Free Designation of Deposition Testimony - District Court of Colorado - Colorado

Case 1:03-cv-02579-RPM

Document 147-5
James
Hill

Filed 01/11/2007

Page 1 of 35

9-20-06

Page

IN

THE FOR THE

STATES

______________

_______________

Civil Action

No

03-M-2579

BNB

VARCO

L.P
Plaintiffs

10

vs
12

PASON
14

SYSTEMS USA

CORP

Defendant
16

18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 __________

DEPOSITION

OF

SEPTEMBER BY HELD AT THE

20 ESQ

MR
OF GOWLING

LAFLEUR

HENDERSON

LLP

CALGARY

ALBERTA

JJ
Legalink
Merrill

____________________________

IT

Communications www.legalink.com

1-888-513-9800

Case 1:03-cv-02579-RPM

Document 147-5

Filed 01/11/2007

Page 2 Page of 35

of 15

Hill

James 2006-09-20
All

2916
17 18 19 20 21 22 23

right

Now
in

you

obtained

opinion

from

patent

counsel

correct correspondence yes
an Terry opinion patent your

And that patent counsel

Leier

regarding

issues Yes
You were asked previously you this

case
guess you the

did

he

give say

24
25

written

said

cant
clearest

you for

30

sure Lawyers on paper
Correct

dont

thing

you still believe

Yes
Did you feel
Leier was your written opinion from

Mr

unclear
him to clarify
in for another his

Yes
you ask

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

he

do

so

opinion
opinion clarifying

No
you ask
you felt was unclear

No
Why you My experience
and So clear information verbally written verbal that you you get get and more in candid written thought

opinion
you was

had an unclear
sufficient

you

to have

clarification

Yes
And you just moved
another

on
ever
after

Yes
Did you get
did There not was written ask get another seen
-subsequently in late

31

Did you
produced

opinion
something you another get that was

2002
opinion

After or

opinion
informed of

another

opinion

by Terry

Leier

No
fl_

ac

Hill

James
All

5312
13 14 15 16 17 18 19

right
that you were

of

February to in

8th
your

is previous

the

letter

referring

testimony

Yes
And
things market and that letters

you

as

CEO

Pason

from Terry Leier relied on market

are in

the and

determining whether to go ahead driller your automatic

make

Case 1:03-cv-02579-RPM

Document 147-5

Filed 01/11/2007

Page Page 3 of 35

of 15

5323

That

and

verbal

discussion
an

an

Hill

James 2006-09-20
That and verbal

5323

discussion

Hill

James 2006-09-20

63
10 11 12 13

MR RALEY
you got
have the what Bowden subsequent

And tell me
opinion and your telling that you lawyer

this sir
you that be is

If

problems patent
change

you infringing you

telling

this

would you make nsa1tn3 srwssnataMr

Hill

James 2006-09-20
wasnt
aware of subsequent If you changed your change in

6316
17 18

MR
you have

had gotten

opinion one would

behaviour

Hill

James 2006-09-20
probably would
Maybe Have another other from other counsel have sought more

6325 64

clarification

Discussion you had any
the ones

opinions

any

besides

youve mentioned
or to not ever you have that says seem to seen do not

No
Do you recall the whether given Bowden

written opinion
infringe The
10 11 12 13 --

patent
Leier indicate to him about

from Terry

that

my main decision point was And you dont recall any of
said Not the his

talking details

detail

Hill

James 2006-09-20
Well
the the reason than ask

6520
21 22 23 24 25

is

you

dont
Leier

verbal

with Terry
written clarified

any memory of as being do

different

No

you
his

Mr Leier your opinion communication correct
In

to you

66

Yes
he give different opinions verbally

did in

correct

Right

Case 1:03-cv-02579-RPM

Document 147-5

Filed 01/11/2007

Page Page 4 of 35

of 15

Hill

James 2006-09-20
This unless exhibit to
--

6719
20 21 22 23 24 25

well
between

it

Exhibit
of -is

we have letter dated

specify

two

February

8th

2000

Pasons
is

counsel
lawyer

to Ronald Terry Leier for Pason correct

Yes
First to you

question
or

Why

was

it

sent the

Ron

Hansford We by
--

and Ron

not

68

somebody going

guess just was contacted

directly at back through
--

Pason
chain
file was the
--

by

Ron the

was one was

given that with

Mike

Major
So

and his contact so he

guess

that

Terry the

Leier

engagement

dont
the

think

letter not

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

back to Hansford reported listed as CC on this letter forwarded to you by Ron Hansford

youre
--

Was

office one Do

sure or several

technical

guys
he

in and out of our Terry was -- generally to our talking talking Brian and Trevor could have brought came by the

mean

in when you have

Im
this was

sure
report of of somebody

February at

to think that any reason 2000 was not in the official shortly after

written
you read
it

No
In your Sometime You

opinion
in that

was

and

around

the

time correct
personally believe that yes And once again as CEO
fiduciary strong this review

cant letter

remember

responsibilities to your to follow the law desire an important document that

shareholders not you break

and the

law

would want

69

personally

correct

Hill

James Its
with
should look All is
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21

69

something

rm RALEY
AS READ
to of

at yes
right
up
It

starts recent

follow call Pason

telephone

conference system

to auto

drilling

Corp

Correct
Mbrnin Were

No
Was

you involved
Pason

in

that

telephone Terry Leier

billed for this

letter

dont

know to

sure
go

dont
look to blank

know
at our accounts payable

Who would We would

back
like

2000 Well
what

would
is leave

do

sir

permission

in your

your deposition

for when

Case 1:03-cv-02579-RPM

Document 147-5

Filed 01/11/2007

Page 5 Page of 35

of 15

22 23 24 25

you read
fill either for the

sign

and

like or not

with whether

you to Pason was

do

is

billed paid

directly by Terry Leier or indirectly by Ron this opinion much Hansford letter and
Do you you have to do any objection to doing

70

that

No
Will

that

Yes
Thank you UNDERTAKING
TO EITHER BY
10 11

sir

appreciate

WHETHER
BY FOR PAID THE IT FOR

WAS LEIER OPINION OR

BILLED
INDIRECTLY LETTER

AND

HOW

ink
14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23

RALEY
in the auto no driller

All

right
call Pason of

was relating Systems to

conference drilling system some of

the Do

Inc
were
of

idea
any

you

have even

memory of
when
--

the no recollection

know

have

even

this

conference February

happened

Well presume sure

2000

we

can

w4__

Hill

James
Have issue

72

you ever
of

asked of

United

States

opinion

on

the

infringement

patent

laws

No Whynot
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23

patents assumed

are

the

sane

wording would

countries
same in

We

interpretation that

Who
We

told made that some

you to make it ourselves
--

assumption by

Was
are the But Not

were differences States recall and

informed in patent

Mr

Leier

there

interpretation

to be you know in any detail you consider

true

dont
your

Mr

Leier

lawyer

or or

Mr
not

Hansford other lawyer
there are analysis

24
25

or Mr your other or any of your internal differences between patent

Major

your whether

infringement

the

U.S

and

in

73

No

Whynot
It At

didnt
the

occur you

to

us

Didnt
and

occur

to me

at

the

time

time the

were

intending

to market

this

product

both

States

Yes
And you know
States patent

theres
on the

Canadian Bowden

patent

and

United

Case 1:03-cv-02579-RPM
Yes
10 11 12 13

Document 147-5

Filed 01/11/2007

Page Page 6 of 35

of 15

And even though you intended to market in your product the United States didnt seek an opinion from you United States patent lawyer as to whether or not it was lawful for you to do that correct

Hill
73

James
Thats
same

18
19

correct

assumed

the

patents

would

be

the

in both countries

20
22 23 24 25

of your reason you didnt do it sir You knew that were patents in both U.S and in Canada you knew that you wanted to market your product in both the U.S and that knowledge Regardless

you sought only Canadian law American law opinions correct
We WV
WV WV

you

sought

VV

Hill

James
Correct
WV WV
VMVVV

74

VWVV

VVVWVV

Ca

WV

Hill

James 2006-09-20
Mid as weve already claim of varney has
Patent Trademark throw that discussed

