`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________________
`
`BAKER HUGHES INCORPORATED and
`BAKER HUGHES OILFIELD OPERATIONS, INC,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`PACKERS PLUS ENERGY SERVICES, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________________
`
`Case IPR2016-00650 (Patent 6,907,936 B2)
`Case IPR2016-00656 (Patent 8,657,009 B2)
`Case IPR2016-00657 (Patent 9,074,451 B2)
`____________________
`
`Record of Oral Hearing
`Thursday, May 18, 2017
`____________________
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE: SCOTT A. DANIELS, NEIL T. POWELL, and CARL M.
`DeFRANCO, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00650 (Patent 6,907,936 B2)
`Case IPR2016-00656 (Patent 8,657,009 B2)
`Case IPR2016-00657 (Patent 9,074,451 B2)
`
`
`ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER:
`
`
`NORTON ROSE FULBRIGHT U S, LLP
` MARK T. GARRETT, ESQUIRE
` 98 San Jacinto Boulevard
` Suite 1100
` Austin, TX 78701-4255
` Telephone: (512) 474-5201
` Email: mark.garrett@nortonrosefulbright.com
`
` NORTON ROSE FULBRIGHT U S, LLP
` EAGLE ROBINSON, ESQUIRE
` 98 San Jacinto Boulevard
` Suite 1100
` Austin, TX 78701-4255
` Telephone: (512) 474-5201
` Email: eagle.robinson@nortonrosefulbright.com
`
`APPEARANCES: (Continued)
`
`
`CALDWELL CASSADY CURRY
` JUSTIN NEMUNAITIS, ESQUIRE
`
` 2101 Cedar Springs Road
` Suite 1000
` Dallas, Texas 75201
` Telephone: (269) 235-6451
` Email: JNemunaitis@caldwellcc.com
`
` CALDWELL CASSADY CURRY
` BRADLEY W. CALDWELL, ESQUIRE
` 2101 Cedar Springs Road
` Suite 1000
` Dallas, Texas 75201
` Telephone: (214) 888-4840
` Email: Bcaldwell@caldwellcc.com
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00650 (Patent 6,907,936 B2)
`Case IPR2016-00656 (Patent 8,657,009 B2)
`Case IPR2016-00657 (Patent 9,074,451 B2)
`
`
`ALSO PRESENT:
`ANDRE PORTER
` TRACY BODEN
`
`
`
`
`
`Trial hearing held before the above-mentioned Patent Judges at the
`United States Patent & Trademark Office at USPTO Madison Building,
`600 Dulany Street, Alexandria, Virginia 22314 on Thursday, May 18,
`2017
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00650 (Patent 6,907,936 B2)
`Case IPR2016-00656 (Patent 8,657,009 B2)
`Case IPR2016-00657 (Patent 9,074,451 B2)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`P-R-O-C-E-E-D-I-N-G-S
` JUDGE POWELL: Good afternoon. I hope everybody
`got to see community day a little bit. This is the hearing
`for IPR2016-00650, IPR2016-00656, and IPR2016-00657. The
`IPR2016-00650 involves U S Patent No. 6907936 B2,
`IPR2016-00656 involves U S Patent No. 8657009 B2. And
`IPR2016-00657 involves U S Patent No. 9074451 B2.
` Joining us remotely on the monitor I have Judge
`Daniels. And joining us on the phone we have Judge
`DeFranco.
` Can we have counsel state their names for the
`record starting with the petitioner.
` MR. GARRETT: Your Honor, this is Mark Garrett for
`petitioners. With me is Eagle Robinson also for
`petitioners. And also with me today is Andre Porter
`in-house counsel for petitioners.
` JUDGE POWELL: Thank you.
` MR. NEMUNAITIS: Good afternoon, Your Honor.
`Justin Nemunaitis for the patent owner side. With me today
`is Brad Caldwell and Tracy Boden with Packers Plus.
