
Were you aware that office that was Pason of this

had
whole

which patent the reexamined by the patent
--

lawsuit

be
of

D.C
piece

yeah
of to injunction aware say

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

the an

that

you

know

we this

have request have

Now were
the They At any Pason

us against that Pason initiated

reexamined patent by initiated that to

patent
--

office
whether

time
that

Do

you

know be

patent

reexamined
was

mean
You part of the That
it

dont
said be So

know
you understood

just

that

reexamined
at some
of it

Correct

Okay
was
--

point

there But who

that was doing to do

must in the

have course as or was

done
the of

-- yeah dont --

understand

requests Wildcat

dont what

mean
Pason Pason

it Pason that or not

represent

result

118

do
Leaving

dont
aside who requested

All

right

reexamination

Okay
--

are

patent same

to

be

you and

that reissued am

the the

patent patent
of

office

found

the

with all the

claims Yeah
You are aware the of

that

10 11

Yes
And reexamination
you participate

Case 1:03-cv-02579-RPM
12 13 14 15 16 17 18

Document 148

Filed 01/11/2007

Page 7 of Page 16

in any further request from patent counsel as the Bowden

on

behalf

of

Pason

for

an opinion

to whether

the was was

AutoDriller all
--

patent Well at
So the

that in

were all

point and is you

the

lawyers were

what get

doing

answer get

didnt

involved

that

didnt

involved

wn
Thomas Ben 2006-10-24
11921
22 23 24 25

You in December of who

were 2003 works

the

general

everybody

of manager you sent around Pason in the the

Pason

Systems e-mail to

Yes
infringing the

maarn
to that Pason is not

And you

120

patent

Yes
What We
fl te Wt

maam
do you base that conclusion

on

wee

We

t4eS

Thomas Ben
120 said
10 11 12 13 14 15 16

Based you get and

on

the from people

with

the take

Like advice are

advice

you

decision you make Sometimes you dont study everything yourself that your advisers you decide the ones you should trust and you trust them BY MS So as far as can understand your testimony
your sole conclusion Leier on the that patent is not infringed by the conversation you had

Pasons
Terry

AutoDriller

on

Thomas Ben 2006-10-24
12018
19 20 21 22 23

That have them not up told in Then every

was

part

of

yes
what that that says Do to of
it

BY MS
me anything else Different discussions final let single thought the rest

else

is

there
But

You sum okay to

my head

were
have

here
remember

go

24 25

detail

Im

trying would

remember

121

everything could

can possibly remember of more to tell you

you

okay you

Thomas Ben
13310
11 12 13 14 15 16

Now counsel the other

has

Pason Terry

sought

opinions

from

any

Leier

believe lawsuit Once so in the course of thing -- the lawsuit Were started just said to continue where were going we dont an injunction time against this the whole to focus on

that

lawyers

and

my manager

will

me

Case 1:03-cv-02579-RPM
do
Does or that to mean seek

Document 148

Filed 01/11/2007

Page 8 ofPage 16

of

17 18 19

what

to

you an

had

no

role counsel went and on

in

whether

opinion have

20
21 22 23

noninfringement
guess could

Well
have an

said

We

24
25

But it was already being independent handled by So if they to lawyer got something advise would me on the way should do our business assume district they were