9715
16 17 18 19

rejected

today the by the correct equation

prior

art States

Correct
So

lets
ate

20
21 22
WVVWLWVV

with
does

Varney nowhere
the

out

of this whether

Do of

you

agree

Claim
Pason

11
device

your lawyer
to
4444W

or

not

the

corresponds
WV
4W

claims
4444
4W

of
W4

patent
44

WV

Hill

James 2006-09-20
Correct

9810
11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19

MR RALEY
to make that this you

No
Even into

ask you for you regarding

your

lawyer

11
lawyer

very

day
made

here request

in September of your

2006 have Mr Leier

No
Even
Patent after getting the that did the
444944

from ask

United

States to

Varney prior art
your device of lawyer

20
21 22
44W

claim was
analyze

rejected

whether

or not

you the Pason Bowden

with and

patent

11

Hill

James 2006-09-20

Case 1:03-cv-02579-RPM
99

Document 147-5

Filed 01/11/2007

Page 7 Page of 35

of 15

No
RALEY
Have you ever done

No
SW

SW

fl

flV

$4

Hill

James 2006-09-20
However
limited please to note that patent last this and of opinion
is

10013
14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

Canadian the

in

And read if you would paragraph

sentence

READ
Furthermore
to not There

U.S

identical there
--

of construction principles U.S courts claims patent in to the principles used

right claims

theres

you that
patent principles

principles

of

your construction

lawyer

telling

101

is not by courts used to Canada Thats what

to U.S applied identical to the

you

Hill

James 2006-09-20
RALEY Yes
And even
ask and 10
11 12 13

101

though an

your

lawyer

tells

for

opinion

U.S

lawyer

you that you about U.S

dont

U.S

law
you assumed was the

Correct
Because

same
though your lawyer

Yes
And you made
told you it was even

different

Hill

James 2006-09-20
Yes
IflV

10117

Hill

James 2006-09-20
since have
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19

109

infringement country specific the matter of infringement Canadian perspective as we did seek

from All

firm

U.S

Any time opinion
since give you of

2000

and

you

No
Any time
lawyer to you opinion about asked

U.S

U.S

Bowden

patent

No
Page

Oh Im

sorry

let

me

ask

follow-up

Why

Case 1:03-cv-02579-RPM
20
21 22 23 24 25

Document 147-5

Filed 01/11/2007

Page 8 of 35 Page

of 15

not
opinion For in But

Why
the

about same

havent you U.S
reason told

asked

U.S patent
in

lawyer

U.S
we made

mentioned

2000
you were
of is not in 2000

by your

principles

110

by
in You

U.S
were

courts told told

applied identical to top of the

lawyer to U.S the

patent

claims

Canada

Page

11

page

Exhibit

Number

Mhmm
were MhEUIn in February of selling conjunction still have regarding not the

2000
your or

correct

And now its September making millions of
automatic
10 11 12

is company renting the the

driller

EDR

and

to States

very day you attorneys opinion
this

sought

U.S

Bowden

patent

correct

Hill

James
Correct _i

11016

Hill

James
RALEY told February
principles of All of

11116
17 18 19

right
by your

Despite lawyer

being the in

patent patent

construction you have about opinion

are

different to this

United
sought

States

Canada

not

20 21
22

U.S
the

day youre

infringing

patent

correct

Correct

Hill

James

11314
15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23

MR Mr Leier
apparatus
Does

Does in October years of

not

your

lawyer
he did Pason

2002

just

two-and-a-half

earlier

there

say that in the fluid pressure drilling

sensor

not he say that Yes he says that And he says that is the the Bowden correct patent

first

of

Claim

of

Yes
All Bowden the next the last Thus sentence
it

Then

24
25

patent

which

goes is

to

the

next

element Do you

of see that

regulator

114

Yes
of

AS

READ
would fluid
of

paragraph
that

please
structure

sir
of

appear

drilling in the carried

pressure software

called regulator is in patent on

for

out

in

apparatus

Case 1:03-cv-02579-RPM

Document 147-5

Filed 01/11/2007
Its
earlier

Page 9 Page of 35

of 15

All same
10

right
one he

Do you recognize that wrote two-and-a--half years

the

isnt

it
Yes
Nothing has
according in two-and-a-half changed to your lawyer right that out next in element

12

years

at

least

Right

Hes
16

regulator apparatus

telling you is

of

the on

claim
the

the

the

Pason

correct

Hill

James 2006-09-20
Yes

11421
22 23 24 25

MR
of the is called out in patent

He

says that for in the claim software of

structure of the Bowden Pason

apparatus

115

Yes

Hill

James 2006-09-20
Okay
Your lawyer says in in October
--

117

sorry

your lawyer
two-and-a-half relay
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23

says

02
that fluid

years to the the

earlier
drilling

said just like claim calls regulator

responsive

to

output that

signal

pressure See that

Yes
And
control says that supplies string signal at an

output

correct
the Pason

Yes
Does he

sentence

say that this element in the is implemented unclear that next

claim last software

Yes
sentence
Strike

No
Next he the string

claim
Your

--

sorry

element

said

lawyer next in two-and-a-half years is Do sentence Thus while the of

that 2002 just
that
--

like is

earlier
you see

says

sorry

24
25

that

Yes
Go to the

118

paragraph
of your system
is

AS

READ
apparatus complete asked

Just look at it you to read to ask you about it Does your me going October say 2002 just like he said two-and-a-half years earlier that the function and

havent

Im

lawyer

10 11 12 13 14

stepper increase he say

in the rate

the of

Pason

apparatus release the

is to drill

slow

or Does

string

that says
your

Yes
And lawyer

AS
apparatus carries out the

stepper

Case 1:03-cv-02579-RPM

Document 147-5

Filed 01/11/2007

Page 10 Page 10 of 35

of 15

15 16 17 18 19 20

same

function

defined

for

the

drill

string

controller

in the

claim

Correct Yes
Anything unclear
about to the next of

No
All

21
22 23

right

Lets

go

sentence
just

Does that

lawyer
Pason to the are Where

September apparatus has

sic
years

your said your

--

two-and-a-half

24
25

you corresponding transducer pressure recited the Bowden claim correct

earlier

119

In
Yes

view

to you referring of the foregoing about

now

Anything unclear

No

Hill

James
All The see

11913
14 15 16 17 18 19

right that
is

Lets
of

discussion

go to page Claim 11 of

bottom of
Bowden

page
patent

sir

do you

Yes
There Bowden discussion is of Varney light and of or not the

Varney

correct
patent

Yes
As and As

20 21
22 23 24 25

weve

already

discussed
already has rejected

the strike

United the

States

argument

U.S
art

Trademark Of fice

varney prior

claim

correct
Correct
So of product let me ask

120

you this
Does patent and your compare

Now lawyer that

October

29th
Bowden page do and it

up to examine Claim 11 claim to the Pason

bottom paragraph
years earlier in it on October 29th

No
didnt
of

hes

not

doing

2002

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19

correct Correct And two or three
product without art

lawyer your

issue

you start marketing this from the telling you that apart does not infringe product

later

correct
Repeat the

question

Yeah

you

should

and

apologize
this letter you before

It of

was..
October

Weve
29th
Correct And

established already is two or three Pason automatic that initial

start

the we since

20
21 22 23

two-and-a-half attorney report that

years you

have

had

correct
You

24
25

need to

say

yes

or

Yes
And we still

no
Claim of the

121

Case 1:03-cv-02579-RPM

Document 147-5

Filed 01/11/2007

Page Page 11 of 35

oflS

Bowden

patent

with
or the two

Pason not
it

automatic limiting your has witness you about October 29th

you

being told

MR
question
to

Youre
others

looked

at

counsel

MR RALEY
letter There
10 11 12 13

Im
September that aware of
--

asking

of

sorry

2002

letter

addressing

it

correct
two

Correct And youre
that address

any

letters

in-between

it

are

you

No

Kill

James

13024
25

MR RALEY
Well lets hey lets
make as We on But this that
it

mean didnt
just sure Terry Leier make and call

you

think

131

somebody he needs anything important

say
to to

me
have

CEO
made what

we

dont
to him from he wanted he to needs tell

the the beginning he could the

clear

whatever information on him were

us
to make his he what

Hes

expert We assessment have

waiting

us

needed

youre

enough
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19

this from him saying reading You read it detail

Yeah
And you pretend

cant
that

just sentence what of

your is not

head

in the can this

sand

there

you

sir
are

No
And thats
not one

youre

doing

case

you
no

No
Youre evil
not you those no guys

know

speak

thats see evil are you

evil

No
You are sophisticated businessman in charge of

20 21
22 23 24

multi-million-dollar company with hundreds is important to you employees Being precise
as can the

be
that work for you people businesses succeed to be precise

And you want

also thats how aw waa

Kill

James
Yes

132

MR RaLEY
two-and-a-half years

Your after of to

lawyer says again said it the first measurements measurements carry out is to this relation and that

