Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`PUBLIC VERSION – REDACTED
`
` Paper No. 40
` Entered:November 13, 2018
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`WEATHERFORD INTERNATIONAL, LLC,
`WEATHERFORD /LAMB, INC., WEATHERFORD US, LP, and
`WEATHERFORD ARTIFICIAL LIFT SYSTEMS, LLC,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`PACKERS PLUS ENERGY SERVICES, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2017-01232
`Patent 9,303,501 B2
`____________
`
`Before SCOTT A. DANIELS, NEIL T. POWELL, and
`CARL M. DEFRANCO, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`POWELL, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`FINAL WRITTEN DECISION
`Inter Partes Review
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108
`
`PUBLIC VERSION – REDACTED
`
`
`571-272-7822
`
`PUBLIC VERSION – REDACTED
`
` Paper No. 40
` Entered:November 13, 2018
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`WEATHERFORD INTERNATIONAL, LLC,
`WEATHERFORD /LAMB, INC., WEATHERFORD US, LP, and
`WEATHERFORD ARTIFICIAL LIFT SYSTEMS, LLC,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`PACKERS PLUS ENERGY SERVICES, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2017-01232
`Patent 9,303,501 B2
`____________
`
`Before SCOTT A. DANIELS, NEIL T. POWELL, and
`CARL M. DEFRANCO, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`POWELL, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`FINAL WRITTEN DECISION
`Inter Partes Review
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108
`
`PUBLIC VERSION – REDACTED
`
`
`
`PUBLIC VERSION – REDACTED
`
`IPR2016-01232
`Patent 9,303,501 B2
`
`
`I. INTRODUCTION
`Packers Plus Energy Services Inc. (“Packers Plus”) is the owner of
`
`Patent No. 9,303,501 B2 (“the ’501 patent). Weatherford International,
`LLC, Weatherford/Lamb, Inc., Weatherford US, LP, and Weatherford
`Artificial Lift Systems, LLC (“Petitioner”) filed a Petition (Paper 2, “Pet.”)
`challenging claims 1–9 of the ’501 patent. Rapid Completions LLC, the
`exclusive licensee of the ’501 patent, filed a Preliminary Response (Paper 9,
`“Prelim. Resp.”). In view of those submissions, we instituted an inter partes
`review of claims 1–9 of the ’501 patent. Paper 10 (“Institution Decision” or
`“Dec. on Inst.”). Subsequent filings include a Patent Owner Response
`(Papers 16, 171, “PO Resp.”), a Petitioner Reply (Paper 20, “Pet. Reply”),
`and a Patent Owner Surreply (Paper 33, “PO Surreply”).
`We have jurisdiction over this proceeding under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
`After considering the evidence and arguments of the parties, we determine
`that Petitioner has proven by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 1–
`9 of the ’501 patent are unpatentable. See 35 U.S.C. § 316(e). We issue this
`Final Written Decision pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 318(a).
`II. BACKGROUND
`
`A.
`
`The ’501 Patent
`The ’501 patent describes a method of using a tubing string for
`treating a particular segment of a wellbore, while sealing off other segments.
`Ex. 1001, Abstract. Typically, a tubing string is run into a wellbore as a
`conduit for oil and gas products to flow to the surface. Id. at 1:36–42. But
`
`
`1 Paper 16 is a private, unredacted version of the Patent Owner Response,
`and Paper 17 is a public, redacted version of the Patent Owner Response.
`2
`PUBLIC VERSION – REDACTED
`
`
`
`PUBLIC VERSION – REDACTED
`
`IPR2016-01232
`Patent 9,303,501 B2
`
`when natural formation pressure is insufficient, a well “stimulation”
`technique is employed, which involves injecting fracturing fluids into the
`formation to enlarge existing channels and thereby improve inflow into the
`wellbore. Id. at 1:43–47.
