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

Case 1:03-cv-02579-RPM

Document 147-4
Terry Leler

Filed 01/11/2007

Page 1 of 10

Page

IN

UNITED
FOR THE

DISTRICT COLORADO

Civil Action

No

03-M-2579

BNB

VARCO

L.P

Plaintiff

SYSTEMS

USA

CORP

Defendant VIDEOTAPE
10 11

DEPOSITION OF

TERRY

September
_____ ___________

_______

________

_____________________

PURSUANT TERRY LEIER was Broadway September

TO
on

the videotape

taken

behalf

the

deposition of Plaintiff at 1675
on

12

2500 Denver Colorado 80202 2006 at 941 a.m before

Birger Reporter and

13

Registered Merit Reporter Certified Colorado Notary Public

14
15

20 21

LL
IIT
LegaLink
Merrill

Communications

1-888-513-9800

Case 1:03-cv-02579-RPM

Document 147-4

Filed 01/11/2007

Page Page 2 of 10

of

Leler Terry

5411
12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

direct

your

attention

to

page

10

second

paragraph

You

are

addressing make
--

11
render in for Pason of the 11 an opinion that

Uh-huh Did you
11 was not infringed
If did whats your

claim

by
would

Pason

system

reasoning invalid opinion the

doesnt
teachings is

claim 11 Claim 11 Varney
So not that

patent
is

view that

its
not

your

claim

invalid

its
said

infringed invalidity
there There
is

addresses

Ive
literal

its

not

55

There infringement Claim 11 doesnt

because infringed is no regulator require claims about through that

no no or

relay relay
Do

Well

dont
asking flip can

memorized

Im

just

you state -- we you ever render infringe claim

you back

this

it
Pason

an opinion

about

dont think doesnt

11
can find

Okay
you
10 11 12 13

it

show

it

to

me
said 11 in

will Okay If its

not only

in this basis claim 13

letter

then to claim in view

it
So opinion the that is respect invalid

14
15

Yes

Leler Terry

5623
24 25

And nowhere claim 11

in

did

you

distinguish

Pason

system
other claims

No
But not for

57

you say that

its

correct infringed Uh-huh
claim 11 you say that

dont
claim

say
11

that
is

No
You only

invalid

Yes
4w
tY

Leler

Terry 2006-09-08

5716
17 18 19 20 21

In

this or said not was

dated claim

2000
14

did

you

render or

an

opinion on whether
what

was more

infringed

needed an

information with respect to

Pason
So you

didnt

opinion

Case 1:03-cv-02579-RPM
claim

Document 147-4

Filed 01/11/2007

Page Page 3 of 10

of5

22 23

14 No

Leier

Terry 2006-09-08
ask for as and you to look at two sentences now address that Pason has business
is

5811
12 13

me the

first

page of

11

Exhibit first

paragraph

will understand carrying this law Canadian So the on

in

US corresponding in exporting to an interest note the US However please to the Canadian to patent relate and to

that
17

limited

the

Canada
this opinion you intended

20 21

patent Yes
And acts
of in

Yes
the 24

US
right
wr Sr

Thats

Lei

er

Terry 2006-09-08
sentence of second paragraph you you you said in your earlier opinion from this matter from infringement

61
10 11 12 13

restate have

what

Canadian perspective

only

Yes

Leler

Terry 2006-09-08

6119
20 21 22

BY
that

So

you

still

rendered

an

patent

correct

Im

not

US

lawyer

Leier

Terry 2006-09-08

6124
25

BY
and to

BOWICK

Youve

limited

infringement

your of

opinions Canadian

in

62

patent

Yes
your change opinion on infringement or validity

your previous

No
Did to

dont
you

opinion recall it changing any sort of opinion

provide Bowden

with respect

claim

14

patent
attention to page the fourth

No
10 11 12 13

did

not
your

direct

paragraph Could you
read first sentence from that for

me

Case 1:03-cv-02579-RPM
In
have
is

Document 147-4

Filed 01/11/2007

Page Page 4 of 10

of

14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

relation not

to

the

Pason

the determine on bit of

whether
the the

it

detailed to sufficiently proposed to measure both the and of of fluid drilling such measurement
of

drilling derivative

--

and take pressure control the and proposes in that Pason

works to

brake
out to
is

what

measurements consideration

transformations carry relation this

measurements for further

needed

Leler Terry 2006-09-08

6419
20 21 22 23 24 25

BY
patent
Not Do rendered an Do

BOWICK

tr

Leier

other the

the

two

that are marked as Exhibit opinions and you render any other opinions with respect to my