AS READ
Clarification transformations Pason
10 11 12 13 14

proposes further

claim Correct Mhrnm
Anything

that

Case 1:03-cv-02579-RPM
No
What October this new you do to

Document 147-5

Filed 01/11/2007

Page 12 Page 12 of 35

of 15

15 16 17

make

sure

that

your

lawyer
needed

on on to

18
19 20 21 22

product
do

shortly going he got the information of the

to market

analyze

portion

didnt
you

at that point anything make sure that one of your

subordinates

it

No

Hill

James 2006-09-20
Does

133

your lawyer

state

again

like

he is

did to in

two-and-a-half

years earlier Please note that this the Canadian patent just of

READ

opinion and the

Yes
your years lawyer The

again

like

did two-and-a-half
to applied is not

earlier

say

AS READ
construction courts

principles

U.S
10

U.S claims patent identical to the principles

used in Canada

11
12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19

Correct Yes
So you that

now

correct

Yeah
And even though and even you that twice of U.S attorney though you had no analysis by U.S patent you went to market with Pason auto correct

Yes
in

20 21
22 23

Canada
States of America

Yes
Then the

correct
you not in

yes
And you did
of that
is

24
25

American on as we

law
the letters did 2000 that from
--

134
the

the

information on the letter and

sane

2000
got in

based the Terry

information from the

entire

verbal in to this letter when

Anywhere

you

Oh

way
Canadian it take to as in

from Terry said

Leier he tell Leier is my opinion
and not in the

limited identical
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

patented patent

in Canada claims he

principles this

Canada

that

back

its

say anywhere not true know mean

No
he that

orally
the the

you
but

Oh
really mean

way

said

didnt
to

it

No
What

willful

you

Deliberate
That Pason could made be an extension
of

definition
to market without having

yes
auto

deliberate United States the

their

driller attorney

21
22

analysis

U.S

correct

Yes

Case 1:03-cv-02579-RPM

Document 147-5

Filed 01/11/2007

Page Page 13 of 35

ofl5

23

25

135

auto driller in willfully marketed United States without Canadian or having any lawyer in American Claim 11 of the Bowden analyze patent with the Pason product correct comparison Pason

Hill

James 2006-09-20
Claim
11

135

the

--

tt RALEY
Weve
Yes
All
10 11 12 13 14 15

talked

or U.S patent bottom of the page this previously either Canadian Page answer to my question its while but the Pason automatic Canadian product counsel that writing

correct

right

So

the

yes
product was it needs it can

Yes
Pason the telling more analyze
tW

willfully
United not States

its

once
patent

information

about

Claim

14

XSM

Hill

James 2006-09-20
Yes

13519
20
21 22

MR HALEY
bit the

Does

that

seem

to you

buried

head

in

sand

Hill

James 2006-09-20
The be lawyer

141

thats
2000

writing

you

here

Mr

February of

Terry Leier is supposed

in to

Yes
10 11 12 13 14 15 16

Hes
decide

supposed one what

to give you want

you to

the

straight so that

not at

be

an can

advocate

another

you

do right
than the role your lawyers are

Yes Thats
taking in

different case

advocates

correct

Yes

wa
Hill

nrrav

James 2006-09-20
Whats
patent

18811
12 13 14 15 16

infringe

your basis Claim 11
counsel

your opinion since you dont guess what

you have an

dont
opinion from with

My knowledge our counsel
What are

weve

talked

you

referring

to
WV

Case 1:03-cv-02579-RPM

Document 147-5

Filed 01/11/2007

Page 14 Page 14 of 35

of 15

Hill

James

18821
22

MR
have in your lawyers have case

Is that

the

only

knowledge

you
you

youve hired

to defend

you
also

24

Yes
Your

lawyer
about

189

asked

Terry Leier Claim 14
In this an opinion opinion said you

testified

he

was

READ
dated as or to

2000
whether

did

render
14

you or not

Claim

was What So

infringed from

invalid
needed an more opinion

was

information respect

Pason

didnt
Claim
--

14
testified those letters as

No
10

And

weve

testified

youve

well
12

Weve
like
14

been

through no

together

Mhmm
Just of analysis opinion

Claim

in not in

of those

the

two

infringement of

15 16

and In those

correct
--

no
we see he of It is appears in to

And
18

first e-mail of May of

this be

says

infringement

correct
WV

Hill

James
Appears to be

18923

correct

yes
VVlV

1V$

WVVflW

Hill

James

19512
13 14 15 16 17 18
Vtflfl

MR RALEY
of

Despite

the

opinion

letters going forward

with
Also In that he

auto

from Terry Leier youre driller as Exhibit

based on discussion had with discussion he tell you Ignore letter to you it doesnt mean anything

2000 yes my written

No
StC

didnt
rVWtW

say

that

VSVfl

WflSVfl

VVflVV

WVWV

Hill

James 2006-09-20
Can it be that Pason has ignored fairly construed of its own counsel and gone forward those device warnings the and

21625 217

waning

signs marketed this

Hill

James 2006-09-20 No
The

217

were
entire

referring

to not

are

not

conclusive about today

letters

just

particularly we talked

Case 1:03-cv-02579-RPM
tm
letters
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19

Document 147-5

Filed 01/11/2007

Page 15 Page 15 of 35

of 15

Well
discussing patent whether or

we not

talked prior

the art made

Bowden

invalid

correct
that Trademark claim been

Yes
And youre in agreement Patent rejected by Office correct

Yes
issue of infringement To the never analyzed lawyer Terry Leier your of Claim 11 the only time he analyzed Claim 14 he It appears that you infringe and that U.S opinion it appear youve never sought So now at the degree that you infringement ignoring in warning forward from your marketing counsel about