` JUDGE POWELL: Thank you. Consistent with the
`hearing order each side will have 60 minutes of argument
`time. The petitioner will start and may reserve time for
`rebuttal and then the patent owner will respond, after which
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00650 (Patent 6,907,936 B2)
`Case IPR2016-00656 (Patent 8,657,009 B2)
`Case IPR2016-00657 (Patent 9,074,451 B2)
`
`
`petitioner may use any remaining time to respond to the
`petitioner's presentations.
` As a matter of housekeeping, when you present,
`please identify the demonstrative exhibits clearly and
`specifically by slide or screen number. And as we discussed
`previously, if the physical demonstratives are used, provide a
`description of that as well, particularly important in this
`case because we have Judge Daniels who will not be able to
`see the projection screen and Judge DeFranco on the phone.
` With that are there any questions before we start?
` MR. NEMUNAITIS: No, Your Honor.
` MR. GARRETT: No, Your Honor.
` JUDGE DANIEL: Was the -- is the Elmo working?
`Are they going to be able to show the physical exhibit?
` JUDGE POWELL: No.
` JUDGE DANIEL: Okay. Is it -- just as a matter of
`clarification. Is it the photograph that was entered?
` JUDGE POWELL: Well, it is -- yeah. It's the
`pieces that were in the photograph that we received via
`email. And we do not know for sure whether they will be
`used during the presentation but we have authorized use if
`it's deemed appropriate.
` JUDGE DANIEL: Thanks. Perfect.
` JUDGE POWELL: Okay. With that I will give the
`floor to the petitioner.
`
`
`
`5
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00650 (Patent 6,907,936 B2)
`Case IPR2016-00656 (Patent 8,657,009 B2)
`Case IPR2016-00657 (Patent 9,074,451 B2)
`
`
` MR. GARRETT: Thank you, Your Honor. Good
`afternoon. As reflected on slide two I would like to talk
`first about the 656 and the 657 proceedings. On slide three
`we see the Figure 6 from the two patents in these two cases.
`This is the only figure that falls within the scope of all
`of the challenged claims. All of those claims require a
`first plug to actuate and then pass through one or more port
`closure sleeves. So on slide three you can see the port
`closure sleeves in blue numbered 325 and 325B. The plug is
`the item on the left in green numbered 324. The structure
`that allows this actuation to take place and that is
`necessary for it to take place is port opening sleeve 322
`shown in red, which you see is -- operates in the following
`way. The green plug will flow down and seat in the port
`opening sleeve 322. It will break free from the tubing
`string under sufficient pressure. The tube will travel down
`and engage with the first blue port closure sleeve 325,
`specifically the spring bias dogs 351 on the outside of that
`red port opening sleeve 322, will engage with the groove
`353A of the blue port closure sleeve. Under sufficient
`pressure the port opening sleeve will force the port closure
`sleeve to shift and that will expose the ports 317A. And at
`that point you can now inject fluid from the tubing string
`out into the annulus. And under continued pressure
`eventually the spring force of those dogs 351 will be
`
`
`
`6
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00650 (Patent 6,907,936 B2)
`Case IPR2016-00656 (Patent 8,657,009 B2)
`Case IPR2016-00657 (Patent 9,074,451 B2)
`
`
`overcome. They will collapse and that will allow the port
`opening sleeve 322 and the plug 324 to travel down the hole
`into the second port opening sleeve -- excuse me, port
`closure sleeve 325B. And that process then repeats.
` The first four grounds of these two cases turn on
`priority as reflected in slide four. In slide five
`petitioners -- this reflects that petitioners have explained
`that none of the claims in either of these patents is
`entitled to a priority date that's earlier than July 5th of
`2010. And that's due to several reasons. One is the
`breadth of the claims which I will get to in a moment.
`Another is the limited nature of the disclosure of the
`relevant specifications, which I will also get to.
` Finally, one last point is the difference between
`the originally claimed subject matter and the priority
`applications that Rapid needs to get back to and the claim
`structure now.
