`
`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 IPR2016-00598
`Patent 7,861,774
`______________
`
`
`PETITIONERS’ SUR-SURREPLY
`
`
`
`36653580.1
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00598
`Patent 7,861,774
`In footnote 2 of its Surreply, Rapid Completions LLC (“RC”) cites two
`
`sections of the second deposition of Petitioners’ expert, Dr. Daneshy (Ex. 2053)—
`
`62:4-7 and 60:11-61:10—as supporting its contention that “Even Dr. Daneshy
`
`acknowledged that there were no arguments or evidence submitted with the
`
`Petition to support this theory [that Ellis encourages a POSITA to remove the
`
`casing from a multi-stage fracturing system to avoid problems like screen-out].”
`
`But as Dr. Daneshy explained in the balance of his answer on page 62, which RC
`
`did not cite, (1) screen-out was not an issue to discuss when addressing Thomson
`
`and Ellsworth because Thomson did not use proppant (which is what causes
`
`screenout), and (2) he testified about screen-out in his second declaration because
`
`Mr. McGowen raised the issue:
`
`Q.· The issue of screening out through perforations was not discussed in
`your original report, right?
`
`A.· That’s right.· In the original report, I was·trying to respond to the
`question, having somebody reading Thomson’s paper and somebody -- I
`mean, reading the Ellsworth paper, would he have come up with the idea
`of combining them into an open-hole completion.· And my answer was
`yes.
`
` Let me also point out something else here.· Thomson’s paper
`involved fracture acidizing, and in that paper there was no proppant
`to screen out.· So in that particular paper, the question of screening
`out or not screening out was not part of the discussion. This came
`
`36653580.1
`
`1
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00598
`Patent 7,861,774
`up, that whole subject came up after Mr. McGowen presented his
`declaration.
`
` At that point the question was:· Could you install Thomson’s system
`together with Ellsworth’s packer in an open-hole and fracture it?· And
`my answer was yes then, and it is yes now.
`
`Ex. 2053 at 62:4-23 (emphasis added). In addition, earlier in testimony that RC
`
`did not cite, Dr. Daneshy noted that his discussion of the screen-out issue was
`
`prompted by Mr. McGowen’s discussion of it, and was otherwise obvious and
`
`trivial. Ex. 2053 at 61:11-62:3.
`
`Furthermore, on page 4 of its Surreply, 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 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 whether
`
`the pre-2001 desire not to create “complex fractures” “when we fractured vertical
`
`wells” required the use of any particular perforation spacing or density in casing.
`
`36653580.1
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00598
`Patent 7,861,774
`Moreover, when Dr. Daneshy used the term “complex” in his 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.” Ex. 2053 at
`
`87:4-23. RC did not ask Dr. Daneshy whether such “complex” fractures resulted
`
`in the “reduced production and screenouts” that RC characterized as “[t]hese
`
`problems” in its Surreply page 4 argument.
`
`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) on Surreply page 4—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
`
`
`36653580.1
`
`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)
`
`
`
`36653580.1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
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