were

20 21

device

Hill

James 2006-09-20
We heard

21725 218

comments

wouldnt Youre
not

say

were

ignoring

them 1W RALEY
of are giving changed

giving

you
them them our
--

No were
Youre not We havent
driller
Despite
10 11

letting

were

your conduct still marketing lawyer your

the

auto

the

waning
two

signs

from your

in these

documents

youre Yes

continuing

opinion to market

e-mail

Case 1:03-cv-02579-RPM

Document 147-5
James

Filed 01/11/2007

Page 16 of 35

9-20-06

Page

Page
basically

AYes
All

spearheaded dont Bobs
involved

lawsuit
primarily

right

sir

Now

you have

been

president

and

would say
involved involved

one

since

AYes
Pason Argentina
sort
is

of

partner correct

arrangement

with

Mexico

Who else
And Trevor
building

that

technical product

person

involved

in

the

Yes
Can you explain that

Who

Anyone

else

We
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19

basically

joint-venture

We
percent
to

revenue the the
local

No
10

generally partner

65 percent and continue
partner support
in

Thats
Right

triumph

it

you three

own

equipment and

The
the
Is

service those
in

people

And

of
Hill

you

Trevor

Holt with your

you
counsel

countries countries

Mr
in

been
this

working

automatic

driller

used

those

defending

lawsuit

In

yes
idea of or of within

Yes
And worked
are approximately 19
this

Can you give me
year
in

lawsuit counsel

was
in

filed

you 142
it

Argentina
rentals in
in

Mexico

with your

analyzing

There

are

Mexico

patent and whether auto
driller

or not

you would

with

the

20 systems on rent

Argentina
said

correct

20
21

And once again you
of your
overall profits

was
the

percent

or so

20

Yes Theres
person

two more people
deceased
last

at that Brian
is

time one

product
--

who

winter

Taylor
still

22 23 24 25

No
revenue

believe

you asked

me
area

our

our corporate

Francis

Dunlop

was also

by geographic focussing

Pason
United States But

was
other

on Canada then

hes

not involved

in

the

of the lawsuit

countries

No

Page Right percent

Page

were Canada

probably percent

40 percent
international being Mexico

58

What
Sort

is

his

position advice

He works
of
--

in

our of

and Argentina And

primary

hardware
early

one
--

one
in

primarily

Argentina

partner

you know

employees

the

Yeah
All

business

Why no
total

is

he

not involved

the
in

of the auto
driller

Actually to say
driller

want

to

that

understood

you

He
the

hasnt

been
design of

involved
it

and he from he

our

revenue
in

Youre
countries

asking

me

for

auto you
to

for

probably

years
got thoughts

revenue

those

understood

was
10

--

he

was

providing
in

thoughts company

We
in

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19

be

me
dont want

total

number hasnt been
involved

the the

1999 2000
five

go back
question

and

turf
all

But

let

me

11 12

or

years
to
call

just believe
--

way
testified

sir

you know
witness
in

whether

or not

Pason

intends

as

whatever correct

you

previously

was

13 14 15

to testify
if

accurate

dont know
to

we

intend

to

--

if

--

if

an

Today You

yes
to the questions you

call

him
you obtained
in

answered
correct

16 17 18

right patent counsel

written opinion

from

questions

youre

your best

2000

correct

Mhmm
Now
manager Yes What
Either
is is is

yes
contained patent counsel Terry regarding

business

unit

19

an opinion
patent

from your

20
21 22 23

correct

20
21

title

or

is

that it general

22

Yes
You were asked
opinion previously
in

--

we

call

both
unit

Canadian

manager

23

this

case
guess

did

you
for

24
25

Canadian

manager
within

either

one

24
25

and you said
always

cant say

Has he

the

one

your

company Pason

sure

Lawyers

you the clearest

Pages Legalink
Merrill

26

to

29

Communications

Company

1-888-513-9800

www.legalink.com

Case 1:03-cv-02579-RPM

Document 147-5
James
Hill

Filed 01/11/2007

Page 17 of 35

9-20-06

Page

Page 32 product patent

on

paper
that

were

not

infringing

on

Correct

Do you Yes
Did Leier

still

believe

Thats

your testimony

from your deposition

in this

case

on June 2nd 2004
feel

you was

that

your

written opinion

from Mr

Yes
Is

unclear

that

true

testimony

Yes
Did

Yes you ask him to
clarify

it

Its true
building

that

always that Pason

concerned

if

Yes
l0 11 12 Did

product

infringing

on

do so

in

another

written

10

patent True

No
Did

you ask
felt

for

another

written opinion

clarifying

what

And

you

as captain

of

Pason

ship

as

CEO
are

your

you

was

unclear

about

opinion

fiduciary

duty

to shareholders

you personally product

No Why
My
and
18 19 opinion didnt

concerned

Pason on patent

building

does

you
with
is

not that than

infringe

correct

you get more candid you
get written

MR

ATKINSON

Form of

question

Go

information

verbally

ahead

So you had
it

an unclear written
to

and you thought 20
21

OBJECTION Yes

20
21

was

sufficient

have

verbal

MR
considering the auto

When
driller

did

Pason

begin

Yes
And you just

as
It

product was
-it

dont
idea

the exact conceived

date

was

--

the

Yes
Did
did

was

Taylor

He number of
respect

you get another
not ask

written opinion written

ever
that 25

long-term excellent

employee
products so

Pason had

created

after

and

Page Did

Page latitude that
in

you was
in --

get another subsequently

written seen

started

it

There

something that was

probably
All

around Brian Taylor

produced

2002
2002
opinion
did

right
--

me

about never

2002
opinion

After that or

you get another
opinion by Terry

He

brilliant

went

were you informed

of another

university
repairing

He got

mechanics licence went
back to

Leier

seismic vehicles
electronics
skills

DeVry and

No
Do you
lawyers
10 11 think that
all

got an are unclear or
just

diploma top marks
in

and

he

some

exceptional

electromechanical

design

Had You

ever

worked

on rigs

ATKINSON
question
think

may answer

that

10

No
Had
heard sure are the heard

Wildcat
Wildcat

most lawyers

are unclear

yes

Im
How
lawyers

he

yes
the generally

13 14

MR
open
the
possibility

Well then
that theres

you sure about

that

Was

some

who

are 15

known
Yes
At that

not
Thats
correct

time the Wildcat
used

was the only product
but pressure

promise
will

you

sir

if

any of my questions

are unclear be as
clear

measured
as Right discussed

not only

rephrase possibly

them

you
right

will try

previously

as

can

all

20

Okay
And
clear put
it

20
to

And

as

we

discussed

previously

an increase
or parameters

you that there

are lawyers

who

can

be

directional

goes
being able
to

horizontally

and
All

youll

diagonally previously

use

both

of those

right

You

and

is

very

important

quoting

AS READ
always

Yes
concerned And
so

Were

Pason

wanted

to

into

that

where

they

Pages
Legalink
Merrill

30

to

33

Communications www.legalink.com

1-888-513-9800

Case 1:03-cv-02579-RPM

Document 147-5
James
Hill

Filed 01/11/2007

Page 18 of 35

Page

50 been
letter

Page produced
in

52

MR
ahead

Objection

to

the

form

Go

discovery

and

believe

the

OBJECTION
It

Probably they

its

an

electronic
it

document

Whatever

records

pressure

print letterhead

out
the

they probably

MR
pipe

RALEY
is

And
control

the of

purpose
release

of

the Pason

different

in

computer
to

or printer
if

system

to

rate

MR MR

BOWICK
one was signed

Check
and
Ill

see

signed

Thats

automatic

driller

system correct

think

one was not
tell

Correct
It

you
these

lets

just

controls

the

make

this

Lets Actually
lets

exhibits

so that

10

MR

ATKINSON

Form

of

the question

10 11 12

theyre.. That
will

make

these

and

ahead

13 14 15

OBJECTION MR RALEY
things

EXHIBIT

NO

1A DATED
FEBRUARY 2000

Correct

other

13

LETTER
LEIER

FROM TERRY

RON HANSFORD LIP LETTERHEAD
FEBRUARY

ON BLAKE CASSELS

Among
And
it

yes
measures
increase or

GRAYDON
decrease
in

pressure