134
hearing to whether

After

to tell us going federal circuit ruling seek an did

decision

reversing injunction counsel as

courts
you
the

preliminary additional

Pason

AutoDriller

infringed
time as general opinion on

No

not
legal

Have you personally at any manager of Pason USA ever asked noninfringement

No

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

Document 148
BENJAMIN

Filed 01/11/2007

Page 9 of 16
10/24/2006

THOMAS

Page

Page point

And December

73

percent correct

year

ended

2003

ThE

Were

going

off

the

at

Yes
Deposition
Exhibit

1027
11

was

marked
marked as Would
you please have
in

Recess ThE
at

taken Were
going back on the

Im
Deposition at the
in front Exhibit

you what

11
Bates

1038

page
of

with

No

Do you

BY MS MICHAELS
any
discussions

Mr Thomas
at

were you involved
regarding whether

you
for rental

with

anyone

Pason

Yes
10

the services
indicated

AutoDriller

any
in

patents the attorney

Under margins
percentage percent

10 11 12 13
that findings

was
had
or

conference

call

for

the

months that

investigating his

the patents or
--

was

telling for

December

31

do you

giving

was there

Yes
And ended December
margin
for rental
is

Who was

the
his
--

services percent
is

the year correct

14 15 16 attorney

dont remember
out
of

name
it

Yeah

it

was an
attorney

31 2005

Toronto

or

was

Canadian

Yes Was Pasons
18
AutoDriller

Mr
believe
it

L-e-i-e-r

introduced
in

in

17 18 19

was
was
in

Canada

before

it

was introduced

States

Who
Jim you conference
call

the

conference

Yes
20 product

maam
there
significant

Bob remember approximately
that

And was

demand

for

20 21 22

Yes
Would
the

No
Can you
give

you turn please
annual report

to

Exhibit

That
in

is

23 of 24 25

me

year
give you together

2003

Pason

Do you

have

front

even

year not without

25

you

down

and

putting

Page

Page 45

Yes
Would
Bates

And you turn please
to the page that has recollection
in

was said
that
it

to the best call

your

stamp

Basically

didnt

look
valid

like

Okay
At the top of the the AutoDriller

whether page there
is

the patent

was
referring

or

not
or

to

And he was patents dont
recall

to

Canadian patents

US

do you see that reference

Yes
And
state 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 United

both but

two sentences By
of of

of Pason

paragraph produced 81 10
positive

But

hes

Canadian

quote

Yes
Do you remember Rodda what
Jim
Hill

66 were The
initial

in

Canada
has the

and
been

15 very

or

Bob

States

response

asked

as evidenced

by to keep
in

fact

year the Company
situation

No
the
specifics feeling

It

was

long time

ago

dont remember
walking

was unable
rectified

up

to

the

that

close

quote

you

see

that

away

we werent

anything

we
be

Yes Now
in

shouldnt

be doing And so what were
concerned

you been
United

measuring

demand

this

you might

States
actually

17 puthng

doing

that

you

shouldnt

Beyond say
very

what we

on

would guess

Well
that
--

had
didnt

in

so that

little

many

concerns
if --

until

20
21 22 23 24 25 the

Was

the
at

company end
of

having

difficulty

keeping
to

up

with

20

went even

up there
brought

cant even
--

remember
inspired

dont
call

the

according

this
at

know

what

them to
Wildcat

Terry

As where we
to

company yeah
actually

And
back

remember
from

some

point

Leler
letter

threat to the

or

sent

some

the United than break

States did
this

up

customer

dont
get
felt

But

for

some when
opinion

Canada

because

they had Lets

more demand
quick

we
at

24

they walked

an attorney away
from

an opinion

and

MS MICHAELS

he

11 [email protected]

