UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`HUNTING TITAN, INC.
`
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`DYNAENERGETICS EUROPE GMBH1
`
`Patent Owner
`____________
`
`Case: PGR2020-00080
`Patent No. 10,472,938
`
`____________
`
`PATENT OWNER’S PRELIMINARY RESPONSE
`
`1 As noted in Patent Owner’s Mandatory Notice Information (Paper 4),
`
`DynaEnergetics GmbH & Co. KG has been dissolved, and the case caption should
`
`reflect the correct entity, DynaEnergetics Europe GmbH.
`
`GHD
`1010
`
`Page 1 of 119 (PGR2021-00078)
`G&H DIVERSIFIED MANUFACTURING, LP v. DYNAENERGETICS EUROPE GMBH
`
`

`

`PGR2020-00080
`U.S. Patent No. 10,472,938
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1
`I.
`II. OVERVIEW OF THE TECHNOLOGY, THE ʼ938 PATENT, AND
`THE PRIOR ART ............................................................................................ 3
`A. Overview of the Technology ................................................................. 3
`B.
`The DynaStage® Perforation System .................................................... 6
`C.
`The ʼ938 Patent ..................................................................................... 8
`III. PERSON OF ORDINARY SKILL AND CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ....... 11
`1.
`“tandem seal adapter” ............................................................... 12
`2.
`“bulkhead” ................................................................................ 13
`IV. THE BOARD SHOULD EXERCISE ITS DISCRETION AND
`DECLINE TO INSTITUTE REVIEW OF THE ʼ938 PATENT .................. 15
`A.
`Petitioner’s Applied References Are Cumulative of—and
`Identical
`to—Art Cited and Considered During
`Prosecution .......................................................................................... 17
`Petitioner’s Grounds Lack Particularity .............................................. 23
`Petitioner’s Element-By-Element Analysis Violates Black-
`Letter Patent Law ................................................................................ 26
`Petitioner Improperly Relies on Common Knowledge to Supply
`Missing Limitations ............................................................................. 28
`PETITIONER’S ARGUMENTS FAIL TO ESTABLISH THE
`UNPATENTABILITY OF THE CHALLENGED CLAIMS ....................... 30
`A.
`Each Allegedly Anticipatory Reference Lacks Two or More
`Features of the Challenged Claims...................................................... 30
`1.
`Schacherer Does Not Anticipate the Challenged Claims
`(Ground 3) ................................................................................. 31
`a)
`Schacherer fails to disclose a detonator including
`three separate and distinct wireless connectors, as
`claimed in Claims 1, 9, and 13. ...................................... 33
`Schacherer fails to disclose that the wireless ground
`contact connector is in wireless electrical contact
`with the TSA, as claimed in Claims 1 and 9. ................. 34
`
`B.
`C.
`
`D.
`
`V.
`
`b)
`
`
`
`i
`
`Page 2 of 119 (PGR2021-00078)
`G&H DIVERSIFIED MANUFACTURING, LP v. DYNAENERGETICS EUROPE GMBH
`
`

`

`PGR2020-00080
`U.S. Patent No. 10,472,938
`
`
`
`c)
`
`d)
`
`b)
`
`c)
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`Schacherer fails to disclose a detonator contained
`entirely within the outer gun carrier, as claimed in
`Claim 1. ........................................................................... 37
`Schacherer fails to disclose all of the steps of Claim
`13. ................................................................................... 38
`Harrigan Does Not Anticipate the Challenged Claims
`(Ground 14) ............................................................................... 42
`a)
`Harrigan fails to disclose a detonator including
`three separate and distinct wireless connectors, as
`claimed in Claims 1, 9, and 13. ...................................... 46
`Harrigan fails to disclose that the wireless ground
`contact connector is in wireless electrical contact
`with the TSA, as claimed in Claims 1 and 9. ................. 47
`Harrigan fails to disclose all of the steps of Claim
`13. ................................................................................... 48
`Rogman Does Not Anticipate the Challenged Claims
`(Ground 11) ............................................................................... 49
`a)
`Rogman fails to disclose a detonator including three
`separate and distinct wireless connectors, as
`claimed in Claims 1, 9, and 13. ...................................... 51
`Rogman fails to disclose that the wireless ground
`contact connector is in wireless electrical contact
`with the TSA, as claimed in Claims 1 and 9. ................. 52
`Rogman fails to disclose all of the steps of Claim
`13. ................................................................................... 54
`EWAPS Does Not Anticipate the Challenged Claims
`(Ground 16) ............................................................................... 55
`a)
`EWAPS fails to disclose a detonator including three
`separate and distinct wireless connectors, as
`claimed in Claims 1 and 9. ............................................. 56
`EWAPS fails to disclose a wireless ground contact
`connector in wireless electrical contact with the
`TSA, as claimed in Claims 1 and 9. ............................... 60
`
`b)
`
`c)
`
`b)
`
`
`
`ii
`
`Page 3 of 119 (PGR2021-00078)
`G&H DIVERSIFIED MANUFACTURING, LP v. DYNAENERGETICS EUROPE GMBH
`
`