Bowden

recollection
--

65
opinion
Do

you know any other opinion with respect have no idea

if

else

the has

patents
rendered an

you know

Mr
No
Exhibit

Atkinson do

know
going to

not
was

Im
Exhibit

Deposition
Do

marked
marked
e-mail are were thread
--

hand you

whats
e-mails
an

as

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

these you recognize look of copies write says the from

participated in Did you
sections where

that

under

Terry Leier

those

authored by

you
would
you to look at first full with the second and page of two

Yes
Exhibit sections and after The one starting
14

read

14
step
is

Correct

Claim
on to state that

also

has parameter The

Trevor and of

goes as

control

namely

ROP

measured step

claim the

24
25

requires one of pressure and weight selecting While Pason system may select none based on ROP or other conditions in the algorithm that
it would seem empirically to me that algorithm of Pason would operate least within the parameters of 14

control some
of

66

time

Consequently
to be claim the the
10 11 12 13 14

the within to

that
14

Pason

at

system operates least some of there
is

explanation appears the parameters of invalidate the

Unless
operation of scope not seem of

basis system

claim

Pason

to fall within appears there is Therefore the

Markman/construction
does

to me

Did you

that affirms hearing to be any other write this statement

claim

issues

Yes
Who did
sent

you send
it

to
Brett
Trevor

to

Holt

Bob

Rodda

Case 1:03-cv-02579-RPM

Document 147-4

Filed 01/11/2007

Page Page 5 of 10

of

15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

Barb

And May 14
So this

of

this

e-mail
filed

2004
was after the lawsuit

correct Yes
Read
first sentence the to be that technical operates explanation the top of page for