Pages

to

45

HUNTER

INC

303.832.5966

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

Document 148
BENJAMIN

Filed 01/11/2007

Page 10 of 16
10/24/2006

Page gave

Page 48

good

enough
Hill in

me
anyone

And same conversely else
Not
to

you dont

license

Now Yes
Is

my knowledge
any do you
play
in

Bob Rodda

in

What Pasons annual

of

Yes
And
involved with operations

Very

little

Yes
And
attorney

What was
in

is

the

role

you

do
did quarterly

When
summary
that

was general manager
would
to

Yes
10 seek 12 Did

the

imagine
into

some

you

general

manager of

US operations

10

of

information for

was eventually
Jim
--

any opinion

US lawyer not
For

But
it

most the whole Writes Annual

to

my knowledge

Jim

Hill

No
that Terry side

did

some somebody

seems

to on

me
the

writes

Leier

talked to

US

annual report

yeah
any
role

Who

Terry

Leier of

Do you have

respect

preparation

dont know
17

What
Because meeting

makes
--

you think that

No
away
from that works 20 21 these
financial Jerry Is

mean

if

there anyone

within

operation of Pason
to

that of

sense

of confidence

we werent
have something looked
at

part

prepare

20 21

anything
in

wrong
said

would think
you

reports Aberle
is

know

this

is

we

from

US

as well think 23

What
Jerry

his

title

actually

Why would you My
nature

guess
of your recollection you

Yes assumed CFO
of

So to the

Pason

USA

Page or believed with that Terry Leier
told

Page

you that

spoken

How

long has

with

company

if

you

US lawyer That
--

know
of

to the

my

recollection

Terry that

Sometime
Is-Actually
it

99

he

started

Leier said

something that
it

allowed

me

to

be confident

we

had addressed
But

on the US know

as well

might

you dont

US lawyer is

Do you know
preparation of

what

any Mr
income taxes

Aberle

has

in

No
believe

Pasons income taxes He does

you any

testified

previously to
third

Pason parties
is

Yeah
For 10

does not
10 that

license

of

its

products

accurate

Yeah
prepare the

Or has them statement

--

works

that

Im
client

digging of they

deep
certain are licensed products business

but of software to use
it

we have
by the

version using
it

As between you and
of
to

Mr Aberle

is

he

more capable
reports of

13

client

questions

regarding

speaking
the

actual side of

that

we

rent

the

rig

from

14 15

Pason

EDR

dont know
using the

we
is

license

Yes hes more capable
Proceedings excerpt
continued

guess

using the data

that

on page

50

confidential

technically

dont
not saying that your testimony

Im
20
said

was

incorrect

Yeah

Yeah
to confirm that

just wanted

what you had

20

Yeah
23 24 have
licensing

And agreements do

consider with

licensing

we dont

22

You Do

not yeah

not

12 Pages [email protected]

to

49

HUNTER

INC

303.832.5966

800.525.8490

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

Document 148

Filed 01/11/2007

Page 11 of 16
10/24/2006

THOMAS

Page with on But you
drillers
all

104

Page

the

rigs

or anything

like

that automatic

claims

you

didnt
--

mean

yourself has
to infer

knew

were

Wildcat

meant

we

myself as part without
--

of

on

some Caza
That assumption

the decision-making

team

but

not

unadvised

Yes
would

yes

certainly

When
Deposition 38