`

`PGR2020-00080
`U.S. Patent No. 10,472,938
`
`
`
`b)
`
`c)
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`7.
`
`Black Does Not Anticipate the Challenged Claims
`(Ground 6) ................................................................................. 62
`a)
`Black fails to disclose a detonator including three
`separate and distinct wireless connectors, as
`claimed in Claims 1, 9, and 13. ...................................... 64
`Black does not disclose a wireless ground contact
`connector in wireless electrical contact with the
`TSA as claimed in Claims 1 and 9. ................................ 65
`Black fails to disclose the steps recited in Claim 13.
` ........................................................................................ 66
`Lanclos Does Not Anticipate the Challenged Claims
`(Ground 8) ................................................................................. 67
`a)
`Lanclos fails to disclose a detonator including three
`separate and distinct wireless connectors, as
`claimed in Claims 1, 9, and 13. ...................................... 68
`Lanclos fails to disclose that the wireless ground
`contact connector is in wireless electrical contact
`with the TSA, as claimed in Claims 1 and 9. ................. 70
`Lanclos fails to disclose a detonator contained
`entirely within the outer gun carrier, as claimed in
`claim 1. ........................................................................... 72
`Lanclos fails to disclose the steps of Claim 13. ............. 72
`d)
`Goodman Does Not Anticipate the Challenged Claims
`(Ground 18) ............................................................................... 75
`a)
`Goodman fails to disclose a detonator including
`three separate and distinct wireless connectors, as
`claimed in Claims 1, 9, and 13. ...................................... 75
`Goodman fails to disclose a wireless ground contact
`connector in wireless electrical contact with the
`TSA, as claimed in Claims 1 and 9. ............................... 77
`Goodman does not disclose all of the steps of Claim
`13. ................................................................................... 79
`
`b)
`
`c)
`
`b)
`
`c)
`
`
`
`iii
`
`Page 4 of 119 (PGR2021-00078)
`G&H DIVERSIFIED MANUFACTURING, LP v. DYNAENERGETICS EUROPE GMBH
`
`

`

`PGR2020-00080
`U.S. Patent No. 10,472,938
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Obviousness Combinations, to the Extent They Are
`Decipherable, Fail to Establish a Prima Facie Case of
`Unpatentability .................................................................................... 80
`1.
`The Cited Art Fails to Teach or Suggest, Alone or in
`Combination, All of the Limitations of the Challenged
`Claims. ...................................................................................... 81
`The Petition Fails to Articulate Specific Motivations to
`Combine the Cited References.................................................. 82
`Secondary Considerations of Nonobviousness ......................... 83
`3.
`Petitioner’s Deficient Challenges Under 35 U.S.C. § 112 .................. 85
`1.
`The “detonator body” limitations in Claims 1, 9, and 13
`are definite and have adequate written description support
` ................................................................................................... 86
`The “wireless connector” limitations in Claims 1, 8, 9, 12,
`and 13 are definite and have adequate written description
`support ....................................................................................... 88
`The “insulator” limitations in Claims 1, 9, and 13 have
`adequate written description support ........................................ 92
`The “bulkhead” limitations of Claims 1, 4, 9, and 16 are
`definite and have adequate written description support ........... 93
`The “transferring a signal” limitation of Claim 4 is
`definite ...................................................................................... 95
`The “tandem limitations” of Claims 1 and 9 are definite
`and have adequate written description support ......................... 96
`The “charge holder” limitations of Claims 1 and 13 have
`adequate written description support ........................................ 97
`The “perforating gun” limitations of Claims 1, 9, and 13
`are definite ................................................................................. 98
`The “top connector” limitations in Claims 5 and 13 are
`definite ...................................................................................... 99
`10. The “detonator within the carrier” limitations in Claims 1
`and 14 are definite and have adequate written description ..... 100
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`2.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`7.
`
`8.
`
`9.
`
`
`
`iv
`
`Page 5 of 119 (PGR2021-00078)
`G&H DIVERSIFIED MANUFACTURING, LP v. DYNAENERGETICS EUROPE GMBH
`
`