` Slide six reflects the board's interpretation of
`each of these claims and it's a common construction between
`them. Again, all of the claims require that a plug actuate
`and pass through at least one port closure sleeve. What
`this means is, reflected in slide seven, that every single
`claim is so broad that it covers a plug that directly
`actuates a port closure sleeve without an intermediate port
`opening sleeve and it also covers a plug that indirectly
`
`
`
`7
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00650 (Patent 6,907,936 B2)
`Case IPR2016-00656 (Patent 8,657,009 B2)
`Case IPR2016-00657 (Patent 9,074,451 B2)
`
`
`actuates a port closure sleeve with a port opening sleeve.
` On slide eight we explain, going back to Figure 6,
`that the only disclosure that falls within the scope of that
`subject matter is the indirect actuation that's represented
`by what you see in Figure 6. There is no embodiment and
`there is no description of an embodiment that meets the
`direct actuation coverage. The only application in the
`priority chain that discloses an embodiment that indirectly
`actuates and an embodiment that directly actuates is the 412
`application.
` Before we move on to that what does direct
`actuation look like? What would that be? That would be a
`plug, if we go back to slide eight for a second, engaging
`directly on one of the two blue port closure sleeves. Here
`that can't happen because without sleeve 322 the sizing and
`the dimensions of both of those port closure sleeves would
`allow that plug to simply flow past them without ever
`touching. So you need -- to directly actuate you need the
`plug to contact a seat on the port closure sleeve. And then
`you need one of two things to happen. When pressure builds
`up either that seat has got to give or that plug has got to
`give. In other words you need a yieldable plug or ball or a
`yieldable seat, and the first place that we see that is in
`the 412 application. In looking at slide ten that
`disclosure is highlighted there in yellow, the yieldable
`
`
`
`8
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00650 (Patent 6,907,936 B2)
`Case IPR2016-00656 (Patent 8,657,009 B2)
`Case IPR2016-00657 (Patent 9,074,451 B2)
`
`
`seats or balls. Up above that in slide ten you can see it
`also has the disclosure in Figure 6 which is the indirect
`actuation.
` Now, on cross-examination their expert conceded
`that there is no express disclosure in any of the relevant
`specifications of a yieldable ball, a yieldable seat or
`yieldable plug.
` Also, importantly, every single claim, as we pointed
`out in our petitions, of every priority application before
`the July 5, 2010 412 application, explicitly recites a port
`opening sleeve. So now, having gone from positively
`reciting it, they have omitted it. The result of this is
`that ICU Medical controls. Rapid Completions has cited a
`large number of cases in their papers trying to find one
`that better fits the facts than ICU Medical and they
`haven't -- they haven't done it. Why is that? Because the
`specs in ICU Medical disclosed in that case the same kind of
`situation that we have. The technology at issue is a
`medical valve. The only disclosure of a medical valve is
`one that involved the spike. And the second similarity, just
`like the only disclosure of a tubing string in which a plug
`can actuate a port closure sleeve, is one involving a port
`opening sleeve. In ICU Medical, the claims were broadened
`out to not positively recite a spike. So, the Federal
`Circuit pointed out that those claims covered medical valves
`
`
`
`9
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00650 (Patent 6,907,936 B2)
`Case IPR2016-00656 (Patent 8,657,009 B2)
`Case IPR2016-00657 (Patent 9,074,451 B2)
`
`
`that included spikes and medical valves that lacked spikes,
`that did not have spikes. In the same way these claims have
`been broadened out by omitting an express recitation of a
`port opening sleeve, actuation with a port opening sleeve
`and actuation without a port opening sleeve. And that is
`really the beginning and the end of the priority battle.
` Now, what has Rapid Completions contended? Their
`contentions have been that a person of ordinary skill in the
`art looking at this common specification would interpret
`what they see from Figure 6 and what's described in support
`of Figure 6 and appreciate from that description and that
`depiction various variations that they believe get them to
`support for direct actuation using a plug to actuate a port
`closure sleeve without port openings. They have two
`variations or two groupings of these variations that they
`put forth. The first is grouping is supported by expert
`testimony, the second grouping is not. I will get to it in
`just a second.