you

We
in

looked

Mr Bowdens
Pason looked at

was marked
you

claims

are

you

saying that
his

anyone

at

Mr Thomas
been

document
This
is

Mr Bowdens
e-mail
--

claims

patent
to here
is

marked as Deposition
to
Hill

Exhibit

38

an

what and

Im

referring

discussed
official

sent by you 10 11 12 13 This would
AutoDriller

and sent

Bob Rodda on
few
is

December

31
10

with

Hill

Rodda

whats

our

stance
is

been

What

do we

believe were back
Hill

here And

this

the

came

the

that

11

response

we came Okay
So

with Bob Rodda
looked
told

Yes The
misstated
e-mail to

you to send

US fieldmen was
actually
Hill

--

excuse

me
to

13 the

an

e-mail

essentially

at

Mr Bowdens
infringing

sent from you

claims the 16

and

we do

not consider

ourselves to be

on

15

US fleldmen with Yes

cc

to

Jim

and

Bob

patent
asked

maam
e-mail

how we

should

respond

this

is

an

17

The

states our
is

Gentlemen
autodriller Single

you

have

agreed-upon

response between you and Jim
Hill

any questions comparing
autociriller

Wildcat

Agreed upon
19

and

Bob

our response system
is

quote
art

The
control

Rodda
Yes What

20

autodriller

state

of

computer

20

system 22 23 24 25

that

completely

than
close

Bowdens
22 business 24

Mr Roddas
the general

position Canadian

Wildcat

pneumatic

system

quote

He
unit

manager of

Do you remember Yes What

maam
prompted you
to

And was he general
unit
in

manager of the

send

that

25

December

2003

Page Fieldmen rumors and asking questions you Fieldmen
just

Page

107

Yes
issue of

things

know

the whole

So
the Canadian

Rodda

was

in

essence

your

counterpart

patent infringement So you people
in

was going on
responding
to

company

concerns

expressed

Yes

your

field

--

in

field

When
was going we
respond
to

you
claims

quote
close

We

have

looked

at to

Yeah What
things Did anyone 10

were wondering how
did

on
kind of

Mr Bowdens Mr
Leier

youre

referring

was

those

the Canadian

lawyer having

looked

at

Mr Bowdens
ask you
in

claims
part of the decision-making

to

send

e-mail
that

He would when
our honest as 13 not consider 10 of

process

No
fieldmen response

Its

common

our

course
Did

us questions up

we
with
of

give

them
this

most

Mr

Hill

look at

Mr Bowdens

claims

as

far

And

was

it

you

know
dont
Did

13

The next paragraph

this e-mail

states

We
ourselves 16
to

at

Mr Bowdens
quote

Mr Rodda

at

Mr Bowdens
dont

claims

be

infringing

Do you see

that

as 16

far

as

know
and
independently

sentence Yes

Separately

maam
is

Now when
is

you say
are

We

do not consider
that

ourselves

Who
19 20
that

the

referenced

in

that

to be 19

infringing
call

you

basing

on the one

sentence
would
think

conference

you had with Mr Leier
conversation
this

was
in

referring

to

that sitting

phone the

call

20
prior

And the
writing

evidently

had

which
if

was

room 22

e-mail

when
talked

we
to

talked for

to

Mr

Leier

was the attorney we away
feeling

certain

and thing

walked

we
24

or not the Pason

So you dont of your own knowledge know whether the Bowden AutoDriller patent

24 25

were

doing

the you

MR
Go ahead

HAYNES

Object

to

the

of

question

When

said

at

Mr Bowdens

25

15

Pages

104

to

107

[email protected]