`

`PGR2020-00080
`U.S. Patent No. 10,472,938
`
`11. The “transporting elements” of Claims 13 and 17 are
`definite and have adequate written description support ......... 101
`12. The “energetically coupling” limitations of Claims 10 and
`13 have adequate written description support......................... 102
`VI. CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUES RAISED BY THE PETITION ..................106
`VII. CONCLUSION ............................................................................................107
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`v
`
`Page 6 of 119 (PGR2021-00078)
`G&H DIVERSIFIED MANUFACTURING, LP v. DYNAENERGETICS EUROPE GMBH
`
`

`

`PGR2020-00080
`U.S. Patent No. 10,472,938
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`
`Cases 
`Abbott Labs. v. Andrx Pharms., Inc.,
`452 F.3d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2006) ..................................................................... 27
`Adaptics Ltd. v. Perfect Co.,
`IPR2018-01596, 2019 WL 1084284 (PTAB Mar. 6, 2019) .......................... 25
`Apple Inc. v. Qualcomm Inc.,
`IPR2018-01453, 2019 WL 994545 (PTAB Feb. 27, 2019) .......................... 17
`Arendi S.A.R.L. v. Apple Inc.,
`832 F.3d 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2016) .............................................................. 28, 29
`Ariad Pharms., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co.,
`598 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2010) ..................................................................... 85
`Arris Sols., Inc. v. Realtime Adaptive Streaming LLC,
`IPR2019-01586, Paper 7 (PTAB Mar. 16, 2020) .......................................... 29
`Arthrex, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc.,
`941 F.3d 1320 (Fed. Cir. 2019) ...................................................................105
`Arthrex, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc.,
`No. 19-1458, 2020 WL 6037208 (U.S. Oct. 13, 2020) ...............................105
`Becton, Dickinson & Co v. Tyco Healthcare Group, LP,
`616 F.3d 1249 (Fed. Cir. 2010) ..................................................................... 39
`Becton, Dickinson & Co. v. B. Braun Melsungen AG,
`IPR2017-01586, Paper 8 (PTAB Dec. 15, 2017) .......................................... 18
`BioDelivery Scis. Int’l, Inc. v. Aquestive Therapeutics, Inc.,
`935 F.3d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2019) ..................................................................... 15
`Chevron Oronite Co. v. Infineum USA L.P.,
`IPR2018-00923, Paper 9 (PTAB Nov. 7, 2018) ............................................ 16
`Finisar Corp. v. DirecTV Group, Inc.,
`523 F.3d 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ..................................................................... 65
`Gaus v. Conair Corp.,
`363 F.3d 1284 (Fed. Cir. 2004) ..................................................................... 39
`Hopkins Mfg. Corp. v. Cequent Performance Prods., Inc.,
`IPR2015-00613, 2015 WL 4760586 (PTAB Aug. 7, 2015) ......................... 39
`
`
`
`vi
`
`Page 7 of 119 (PGR2021-00078)
`G&H DIVERSIFIED MANUFACTURING, LP v. DYNAENERGETICS EUROPE GMBH
`
`