` So what has their expert sponsored? In essence he
`has sponsored only variations that involve port opening
`sleeves. And you can see the sum and substance of his
`testimony here on slide 16. What you see here is actually
`the second paragraph represents the only testimony and the
`only explanation from their expert about direct actuation.
`And if we go through this we will see that he's actually
`
`
`
`10
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00650 (Patent 6,907,936 B2)
`Case IPR2016-00656 (Patent 8,657,009 B2)
`Case IPR2016-00657 (Patent 9,074,451 B2)
`
`
`talking about changes to a port opening sleeve, not the
`elimination of it. His first substantive point to that end
`is the second sentence on line 7, here on slide 16, where he
`explains that you could take that sleeve 322 and mount it in
`the first port closure sleeve 325. So take the red sleeve
`and mount it in the blue sleeve that we saw back on slide
`three and back on slide eight. That's fine. We don't need
`to contest that because even if that is done you still have
`the port opening sleeve, you don't have direct actuation.
` The second thing that he contends is that the dogs
`on the outside of that red sleeve could be replaced with
`some other device that imparts a compression spring force
`like a C-ring. Again, even if that's done, you are just
`changing the dogs on the port opening sleeve. You haven't
`eliminated the port opening sleeve.
` And finally, his third substance point there which
`begins on line 10 of slide 16, instead of mounting the
`locking dogs on the outside, you could mount them on the
`inside and catch a ball. Even if you accept that, he's
`still talking about the locking dogs on the outside of the
`red sleeve 322 and shifting those to the inside. So, he
`hasn't eliminated the port opening sleeve 322.
` Now, we cross examined him about this disclosure
`and he gave us about 30 or so pages of testimony about it.
`And we let him draw a couple of figures that he said
`
`
`
`11
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00650 (Patent 6,907,936 B2)
`Case IPR2016-00656 (Patent 8,657,009 B2)
`Case IPR2016-00657 (Patent 9,074,451 B2)
`
`
`supported or further elaborated on what he explained in
`these seven lines of testimony. Out of those 30 pages of
`deposition testimony and those two drawings he came up with
`some pictures that don't have a port opening sleeve.
` The problem with that is our expert examined that
`testimony, examined those drawings and said two things.
`Number one, that's not what he wrote in those seven lines, 6
`to 13 here on slide 16. And the depictions of what he's
`describing are also -- they don't match up with what he
`wrote on this slide. So we have our expert explaining that
`what he is alleging is not what he is now explaining.
` There is something else he said about this new
`deposition testimony and these drawings. He said even if
`that were possible, even if we are going to give credit to
`these descriptions and look at these drawings that's beyond
`the level of skill that a person of ordinary skill in the
`art possesses.
` So the other thing I would like to point out as
`reflected in slide 17 and also slide 18 is that in the 30
`pages of description during the deposition and in the two
`drawings the expert, Rapid Completions’ expert, conceded that
`what he had come up with were obvious variations of what was
`disclosed. And he talked about that first freely. I've
`shifted to slide 18 now. And the first quote is one that he
`offered unprompted. And then the second quote on that page
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00650 (Patent 6,907,936 B2)
`Case IPR2016-00656 (Patent 8,657,009 B2)
`Case IPR2016-00657 (Patent 9,074,451 B2)
`
`
`is one that came toward the end of the description or the
`end of the deposition where I asked him to confirm that what
`he is describing are obvious variations, and he conceded
`that they were. The problem with that is of course the law
`says obvious variations cannot support the description.
` Again, as pointed out on slide 19, our expert
`examined that deposition testimony and those drawings and
`has confirmed in his declaration that we cite in our replies
`that that description and those drawings go beyond a level
`of ordinary skill.
` Now, before I get to the cases, a select few of
`the cases that Rapid Completion cites, I want to point out I
`said that there were two variations of Rapid's challenge.
`One was expert supported and one was not. The one that
`wasn't appears on page 14, their patent owner response.