16 17

EXHIBIT

NO

1B DATED 2000 TERRY ON BLAKE LETTERHEAD
identification talk

correct 18

LETTER
LEIER

MR

ATKINSON

and

foundation

18 19 20

RON HANSFORD
Just
for to

ahead
20 21 22

MR

RALEY
--

OBJECTION
Yes

purposes counsel

were

not going

about

them yet youve
just

Ive

marked as 1A the
which February

MR MR

RALEY
Lets go
off

the

Can you hear second
Going
off at

22 23 24 25

handed
Terry which
Exhibit

me
Leier

8th

letter

from
letter it

Ron Hansford
to be

my
letter

copy well

of check

COZEA

appears

same
right

as

111753
Page 51

1B

all

right

Page

53

DISCUSSION

OFF THE

RECORD
time

MR
on the monitor
from

RALEY
are

Lets

proceed

we were

BRIEF ADJOURNMENT

Hill

aware of any written communication
regarding involving the

MR COZEA
shows Any time gentlemen

Hansford

Bowden

142

patent

you
you begin
as

No
When
you were
testifying earlier

MR
the with 10 11 12 13

ATKINSON
during the

before

break

where
felt

again

break
Hill

promised
referring

letter

was

to

you met with your counsel when you said letter from Ron Hansford that there was

you
is
it

your

we
as Pason labelled to

previously 10 which
is

now
And
12
All

that

youre

referring

to

Exhibit

and

produced
its letter

and actually from

letter

to

Ron Hansford

was addressed
on the fact

Mr

Hansford

forwarded right This

on to

me

yes

was incorrect 8th
in

Leier that free to

of February
referring

the previous

document
interrogate

Is

there
the 15 16 17 the 19

letter

you were

to

your

14
15

its

in

front of

you youre
it

testimony

witness with

about

any

discussions

he may have
letter

Yes
And
things determining

Mr

Hansford

on the topic

that very with

and

other as

letters

from

Leier are the
relied

17

MR
because

Now same
the

Im

interested the

you

CEO
to

of

on

in
--

letter

same date
different

whether

go ahead
driller

market

make and

19

same author
letterhead

same

recipient

and

market your automatic

20 21 22 23 24 25

20

MR

ATKINSON

Form of

Go

Okay
Any
thoughts

ahead on how
22

OBJECTION
and
verbal
All

23 no idea
tell All

can

24

MR
talking

RALEY
about

right

we
and you agreed
it

you

is

versions

of

document

Pason

14

Pages

to

53

Legalink 1-888-513-9800

Communications

Company

www.legalink.com

Case 1:03-cv-02579-RPM

Document 147-5
James
Hill

Filed 01/11/2007

Page 19 of 35

9-20-06

Page

Page

Any

reason

you had time had

it

2004
to
it

Maybe back

another

opinion

hadnt
and
to
--

at that

the opportunity

go

Discussion

previous

documents testimony

saw

subsequent

Have you had any other
besides the

from

any other counsel

subsequent

to

that

ones youve

mentioned

Did

you

in

any

supplement

your deposition

to

No
Do you
recall

clarify

whether
to

or not

you have
that says

ever

seen

No
All

written opinion But not written to

Pawn

you do not

deny

in this

case

infringe

the from

patent
Terry
Leier

that 10 11 12

you

got

on

February

8th
10

The
--

seem

to

indicate

that

but

among

others correspondence
its

my main decision point was
you dont
in

talking details

to

him verbally what he

We

had

yes
patent

11

And
said

any of

about

Okay
correct

correspondence

counsel

12

his

opinions

Not 14

the
if

full

Yes
15
16 17

Now
from
for

verbal written

were completely

different

Now
rent

you dont

really

automatic

drillers

you

15 16 17

wouldnt that give you cause

them
you

is

true

concern
speculation

Yes
And
started
is

Its

dont

if

they

are

they

renting the

them

18 19 United

arent

believe

time yes
in

mean
only

were

going

go

into

it

together

Youre

20 21

First

Canada and
about

the

20
21

one that
about

about the verbal ones and
asking
in

Yes
In
testifying

know
through

and were going

go

your

legal

counsels opinion

you

22
23

them
just

we

will

said 24 25

READ
We
did the patent search that then to give us reasonable

Im

you

If

you have you
just

lawyer
call

tell

24
25

you something phone and

writing

and

on the

assurance

we werent

says

No no

ignore that

Page infringing direction

Page

on

--

that

our choice something

wouldnt that give you cause

for

concern

didnt infringe on
valid

MR
true

ATKINSON
ahead

Objection

Vague

calls

for

was
Thats

already

patent
to
in

speculation
Is
still

you

testified

2004

OBJECTION

today

Im
As to the reason
the
legal

more comfortable
from
verbally

with

--

if

seeking

MR
they search

for

why

advice
tells

Im
You dont

more comfortable would dont buy
put
in

what
writing

he

me

anything
just

AYes

MR
And subsequent
opinion

RALEY
stuff you

MR
10
11

me
you

this

sir

If

written

like

you got

telling

you that you be
is

may

10 11

Thats

my

style

guess
concerned
different
if

significant

problems and

Okay
something

you wouldnt
180

told

you
did

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ahead and you have what

patent

your lawyer you
Objection

telling

you this
13

on

the

phone

than

behaviour change

make
as to

in

written

document

you

that

wouldnt

you

ATKINSON

form

at all

OBJECTION
wasnt aware
of

MR
subsequent you had change
gotten
in

ATKINSON

Same

objection

ahead

opinion
17

OBJECTION
think 180

one would

might

changed

your behaviour
Calls

MR
19 20

RALEY
not
reason ask

How

90

Probably

answer

Well
the verbal

you dont have
with Terry
Leier

any memory of
as being

communication
written

MR MR

RALEY
through
it

Its
little

not speculative

at

all

different

than

communication

do

you

Well go

No
In clarification

RALEY
would

Go ahead
sought more

your

opinion

Leier

clarified

to

you

his

communication

correct

17

Pages

62 to

65

Legalink 1-888-513-9800

Communications

Company

www.legalink.com

Case 1:03-cv-02579-RPM

Document 147-5
James

Filed 01/11/2007

Page 20 of 35

9-20-06

Page

Page 68 to

Yes
But he didnt give
did
in

you
guess

somebody
just

at back
--

Pason
the the contacted that to

different

opinions

verbally

he

going by

We

--

Ron

writing correct

was

contacted then
his

Ron was given one was
that
--

Mike Terry the Leier

Right
right
If in

Major and
opinions writing

hes

were would
in

different

verbally

than on

So

guess

contact so

with

was

they were

you
said

said Hold
writing

engagement dont
the
letter

he
as to
--

back

Ron
this

Hansford

minute Terry you
telling

me

this

orally

the truth here
clarification

now youre Whats
right
10 11

youre

CC on

Was

you by Ron
Terry
--

Hansford
in

going 10
11

on

You would
Form

Im
office

not sure

mean
talking

was

and

out of our to our brought

MR

ATKINSON

question

times

generally

technical

guys

Brian

and Trevor
the to think
in

He could
not

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

OBJECTION
Depending
clarification

12

one

in

when

came by
any reason was
not
it

sure
report of

on the difference

would

ask

13 14

Do you have
February at

yes And you dont have
any

2000

the

hands

MR
memory
of

15

shortly

was

written

happening

in this

case

No
In

Yes correct
right

your

opinion

it

was and you
cant

read

it

around

Lets go

through them together you
Exhibits

time

correct
in

Im Im
dont
description
All

going to hand
to

1A and

16

First

19

Sometime You

that

spring

when

going to

figure out the signature kind

issue go
into

20

personally

where they end
of the

believe that

yes
as

firm 1A appears Page
of Exhibit to
is

And once again
be
not
fiduciary

CEO

of

major corporation
shareholders not break that

with

right

Page

to your desire to follow law

signed signed

Terry Leier

16

strong
this
is

an important

document

you would

want

Page

Page review personally Objection as to

MR
that
different
is

So
computer
printout that letterhead

we

think

printed

MR
be

ATKINSON

form Go

on the unsigned would

one
that to

ahead

MR
the

ATKINSON
case
All

OBJECTION
Its

something

should

look
All

at yes
starts

MR MR
record that 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 can..
sir