`As described in the ’501 patent, the tubing string includes a series of
`ports along its length, with a ball-actuated sliding sleeve mounted over each
`port, for selectively permitting the release of fluid from certain segments of
`the tubing string. Id. at 2:46–3:6, 6:44–7:39. Special sealing devices, called
`“solid body packers,” are mounted along the length of the tubing string
`downhole and uphole of each port. Id. at 2:46–3:6, 6:11–43. The solid body
`packers are disposed about the tubing string and seal the annulus between
`the tubing string and the wellbore wall, thereby dividing the wellbore into a
`series of isolated segments. Id. at 6:25–31. When the sliding sleeve over a
`particular port is activated to an open position, fluid can pass into one
`segment of the wellbore but is prevented from passing into adjacent
`segments by the packers positioned on either side of the port. Id. at 6:49–64.
`Related Matters
`B.
`
`The ’501 patent is involved in a concurrent district court action, Rapid
`Completions LLC v. Baker Hughes Incorporated, No. 6:15-cv-00724 (E.D.
`Tex.). Paper 5, 1–2. The ’501 patent is also involved in instituted inter
`partes reviews in IPR2016-01380 and IPR2017-00247. Id. at 2.
`Additionally, the ’501 patent is the subject of a petition for inter partes
`review in IPR2016-01236.
`
`3
`PUBLIC VERSION – REDACTED
`
`
`
`PUBLIC VERSION – REDACTED
`
`IPR2016-01232
`Patent 9,303,501 B2
`
`C.
`
`
`The Challenged Claims
`Of the challenged claims, claim 1 is independent, and claims 2–9
`depend from claim 1. Claim 1 is reproduced below.
`1.
`A method for fracturing a hydrocarbon-containing
`formation accessible
`through a wellbore,
`the method
`comprising:
`running a tubing string into an open hole and uncased, non-
`vertical section of the wellbore, the tubing string having a long
`axis and an inner bore and comprising:
`a first port opened through a wall of the tubing string,
`a second port opened through the tubing string wall, the
`second port downhole from the first port along the long
`axis of the tubing string,
`a third port opened through the tubing string wall, the
`third port downhole from the second port along the long
`axis of the tubing string,
`a first sliding sleeve having a seat with a first diameter,
`the first sliding sleeve positioned relative to the first port
`and moveable relative to the first port between (i) a
`closed port position wherein fluid can pass the seat of the
`first sliding sleeve and flow downhole of the first sliding
`sleeve and (ii) an open port position permitting fluid flow
`through the first port from the tubing string inner bore
`and sealing against fluid flow past the seat of the first
`sliding sleeve and downhole of the first sliding sleeve,
`a second sliding sleeve having a seat with a second
`diameter smaller than the first diameter, the second
`sliding sleeve positioned relative to the second port and
`moveable relative to the second port between (i) a closed
`port position wherein fluid can pass the seat of the
`second sliding sleeve and flow downhole of the second
`sliding sleeve and (ii) an open port position permitting
`fluid flow through the second port from the tubing string
`inner bore and sealing against fluid flow past the seat of
`
`4
`PUBLIC VERSION – REDACTED
`
`
`
`PUBLIC VERSION – REDACTED
`
`IPR2016-01232
`Patent 9,303,501 B2
`
`
`the second sliding sleeve and downhole of the second
`sliding sleeve,
`a first solid body packer mounted on the tubing string to
`act in a position uphole from the first port along the long
`axis of the tubing string, the first solid body packer
`operable to seal about the tubing string and against a
`wellbore wall in the open hole and uncased, non-vertical
`section of the wellbore,
`a second solid body packer mounted on the tubing string
`to act in a position between the first port and the second
`port along the long axis of the tubing string, the second
`solid body packer operable to seal about the tubing string
`and against the wellbore wall in the open hole and
`uncased, non-vertical section of the wellbore,
`a third solid body packer mounted on the tubing string to
`act in a position offset from the second port along the
`long axis of the tubing string and on a side of the second
`port opposite the second solid body packer, the third
`solid body packer operable to seal about the tubing string
`and against the wellbore wall in the open hole and
`uncased, non-vertical section of the wellbore, and
`a hydraulically actuated sliding sleeve in a position offset
`from the third solid body packer along the long axis of
