I, Walter Bratic, declare as follows: 1. Unless otherwise stated, I have personal knowledge of the statements herein, and if called to testify, I could and would testify competently to the truth of the statements herein. I have been asked to express my opinions regarding the commercial success of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,047,781, 6,068,069, and 6,085,851 (the “Transocean Dual-Activity Patents”), which are owned by Transocean Offshore Deepwater Drilling Inc. (“Transocean”). I am a Managing Director of OverMont Consulting, LLC (“OverMont”). I am a Certified Public Accountant licensed to practice in the state of Texas. I have over 25 years of experience analyzing economic, financial, valuation, and business matters involving patented technology. I have been retained in patent dispute matters and have analyzed and opined on issues related to commercial success of patented inventions. My qualifications are discussed in more detail in my resume. See Exhibit 2081. 2. I was retained in several Transocean patent infringement litigation matters in which certain Transocean patents, including the Transocean Dual-Activity Patents which are the subject of this declaration, were asserted against Maersk Contractors USA, Inc. (“Maersk”), Stena Drilling Limited (“Stena”), and Pacific Drilling S.A. (“Pacific”). My work on these patent litigation matters included analysis of the PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL Page 1 of 1 001 commercial success attributable to Transocean’s dual-activity patents as required under Georgia-Pacific factor number 8.1 3. I have analyzed the following indicators of commercial success related to the Transocean Dual-Activity Patents: Day rate premium attributable to dual-activity technology; Dual-activity rig status compared to single activity rig status; and Industry preference for dual-activity rigs. 4. According to Dr. Claude Cooke, the offshore drilling industry uses the term “dual-activity” to describe offshore rigs that incorporate the teachings of the Transocean Dual-Activity Patents.2 Throughout this declaration, I shall use the term “dual-activity” to refer to rigs that incorporate the teachings of the Transocean Dual-Activity Patents. I understand that Transocean owned rights to a fourth patent that related to dual-activity technology, U.S. Patent No. 6,056,071.3 1 Georgia-Pacific Corp. v. United States Plywood Corp., 318 F. Supp. 1116 (S.D.N.Y. 1970). 2 Interview of Dr. Claude Cooke; See Exhibit 2077, ¶¶ 42 – 43. 3 Interview of Dr. Claude Cooke; See Exhibit 2077, ¶ 14. PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL Page 2 of 2 002 However, I understand that U.S. Patent No. 6,056,071 does not provide for any additional benefits not claimed in the Transocean Dual-Activity Patents.4 I. Analysis of Day Rate Premium Transocean / Anadarko 5. In late 2005, Transocean announced that Anadarko Petroleum (“Anadarko”) had entered into three-year contracts for two of Transocean’s fifth generation deepwater drillships: Discoverer Spirit and Deepwater Millennium.5 The contracts were both expected to begin in June 2007.6 According to Mr. Calvin Barnhill, an industry technical expert retained by Transocean, the contracts reflected similar circumstances except for the presence of dual-activity technology in the Deepwater Spirit.7 6. Anadarko agreed to pay a day rate of approximately $475,000 per day for the Discoverer Spirit, and a day rate of $425,000 per day for the Deepwater 4 Interview of Dr. Claude Cooke. See Exhibit 2077, ¶ 14. 5 See Exhibits 2027 and 2028. 6 http://www.ogfj.com/articles/print/volume-2/issue-10/industry-briefs/transocean- awarded-contracts-for-drillships-discoverer-spirit-and-deepwater-millennium.html. 7 See Exhibit 2075, pg. 89 ¶285. PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL Page 3 of 3 003 Millennium.8 This represented a day rate premium of $50,000 for Transocean’s patented dual-activity technology.9 Put another way, the presence of dual-activity technology contributed approximately 11% to the day rate that Anadarko agreed to pay for the Discoverer Spirit.10 Transocean / GlobalSantaFe 7. Transocean and GlobalSantaFe Corporation (“GlobalSantaFe”) have entered into drilling contracts that provide for a reduction in the day rate when dual- activity capability is not available (the “Dual Activity Repair Rate”).11 According to Dr. Cooke, the Dual Activity Repair Rate is triggered by the unavailability of dual-activity technology as opposed to non-patented elements.12 The Dual- 8 See Exhibit 2027, pg. 129, and Exhibit 2028, pg. 34. 9 $475,000 – $425,000 = $50,000. 10 ($475,000 – $425,000) / $475,000 = 11%. 11 For example, see Exhibits 2031 and 2033. 