MR
you just lB
just for

Why
look at

with
with us This
is

1A and

confirm

to follow

up
to

recent telephone
drilling

are the

same
to to

letter

conference all 10
flip

Do Do

you want

me

read

system of Pason Correct

Systems Corp

appear
just

be

same
theyre

Just

through

and

confirm

that

same

Your

Mhmm
Were you involved
in

that

telephone

call

MR
counsel appear
to

Will

you
the

just

No
Was
dont
billed for

same
Hand

Terry

Leier letter

be

same Okay me 1A then
18
call
it

sure

dont

MR
You

RALEY
can This hold

lB

All

right
just

Who would know We would to
from Well what
permission

go back

look at our

accounts

payable

exhibit

--

well

20
21

unless
letter

we have
dated

to specify

the

two of

--

is

20
21

would
leave sign

to blank

do
in

sir with your

your
for
is

February to

8th

2000
Hansford

Pasons patent

deposition

22 23 24 25

counsel Terry
lawyer

Ronald

who

is

you read
fill

and

and

would
or not

you to do Pason was

Pason

correct

in

the
directly

billed

Yes
First

either question

by Terry
this

Leier or
letter

indirectly

Why

was

it

sent

Ron

and not

25

Hansford

opinion

and

they

paid

18 Pages Legalink
Merrill

to

69

Communications

Company

1-888-513-9800

Case 1:03-cv-02579-RPM

Document 147-5
James
Hill

Filed 01/11/2007

Page 21 of 35

9-20-06

Page 70
for it

Page Since infringement
is

72

you

have

any objection

to

doing

specific of

No
Will

have addressed you
to

matter

that Do you

from

Canadian that sir

Yes Thank

you

sir

it

Yes
Have you ever
of

UNDERTAKING TO
EITHER BY RON HANSFORD
10

asked of

United

opinion

on the

OR NOT
BY TERRY

BILLED

issue

infringement

U.S

laws

No
LETTER

THE OPINION
IT

AND
10 11

Why
The
patents that are the

HOW

THEY PAID FOR

same

wording

in

both the

We
same
in

assumed
both

interpretation

would

12 13

12

countries
told

MR

RALEY
in

All

all

was
relating

13 to 14 15 16

Who

you to make
ourselves
--

assumption

involved 15 the auto have

conference system

call

made Was
are the United that

driller

of Pason

Systems

Inc
were

were you informed
patent

Mr

Leier

that

there

no idea
any

differences

interpretation

between

Do you have
18 involved

memory

of

some

of the people

17 18

and Canada

dont you know
in

dont even
20

know

when

--

have

no

recollection

of even

19

that

to

be true dont

when

this

telephone

20 8th

anydetail your

Well sometime

we

21 22 23

Did

you consider asking
your or other

lawyer or

presume
23 24

Mr Hansford
other not there analysis
in

lawyer or Mr Major your
internal

Okay
No

sure
of date telephone

any of your

people

whether

or

knowledge
call

24
25

are differences the

between
in

infringement

conference

occurred

U.S

and

Canada

Page 71

Page

73

No
Would
call
Brian

No
on the telephone conference

Why
It

didnt

occur

to

us

Didnt

occur
to

to

me

at

the
this

time
product

MR
speculation

Calls

At the time you both
in

were intending
States

market

United

and Canada

correct

OBJECTION

Yes

MR
dont know
Terry 10 because

Im
know
talking

asking
Brian

--

And you
--

know

theres

Canadian

patent

and

United

Taylor

very

quickly

States

on the Bowden

142

was
Brian

directly

Brian
in

Taylor 10

Yes And even
the United though

was the expert

the

you intended
you didnt

to market an
to

your

product

in

Okay
12 13 14
In this letter
in

opinion

from
it

shall

issues

12

United
lawful

patent lawyer as

whether

or not

was

raised

the Pason conference
is

e-mails and

our 14

you to do

correct Objection asked

telephone

MR

ATKINSON

and

Which dont
17

Pason

he

referring

answered

MR
2000

RALEY
produced

Counsel
that

Pason February

17

OBJECTION MR RALEY
Thats same
in

You can

answer
patents

e-mails been letter

8th

18 19

correct both

We

assumed

would

the

countries of your

20

MR
able

ATKINSON
to

Everything

that

we
find

have

been

20

Regardless

reason
in

didnt both

You U.S and
your product

obtain

has been

produced

we

anything as well 22 23

knew Canada
in

there you the

were patents
that

22 23

subsequently

we

will

certainly

that

knew

you wanted to market
with opinions

MR
The
issue

Mr
of an

says
is

AS READ
discussed

both

U.S

and

Canada
law

knowledge you
sought

infringement

you 25

sought

Canadian law opinions

25

And

says

AS

American

correct

19

Pages

70 to

73

Legalink 1-888-513-9800

Communications www.legalink.com

Case 1:03-cv-02579-RPM

Document 147-5
James

Filed 01/11/2007

Page 22 of 35

9-20-06

Page

Page didnt

MR

ATKINSON

Same objection

Go

OBJECTION
Correct

MR
All

RALEY
discussion
in

All

To page
full

Theres

the

paragraph

MR
page
sir

To
first

the

top

of

the

Pason

system
of with

The middle

paragraph

Mhmm
And
in

Mr

states There

AS READ
patents that

the
--

paragraph Mr
starting

states

are several
in

were

that

the

sentence

with

identified

both Canada

and

U.S
problems
10 11

mechanical

states

that
rate

AS READ
of

may
10
11

raise

infringement

The

Pason

system
is

controls

the

which

Correct

braking

applied

by

brake

Yes
All

mechanism
applied

to control
drill

weight-on-bit

So

Mr

Leier

is

analyzing

is

these

to the

bit

potential

infringement to

problems

thats what

youve

Do you

that

asked

do
16

Mhmm
dont think
the auto
driller

Mhmm
He says
17

AS READ
analysis located

to

Further other

those patents based
is

17

comment on that
Well

prior art or

on

further

Mr
right

his

on the

system

19 20

details of

the Pason

system

recommended
20

from Pason
But
All

Do you see that Yes
Did

not

from
But

me
he got
it

from your

right

you

supply
in

Mr
order

with to

of

Yes
23

23

Pason

system

do

Hes
Its

not

making

this

up right
information

analysis

We

certainly

--

believed

was doing

he

25

Who

Page 75

Page Brian Trevor Holt

77

deemed

necessary

We

denying

access

to

any

information Did to

you provide any further

on the Pason

system

telling

Do you have any knowledge anybody Mr Terry you have misinterpreted
Youre
say

Pason
our
it

Mr ATKINSON
You mean

system

wrong that

statements

about

Did

MR

Mr

Hill

anybody at Pason

personally

MR
mean
your

ATKINSON RALEY
not

with

MR MR ATKINSON
cant answer that
10

company Pason

specific

Or Pason sure
All

MR
Im
just

aware of

no
says

MR

RALEY
ago
142 that

You stated
the

10

minute

you considered
to be similar
will

U.S
Varco

and Canadian
in

MR RALEY READ
The Pason
braking
is

that

Bowden
13

patents

system controls
applied

rate

which

the United Canadian
litigation

litigation

you concede

in

the

13

mechanism
Objection as to

to control

weight-on-bit

15

MR
ahead

form

15

applied

to the

Thats
Right on that

says right

OBJECTION
cant comment
19 20 21 response here

dont know

legal

18

And
correct

on

information

supplied

to

him

Pason

would be Well youre
interested
in

MR
legal

20
21 sir

Yes
He also says about ten The
rates at which are important
lines

response

but

you didnt

seek

opinion

farther brake
is

READ
applied or to control

an American

lawyer about

American Objection as to

you
form Go

MR
ahead

released

variables

Do

you agree
not

with

statement
driller

OBJECTION

Im

an expert

20 Communications

Pages

to

77

Legalink

Merrill

Company

1-888-513-9800

Case 1:03-cv-02579-RPM

Document 147-5
James

Filed 01/11/2007

Page 23 of 35

9-20-06

Page

Page 96

And
the

concludes sentence

that next

page

with

--

please

just

MR
stuff Its part of

This

page

is

pretty

serious

AS READ
In of pressure transducer your apparatus corresponding
to

report

has the

Theres
going forward

on

this this

page device

that
is

is

good

Pawn
Go

there sir question

element
Stop
this

recited

in

the

Bowden you here 8th
in

MR

ATKINSON

of

there
letter

Mr
of has

ahead

opinion

2000
which

OBJECTION
Its patent only part of

Pason
10 11

apparatus

pressure

transducer
in

corresponds correct

to the

recited

the

Bowden

10
11

MR
things

dont just ignore you dont

the

MR
ahead OBJECTION Yes

Form of

question

No
Okay Yes
--

you considered

page

--

in

deciding

whether
context of

to

go

forward
entire letter

MR
17

Then

the next

16

This
All
it

page

in

yes
see where

sentence

17

go further

10

You

AS READ
Also your apparatus 20
21 implementation equivalent regulator which
is

describes

software

Independent 20

method

claim
that

Mhmm
describes that

to the

fluid

pressure of

11 anywhere
Pason
device not

within

it

does
the

state

and

Bowden 23

infringe

Bowden

23

patent So here
software

patent

Mr

Leier
is

tells

you that the Pason
to

apparatus patents

has

The
25

sentence
Operating

of

sentence would

AS READ
not

which

equivalent

Pason

Page regulator

Page
infringe this
in

97

and

elements correct Form of
question

MR
ahead

He says
correct Right But he

its

invalid

of

Varney

OBJECTION

AYes MR
tape

never

analyzes

whether

or

not

if

Varney didnt
patent

Weve

got

change

the

exist

and
Pason system

was would

proper

and

valid

11 does

MR
at 10

Were
OFF THE

going

off

the

he
All

sir can

123028
10 are back on the 11 12 13 your has
in

comment

what
Claim 11

it

says
invalid

right
in

here

AS READ

DISCUSSION

is

of

MR
The time shows
13

We 123124
When
of that

teachings
In

of

Varney
of

you
you read

view art

of correct

Varney

which

is

the alleged

MR
things

prior

on page
says

opinion

lawyer
that patent
is

14 15 16 17 18 19 Correct as

15

where
correspond

the Pason to the

weve

already rejected correct

prior

directly

the

Bowden

Varney has been Trademark
Office

the United

and

to the extent the

that

some

of the equivalent

different patent 20 21

Bowden

concern

you
Objection as to

So

lets

out of that lawyer
to
in

equation
discussion

Do you
Claim

MR
ahead

form

Go

20 21 22

me

this

11
device

your

whether

or not the

Pawn

OBJECTION

the of the question

patent

We
out

knew
--

there

were
out
his

elements
observations This
is

Hes

23

MR

ATKINSON

Go

hes
letter

24
25

part of

OBJECTION

25 Communications

Pages

to

97

Legalink

Merrill

1-888-513-9800

Case 1:03-cv-02579-RPM

Document 147-5
James
Hill

Filed 01/11/2007

Page 24 of 35

9-20-06

Page 98

Page carry

100

Repeat

the

question Read back

out

as he they

requested
did never
told

MR
COURT REPORTER

assume
information

me he was

denied

any
to

but

dont know

exactly

was given

So

lets with of Claim

out of the

equation
in

him
Well any knowledge
is

Do you
discussion discuss corresponds

me
11

that

nowhere Pawn
the

dangerous
information

thing

Do you have
to

your lawyer
device

that
if

was supplied

or not the to the claims

Mr
142

and dont
of read
it

so what information
any detailed page He knowledge
in

No
Top
10 please

of sentence
--

patent
10

says

the second

Correct

to the

and

gentlemen

of the

MR
to 13

you ever
that analysis

ask your
Claim

lawyer

However..