`the tubing string on a side of the third solid body packer
`opposite the second port, the hydraulically actuated
`sliding sleeve being positioned relative to the third port
`and moveable relative to the third port between (i) a
`closed port position in which the hydraulically actuated
`sliding sleeve covers the third port and (ii) an open port
`position in which the hydraulically actuated sliding
`sleeve exposes the third port to the tubing string inner
`bore to permit fluid flow through the third port from the
`tubing string inner bore,
`wherein the tubing string is run into the wellbore with the
`first, second, and third solid body packers each in an
`unset position;
`
`5
`PUBLIC VERSION – REDACTED
`
`
`
`PUBLIC VERSION – REDACTED
`
`IPR2016-01232
`Patent 9,303,501 B2
`
`
`expanding radially outward the first, second, and third solid
`body packers until each of the first, second, and third solid body
`packers sets and seals against the wellbore wall in the open hole
`and uncased, non-vertical section of the wellbore,
`wherein the first, second, and third solid body packers,
`when expanded, secure the tubing string in place in the
`wellbore and create a first annular wellbore segment
`between the first and second solid body packers, a second
`annular wellbore segment between the second and third
`solid body packers, and a third annular wellbore segment
`downhole of the third solid body packer,
`wherein the first annular wellbore segment is substantially
`isolated from fluid communication with the second annular
`wellbore segment by the second solid body packer,
`wherein the second annular wellbore segment is substantially
`isolated from fluid communication with the third wellbore
`segment by the third solid body packer, and
`wherein the first, second, and third annular wellbore segments
`provide access to the hydrocarbon-containing formation along
`the wellbore wall in the open hole and uncased, non-vertical
`section of the wellbore;
`applying a first pressure within the tubing string inner bore such that
`the hydraulically actuated sliding sleeve moves from the closed port
`position to the open port position without the hydraulically actuated
`sliding sleeve engaging any fluid conveyed sealing device;
`conveying a fluid conveyed sealing device through the tubing string to
`pass through the first sliding sleeve and to land in and seal against the
`seat of the second sliding sleeve thereby moving the second sliding
`sleeve to the open port position and permitting fluid flow through the
`second port; and
`pumping fracturing fluid through the second port and into the second
`annular wellbore segment to fracture the hydrocarbon-containing
`formation.
`Ex. 1001, 13:65–16:6.
`
`
`
`6
`PUBLIC VERSION – REDACTED
`
`
`
`PUBLIC VERSION – REDACTED
`
`IPR2016-01232
`Patent 9,303,501 B2
`
`D.
`
`1–9
`
`The Pending Ground
`Claims 1–9 of the ’501 patent are challenged as allegedly
`unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 based on the following pending ground
`(Dec. on Inst. 18):
`Statutory
`References
`Basis
`§ 103
`
`Yost, 2 Thomson,3 Ellsworth,4
`and Halliburton5
`As further support, Petitioner proffers the Declaration of Vikram Rao,
`Ph.D. (Exs. 1007, 1044). Patent Owner proffers Declarations of Harold E.
`McGowen III, PE. (Exs. 2051, 2081, 2084).
`
`Challenged Claims
`
`
`2 A.B. Yost et al., Production and Stimulation Analysis of Multiple
`Hydraulic Fracturing of a 2,000-ft Horizontal Well, SPE 19090, Society of
`Petroleum Engineers, Gas and Technology Symposium, Dallas TX, (June 7–
`9, 1989) (Ex. 1002).
`3 D.W. Thomson et al., Design and Installation of a Cost-Effective
`Completion System for Horizontal Chalk Wells Where Multiple Zones
`Require Acid Stimulation, SPE (Society for Petroleum Engineering) 37482
`(1997) (Ex. 1003).
`4 B. Ellsworth et al., Production Control of Horizontal Wells in a Carbonate
`Reef Structure, 1999 Canadian Institute of Mining, Metallurgy, and
`Petroleum Horizontal Well Conference (1999) (Ex. 1004).
`5 Halliburton, Completion Products, Second Edition (Ex. 1028).
`7
`PUBLIC VERSION – REDACTED
`
`
`
`PUBLIC VERSION – REDACTED
`
`IPR2016-01232
`Patent 9,303,501 B2
`
`
`III. MOTION TO EXCLUDE
`Petitioner has filed a Motion to Exclude seeking exclusion of certain
`evidence submitted by Patent Owner. Paper 24 (“Motion” or “Mot.”). For
`the reasons explained below, we determine that Petitioner has demonstrated
`unpatentability of the claims over all of the evidence submitted by Patent
`Owner (including that evidence Petitioner seeks to exclude). Consequently,
`we dismiss Petitioner’ Motion to Exclude as moot.