me

Starts

with

Consequently
explanation within are the appears parameters to

14
Whose
was

Pason technical referring to preceding

67 there

referring

to my understanding

Trevor

was

trying In the

relate

e-mail
you

Yes
you stated
any
10 11 12 13 14

havent
since

contact

or

correspondence

with Pason

really had sometime in

2004

that

Uh-huh
Was this the correspondence it you

had with
but

Pason dont

if you recall

recall dont

was

Lei

er

Terry

70
10 11 12 13

Doesnt
the to

this

order

say

that

its

improper

to

pneumatic with

Yes
Do you disagree

conclusion

No

question

Case 1:03-cv-02579-RPM

Document 147-4
Terry 9-8-06

Filed 01/11/2007

Page 6 of 10

Page 54

Page 56

would

over

that

device

would

anticipated at
this Is It

Bowden
point
signal

142 patent
Again
in --

Im Im
Bowden
cant

looking to

at claim
drilling

has
fluid

trying or
is

figure out the

which

one

is

it

response

changes
device

pressure
certainly string

Pason

patentable

dont
Pason device

what the
relay

does
to

and
drill

the

any

signal

Well exclude not

patents
right

overlap
to

are

only

right

to

controller But

do
the

you just said
--

you dont

how

the

So how view 10

Pason

be patentable

in

Pason

device

or

what
is

does
that
the

right

Varney
There
are other aspects to
it

Well there
10

no relay

How

do you know
its

direct 12

your

attention

page

10 second 11

11 12 described

Because

not

in

understanding

paragraph

You are addressing

earlier Did

thats at

my

basis

Uh-huh
14
11 Did

Pason

tell

you that

Pason

doesnt

you
infringed

make
by

--

render

an opinion

that

14

have

relay
This
is

was

not
If

Pason
in this

what was

understand subsequently 11 use the developed
relay

was
to

did

it

would

going

be

be

so

17 infringe

Whats your
11 Claim 11

reasoning

for

Pason

doesnt

17

Does claim apparatus

term

as

physical

of the
invalid

19 20 Varney

view of

19

It

uses

the

relaying

sent

signal

to

20 So
fts

drill

controller

your opinion

that

11

is

invalid

So
Relaying

as

verb

isnt

it

not that

its

not infringed question
its

yes
in

23
already

This

of

invalidity

And no no
literal

this

opinion

did

you distinguish

not infringed
is

there

is

24 25

claim

from

Pason

system

infringement

There

no regulator

There

is

relay

No

Page 55 Claim

Page But
for
all

doesnt require
have you about

regulator

or

relay

other

you say that

its

Well

not infringed

Im
you you
infringe state
--

Do

Uh-huh
But claim 11

we

can an

flip

back

through about

you dont say that

render claim

opinion

No
You only say that claim
invalid

Okay
If

Yes
find it

you can

show

it

to

me
opinion 10

Let

me

back

to

my

earlier

question
invalid

Does

your

Iwill 10

on whether

or not claim

based
intent Exhibit

Okay
If

Feel

free
this

upon
issue

the patent

office

the notice
certificate

of

not

havent

said

11

re-examination

marked

as

12 13 14

it

No
So the only basis
respect 11
is

daim
view of

in

You
14

still

claim

anticipated

by

this

opinion

is

Varney

Yes
Does your opinion
17

Varney Yes
In this

change

now

that

claim

has 17 opinion invalid

opinion

dated

2000

did

you

render

an

been Well as

in

of
said

Varney during

on whether

or not claim

was

infringed or

on
if

dont have

the claim
in

19 20

claims think re-examination

so claim

you

could

me
chart

11

19 Pason

What

said

was

needed

more information

11

provided

your

request claim copy of
it

So you didnt

render

an opinion

with

respect

to

Okay
23

Ive got
Deposition

here

too

14 No
Did

was what
is

marked
Exhibit

24

you ask

for

more information

from Pason

hand

you

marked as

Yes

15

Pages

to

57

LegaLink 1-888-513-9800

Company
www.Iegalink.com

Case 1:03-cv-02579-RPM

Document 147-4
Terry Leier

Filed 01/11/2007

Page 7 of 10

9-8-06

Page Did provide it
different

Page an independent

No
So on claim have
never provided

of that

you

information
its

The
patent

first

sentence

of

this

opinion of

states that

14 No
So
sitting

infringement

review

Pason

equipment today you dont
14 of the

an opinion patent

Uh-huh Does that
indicate

with

respect

to claim respect

Bowden Pason

that

they

With

yet
They
10 11 of devices exactly
--

Correct 10 11 12 13 for

you know
there
is

mean

these

No