make

you regarding

11
13 of

AS READ
However
limited

No
Even
into this

please

note

that

this

very

day

sitting

here request of your

to Canadian

patent

and

law

in

2006

you

made

that

lawyer And

Canada
if

Mr No
18

you would

the

sentence

of

paragraph
after getting the notice Office

Even
Patent

from the Varney

States
prior

18

AS READ
Furthermore the
principles

that ever

art to 20 21

of construction by

20 21 22 23

claim

was

rejected

you

ask your lawyer

applied
is

to

U.S
to the

claims
principles

U.S
used

courts
in

analyze with

or not the infringes patent of

corresponded

not

identical

and

11
Go
you

Canada There he
that the claims
right

MR

ATKINSON

Form of

question

there

--

theres

your lawyer applied

telling to

ahead

principles

of courts
is

U.S

OBJECTION
Page 99

patent

by

U.S

not

identical

to

the

Page
principles

101

No

used

to Canada

Thats

what

he

tells

MR
No
Farther that

Have you

done

MR

ATKINSON

Form of the question

page

the paragraph

OBJECTION MR RALEY
Yes And even
ask
for

Correct

AS READ
In
relation

to the Pason that

system the
is

though

your lawyer of

tells

disclosure

have

not

significantly

an opinion

U.S

about

you that you dont U.S patents

deep

--

and
to the
ladies

law correct

Im
10 11 12

sorry

Read that
the jury

and
10 11

Correct Because

gentlemen

you assumed

that

it

was the

same
your lawyer

AS
In

Yes
And
told

to the that

Pawn system
have
is

the

12

you made that assumption even though
you
it

disclosure 14 detailed to

not

sufficiently
it

was different
Objection as to

to determine

proposed

14 15

MR

ATKINSON

form

measure both

the weight-on-bit

and the

ahead

drilling

pressure

and take

the
--

OBJECTION
each such 17 18

17 18

derivative

measurement
control

Yes

measurement
Clarification

draw-works and

brake

MR
lunch

Thats

good

enough

what measurements

20

transformations Pason proposes to carry out
in is

that

20

MR
123832
LUNCHEON

Going

off

the record

at

needed
to
this

22

further claim Did provide to

relation

22

ADJOURNMENT RECOMMENCED

1238

PROCEEDINGS Mr
Leier clarification

AT 154

P.M P.M

of Pason proposes
to

MR
25

We 135452

are back

on the record

25

measurements

and

that

Time shows

time

26

Pages

to

101

Legalink

Merrill

1-888-513-9800

www.legalink.com

Case 1:03-cv-02579-RPM

Document 147-5
James

Filed 01/11/2007

Page 25 of 35

9-20-06

Page
All

Page

right at

Pason
this

has

yet

market

its

automatic

maybe
for

Pason automatic
driller

started

receiving

money

driller

time correct
its really

correct

dont
point

quite
it

clear

when

exact that at

Yes
All
it

was

we marketed
becomes

have an actual time

prototypes
unit

would

be

important

you
to

CEO
make
sure

same
point

prototype

some

the

company

of
is

company
not about to

was you been

around
billing

presume
for rental

that your auto that correct on

embark on

venture

Had
driller

customers

patent

and

violates

October

29th 2002

Im
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19

not

MR
you
to
find

ATKINSON

Form of

question

Go

How

out the

answer

to that

question
to

10 11 12

go
that

back year

and

at our invoices

OBJECTION
would concern
at

customers Have

any

time yes
in

we

requested

documents
to

13 well
is

And so with when
your you
receive this

mind

would have
to

know

sir

suggest request

14

on October
it

29th

send your counsel
start collecting

document

when

15 16 17

patent counsel

you read

correct

Pason
automatic

money from
U.S U.S

customers

for

driller or

And you

read

all

it

20
21

MR MR MR
testimony expanded
Correct

Canada counsel

18 19

Mhmm
didnt
just

skim you read as
cares about whether

professional or not theyre

Now
you started
to the

if

understand

your then

20 21 22 23

somebody
on

it

patents

correct

22 23 24 25

U.S

correct

MR

ATKINSON

Form of

ahead

MR
counsel and

would

actually

to your objection but

24 25

OBJECTION
Yes

recognize

Page
its

Page

maybe something we

can

take

up with the Court
besides

MR
together

right

at

it

because
areas at

Im
this

inquiring

into

areas

economic

The

first

paragraph

says

AS
--

time

READ
What
would
to another

MR
Mr
and
that

RALEY
Hill
is

do
blank
could the

Since you

infringement

is

country

specific

leave you

in

your

deposition

read to the

of

jury

read received

sign

you could
for

give

Pason
driller

money
in

use of

AS READ
presume
Since have 10 from Canadian
All

automatic
its

anywhere

the
first

the infringement

country matter of

specific

Canada and
for

when Pason
driller
in

started

receiving States

10

money
Ill

the automatic

the

United

only as

that

and
fill

you out
if

read

sign please

would
sir

you to

that

you would

Any opinion

2000

and 2002

did

you seek

U.S
14

Okay

No
Any
October have about

MR
that

ATKINSON
that

And
in

counsel

you asked Bowden

provided

Weve
that Canadas
quarter of

provided

lawyer to give

you

U.S

information

patent

MR MR
20

RALEY

We
and U.S
All

have

No
Page
20

Yeah
of

Oh
about

sorry

let

me

ask lawyer

Why

quarter

not Why
opinion For the
in

you asked U.S
reason

MR
correct

right

Are those

dates

Bowden
mentioned the

Mr
as

as

far

as

know
are correct just couple
this letter

same

we made

As
All

far

know
So 29

yes
dates

2000
told
in

right

But you
principles

2000

your to

lawyer

the claims

of

October

2002 was

months

construction

applied

U.S

patent

28 Communications

Pages

106

to

109

Legalink

Merrill

1-888-513-9800

Case 1:03-cv-02579-RPM

Document 147-5
James

Filed 01/11/2007

Page 26 of 35

9-20-06

Page

Page

112

by U.S
in

courts

not

identical

to the

principles Exhibit

used

Do you

whether

violating

U.S

patent

Canada
were

Page

11

top of

page

Number

do care yes What The
action
action

You

told

that right

are took
in

taking

to

show

Mhmm
You were
told in

you care
patent

2000
each to

the
in

was
had

2000 correct
of

worded enough

same
information

in

country

my

opinion

we

Mhmm
And

know
says

now

its

September
of
in

2006

your

company

is

Even

though

your lawyer

AS
applied
is

making
automatic 10 11 12 13
this

millions driller

selling

or renting with the

The and
to 10 11 12

principles

of construction claims
principles

to not

conjunction
still

EDR

U.S

patent

courts
in

very

day you
opinion

not

sought U.S

United

States

identical

to the had

Canada

attorneys

regarding

Bowden

patent

you figured

you

correct

Yeah
Well
see

MR
OBJECTION
Correct

Form of

question

13 14 15 16

what page

said

to

you

in

2002

Go

to

page

14
15 16 17 18

middle of

The

of Claim

you

that

sir

Mhmm
Read
of your
first

19 20 21 22 23 24 25

MR MR MR MR

RALEY

Whats

your

objection objection

17 18 19

two

to the October to

ladies

and

Whats my

jury of patent lawyer

2002

from

Mhmm
Its
-it

you personally

whole

prelude of the

in

20
21

AS READ
of patent
is

front of

was

pregnant of

with mischaracterize

the pressure

some some
of

record as of

22
23

drilling

which
still

dont

The

question

the apparatus
fluid
All

you provide
18
like
is

drilling

you counsel

sought the opinion
questions

U.S
received

24
25

pressure

included

would

not

have

Once

Page

111 years earlier your

Page

113

an objection

lawyer Mr and
analyzing

is

through
in

MR
true

RALEY

All

predicates

are

the with

patent

Pason

product

MR
court

ATKINSON when
the transcript

Well debate
out

with

Correct

there
nothing to

And debate
of
fluid

first

thing that sensor

says

regarding product