`

`PGR2020-00080
`U.S. Patent No. 10,472,938
`
`
`
`HP Inc. v. Big Baboon, Inc.,
`CBM2016-00020, 2016 WL 5105568 (PTAB June 28, 2016) ..................... 29
`Hunting Titan, Inc. v. DynaEnergetics Europe GmbH,
`IPR2018-00600, Paper 67 (PTAB July 6, 2020) ............................................. 3
`In re DiStefano,
`808 F.3d 845 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ....................................................................... 27
`Invue Security Prods., Inc. v. Mobile Tech., Inc.,
`IPR2019-00078, 2019 WL 1978426 (PTAB May 1, 2019) ................... 25, 28
`Koninklijke Philips N.V. v. Google LLC
`948 F.3d 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2020) .............................................................. 28, 29
`
`Lockwood v. Am. Airlines, Inc.,
`107 F.3d 1565 (Fed. Cir. 1997) ..................................................................... 85
`Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc.,
`572 U.S. 898 (2014)....................................................................................... 85
`PayPal, Inc. v. IoEngine, LLC,
`IPR2019-00931, 2019 WL 5586646 (PTAB Oct. 29, 2019) ................. 26, 28
`RetailMeNot, Inc. v. Honey Sci. Corp.,
`PGR2019-00060, 2020 WL 1169479 (PTAB Mar. 10, 2020) ...................... 16
`SAS Institute Inc. v. Iancu,
`138 S.Ct. 1348 (2018) .................................................................................... 16
`Supercell Oy v. Gree, Inc.,
`PGR2020-00041, 2020 WL 5519314 (PTAB Sept. 14, 2020) ...................... 16
`Telebrands Corp. v. Tinnus Enters., LLC,
`PGR2017-00024, 2017 WL 6209221 (PTAB Nov. 30, 2017) ...................... 85
`Verdegaal Bros. Inc. v. Union Oil Co. of California,
`814 F.2d 628 (Fed. Cir. 1987) ....................................................................... 30
`Statutes 
`35 U.S.C. § 112 ........................................................................................................ 84
`35 U.S.C. § 312 ................................................................................................. 25, 84
`35 U.S.C. § 314 ................................................................................................. 15, 16
`35 U.S.C. § 316 ........................................................................................................ 16
`35 U.S.C. § 322 ........................................................................................................ 23
`
`
`
`vii
`
`Page 8 of 119 (PGR2021-00078)
`G&H DIVERSIFIED MANUFACTURING, LP v. DYNAENERGETICS EUROPE GMBH
`
`

`

`PGR2020-00080
`U.S. Patent No. 10,472,938
`
`
`35 U.S.C. § 323 .......................................................................................................... 1
`35 U.S.C. § 324 ........................................................................................................ 15
`35 U.S.C. § 325 ................................................................................................. 17, 22
`Rules 
`37 C.F.R. § 42.207 ..................................................................................................... 1
`
`
`
`
`
`viii
`
`Page 9 of 119 (PGR2021-00078)
`G&H DIVERSIFIED MANUFACTURING, LP v. DYNAENERGETICS EUROPE GMBH
`
`

`

`PGR2020-00080
`U.S. Patent No. 10,472,938
`
`EXHIBIT LIST
`
`
`
`2007
`
`2008
`
`Exhibit
`Description
`No.
`2001 Hunting Titan, Inc. v. DynaEnergetics Europe GmbH, IPR2018-00600,
`Paper 67 (PTAB July 6, 2020)
`2002 Declaration of John P. Rodgers, Ph.D., P.E.
`2003 Declaration of Thilo Scharf
`2004 HT ControlFire Assembly Gun Loading Manual
`2005 HT ControlFire User Manual
`2006 DynaStage Offshore Technology Conference 2014 Briefing
`Why the Big Pause? Balancing Long-Term Value with Near-Term
`Headwinds, Initiating Coverage of Oilfield Svcs and Equipment,
`STIFEL, September 10, 2018
`New Perforating Gun System Increase Safety Increases Safety and
`Efficiency, Warren Salt, SPE, and Ned Galka, SPE, DynaEnergetics,
`and John Segura, SPE, Weatherford, April 1, 2016
`2009 DynaStage Gun System Product Brochure
`2010 Spears & Associates, Wireline Market Update Q3 2019, October 15,
`2019
`DynaEnergetics Celebrates Grand Opening of DynaStage
`Manufacturing and Assembly Facilities in Blum Texas, Global
`Newswire, November 16, 2018
`2012 DynaEnergetics expands DynaStage factory-assembled, well
`perforating systems, WorldOil.com, March 14, 2017
`Introduction of a novel factory assembled selective plug and perf
`perforating system presentation, Presenter: John ‘JW’ Segura,
`Weatherford
`Prosecution History excerpt from Petitioner’s (Hunting Titan’s) own
`Amendment to Examiner’s Office Action in CA 2,933,756
`distinguishing a gun body from a tandem or connector sub
`2015 Resilience Against Market Volatility. Hunting PLC. Results
`Presentation For the Six Months Ended June 30, 2020
`2016 Petition to Correct Inventorship of U.S. Patent No. 10,472,938
`2017 Hunting is Not in a Race to the Bottom, Forbes, September 10, 2019
`
`
`2011
`
`2013
`
`2014
`
`
`
`ix
`
`Page 10 of 119 (PGR2021-00078)
`G&H DIVERSIFIED MANUFACTURING, LP v. DYNAENERGETICS EUROPE GMBH
`
`