ask you to look at page Read paragraph
patent exporting please to note

go through
stage or
it

process

before

product dont

11

of the process
in

they are in

me

the

first will

two sentences
address the has

of the

know have

--

was

at

this

time

dont
of

now

corresponding

an independent
Prior

14
15 16

as

understand carrying

that

Pason
in

an

interest

to see

this

opinion

did

you

out

Pason

and that
the

on

business
is

the

US

However

Calgary 16 17
after

product
--

opinion
in

limited

to the

Canadian

patent

and

believe the

yes

believe

went

there

17
18 19

opinion

So Canadian

opinion

you

intended

only

to

relate

to

18 19 20

And

you saw

device
devices

patent

device An
autodriller

yes

20 21 22 23 24 25

Yes
And
acts of
in

dont
Did

seeing source

that

no
for
--

Yes
Not the Thats
Did

you

code

to

be implemented

US
any feedback from Pason you

23
24

with

Pason

AutoDriller
definitely

right

No
Did

not drawings

you receive

you

Page provided

Page

them

this

opinion
it

No
Did it include

We
Did

discussed

yes
with

you see components

that

they

intended

to

disagree

No
Did they ask
for

saw you
to

lots

components dont know
told

but

what

make any

other

opinions

intentions

were
you be
to

Yes
Deposition

did
Exhibit

Were was

by anybody
in

certain AutoDriller

components

marked 29
as 10 by you marked

were going

the

Pason

Im
opinion 10
Exhibit

going

to

hand
to

you an October

Not that
First

that
Is

appears

be you
just

of
said this
in

second
your
earlier

you
opinion that

the opinion
it

referred

restate

what you

you

Yes
12
less

looks

like it

have
to render opinion 12

matter

from infringement

from

Why
two

were you asked

Canadian

perspective

only

Yes
recall

14

dont

MR
write opinions

ATKINSON
copy
of the

Counsel same

if

you

will

permit

me
given

Do you normally same
patent

on the

15 16

can

get

document
thought

and do

the

same

product
the asks reason opinion

MR BOWICK
you one

Tim

Well
normally 19
Is

me

to

do

unless there

is

some
this

why
is

reason president addressed

addressed versus

to
first

19 20
21 opinion correct

MR ATKINSON BY MR BOWICK
that

all

you

still

havent

rendered

an

20
21

Mr
opinion

Hill

Pason

Systems

of

patent

being

to another

lawyer

To
In

the opinion

directly this

Well
opinion

not

US

when you
product not sure of
it

rendered
calls

had

Pason

23 24 25
Exhibit

developed

the

Pason

AutoDriller
in

MR BOWICK as nonresponsive Object BY MR BOWICK Youve your opinions
and
to infringement

Im

status of

Canada

Canadian

16 Pages LegaLink
Merrill

to

61

Communications www.legalink.com

1-888-513-9800

Case 1:03-cv-02579-RPM

Document 147-4
Terry Leier

Filed 01/11/2007

Page 8 of 10

9-8-06

Page patent correct opinions history opinion on infringement
in Ill

Page understand

Yes
Did your or
validity

assuming
in

they

were before
prior

--

documents
the

that

were

Leiers that discussed there

to rendering
will

change

from your

previous
recall
it

two opinions and
respect

today we
are

go ahead
that

No
Did to claim 14 of

changing
sort

any documents them to you
privilege

you provide any Bowden not
your attention

of opinion

were

not

producing we
as
well

will

present of

patent

privilege

as the

that

No
direct

attends to

to that

page

the fourth 10 11

MR
documents

BOWICK
relate

But

youre

not going or

to

produce

the

10

paragraph Uh-huh

to these

form produce
the to the

ATKINSON

No

am

going

to

12

Could

me
In
that

you read the

sentence

from

that

12 13 formulation of opinions

and

relation
is

to

the

Pason

system the
to determine the weight on
bit

14 15 16 17

BOWICK

Okay
not claim to
identify

have
it

not

sufficiently

detailed

MR
prMleged what

ATKINSON
just

those

to

be

whether
17 18 the

proposed
--

to

measure both

need

drilling

and the
of each

drilling

pressure

and take
control

category

the derivative

such

measurement
of

draw

18 19

works
20 transformations to carry
relation

Clarificaton

measurements
that

and
proposes

MR BOWICK Okay MR BOWICK Mr
opinions that are

Leier

other

two

of those

measurements

Pason
in

20 21 22

marked

as

Exhibit

out
to

is

needed claim

further consideration

you render any other opinions patent Not to my recollection Do you know an opinion

