`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`______________
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`BAKER HUGHES INCORPORATED
`and
`BAKER HUGHES OILFIELD OPERATIONS, INC.,
`Petitioners
`
`v.
`
`PACKERS PLUS ENERGY SERVICES, INC.
`Patent Owner
`
`______________
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00596
`Patent 7,134,505
`______________
`
`
`
`PETITIONERS’ SUR-SURREPLY
`
`
`
`36653426.1
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00596
`Patent 7,134,505
`On page 4 of its Surreply, Rapid Completions LLC (“RC”) cites to the
`
`second deposition of Petitioners’ expert, Dr. Daneshy (Ex. 2053), as supporting the
`
`highlighted contention below:
`
`Moreover, Ellis’s description of the screenout problem is
`entirely consistent with Mr. McGowen’s testimony regarding a
`POSITA’s views in 2001. Mr. McGowen explained that a POSITA in
`2001 would have believed that initiating multiple fractures too close
`together would influence the stress field in the formation and create
`complex fracture geometries known as “near wellbore tortuosity.”
`Resp. at 17. This tortuosity was believed to result in reduced
`production and screenouts. Ex. 2034 at 25; Ex. 2039 at 2. To avoid
`these problems in multi-stage fracturing jobs a POSITA would
`space the perforations far enough apart to avoid fracture
`complexity (“reduced density perforations”). Ex. 2034 at 25; Ex.
`2039 at 2; Ex. 2053 at 89:11-22. Thus, Mr. McGowen explained that
`a POSITA would not attempt open hole multistage because the lack of
`casing prevents a POSITA from controlling the fracture initiation
`points.
`
`RC cites lines 11-22 of page 89 of Dr. Daneshy’s deposition as if that testimony
`
`concerns perforation-spacing/density or otherwise supports RC’s argument that a
`
`POSITA would not have attempted open-hole muti-stage fracturing because the
`
`lack of casing prevents a POSITA from controlling the fracture initiation points.
`
`It does not. Instead, as the testimony reveals, Dr. Daneshy was merely asked
`
`whether, prior to 2001, a person of skill in the art would try and avoid “complex
`
`36653426.1
`
`1
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00596
`Patent 7,134,505
`fractures.” He responded, “Yes, when we fractured vertical wells, we did not want
`
`to create complex fractures.” Ex. 2053 at 89:11-22. Dr. Daneshy was not asked in
`
`any subsequent questioning whether the pre-2001 desire not to create “complex
`
`fractures” “when we fractured vertical wells” was one that required the use of any
`
`particular perforation spacing or density in casing.
`
`Moreover, when Dr. Daneshy used the term “complex” in his page 89
`
`testimony, which RC then re-used in its cited questions, Dr. Daneshy explained
`
`that the term was one that the industry uses today to refer to the result—today—of
`
`creating “a hundred fractures every 50 feet” or “20, 30, 40 of these together”:
`
`Q.· I thought you had said that a person of ordinary skill in the art’s
`expectations of how a fracture behaves has changed between the time
`before 2001, well before it, and today.· I still don’t understand -- can you
`explain what change has occurred in those expectations?
`
`MR. GARRETT:· Same objections [form, FRE 611(b), relevance].
`
`A.· The details of how we fracture wells.· Today in horizontal wells, when
`you put a hundred fractures every 50 feet, these single fractures every 50
`feet do not look like that because these fractures are so close to each
`other.· That tells you what a fracture, single fracture – that’s why I
`modified what you said.· That’s what a single fracture would have looked
`like.· When you put 20, 30, 40 of these together, then they don’t look like
`that.
`
`Q.· What do they look like?
`
`MR. GARRETT:· Same objections.
`
`36653426.1
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00596
`Patent 7,134,505
`A.· Today the industry uses the term “complex” because they don’t really
`know what it looks like.
`
`Ex. 2053 at 87:4-23 (emphasis added). RC did not ask Dr. Daneshy, and Dr.
`
`Daneshy did not testify about, whether such “complex” fractures resulted in the
`
`“reduced production and screenouts” that RC characterized as “[t]hese problems”
`
`in the highlighted sentence above.
`
`Furthermore, Dr. Daneshy testified about fracture spacing—which is the
`
`concept RC is arguing drives perforation spacing (see POR at 17; Ex. 2034 at
`
`24:20-25:10) in the highlighted sentence above—and explained that, while there
`
`may have been a handful of experts in the entire world who would have
`
`appreciated the issue of close fractures potentially growing into each other, a
`
`POSITA likely would not have. Ex. 2053 at 73:8-75:15.
`
`May 2, 2017
`
`/Mark T. Garrett/
`Mark T. Garrett
`
`
`36653426.1
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(e), the undersigned certifies that on May 2,
`
`2017, a complete copy of PETITIONERS’ SUR-SURREPLY was served on Patent
`
`Owner’s Exclusive Licensee via email (by consent), as follows:
`
`hhamad@caldwellcc.com
`bcaldwell@caldwellcc.com
`jnemunaitis@caldwellcc.com
`gonsalves@gonsalveslawfirm.com
`rapid@caldwellcc.com
`
`
`
`/Mark T. Garrett/
`Mark T. Garrett(Reg. No. 44,699)
`
`
`
`36653426.1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
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