`

`PGR2020-00080
`U.S. Patent No. 10,472,938
`
`
`Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 323 and 37 C.F.R. § 42.207, Patent Owner
`
`DynaEnergetics Europe GmbH (“DynaEnergetics”) submits this Preliminary
`
`Response to Hunting Titan, Inc.’s (“Petitioner”) Petition for Post Grant Review of
`
`U.S. Patent No. 10,472,938 (“the ʼ938 Patent”). The Board should deny institution
`
`because Petitioner has failed to demonstrate that it is more likely than not that at
`
`least one of the challenged claims in the ʼ938 Patent is unpatentable.
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`The Petition offers an industrial-sized “kitchen sink” approach. Petitioner
`
`trots out seven allegedly anticipatory references, hundreds (or even thousands) of
`
`proposed obviousness combinations, and written description and indefiniteness
`
`challenges to every claim. Each of the seven allegedly anticipatory references was
`
`cited and considered during prosecution, and the Examiner expressly found
`
`allowable subject matter over the art and arguments Petitioner now retreads. As set
`
`forth below, each reference is missing at least two features of the challenged
`
`claims—a detonator including three separate and distinct wireless electrical
`
`connectors and a wireless ground contact connector in wireless contact with a
`
`tandem seal adapter—and many are missing multiple features. The Petition thus
`
`fails on both procedural and substantive grounds.
`
`Procedurally, the Board should use its broad discretion to deny institution for
`
`multiple independent bases: (i) the Petition recycles art cited and considered during
`
`1
`
`Page 11 of 119 (PGR2021-00078)
`G&H DIVERSIFIED MANUFACTURING, LP v. DYNAENERGETICS EUROPE GMBH
`
`

`

`PGR2020-00080
`U.S. Patent No. 10,472,938
`
`
`prosecution, and thus is fatally cumulative and redundant; (ii) the “grounds” of
`
`unpatentability lack the requisite particularity and instead put the onus on the Board
`
`and DynaEnergetics to wade through thousands of labyrinthine assertions and
`
`permutations; (iii) the Petition’s limitation-by-limitation approach violates well-
`
`established patent law; and (iv) Petitioner improperly relies on “common
`
`knowledge” throughout the Petition in the numerous instances where the asserted
`
`prior art fails to disclose a given element.
`
`Substantively, Petitioner primarily relies on the anticipation grounds, as its §
`
`103 and § 112 grounds fail to even apply the pertinent legal standards or provide any
`
`evidentiary support. Those anticipation grounds, however, are facially and fatally
`
`deficient because each of the seven references lacks at least two elements of the
`
`challenged claims, including the element highlighted by the Examiner in prosecution
`
`as one of the reasons for allowance. The Petition purports to lay out obviousness
`
`grounds based on certain combinations of art, yet in practice merely throws a number
`
`of underdeveloped “obviousness” arguments based on individual claim elements at
`
`the wall, failing to explain with any particularity which specific references a person
`
`of ordinary skill would be motivated to combine and how the proposed combination
`
`would teach every element of the challenged claims. The PTAB Precedential
`
`Opinion Panel (“POP”) repudiated Petitioner in IPR2018-00600 (“the ’422 IPR”),
`
`in which it challenged DynaEnergetics’ U.S. Patent No. 9,581,422, for this same
`
`2
`
`Page 12 of 119 (PGR2021-00078)
`G&H DIVERSIFIED MANUFACTURING, LP v. DYNAENERGETICS EUROPE GMBH
`
`