`IV. ANALYSIS
`Claim Construction
`A.
`Petitioner proposes a construction for the claim language “solid body
`packer.” Pet. 37–38. Patent Owner also addresses the meaning of the claim
`language “solid body packer,” as well as the claim language “second annular
`wellbore.” PO Resp. 4–6. For purposes of this decision, we need not
`construe explicitly any claim language to determine that Petitioner has
`demonstrated obviousness of claims 1–9 by a preponderance of the
`evidence. See 35 U.S.C. § 314(a); Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g,
`Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (“[O]nly those terms need be
`construed that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve
`the controversy.”).
`B. Alleged Obviousness of Claims 1–9 over Yost, Thomson,
`Ellsworth, and Halliburton
`Petitioner asserts that Yost teaches most of the limitations of
`independent claim 1. E.g., Pet. 41–66. Petitioner explains that “Yost
`describes multi-stage fracturing of horizontal open hole wells using packers
`for zonal isolation and ported sliding sleeves for injecting fracturing fluid.”
`Id. at 15.
`
`8
`PUBLIC VERSION – REDACTED
`
`
`
`PUBLIC VERSION – REDACTED
`
`IPR2016-01232
`Patent 9,303,501 B2
`
`
`Petitioner notes that Yost teaches using inflatable packers, not the
`“solid body packer[s]” recited in claim 1. Id. at 38. Petitioner also states
`that Yost teaches the use of “ported collar sliding sleeves” in lieu of “ball-
`actuated sliding sleeves.” Id. Petitioner argues that it would have been
`obvious to replace Yost’s packers and sliding sleeves with solid-body
`packers and Thomson’s ball-actuated sliding sleeves, respectively. Id. at
`38–41.
`Petitioner also indicates that Yost does not disclose the “hydraulically
`actuated sliding sleeve” recited in claim 1. Id. at 38. Petitioner asserts,
`however, that it would have been obvious in view of Thomson and
`Halliburton to use Halliburton’s pump-open plug at the lower end of Yost’s
`tubing string. Id.
`Patent Owner argues that claims 1–9 would not have been obvious for
`a number of reasons related to the factors identified in Graham v. John
`Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 (1966). Those factors include (1) the scope and
`content of the prior art, (2) differences between the prior art and the claims,
`(3) the level of ordinary skill in the art, and (4) secondary considerations,
`i.e., objective indicia of non-obviousness.
`For the reasons discussed below, Petitioner’s evidence and arguments
`demonstrate unpatentability of claims 1–9 as obvious over Yost, Thomson,
`Ellsworth, and Halliburton. Pet. 38–71; Pet. Reply 6–23. We turn now to a
`discussion of the parties’ dispute over the prior art status of Halliburton,
`followed by a detailed discussions of the Graham factors and our
`conclusions regarding whether claims 1–9 would have been obvious.
`1. Whether Halliburton Is Prior Art
`
`9
`PUBLIC VERSION – REDACTED
`
`
`
`PUBLIC VERSION – REDACTED
`
`IPR2016-01232
`Patent 9,303,501 B2
`
`
`The parties dispute whether Halliburton was sufficiently publicly
`accessible to qualify as a printed publication. Petitioner’s evidence of public
`accessibility includes a declaration of Aileen Barr, who testifies that “I have
`been employed at Halliburton” (the company) “since 1980.” Ex. 1029¶ 2.
`Ms. Barr testifies that Halliburton (the reference) “is marketing material
`describing, among other things, completion products offered for sale by
`Halliburton” (the company). Id. at ¶ 4. Ms. Barr further testifies about the
`printing and distribution of Halliburton to customers. Id.
