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


File Size: 120.6 kB
Pages: 2
Date: January 11, 2007
File Format: PDF
State: Colorado
Category: District Court of Colorado
Author: unknown
Word Count: 610 Words, 4,024 Characters
Page Size: 610 x 791 pts
URL

https://www.findforms.com/pdf_files/cod/20882/147-3.pdf

Download Designation of Deposition Testimony - District Court of Colorado ( 120.6 kB)


Preview Designation of Deposition Testimony - District Court of Colorado
Case 1:03-cv-02579-RPM

Document 147-3

Filed 01/11/2007

Page 1 of 2

13

Ic
World

2O

Floor

OConnoz
Canada

Street

Ottawa

KP
Octobef29 2002

1A4
613.788.2200 613.788.2247

Telephone Facsimile

www.b1akes.com

Leier
Direct

Dial

613.788.2244

E-mail

teny.leietb1akes.com

DELIVERED

BY
Reference 101644/3

PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL SUBJECT TO AND CLIENT

Mr

Jim

President

Systems

Corp

6130-

3td

Street

Calgary Alberta T2H 1K4
Dear

Mr
Pason Systems

Re

Corp

Auto
Our

Drilling

file

101644-03

This

letter

patent patent

infringement
to

of proposed

equipment

in

view of

Canadian

2094313

Bowden

Since Canadian
to perspective

is

country

specific are

have Canadian

addressed

the

matter

of infringement from
to

only as

law
before

provide address the
as
it

comments based on our
issue the

practise

Any the U.S
of the
the

U.S

patents

is

made

Patent

and of

Trademark

Office
in-force

To

of infringement
define as they are

requires

claims

patents

claims

monopoly of
longer in

patent

Once

patent

expires
in force

claims
are

cannot

be

enforceable
patent

Moreover

claims

when

only enforceable

in the jurisdiction

which

was granted

Based appears

my

understanding
the apparatus

of your

proposed

apparatus

as

described
is

more

detail

that

of your

computer-based

system

completely
apparatus

different

than

pneumatic

airangement

taught

Bowden

you have

different

than that claimed in

40179311.1

MontrĂ˜al

Ottawa

Toronto

Vaocovvcr

IT

Case 1:03-cv-02579-RPM

Document 147-3

Filed 01/11/2007

Page 2 of 2

Bui CASSELS
Dependent
information

C1uYnoN LLP

Page

claim

12

introduces in relation
this

steps to the

requiring

measurement
system does

of

drill at all

string to

torque

The
torque

provided

Pason

not refer

any such

measurements
Similarly in

therefore claim

claim would not be
refers to

infringed
drill

by
string to

the Pason system

dpendent

13

measurement of
the
drill

which

is

not described

Pason

disclosure

In

any event

string

is

not

subject

RPM

motor

is

used

method
and producing
are

14 provides
or

for

measurement of

drilling

pressure and signal

bit

weight

changes

differential

signal release

measurement of
drill

The

differential

signals

then selected

control

of

string

US
and

patent the

346 1978

to

Whittle
to

using
control

bit

or draw
see figure

tension and

sensor

of

draw works

discussion
derivative
at that

Whittle does not provide of that

apparatus for measuring measurement of

pressure or taking the pressures was

measurement

however
in

time as described

by Varney

In relation

to
is

the

Pason system
to

the

that

not

sufficiently

detailed

to

detennine

whether

it

proposed of each and

measure

both the
to control

on

bit

and works
that

pressure
Clarification

and take
of what out
is

the derivative

measurement

measurements needed
for

of those
consideration in relation to

measurements
this

Pason

proposes

to

carry

claim

Dependent
Drilling therefore

claim

15

measurement hole with

of

drill

torque

and
that

to the
drill

steps

of claim

14

using

down

motor would seem to

imply

stationary

drilling rig

down hole mud motor could not be Bowden

to infringe

claim

US

Patent

No
address
the the

to

will limited

now
to

corresponding
patent

115

patent
in

However
the differences versus
first

note that
principles in to

this

is

Canadian

and

the

law

Canada
are

of patent
art

law are

generally

between Canada
for patentability for
first

what

is

and
those

requirements
differences construction

to

file

invent

Moreover
the

have changed
applied
to

over the years
patent claims

with changing by

laws
is

principles

of
in

US

US

courts

not

identical

to

the

used

Canada

Having

regard to Unlike

the foregoing

have

few

comments
will

for

your consideration
rely

relation

to

the

US

patent

Canada

in the

US

US

review and

on statements made by

4017951

1.1