`

`PGR2020-00080
`U.S. Patent No. 10,472,938
`
`
`approach. See Ex. 2001, Hunting Titan, Inc. v. DynaEnergetics Europe GmbH ,
`
`IPR2018-00600, Paper 67 at 25 (PTAB July 6, 2020) (finding that Petitioner had
`
`failed “to develop a persuasive theory of unpatentability” in opposing a motion to
`
`amend in which it used the same haphazard approach as it does here). The written
`
`description and indefiniteness challenges are likewise unexplained and flawed,
`
`factually and legally. In the end, DynaEnergetics is confident the Board will
`
`recognize the Petitioner’s failure to demonstrate any fully developed or persuasive
`
`ground of unpatentability and deny institution.
`
`II. OVERVIEW OF THE TECHNOLOGY, THE ʼ938 PATENT, AND THE
`PRIOR ART
`A. Overview of the Technology
`The technology at issue relates to oil and gas wellbore perforating equipment,
`
`specifically perforating guns and methods of assembly thereof. Perforating gun
`
`loading requires experience, skill, and specialized workshop fixtures. Ex. 2002 ¶17.
`
`The perforation gun system is deployed in a wellbore and explosively penetrates a
`
`geological formation using explosive “shaped charges” carried by charge tubes
`
`within outer gun carriers of the perforation gun system. Id. ¶18-19.
`
`3
`
`Page 13 of 119 (PGR2021-00078)
`G&H DIVERSIFIED MANUFACTURING, LP v. DYNAENERGETICS EUROPE GMBH
`
`

`

`PGR2020-00080
`U.S. Patent No. 10,472,938
`
`
`
`
`
`Prior to deployment in a wellbore, the shaped charges must be loaded into the
`
`charge tube and, typically, an explosive detonating cord is wrapped around or
`
`through the charge tube to make contact with an initiation point of each shaped
`
`charge. Id. Electrical connections, such as “through wires,” may also be wrapped
`
`around or through the charge tube, to relay electrical signals, such as selective
`
`detonation signals, between guns in a chain, or “string,” of perforating guns. Id. ¶25.
`
`Once the ballistic and electrical connections have been made on the charge tube, the
`
`charge tube is loaded into and fixed within the outer gun carrier. Id. ¶29.
`
`4
`
`Page 14 of 119 (PGR2021-00078)
`G&H DIVERSIFIED MANUFACTURING, LP v. DYNAENERGETICS EUROPE GMBH
`
`

`

`PGR2020-00080
`U.S. Patent No. 10,472,938
`
`
`Then, a detonator is positioned within the gun carrier or in a “tandem sub”
`
`connector. Id. ¶31. The tandem sub connects adjacent perforating guns in a string
`
`and includes a passage or other configuration for passing ballistic and/or electrical
`
`connections or components, such as detonators, electronic switches or circuit boards,
`
`wiring, etc. between adjacent guns. Id. ¶32. The electrical connections between
`
`adjacent guns frequently include electrical switches that signal a detonator for a
`
`particular gun to detonate upon receipt of a unique digital code sent from the surface
`
`of the wellbore. Id. ¶33. The reliable transfer of electrical signals, and thus the
`
`electrical connections between guns, is critical for ensuring proper and safe
`
`operation of the guns. Id. ¶35.
`
`The perforating guns and their components must be stored, transported, and
`
`assembled according to specific quality and safety measures to avoid accidental
`
`detonation, damage from environmental conditions, and human error, which can be
`
`catastrophic or at least degrade perforating gun components and lead to inoperable
`
`guns or unintentional misfires. Id.; Ex. 2003 ¶3. In view of these issues, ballistic
`
`and electrical connections necessary for firing a device are typically not connected
`
`until the perforation gun assemblies arrive at a wellbore site. Ex. 2002 ¶30.
`
`5
`
`Page 15 of 119 (PGR2021-00078)
`G&H DIVERSIFIED MANUFACTURING, LP v. DYNAENERGETICS EUROPE GMBH
`
`