`Patent Owner argues that Petitioner has not shown indexing or
`distribution of Halliburton sufficiently to establish public accessibility. PO
`Resp. 60–61. Patent Owner argues that the Barr Declaration does not
`indicate how Halliburton is stored or cataloged. Id. at 61. Patent Owner
`also asserts that the Barr Declaration does not provide sufficient evidence
`that Halliburton, as it appears in Petitioner’s exhibits, was “actually
`distributed and received by persons of ordinary skill in the art during the
`relevant time frame.” Id. Rather, Patent Owner argues, the Barr Declaration
`is “filled with vague statements.” Id. Petitioner responds that Patent Owner
`provides no evidence to counter the Barr Declaration, which Petitioner
`argues demonstrates public accessibility. Pet. Reply 6.
`We find a preponderance of the evidence demonstrates public
`accessibility of Halliburton. Patent Owner’s arguments fail to acknowledge
`important aspects of the evidence, while attacking others individually, rather
`than as a whole. For example, Patent Owner does not acknowledge the
`fundamental nature of the document: a catalog of oilfield completion
`products offered for sale, the catalog bearing a copyright date of 1997, with
`
`10
`PUBLIC VERSION – REDACTED
`
`
`
`PUBLIC VERSION – REDACTED
`
`IPR2016-01232
`Patent 9,303,501 B2
`
`no indication of confidentiality or other restraints on its dissemination.
`Ex. 1029 ¶ 4; Ex. 1028, 1, 6 (“Halliburton Energy Services has excelled in
`oilfield services for over 75 years.”), 152 (“© 1997 Halliburton Energy
`Services, Inc.”). In fact, Halliburton states that ‘[t]hese catalogs are
`available from your local Halliburton representative or on the Internet
`Website at the Web address www.halliburton.com.” Ex. 1028, 7. By its
`very nature, such a document is highly likely to have been distributed to
`persons interested and ordinarily skilled in the art. See, e.g., Nobel Biocare
`Servs. AG vs. Instradent USA, Inc., 2018 WL 4354227, *7 (Fed. Cir. 2018)
`(Affirming public accessibility finding for type of document intended for
`public dissemination with no indication otherwise). Consistent with this,
`Ms. Barr testifies that Halliburton “was available to any customer or
`potential customer, as well as others, seeking a copy in 1997.” Ex. 1029 ¶ 4.
`Indeed, Ms. Barr’s Declaration includes the unrebutted testimony that
`“Halliburton, as a regular practice and in the normal course of its business,
`prints these types of product catalogs every few years, including the 1997
`Catalog, and disseminates them to customers and/or potential customers
`from the year they are printed until the next edition is printed.” Id. Ms. Barr
`further testifies regarding the details of the regular business practices that
`were used to disseminate Halliburton. Id. We find the evidence
`demonstrates that Halliburton was publicly accessible and disseminated to
`persons interested and ordinarily skilled in the art as part of the regular
`business practices of Halliburton (the company).
`
`11
`PUBLIC VERSION – REDACTED
`
`
`
`PUBLIC VERSION – REDACTED
`
`IPR2016-01232
`Patent 9,303,501 B2
`
`
`2. Scope and Content of the Prior Art
`a. Yost
`Yost discloses a U.S. Department of Energy sponsored stimulation
`procedure for a horizontal wellbore in the Devonian shales of Wayne
`County, West Virginia. Ex. 1002, 2. In the procedure, a casing string with
`14 sliding sleeve ported collars was inserted into a horizontal uncased, i.e.
`open hole, wellbore. Id. The casing string included eight external casing
`packers (“ECP’s”) providing eight separate open hole zones along the length
`of the casing string. Id. According to the report, only seven of the ECP’s
`properly inflated so that only seven zones were available for testing. Id.
`The casing string and zones 1–8 are illustrated in Yost’s Figure 2, titled
`“Completion & Testing Procedures,” reproduced below.
`
`Figure 2 of Yost, above, depicts the casing string, ECP’s, and sliding sleeve
`openable ports within each of the eight zones. A “straddle tool” (not shown)
`was used to open and close the port collars in the individual zones. Id.