with

respect

the

Bowden

this

23 24

Did

you

get that

23 24

No
Did

any other
with respect

--

if

anybody Bowden patents

you

ask

25

to the

Page 63

Page

Well thats need
Other
clarification

what

this

paragraph

refers

to that

have

no idea

Do you know
than
did

Mr

Atkinson

rendered

an

that

paragraph ask
--

where you request
follow up ask

opinion Do

you ever

any

know
going

No
Exhibit

do not was

other

questions

dealt with

issue
recollection

Deposition of
Exhibit

marked
been marked
as

dont have
that

any independent

Im
They
participated

hand

you whats
these of

no

you recognize
copies in Did

MR
break
10

Lets

go

off

record

take

an e-mail

THE VIDEOGRAPHER

This

marks the end
time
is

tape

10 11 sections authored 13

you write the e-mails
it

are Leier

--

under

No
150

in --

the deposition the time

of Terry

where

says from

Terry

were those

1150

Noon recess taken THE VIDEOGRAPHER
This Terry

Yes
would you
the that
starting to
first

Were

back
in

on the

the record of
Exhibit

look at the

page and

of

marks
Leier

of tape

No

and
after

two

The time

is

sections

MR
brief

Counsel
on
locate

might

got from
files

The one
18 19 Correct

with

update

discussion during at the time from

documents

19

was able to was created

privilege
initial

that

Claim 14 also on to
control requires Pason
selecting

selecting

step
is

Trevor

goes
as 14

20
21

20
of
log

that

parameter

measured
step of

Some
be

of time of

appearance opinions not have uncertain part
related

appear

to

ROP
one
select

selecting pressure

after

think to that

and

and

weight

While

the

or

and

and would
its

system

may

none

based on ROP or other have been
developed control

On
25

might

conditions

the algorithm
it

have

preceded

and

and

25

empirically

would seem

to

me

that

17 Pages LegaLink
Merrill

62

to

65

Communications

Company

1-888-513-9800

Case 1:03-cv-02579-RPM

Document 147-4
Terry Leler

Filed 01/11/2007

Page 9 of 10

9-8-06

Page algorithm within the of

Page 68

Pawn would

operate

at

least

some

of the time Federal

Do you

with

Court

of Appeals or relaying

the

parameters

of claim

14
explanation appears of

interpreting

relay

Consequently
to

the technical operates

MR
opinion

ATKINSON
ahead answer
agree with it

mischaracterizes

the

be
14

Pawn system
at
least

within

parameters

claim

some
is

of

time
basis to system
invalidate

Do you mean
to
is fall

--

do

dont

Unless there
the operation the scope of

by

Pason

appears
if

within Federal there

BY MR BOWICK
Circuit

you

recall

you read

of the claim

Therefore
hearing

opinion
it

Markman/construction 10

that affirms

read 10 11

shortly Exhibit

it

was

released

does not seem
Did

to

me

to

be any other statement

issues

Deposition That

was

marked
Here

you write

this

was

February
Exhibit
in

Yes

copy you send
it

of

it

marked as would on

Who
sent

to
Holt
Exhibit

Yes
Based
it

February
Exhibits

of

to

Ford

Brett Trevor

prior

opinions that

and

and And
17 the
this

was
limited to

opinion

claims of
control

e-mail

patent

were

pneumatic

system was

it

May 14
So correct was
after

not
the

had

Yes
But the Federal
said Circuit

disagreed

20

Yes
Read the
sentence at the top of

20 page
for

Well
that they
--

number of
construction they

misconstrued think are

and to
It

me
23
to

Starts

with
the explanation within appears parameters

two terms

Consequently be Pason

deals with

number of issues
say
limited to

system operates

But didnt claims

that

of claim

were not

the

pneumatic

Page

Page described
in

69

Whose
there was
Trevor

technical

explanation

are

referring

to

the

specification

dont
referring

to think

answer

that

Its has to

to

my

understanding

of

complicated
itself

opinion

opinion

speak

was
In

trying

to relate

preceding

e-mail
opinion

direct Exhibit

your

attention

to

page

12 sentence of

Yes
Earlier

you

read

you

stated

you havent with

really

the

paragraph

any contact

or correspondence correct

Pawn

sometime
requires 10 valves

As
or

outlined

above

nothing the use of

in

the

2004
10

is

that

suggests

Uh-huh

in

performing look

step
down
further
in

Was
Pason

the

correspondence

you had

with

And

that

it

you recall dont
recall

says This disclosure dont
it

corresponding the left-hand

Figures.