`

`PGR2020-00080
`U.S. Patent No. 10,472,938
`
`B.
`The DynaStage® Perforation System
`In 2014, DynaEnergetics
`introduced
`their revolutionary DynaStage®
`
`
`
`perforation gun system (shown below as launched in 2014). Ex. 2003 ¶¶2-3.
`
`
`
`Conventional perforating guns required on-site assembly of the charge tube,
`
`positioning of the charge tube into a gun carrier, and on-site wiring of electrical and
`
`ballistic connections used to relay electrical detonation signals and detonate the
`
`shaped charges. Id. ¶5. The DynaStage® system removed these limitations and
`
`ushered in the era of “pre-wired” and factory assembled perforating guns that do not
`
`require cumbersome on-site assembly of internal components or wiring of electrical
`
`and/or ballistic connections. Id. ¶13. Indeed, the DynaStage® perforation gun
`
`system is assembled in DynaEnergetics’ facility, ballistically connected, tested for
`
`electrical and mechanical connectivity, shipped to the wellsite and as a last stage
`
`before entering the wellbore, a wireless detonator is inserted into each gun. Id. ¶14.
`
`6
`
`Page 16 of 119 (PGR2021-00078)
`G&H DIVERSIFIED MANUFACTURING, LP v. DYNAENERGETICS EUROPE GMBH
`
`

`

`PGR2020-00080
`U.S. Patent No. 10,472,938
`
`
`The heart of the DynaStage® system is, as shown above, a stackable assembly
`
`of injection-molded shaped charge holders and connectors for ballistic and electrical
`
`connections and DynaEnergetics’ flagship wireless “push-in” Plug and Go™
`
`detonator. Id. ¶16. The injection-molded components are custom-formed to be an
`
`entirely self-contained, modular assembly completed, loaded, and locked into a gun
`
`carrier, and quality tested in the factory, and allow for an electrical connection
`
`between guns by using DynaEnergetics’ wireless detonator and unique
`
`bulkhead/tandem seal adapter (“TSA”) assembly. Ex. 2003 ¶17. Upon arrival at the
`
`wellbore site, the modular assemblies are armed and electrical feedthrough
`
`connections are completed by simply inserting the wireless detonator into an end of
`
`a connector, as shown below. Id. ¶19.
`
`The wireless detonator is compact, resembling a meat thermometer (see
`
`below), and inserting it into the connector is simpler than inserting a battery into a
`
`
`
`7
`
`Page 17 of 119 (PGR2021-00078)
`G&H DIVERSIFIED MANUFACTURING, LP v. DYNAENERGETICS EUROPE GMBH
`
`

`

`PGR2020-00080
`U.S. Patent No. 10,472,938
`
`
`flashlight. Id. ¶20. All of the electrical connections and ballistic alignments are
`
`automatically made when the detonator is inserted into the connector. Id. ¶21.
`
`
`
`The above features and other aspects of the DynaStage® system are described
`
`and claimed in the ʼ938 Patent. Id. ¶29.
`
`C. The ʼ938 Patent
`The ʼ938 Patent is generally directed to a perforating gun and methods of
`
`assembly thereof in the oil and gas perforating industry. Ex. 2002 ¶36. The benefits
`
`of the invention claimed in the ʼ938 Patent include providing factory assembled
`
`modular components and simplifying assembly and electrical/ballistic connectivity
`
`of perforating gun strings at a wellbore site to enhance reliability, efficiency, and
`
`safety. Id. ¶36.
`
`Representative Claim 1 of the ʼ938 Patent recites, with reference to Figure 32
`
`below:
`
`
`
`8
`
`Page 18 of 119 (PGR2021-00078)
`G&H DIVERSIFIED MANUFACTURING, LP v. DYNAENERGETICS EUROPE GMBH
`
`