12 See Exhibit 2077, ¶¶ 80 and 83 – 84. PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL Page 4 of 4 004 Activity Repair Rate in these contracts was approximately 8% to 10% lower than the standard day rate.13 Historical Day Rate Premium for Transocean Rigs with Dual-Activity Technology 8. The day rate premium between dual-activity and single activity rigs has been confirmed for Transocean’s ultra-deepwater rigs, historically, based on information obtained from the RigPoint database.14 RigPoint is an online tool that can track, monitor, and analyze offshore rig markets, and is recognized as “the most comprehensive, impartial source of global offshore rig information…”15 9. The following table shows the day rate premium associated with Transocean’s ultra-deepwater dual-activity rigs compared to ultra-deepwater single activity rigs from 1999 through 2016, based on the contract start date:16 13 For example, see Exhibit 2029, pgs. 27-28; Exhibit 2030, pgs. 27-28; Exhibit 2031, pg. 4; Exhibit 2033, pg. 48; Exhibit 2100, pg. 216. 14 See Appendix 4. I understand that Ultra-Deepwater rigs are defined as rigs that can operate in water depths over 7,500 ft. See Exhibit 2075, pg. 23 ¶54. 15 https://www.ihs.com/products/rigpoint-offshore-rig-data.html. 16 See Appendix 4.1. PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL Page 5 of 5 005 Average Day Rate Premium of Transocean’s Ultra-Deepwater Rigs (1999 – 2016) Rig Type U.S. Worldwide Avg. Single Activity Day Rate $349,034 $362,781 Avg. Dual-Activity Day Rate 448,824 460,386 Day Rate Premium for Dual- Activity Rigs $99,790 $97,605 Day Rate Premium as % Avg. Dual-Activity Day Rate 22.2% 21.2% 10. The data in the above table indicates that, historically in the U.S., dual- activity rigs were contracted at day rates that were approximately $100,000 (or 22.2%) higher than those of single activity rigs. On a worldwide basis, historically, dual-activity rigs were contracted at day rates that were approximately $98,000 (or 21.2%) higher than those of single activity rigs. PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL Page 6 of 6 006 Evidence of Pacific’s Day Rate Premium from Dual-Activity Technology 11. In the April 30, 2010 Offshore Drilling Contract between Chevron U.S.A. Inc. (“Chevron”) and Pacific Santa Ana Limited (“Pacific”) (the “Chevron / Pacific Contract”), the parties agreed to the following provision:17 In the event that Critical Path Operations are restricted on the secondary rotary to activities above the rotary table in order to maintain compliance with Section 2.1(C), the Operating Rate shall be reduced by fifty percent for the equivalent hours lost on the primary rotary resulting from the restriction of Services on the secondary rotary. 12. Section 2.1(C)(2) of the Chevron / Pacific Contract stated as follows:18 Contractor shall not operate the Drilling Unit in a manner that constitutes or results, following reasonable investigation by Contractor, in knowing infringement or contributory infringement of any patent. 17 See Exhibit 2102, pg. 51. 18 See Exhibit 2102, pg. 16. PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL Page 7 of 7 007 13. Therefore, under the terms of the Chevron / Pacific Contract, the parties agreed that if Pacific was unable to use Transocean’s patented dual-activity technology, the operating rate would be reduced by 50%.19 This indicates that the functionality enabled by the Transocean Dual-Activity Patents20 had economic value to Pacific and Chevron. Hess / Stena Agreement 14. On September 21, 2007, Stena Drillmax Limited entered into a drilling contract with Hess to provide the Stena Forth for offshore drilling operations in the Gulf of Mexico (“GoM”) under a five-year contract (the “Hess Contract”).21 The Stena Forth was a dual-activity ultra-deepwater drillship offered by Transocean’s competitor, Stena Drilling Limited (“Stena”).22 19 See Exhibit 2077, ¶ 82. 20 See Exhibit 2077, ¶ 82. 21 See Exhibit 2101, pgs. 1, 8, and 52 – 53. 22 http://www.stena- drilling.com/uploads/vessels/80845_Stena_FORTH_Brochure_A4_FINAL_LO.pd f. The Stena Forth is licensed under Transocean’s Dual-Activity Patents. See Exhibits 2094, 2095, and 2096. PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL Page 8 of 8 008 15. In the Hess Contract, there were three different Operating Rates provided for normal drilling operations, all expressed in U.S. dollars as follows:23 Option A Operating Rate: Under Option A, Hess was to reimburse Stena for the actual cost of any license entered into with respect to the Transocean Patent Claims, subject to an aggregate limit.24 Stena Drillmax III Limited retained the right to decide whether, when, and at what price and under what conditions to obtain any such license.25 The aggregate amount Hess could have to reimburse Stena Drillmax III Limited was equal to a lump sum payment of and a periodic payment equal to of Stena Drillmax III Limited’s day rate revenues.26 Option B Operating Rate: Under Option B, Stena was to bear the full cost of any license with respect to the Transocean Patent 23 See Exhibit 2101, pgs. 33 – 34. 24 See Exhibit