GEIST

INC

303.832.5966

800.525.8490

Case 1:03-cv-02579-RPM
Varco L.P
Pason Systems

Document 148
BENJAMIN

Filed 01/11/2007

Page 12 of 16
10/24/2006

THOMAS

Page Repeat question

Page

So you cant think Do
you have

BY MS
directly

MICHAELS
the

any knowledge
the
boil
it

cant think
this
is

any specifics
the
result
it

know

we
and

as to

whether

Pawn

of our conversation to our

Bowden

patent

how we wanted
objection statement

to

present

fieldmen
which
is

MR
No

HAYNES

So the

result field

was

Exhibit

38

the

we do

not consider

to

BY MS
conversation

MICHAELS
with

Youre

on the
over the have and with 10 11 the

be

you had

Mr

Yes
And

maam
was based on
discussion with

on any subsequent
10
Hill

conversations

you

and/or

Bob

lawyer

Absolutely Did
infringing

maam
you remember Bob
to
this

you ever discuss whether Bowden
patent with Its

was

12 13 14 15

any of your conversations e-mail

with

any US
to

14

Not conversations conversations

that

recall

remember which
this

may

have have occurred

before

and the

No Im
marked The
Marshall e-mail

you

right

now 39

document
This
is

thats

been

since

16 17

as Deposition
in

Exhibit

an

e-mail

17

suit

so
Lets
it

this

document

sent
is

by you to Tim Marshall Works

one

at

Before Pason you
talked

e-mail not any US

18 19

on June 23 2006
sales engineer e-mail
in

was sent
20 themselves
to

where you
be

say that had

me
quote

20
21

pertains
for

the subject

lawyer
22

Why we

charge
Live

$75
Its the

LRV

What

is

LRV
thats

dont And USA
sent

recall

22 know
whether

--

we have

website
--

do you
with

anyone

else this

within

Pason

23

essentially

talked

any US

e-mail

was

24
25

collected speaking provided

recorder

and
that

out

free to any customer

Page

Page
rents

111

dont You No
idea

know
no idea

the
rental
is

drilling drilling

or

is

involved

in

the

particular

product

an

extension
in

of

if

customer

wants

So when claims
which lawsuit
is

you say
referring

We
is

looked

at

Mr Bowdens
claims

watch

the data

realtime
relate
in

youre
the
is

to

Bowdens

patent

Does LRV
Other
this

any way to the go onto
--

142

patent

you

could

you could

go onto
as

right

website
is

and
being

the various

perform

an

Iwould--Iguessso And
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 going

AutoDriller

used
of an

But
this

directly

no
which
to

you say

Weve

looked

at

Mr Bowdens
looked 10 11 and

The

third

page

document you
copy to

claims
at

youre not saying that you personally claims
not saying that
at all

stamp 12814

e-mail carbon

Ken

Courville

the patent

US
sales

No Im
Okay

12

me
e-mail

ask

couple

issues

an

Youre

this

Pawn
on the
oral

13 14 15 16 17

group

does not consider
conversation conversation

to be had had with with

maam
does group

you you

Mr Mr
Hill

any subsequent and

comprise
at it

Mr Rodda

and
all in

includes

Yes
Deposition Let
Exhibit

the

sales

group doesnt

The general manager
for

39 was marked
subsequent conversations to about
this

18 19 20 21 22 23 operator accounts
is

me

His

me

ask

you

about

supervisor

Several
is

you had December

Mr 31

and

Mr Rodda me

Who

Courville

e-mail concerning the

any conversation
that Pason

development
works

manager
is

He
directly

you had with Mr does not
infringe

me

that

focused

on

142

patent

Coming up with
to

details

December

of

2003

is

24 25

Greg

Lindsay

be

difficult

manager of Pason

USA

16 [email protected]