`12
`PUBLIC VERSION – REDACTED
`
`
`
`
`
`PUBLIC VERSION – REDACTED
`
`IPR2016-01232
`Patent 9,303,501 B2
`
`
`The procedure included 24-hour pressure build-up in each of the
`seven isolated zones along a 2,221-foot length of the horizontal wellbore,
`and for each zone, data collection relating to various characteristics of the
`well including “average reservoir pressure values, skin values, and average
`permeability values for the various zones with the different stimulation
`jobs.” Id. at 2. For each zone, different “frac jobs” were undertaken to
`stimulate the Devonian shale formation using different pressurized fluids,
`e.g. nitrogen, liquid CO2, and nitrogen-foam with proppants. Id. at 3. Yost
`concludes that “[a]s a result of the different frac jobs in the various zones,
`the production was enhanced in all zones. This improvement in production
`is reflected in the increase in flow rates and a decrease in skin factor values.”
`Id. at 5. Based on the foregoing, we find that Yost teaches open-hole
`multistage fracturing of a wellbore.
`b. Thomson
`Thomson discloses a “completion design that allows multiple acid
`fracs to be performed in horizontal subsea chalk-formation wells with a
`single trip into the wellbore.” Ex. 1003, 1. “The key element” of
`Thomson’s system “is a multi-stage acid frac tool (MSAF) that is similar to
`a sliding sleeve circulating device and is run in the closed position.” Id.
`Thomson’s Figure 5, below, depicts the MSAF tool in cross-section.
`
`13
`PUBLIC VERSION – REDACTED
`
`
`
`PUBLIC VERSION – REDACTED
`
`IPR2016-01232
`Patent 9,303,501 B2
`
`
`
`
`Thomson’s Figure 5, reproduced above, depicts in the upper illustration
`labeled “Closed Position,” the MSAF tool having a sliding sleeve covering
`fluid ports in the closed position, and in the lower illustration, labeled “Open
`Position,” the sliding sleeve having been motivated by a ball into an open
`position uncovering the fluid ports. Id. at 2, 12.
`
`Thomson discloses that hydraulic-set retrievable packers may be
`positioned on each side of an MSAF tool. Id. at 1. Thomson shows an
`MSAF tool disposed between two packers in Figure 3, which is reproduced
`below.
`
`14
`PUBLIC VERSION – REDACTED
`
`
`
`PUBLIC VERSION – REDACTED
`
`IPR2016-01232
`Patent 9,303,501 B2
`
`
`15
`PUBLIC VERSION – REDACTED
`
`
`
`
`
`PUBLIC VERSION – REDACTED
`
`IPR2016-01232
`Patent 9,303,501 B2
`
`Thomson’s Figure 3 shows “a schematic of a typical Joanne completion.”
`Id. at 2. Figure 3 shows one MSAF tool disposed between two packers. Id.
`at 2, Fig. 3. Thomson discloses that more MSAF tools can be used, stating
`that “[u]p to 9 MSAF tools can be run in the completion with isolation of
`each zone being achieved by hydraulic-set retrievable packers that are
`positioned on each side of an MSAF tool.” Id. at 1. To illustrate an example
`of Thomson’s disclosure of using multiple MSAF tools, each isolated in a
`zone by adjacent hydraulic-set retrievable packers, Petitioner provides the
`following modified, annotated version of Thomson’s Figure 3. Pet. 9.
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s modified, annotated version of Figure 3 shows three MSAF
`tools and three packers mounted in alternating positions along a tubing
`string. Id. Based on table 1 of Thomson, the annotated, modified Figure 3
`identifies the first (leftmost) MSAF tool as having a 2” dimension, the next
`MSAF tool as having a 1.75” dimension, and the next MSAF tool as having
`a 1.5” dimension. Id. at 9, n.2. This also comports with Thomson’s
`disclosure that “[e]ach sleeve contains a threaded ball seat with the smallest
`ball seat in the lowest sleeve and the largest ball seat in the highest sleeve.”
`Id. at 1. Thomson discloses that:
`is
`With
`this system, stimulation of 10 separate zones
`accomplished in 12–18 hours by a unique procedure that
`16
`PUBLIC VERSION – REDACTED
`
`
`
`PUBLIC VERSION – REDACTED
`
`IPR2016-01232
`Patent 9,303,501 B2
`
`
`lubricates varying sized low-specific gravity balls into the
`tubing and then pumps them to a mating seat in the appropriate
`MSAF, thus sealing off the stimulated zone and allowing
`stimulation of the next zone which is made accessible by the
`open sleeve.
`Id. Based on the foregoing disclosures, we find that Thomson teaches
`multistage fracturing of a wellbore.
