`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`