Pages

108

to

111

HUNTER

303.832.5966

800.525.8490

Case 1:03-cv-02579-RPM
Varco L.P
Pason Systems

Document 148
BENJAMIN

Filed 01/11/2007

Page 13 of 16
10/24/ 2006

Page

Page

Hes Yes
This the

individual

who

your

position

60 yes

maam
is

MS
of the e-mail chain regarding

Lets

break

part

ThE

Were

going

off

at

day

for

LRV
at

242
what
point

Yeah
being

dont know
about
rig

Recess ThE 12815
has
at

something The

to..
Bates

Were

going

back

on

the record

document

with

stamp

317 BY MS MICHAELS
Mr Thomas
Terry you ever

sentence
like

you at the top of the page you about Would you turn
that

that please

would
review 10
recall

to ask

any opinion

letters

prepared might

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19

MR

HAYNES

page
Do you have

dont

so

but

dont

12815

BY MS
Yes
It

MICHAELS

Correct

that other

You dont

whether

you did

one way or the

states

quote
is

Basically

the success

formula
in

No
You
conversation

dont
indicated with

recall

company
your

try

get

200 above

you

had which

telephone

operational

margin

60 percent

Mr

Mr

Hill

was on the

Yes What does
It

phone
that

mean
rough that cost

It

was

--

Mr

Hill

Mr Rodda
table and

and

were
Leier

means
in

you take you can

and

19 20

sitting

around

Mr

phoned

20
21

you
price

--

if

200
products

and

you
stays

can

in

your

way and

your margin
to

above

Were

you

all

in

the Calgary that you have

22 23 24 25

percent you are probably

going

have

successful

No

We

were
that

in

And was
Did experience

the

you compare

that

for

success

to your

had

Mr

Leier

the AutoDriller

believe

so

Its

one

that

stands

out

in

my

Page
think particular just

Page

115

question out on

that

mind anyway
at Prior

product

Meaning
or the
to

said $200

you

know

to that letters that thinking

had you reviewed

$75

are

we

in

payback

range

Mr

Leiers
All

opinion

Did you

mean

100

to

200
something
start

summed
not doing

up when wrong here

Day payback yeah youre fine and $75

range

yeah

out of

were

anything

go okay we

Were

not infringing

Okay
And you determined
that

So you based

your conclusion call
for

there

is

the
subtracting

no infringement
out 10 certain conference that
call

on that one conference
could say did
in

revenue 10 11 the cost

per day
of

times

or 200

dont think

that

either

manufacturing

what
stands out
--

didnt

review
last

--

the

Yeah
manufacturing

So
cost
is

that

we

could between

the

11 12

my mind as the
the
fact

thing thought

7500

and

you know

13

unit

we werent
And
if

infringing

and
stuff

we were moving forward
that looked
All

And

you

kept your

operational

margin

above

there that

may have

been

at
is

to that that

60 16

percent

for

AutoDriller
all

Thats more over
you cant the rig people the see the coming
--

operational

margin goes
labor to
fix

because
part

16 on

summed go

it

up

after

that

in

my mind we
here

good

to

when
out
of

somebody same

pool

same same
trucks

All

under your best
recollection

and

we have
best

same equipment You

they are
--

using
is

to 20 21

know

your that

20

they are driving
tell

there

no

way
or

to

recollection did

you based on the

your

view

AutoDriller

much time you spent
or PVTs or

on
just

AutoDrillers at

installing

not

infringe

you had

on the

EDRs

IS

you

60

percent

telephone

with

Mr Leier
when
finalized

general

That And
generally of

is

my

decision

to the

margin

for

company

of

my

recollection

is

in

excess

60

Had

you ever

read

opinion

letters

from

17 Pages [email protected]

112

to

115

HUNTER

303.832.5966

Case 1:03-cv-02579-RPM
Varco L.P
Pason

Document 148

Filed 01/11/2007

Page 14 of 16
10/24/2006

ThOMAS

Page

116

Page

118

Mr

Leier

Pawn
looked
in

to

do or not
right
--

do

dont
aside

all

dont know
different things
tell

at

them

There

are

All

Leaving

who

the

the

course
fit

of the

reexamination

and dont You

you where

they

Okay
--

are

you aware that the patent and
reissued

office

found

know
dont any e-mails
as

patent

to be

patent

with

just Did

same from

claims

you ever read
entirely

Yeah Yes
And
in after

am aware

of that

Thats 10

well
10 11

You are aware of that

But you dont

dont Do you remember
reading least

the

did

you

participate

any
of

e-mails the

in

which
of

12 13 14 15 16

Mr
15 16 did

Leier

indicated

that

at

one

any further request on behalf of Pason for an opinion the AutoDriller infringed from patent counsel as to whether
the