`c. Ellsworth
`Ellsworth discloses that “[m]ore recently, solid body packers (SBP’s)
`(see Figure 4) have been used to establish open hole isolation.” Ex. 1004, 3.
`Ellsworth’s Figure 4 is reproduced below.
`
`17
`PUBLIC VERSION – REDACTED
`
`
`
`PUBLIC VERSION – REDACTED
`
`IPR2016-01232
`Patent 9,303,501 B2
`
`
`
`Figure 4, above, shows a solid body packer, including a setting cylinder, a
`setting shear, a mandrel lock, a five piece packing element, and a sheer
`release. Id. at Fig. 4. Ellsworth teaches that a solid body packer provides a
`hydraulically actuated mechanical packing element. Id. at 3. Ellsworth
`explains that “[t]he objective of using this type of tool is to provide a long-
`term solution to open hole isolation without the aid of cemented liners.” Id.
`d. Halliburton
`Halliburton discloses a pump open plug that “is a positive plug that
`holds pressure from either direction but can be pumped open by applying
`18
`PUBLIC VERSION – REDACTED
`
`
`
`PUBLIC VERSION – REDACTED
`
`IPR2016-01232
`Patent 9,303,501 B2
`
`excess surface pressure.” Ex. 1028, 93. Halliburton shows this in a drawing
`labeled “Halliburton Pump Open Plug,” reproduced below. Id.
`
`
`Halliburton’s “Pump Open Plug” drawing shows various features of
`the pump open plug, including a plug body, a plug cap, a pump open valve,
`flow ports, a pump open valve, release pins, and an o-ring seal. Id.
`
`
`19
`PUBLIC VERSION – REDACTED
`
`
`
`PUBLIC VERSION – REDACTED
`
`IPR2016-01232
`Patent 9,303,501 B2
`
`
`3. Differences Between the Prior Art and the Claimed Invention
`As noted above in Section IV.B, Petitioner notes that Yost teaches
`most of the limitations of the challenged claims, but notes (1) that Yost
`teaches using inflatable packers, not the claimed “solid body packer[s],” (2)
`that Yost teaches the use of “ported collar sliding sleeves” in lieu of “ball-
`actuated sliding sleeves,” and (3) that Yost does not disclose the
`“hydraulically actuated sliding sleeve” recited in claim 1. Pet. 38.
`Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s characterization of the
`differences between Yost and the challenged claims. See PO Resp.,
`generally. We are persuaded that the disclosure of Yost differs from the
`challenged claims in only the ways identified by Petitioner. See, e.g.,
`Pet. 38–71.
`Petitioner cites Thomson, Ellsworth, and Halliburton as teaching the
`claim limitations that Yost does not. For example, regarding difference (1),
`Petitioner relies on Thomson and Ellsworth as teaching solid body packers
`for isolating multiple segments of a wellbore. Pet. 17–22, 38–41, 51–56.
`More specifically, Petitioner cites Ellsworth as teaching the use of solid
`body packers for isolating in an open hole wellbore.6 Id. at 17–19, 38–41,
`51–56. Regarding difference (2), Petitioner cites Thomson as teaching ball-
`actuated sliding sleeves. Id. at 19–22, 43–51. Regarding difference (3),
`Petitioner cites Halliburton as teaching a hydraulically actuated sliding
`sleeve consistent with the challenged claims. Id. at 22–24, 56–58, 64.
`
`
`6 Petitioner also cites alleged Patent Owner admissions regarding the
`suitability of solid body packers for isolating in open hole wellbores.
`Pet. 26–31.
`
`20
`PUBLIC VERSION – REDACTED
`
`
`
`PUBLIC VERSION – REDACTED
`
`IPR2016-01232
`Patent 9,303,501 B2
`
`
`Patent Owner argues that Thomson differs from the challenged claims
`in the way it discloses using its apparatus. Specifically, Patent Owner
`argues that Thomson does not disclose “running a tubing string into an open
`hole and uncased, non-vertical section of the wellbore,” or certain similar
`limitations of claim 1. PO Resp. 56–57. Patent Owner’s assertion appears
`to be correct. See, e.g., Ex. 1002, 3 (“Before running the completion, each
`well was perforated with tubing-conveyed perforating (TCP) guns.”), 4
`(“The well in general and liner in particular needs to be properly cleaned and
`conditioned”), Fig. 3. We note, however, that Petitioner relies on Yost, not
`Thomson, as teaching stimulation in an open hole wellbore.