was

but

Right next

the

37 on

dont

recall

This you
--

corresponding as

Figures of merely
in
list

do

Were
injunction

did

you attend
in

not

limit

whole

to

the use they

here

pneumatically valves as but

rather

17

Yes
Did preliminary

one

example of

the present

you read
injunction

courts

order

out of

invention And you to turn Read page

hearing
it

13

full

20 21

Yes Yes

seen

copy

of

it

20
21

paragraph

sentence
the specifications as relays
implicitly

Have you read it

Moreover
valves

what
suggests that

Have you read
Federal
Circuit

of

the relay

has

meaning valves
sentence of

than

the

order

pneumatically

Yes

And

next

paragraph

18 Pages LegaLink
Merrill

to

69

Communications

1-888-513-9800

Case 1:03-cv-02579-RPM

Document 147-4
Terry Leier

Filed 01/11/2007

Page 10 of 10

Page

Page But before preliminary
injunction

Finally the extensive
confirms pneumatically the relaying step
is

in

this

case

hearing

not

limited

to

dont What was
in

operated

valves
first

those

you sent

And
quotation

sentence

following

the

Ms

Laff There

from the expert

there
counsel
in

was

of on

Varney issues

patent

the to have

In
similarly limited

addition

Pasons
that

at

oral

argument
not

patent

we wanted
of

conceded
to

relaying operated

claim

14 should

be

look
history

at
of

copy

of

his

paper And what
to

Bowden

patent

Doesnt
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Exhibit
limit

order to

say

that

improper

to 10

off

top of

my head
materials
Exhibit

recall

the

pneumatic

valve

Those
in

the

you issued

Yes Do you
disagree with of

Exhibit

or

The law
as

prior art

that

was

included

would
in

been

No

question Object

some
14 can relay
--

of the

thatTs

these see
if

MR
and
is

nonresponsive
prior

MR
this

Lets

we

MR BOWICK
you
limited

In

your

up
Going

rely

on the fact

ThE
time

or relaying

to Isnt

pneumatic
that
it

valve do you not

Relaying You
to claim
it

claim claim
is --

14
14
think with respect 20 time
is

Recess

taken
Going

did

render

ThE

on the record

The

20 21 22 23 24 25

you said gas valve Well had
of
--

relay

you

described

113 BY MR BOWICK
Mr
Exhibit

with

or..
to relay

rendering

the

Guy

set

2000
discussed counsel

opinions or had regarding

you
with Pason or

my

understanding give

Neither

do
uses of the

think

any

communications or

Pasons

some

there

are only

two

word

validity

of

within

the

and

patent

Page 71
definition its

Page

of relay which

is

an

off

and

generally

Weve Who
Barb
that

many

discussions

it

MR as Object BY MR BOWICK Who
decision to your believe
attention
in

nonresponsive the Court of copy of Appeals

not sure
it

about

Bob

would Any

that

can

recall Jim Hill
in

February

year
it

discussions Jim
Hill

with

Barb

Laff this

to

me

And Any

back
with

2000 yeah
about

Have you discussed

opinion

discussions

Mr
opinions regarding

No
Did 10 you discuss
it

Weve
with Barbara 10
just

had

Not

specifically

No
Did send of her
It

Youve
the

copy

of it it

she

11 12 13 14

12

have

any statements dont
Other
recall

about by e-mail are

Weve

discussed of

claims

of

it

yeah

came

so
marked as
or

Bowden patent

the e-mails you had

Exhibit

have

any other correspondence
Ford Brett

15 16 17 18 firm
in

Anybody Not that you
recall talked to the attorneys at

communications
sent 18

Mr
was that

him

of materials

Gowlings

When When

he

was engaged
to

Or

sent

them

to

Barb

19

supplied
--

them

same

supplied

to

20

Laff

sent

them

20 21 22
after

Ford

Brett did

And when dont

was that

When
It

you supply those been
in

recall

would

Was
It

it

the
after

suit

was filed
suit

23
filed

But

no telephone

calls

with

him

been

the

was

24 25

No
No
letters

think

sans
19 Pages
to

73

LegaLink

Merrill

Communications

1-888-513-9800