patent

was

infringed
recall

device that

Bowden Well at that point
it

dont

no

Its

that

was

all

--

the they

were

all

involved

in

it

and that was what
is

were doing that

Did

you

receive

from Wildcat
the

17

So the answer
didnt

you didnt

get involved

18

believed

the There

Bowden
recall

patent

18
--

get involved talked with expert of witness that

was an
out and
recall

injunction

as

that

was

19

Have you ever
Pason has

20

that

started

then went
receiving

20 any notice
letter

man so

by the but

name
--

Brett
that so
--

Do you
22
Wildcat or
its

21

dont think
read
either

also

know

22
directly 23

testimony ever talked

one of
to

cases

To me dont

dont
read
legal

him personally
--

But point

Ive
in

Correct 25
recall

24 one
to

some

of

from

at

some

the

me

directly

25

issues as they went

by

So yeah

dont

recall

Page

Page

one and

being

sent see that

and yes
that subject Pason

faxed

that

over

to

me
the

talking

to

him

directly

Do you know whether had
reports

issued any

kind

Were patent which reexamined
--

you
is

And

so

did

you

read

any such

reports
--

of
in

read something

came from
things
that

Im

wondering the

by the patent

office

D.C
was
piece of the

if

it

wasnt

some

of

were

talking

yeah
defense
to say

that

prior

defense
Piece of the

You dont have

any current
exactly

recollection

that

No
that you

dont remember
it

was

but

Of
10 shouldnt

defense an

know

we
10
this

think

lot

was around
testified
in

prior earlier

have

injunction

against

us

Now
e-mail telling

you

you
that

sent

this

Now were
12 request

you aware that reexamined
prior

everybody

the

field

doesnt
to Exhibit

have They
At

the patent

patent office

12

infringe

the

patent thats

Im

38

to
--

Yes whether
15 16

what

it

says

any time
that

you know
patent be

Okay

15

Pason

requested

We
consider ourselves

looked
to

at

Mr Bowdens

claims

do not

mean
You
18 part

dont know you understood was

be you

infringing
think AutoDriller

17
infringe

Now why do
the

defense That reexamined
20

patent
that technically

dont know
that claim

able

to

make

20 21 22 23

Correct

alone

and

myself

Okay
was
--

So at some

point there

--

yeah dont
--

You were the general manager of Pawn Systems dont
22
in

USA
to

that

must have
in

been

done

But

December who

2003 works

when

you sent around Pason
in

that

understand

course or

of things
it

who

requests

what

everybody

the field

mean
Pason

was

it

the

represent 25

Yes

maam
to

that

as

result

And you came

the conclusion

that

Pawn

is

not

18 Pages [email protected]

116

to

119

HUNTER

303.832.5966

800.525.8490

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

Document 148
BENJAMIN

Filed 01/11/2007

Page 15 of 16
10/24/2006

ThOMAS

Page
infringing

Page thought process could continue that there
is still

122

patent

Yes
What

maam
do you base
conclusion to the

more examination

my

understanding

BY
Asked and
reexamination patent
offices

MICHAELS
that

So nobody

told

you

that the
in

MR
answered

form

was submitted
--

Pawn

resulted

the

determination
final

THE DEPONENT

to

answer

it

And
--

determination

MR
Based
said 10 11 on

Yeah

you

do
the

that

was valid
determination Object to the of the

the discussion

people
advice 10 are 11 12 as 13 14
is

Thats

you get advice
decision

and you take
you

MR
BY

HAYNES

and you make
everything the

dont study
advisers

MICHAELS
aware
it

Yes
final

yourself should
trust

you decide and you
trust

your

wasnt
By

was the

ones

them
as
far

patent office
it

13

BY MS
understand patent your testimony your not
infringed sole

was not aware
the patent office
In

was the

final

by

based

on

15 16 17 18 on the

2003

decided

to put

its

AutoDriller of

16 17

the conversation

you

had

with Terry to the

on

the

market were
driller

aware of

success

Wildcats

MR

HAYNE5
part

Object of
it

automatic

That was
19 20

yes And
is

No
market were
had

Even no

as
idea

we were

putting

the

on the out

BY MS
have not
told

MICHAELS
anything discussions
in

there

You

19

many they had

how

big

me

20
But

none You

of that Wildcat Wildcat
--

Different

sum were

21 22 23 24 25 had get

was

small
autodriller

22

them here

up

in

final let

my head
of
it

says

knew
heard
in

was
had

company and

Then

all

the

rest

go

Do
to

to

that

we

customers because

remember
25 everything

every can

single

trying

remember
If

the from

say Why dont you guys we never get

possibly

you okay

service

guys

Page could of

121

Page

123

more to
-in

tell

you
position

would

you
manager of
take point
in

And you knew
automatic
driller

that Wildcats

was

its

Do Pason
Wildcats

you

your did

as general
--

USA
claim

you

take

did

you

wouldnt say that time You

was

of

it

at that

Pawn was

infringing

patent

that Wildcat didnt

was

just

small

fraction

MR

HAYNES

to the

question

of

Argumentative

No
MICHAELS
patent
Did

didnt you

that

BY MS
Well
10
its

you

take
-if

that seriously
--

But
installed

on

Caza

that

had

and
respect

its

patent and
property
rights

we

peoples
for

10 your

At the the
rig

we

didnt

that

many

products

on

you get paid So you need
to take

RD
12 14

either But

Right 13 claims

patent

you were using the Wildcat
automatic
--

rig

--

excuse

seriously

the Wildcat As
for

driller

as

benchmark
using as that

Yes
And you need
property rights
is

there

was

talk
--

benchmark was
people

to

honor somebodys

intellectual

15 16

performance
looking

That
to

wasnt
if

mean
could

that

fair

from

see

benchmark

Yes
And
19

You you have no
right

did

didnt

you
said

to

infringe

somebody

elses 19

Thats

the e-mail

wasnt

patent

dont..
think
it

20

On
And

patent youre correct youre aware that the patent arguments
that the has

20 21 patent 22 23

was

That would
Hill

Exhibit

In

September of 2002 was asking
Wildcat

president

and

of Pason
test

22

rejected

all

Bowden

Have we
close

was

invalid

system

Do you see that

MR
25

to the not

of the question think
--

24 25

Yes
And then was
response

Im

aware of that

didnt

from Trevor

Holt

19

Pages

to

123

[email protected]