`

`PGR2020-00080
`U.S. Patent No. 10,472,938
`
`
`
`1. A perforating gun, comprising:
`an outer gun carrier;
`a charge holder positioned within the outer gun carrier and including
`at least one shaped charge;
`a detonator contained entirely within the outer gun carrier, the
`detonator including
`a detonator body containing detonator components,
`a wireless signal-in connector, a wireless through wire connector,
`and a wireless ground contact connector, and
`an insulator electrically isolating the wireless signal-in connector from
`the wireless through wire connector; and,
`a bulkhead, wherein the bulkhead includes a contact pin in wireless
`electrical contact with the wireless signal-in connector, wherein
`at least a portion of the bulkhead is contained within a tandem seal
`adapter, and the wireless ground contact connector is in wireless electrical
`contact with the tandem seal adapter.
`
`
`
`9
`
`Page 19 of 119 (PGR2021-00078)
`G&H DIVERSIFIED MANUFACTURING, LP v. DYNAENERGETICS EUROPE GMBH
`
`

`

`PGR2020-00080
`U.S. Patent No. 10,472,938
`
`
`
`Representative Claim 13, with reference to the Figure 32 above and Figure 18
`
`
`
`below:
`
`13. A method for assembling a perforation gun system, comprising:
`(a) inserting a charge holder within a hollow interior of an outer gun
`carrier, wherein the charge holder includes a detonating cord connected to
`the charge holder and at least one shaped charge;
`(b) inserting a top connector into the outer gun carrier adjacent to the
`charge holder, the top connector comprising a hollow channel;
`(c) inserting a detonator into the hollow channel of the top connector,
`the detonator including
`a detonator body containing detonator components,
`
`10
`
`Page 20 of 119 (PGR2021-00078)
`G&H DIVERSIFIED MANUFACTURING, LP v. DYNAENERGETICS EUROPE GMBH
`
`

`

`PGR2020-00080
`U.S. Patent No. 10,472,938
`
`
`
`a wireless signal in connector, a wireless through wire connector,
`and a wireless ground contact connector, and
`an insulator electrically isolating the wireless signal in connector from
`the wireless through wire connector;
`(d) connecting a through wire to the wireless through wire connector;
`(e) energetically coupling the detonating cord to the detonator; and,
`(f) transporting the perforation gun system to a wellbore site, wherein
`at least one of steps (a), (b), and (d) is performed before transporting the
`perforation gun system, and step (c) is performed at the wellbore site.
`
`
`III. PERSON OF ORDINARY SKILL AND CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`DynaEnergetics does not object to Petitioner’s proposed person of ordinary
`
`skill in the art (“POSITA”). Pet. at 9.
`
`Oddly, Petitioner offers a construction for nearly every term in the challenged
`
`claims. The claim terms are clear and understandable when read in view of the
`
`11
`
`Page 21 of 119 (PGR2021-00078)
`G&H DIVERSIFIED MANUFACTURING, LP v. DYNAENERGETICS EUROPE GMBH
`
`

`

`PGR2020-00080
`U.S. Patent No. 10,472,938
`
`
`specification, and largely do not require any construction. DynaEnergetics provides
`
`for the following terms a construction consistent with the specification, should the
`
`Board find it necessary to construe the terms:
`
`1.
`“tandem seal adapter”
`The term “tandem seal adapter” is not a common or accepted industry term.
`
`Ex. 2002 ¶40. However, the term is well-defined and described in the specification
`
`and claims, and a POSITA would understand that a TSA is a “component that
`
`creates a seal between adjacent gun housings and provides a channel to receive or
`
`accommodate a bulkhead.” Id. ¶40. For example, the ʼ938 Patent explains that
`
`“[t]he tandem seal adapter 48 is configured to seal the inner components within the
`
`carrier 12 from the outside environment, using sealing means 60 (shown herein as
`
`o-rings). Thus, the tandem seal adapter 48 seals the gun assemblies from each other.”
`
`Ex. 1001, 7:55-8:5; see also id., 8:28-39; 10:1-14.
`
`The figures of the ʼ938 Patent further support a POSITA’s understanding that
`
`the