in

first

element

MR
He
has confessed to
all

Theres
of

is

Bowden
just like

drilling
--

today and

pressure

the says

strike

that the sensor just

MR
10

ATKINSON

Go ahead

make

your

The Pason
has

your

lawyer
fluid

is

that

record Your objections
frivolous

pressure of

appear
it

to

be

10 11 12 13 14 15

like

patent
as to

The

reason

Im

asking

you about
the

you

ATKINSON OBJECTION

Objection

form

appear

to

be just trying to opposed
request

record sort of proper

frivolous

reasons and So
just

to that

me rephrase
not your October two-and-a-half of

conduct
legal

that

you make

lawyer
did
in

objections
All in

2002

like

16

MR
told of principles of patent United States

Despite

16 that
in

years earlier say
is

that

the

Pason

2000

your

lawyer

17 the 18 19

apparatus
not

there

drilling

fluid

pressure sensor

construction

are

different

he say that

Canada you have not
patent

this

day

20

sought
infringing

U.S
the

about patent correct

youre

20
21

And
the

he says that he says that Bowden

is

the

first

of

of

Bowden

patent correct

Correct

22

Dont you want
24 25 thought
information
in

know
believe

23

All

Then

he goes to the next element
is

we have

enough

24 25

Bowden
the next

patent which sentence

regulator

Do you

that

in

29 Communications www.legalink.com

to

113

Legalink

Merrill

1-888-513-9800

Case 1:03-cv-02579-RPM

Document 147-5
James

Filed 01/11/2007

Page 27 of 35

Page

Page at
this

AYes
Read
last

case

besides

drilling

pressure

sentence

of

paragraph

please

sir

regulator

AS READ
Thus
it

MR
would
fluid

asked

me
to

what

appear

that regulator is

structure

of

for

my

objection

was

explained

you on the

drilling in

pressure of

record fact

patent software

RALEY
apparently other

And no basis and
your

learned objection
tired It like

carried
All

out

in

on

apparatus sentence
years Its the earlier isnt 10 11

your

right

Do you

recognize

objections Lets

Im
can

same
10 11 12 13 14 15

he wrote two-and-a-half

go be as
tired

it

MR
wish counsel Well
to

as

Yes
has to

changed

in

years at
right

least

MR
going

think to
let

your lawyer

be

of

it

too

because were going

Right you that
is

him know
next out
in

element on
the

the

MR
16 you
said that writing there

All

Oh
lawyers

the

way
in

16
17

carried

the software

Pawn

you thought

were unclear

apparatus

about the words

18
19

MR
OBJECTION
Yes

Form

question

Go

READ
Thus 20
drilling
in

would

appear

that

the

structure

of

20 21 22 23 24 25

pressure of the out
in

regulator is fact

the

patent

MR
of the patent

RALEY
regulator
is

He
called out the

says
in

that

structure the

carried

the

on

Bowden

23
Clear

apparatus

carried

software

Pason 25

apparatus

correct

The

sentence

is

clear

letter

not clear

Page

Page

117

AYes MR
OBJECTION

Im
Same
objection

going

by sentence about Next theres paragraph See
it

sir

and
clear to relay

go ahead

were
All

seems

pretty to

me

MR AYes MR
Im
says the 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 software
talking

Yes
This

in

next

Yes
is

an example

what He
in

Okay

Your

lawyer
in

says

in

September
of just the pressure
like

--

sorry

about

counsel
of

Heres
regulator

question

your lawyer says
two-and-a-half relay coupled 10 responsive

October
earlier
drilling

that

the structure of the of

years to the

patent

is

carried

out

in

fluid

regulator

Pason

apparatus
is

Im
objection reading

verbatim

to the output

signal

that

from

transcript

your

Yes
And
13

MR
verbatim
--

No
or purporting to read

he says that
at

that

relay supplies

drill

string

control

an output

correct

document and
the structure
If

same document
drilling

that

reading regulator quote
it

says

Yes
Does
16

of to

pressure

he say that
is

this

element of
in

claim

last

youre going

quote from the

sentence

implemented

the

Pawn software

accurately

You wont get an objection So you
if

Yes
the pressure 19 Anything unclear

MR
objection the

will

drilling

No
Next claim
--

20
21

20

sorry

next
in

element October
of

Strike

that
just that
like
is

MR
document and you read
rather
it

If

youre purporting
characterizing

to

read

Your lawyer he 23 24
the
drill

next

2002

22 23 24 25

document an

two-and-a-half

years
is

earlier says
drilling
--

you

will

not

which
string

sorry

controller

Do you see that

MR

Is

there

any other

25

Yes

30 Pages Legalink
Merrill

114

to

117

Communications www.legalink.com

1-888-513-9800

Case 1:03-cv-02579-RPM

Document 147-5
James
Hill

Filed 01/11/2007

Page 28 of 35

9-20-06

Page

118

Page

120

Go

to the

sentence

of

paragraph

So
October

me

ask you

this

question

were

up

to

AS READ
Thus
while
--

29th 2002 Bowden
in

Does your lawyer and compare that
to

apparatus

of your

system

is

of the product

patent

the

complete

page

bottom

havent

asked

you to read
to ask

it

Just look
it

at

it

No
your lawyer

me

and

going

you

about
like

He didnt
of

it

two-and-a-half not doing

years

earlier

say on October
two-and-a-half stepper 10 11 increase

2002
years earlier
in

just

he

said

on

October

the function

of or

correct Correct 10

motor

the

Pason

apparatus

to slow string

rate

of release of

Does

And two or three
product
prior art

you you

start

marketing apart from

he say that

that

Yes
13 14

your product

not infringe

And

says your lawyer
This stepper

AS READ
carries

correct out the Repeat question

motor apparatus
defined
for

same

function
in

the

string

Yeah

you

should
established

was..

controller

Weve
29th
marketing
is

Correct

two or three

before
driller

you

start

Yes
Anything unclear

the Pason

correct

about that sentence
20

Correct

20

No
All

And here we are
expired
since

that attorney

two-and-a-half that

years

have

right
in

Lets

go to the next

Does your
just like

the

you had

lawyer
did

September

sic

2002
tell

he

--

correct

two-and-a-half apparatus

years earlier has pressure
in

you that your
corresponding correct

Mhmm
You need Yes
to

Pason
to the

transducer

say

yes

or

no

recited

the

Bowden

claim

Page

119

Page

121

Where Yes
Anything

are

you

referring

to

now

And

we

still

of with

11
driller

of

In view

foregoing

Bowden
being

patent

Pawn
or not
it

you

infringes your the witness has looked

unclear

about that sentence

MR
question to the

Youre two others

No
Next sentence
the
it

to the

gentlemen

of

at counsel

jury

MR
letter

Im
29th
in --

you about
sorry October
it

AS READ
Also your apparatus
10 implementation
drilling fluid

provides

software
rely

Theres
10 11 Correct

that

addressing

which

does not
regulator

on the

pressure

and

And
that

not
it

aware of any
are

letters

the

two

elements of the Bowden
All

patent bottom
the

you
was
all

Lets discussion

go to page
of Claim 11

page

sir

13 14

No
By the
written

14

The
see

Bowden

patent do you

way

there

this

that
16
is

earlier

Youre

businessman

right

16 17

Yes
There Bowden
discussion
is

Yes
You
understand the written

of
in

Varney
light

or not the

17

word

is

the

valid

Varney

correct
19

business

world
of people that say
their

Yes
20 As and
discussed the
strike

Thats
is

word

States

patent

20

their

trademark argument As weve

--

Sure
the

And

written

word can

be

too

cant

discussed has rejected

U.S

Patent
art

it claim

Trademark correct
Correct

Office

Varney

Yes
But
if

theres

--

you understand
oral

that

there

can

be

miscommunications

discussions

31 Communications www.legalink.com

Pages

to

121

Legalin