HUNTER

GEIST

INC

303.832.5966

800.525.8490

Case 1:03-cv-02579-RPM
Varco L.P
Pason Systems

Document 148
BENJAMIN

Filed 01/11/2007

Page 16 of 16
10/24/2006

Page

Page
After district

days
if

But had

entirely

possible

they could
it

mean

the

federal

circuit

decision

reversing injunction

the

you

case

of

we

courts you seek Pason
did

preliminary

somebody

hearing would
did

an

additional

opinion of

as

How
customers product

you not were

determine
follow

whether with
rental trial

were
of

any

to

whether

AutoDriller

who

No

not
personally at

after

given out anybody keep
it instances

Have you
the
that tried

any

time as general
legal

would fleldman and the product 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 cant going
to well

just

send

blanket

e-mail

to

manager

of

Pason

USA ever asked

opinion

on

say Does
didnt

remember anybody

noninfringement

No
in

Do you know was
customer
actually

of

any

30-day though the

10 11 break

MS
ThE

MICHAELS

Lets take

very quick

never use
of

charged

even

the

product
any have
is

We

are going

off

at

No

But

like

--

dont know
that

personally Because products the as

352
Recess ThE
at

not denying

that
--

and
-if

Were

going

back

on

the record

as the

AutoDriller

somebody
for

359
Deposition

told

me

it

was

free

30

Im
to

not and 18

was marked

argue
it

with the

customer

Im

going

go

back

BY MS MICHAELS
what
been
e-mail
is

Mr Thomas
Exhibit Jeff

you This

reexplain this

to

the fleidman and
it

say next time you do
is

marked as your Deposition
April

is

how you do

and

we
in

do

it

20 21

an

2004

from you

to

Do you know of any occurred
In
in

instances

which

that

and
look at
if

Thorne
that e-mail recall looks

regarding
at

you
Exhibit

the top of sent one
it

40 and

me

it

has occurred
or specific

know

you Well

come

with
at

specific this point

product
in

it

of

my

e-mails

Probably

example

send

20

Page believe the that

Page Leaving you
sit

135

you

indicated
is

that

you have

never

read
is

aside

you

actually

recall

as

Bowden correct

patent

the subject

lawsuit

here

today
it

Yeah
dont know
think that
it

looks

my

e-mail

No
looked at
it

early

on
went

have
--

The
with
to

says quote happened
rig guys keep
at

You should
driller
it

Ive sat down
it

you

to the auto
sales

Robbie
to

know
pieces

Ive scanned

and

at

different

the Nabors and that

knew
it

was going

be

good

eye

either

Was
believe 10 counsel

after

the

was filed

is

so
Pason
Terry
in

Evidently

sold to bit

an

AutoDriller

to

Nabors

Now

has

USA

sought

opinions

any

10 11

okay
environment contractor

And

explain

the competitive

than believe

so
--

the course

of just

Once

12 13 14 15

that

its

own

wholly puts us the Nabors

13

the going to

thing continue

the

started

company
generally

So when
speaking

operator

where
the

going we dont have an have time

we

expect

crew to be

injunction to focus 17

against

on that

The

lawyers

my

will

tell

me

16 17

Because

you are competing

with personal

subsidiary

what

to

do
Does

mean
care
ask

most guys
out there
at

dont
if

18
19 deciding

mean
to

had no

role

in

18 19 20

The
help
--

the rig asks

But

we
help
in

whether
or

seek an opinion

of counsel

on

some
our

or the operator theres

some

20

infringement

noninfringement
could But

equipment

usually

mandate that comes move
the

Well
should

guess an

went
it

and

said

We
being to

21 22 23 24 25

from

says Nobody

helps

independent So
if

was

already

23

handled advise

lawyer

have

got something

the

has subsidiaries

to

do with

with

me
they

the

way

should to
tell

do our business

would

one

of

Nabors

assume

were going

us

So

referring

to Robbie

Thorne

22 [email protected]

Pages

to

135

HUNTER

303.832.5966

800.525.8490