`Patent Owner indicates that Ellsworth differs from the claimed
`invention in that Ellsworth teaches water shutoff, rather than fracturing. PO
`Resp. 57. Without disputing this assertion, Petitioner asserts “it is irrelevant
`as . . . Ellsworth has not been relied upon for fracturing.” Pet. Reply 15. We
`agree with Petitioner.
`Patent Owner also argues that “Halliburton and Thomson” do not
`teach the hydraulically actuated sleeve of the claims. PO Resp. 57–59. In
`support of this assertion, Patent Owner suggests that it would not have been
`obvious to combine the teachings of the references because there is no
`express disclosure in the references to use Halliburton’s pump-open plug for
`open hole multi-stage fracturing. See id. Contrary to Patent Owner’s
`indication, this argument does not go to the differences between the claims
`
`21
`PUBLIC VERSION – REDACTED
`
`
`
`PUBLIC VERSION – REDACTED
`
`IPR2016-01232
`Patent 9,303,501 B2
`
`and the prior art, but to whether it would have been obvious to combine the
`teachings of the references.7
`Having reviewed each of the references and the associated evidence
`provided by the parties pertaining to the respective disclosure of each
`reference, we find that although Yost, Thomson, Ellsworth, and Halliburton
`do not individually disclose all the limitations of claims 1–9, each of the
`limitations of claims 1–9 is taught by at least one of Thomson, Ellsworth,
`and Halliburton. Additionally, we find that the claimed invention would
`have resulted from combining the teachings of the references in the manner
`that Petitioner asserts would have been obvious. See, e.g., Pet Pet. 17–24,
`38–71. Indeed, Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s contention that
`the proffered combination of the teachings of the references would have
`produced the claimed invention. See PO Resp., generally. Because we find
`it persuasive, we adopt as our own Petitioner’s explanation of the differences
`between the references and the claims, as well as its explanation of how the
`combination of the references’ teachings would have produced the claimed
`invention.
`4. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`“Section 103(a) forbids issuance of a patent when ‘the differences
`between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such
`that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the
`
`7 Moreover, we find Patent Owner’s particular arguments as to why it
`allegedly would have been unobvious to combine the teachings of the
`references unpersuasive because the arguments conflict with the Supreme
`Court’s instruction that an obviousness analysis “need not seek out precise
`teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged claim.”
`KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007).
`22
`PUBLIC VERSION – REDACTED
`
`
`
`PUBLIC VERSION – REDACTED
`
`IPR2016-01232
`Patent 9,303,501 B2
`
`invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said
`subject matter pertains.’” KSR, 550 U.S. at 405.
`Petitioner asserts that a person of ordinary skill in the art as of
`November 19, 2001
`would have had at least a Bachelor of Science degree in
`mechanical or petroleum engineering or a similar technical
`discipline, such as metallurgy or material science and
`engineering and at least 3 years of experience with oil or gas
`well drilling and completion operations or in technical support
`of such operations.
`Pet. 25 (citing Ex. 1007 ¶ 38). In addition, Petitioner relies upon its
`Declarant, Dr. Rao, to establish also that a person of ordinary skill in the art
`was aware that fracturing could be accomplished in both horizontal open
`hole and cased wells, with either inflatable or solid body packers being used
`for zonal isolation. Id. at 25–26. Dr. Rao testifies that “by the late 1990s,
`before the purported invention of the subject matter of the ’501 Patent, it
`was well understood that fracturing in horizontal open hole or cased wells
`can be successfully performed with both zonal isolation and some form of
`sleeve or port for injection into the isolated zones.” Ex. 1007 ¶ 70.
`Referring to the prior art, Dr. Rao explains further that “[a] selection of tools
`was available for performing zonal isolation including inflatable and solid
`body packers, . . . and ball-drop actuated sliding sleeves like the MSAF tool
`of Thomson.” Id. Petitioner also asserts that “Patent Owner,
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