`It's actually the only description they have where they have
`expressly stated in the papers and not subsequently in
`deposition testimony or drawings of an embodiment in which
`there is direct actuation. And what they say is -- let's go
`back to slide eight. They say that the green ball in Figure
`6, it doesn't need to have that dart shape. A person of
`ordinary skill in the art would appreciate from that
`disclosure that you could use a ball. Even if you concede
`that, it doesn't matter. You still need that port opening
`sleeve.
`
`
`
`13
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00650 (Patent 6,907,936 B2)
`Case IPR2016-00656 (Patent 8,657,009 B2)
`Case IPR2016-00657 (Patent 9,074,451 B2)
`
`
` But the second to last thing they said was: And
`somebody of ordinary skill in the art would also appreciate
`that you could replace it with a solid version of port
`opening sleeve 322 with locking dogs. So, what they are
`contending is you could replace that bullet shaped plug and
`the separate port opening sleeve 322 with, in essence, a
`yieldable plug in the shape of a solid 322. Their expert
`didn't sponsor that. I mean, it is just an attorney
`argument. It's just fiction.
` The cases on slide 20 are not on point factually
`with our scenario. And the gist of them involve situations
`in which an element in a claim was positively recited at a
`much higher level of descriptiveness than was disclosed in
`the specification.
` So what do I mean by that? If you take the Apple
`v. Sightsound case for example, the claim language was
`telecommunications line. And the description in the
`specification was telephone line. That's not the situation
`that we have here. We don't have a generically recited port
`opening sleeve in the claim supported only by the one that
`you see in Figure 6. We just don't have port opening sleeve
`at all. So these cases are not relevant.
` On slide 21 we are pointing now to grounds five
`and six. And this is the Echols, Thomson combination. On
`slide 22 you see the Echols sleeve arrangement. And you are
`
`
`
`14
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00650 (Patent 6,907,936 B2)
`Case IPR2016-00656 (Patent 8,657,009 B2)
`Case IPR2016-00657 (Patent 9,074,451 B2)
`
`
`seeing in essence a before and an after. What you -- what
`is shown there is a blue sliding sleeve and it is pinned to
`a mandrel. Inside of it is a yellow sheer collar, and it's
`pinned to that blue sliding sleeve. Butting up against that
`is a red C-ring. What happens is the green ball flows down,
`comes into contact with the C-ring and under enough pressure
`the sliding sleeve, the blue sliding sleeve breaks free from
`the mandrel and it shifts. At that point the port that is
`shown in yellow in the bottom image opens up and now you can
`inject fluid out of this tubing string and into the annulus.
`The blue sliding sleeve stops because it hits a shoulder.
`At that point pressure can continue to build up and
`eventually the sheer collar, the yellow element, will break
`free and then that will allow the sheer collar and the red
`C-ring and ball to all shift within that sliding sleeve,
`that blue sliding sleeve. At a certain point, and you can
`see this from the bottom figure, the red C-ring is able to
`expand out into a recessed portion of the blue sliding
`sleeve. That eliminates interference with the ball and now
`the ball can pass through.
` Our argument was that you could combine multiple
`ones of those sleeve arrangements in at least two of the
`zones in Thompson's tubing string. So you could put two
`above the lower MSAF tool, and that's the ball actuated
`sliding sleeve tool in Thomson and you could do the same for
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00650 (Patent 6,907,936 B2)
`Case IPR2016-00656 (Patent 8,657,009 B2)
`Case IPR2016-00657 (Patent 9,074,451 B2)
`
`
`the upper. We gave a number of different bases for that
`combination, a number of different motivations. One was it
`would increase the number of injection points. Injection
`points are the points that allow stimulation fluid to get
`out of the tubing string and into the annulus. And that's
`logical if you think about the fact that one of those ports
`that covers the tubing string in Thomson, it has it looks
`like six ports. It doesn't just have one. So, it's clear
`that there is a basis to increase the number of injection
`points. More than that, having multiple sleeves in a given
`zone will allow you to more efficiently treat a longer zone,
`treat a thicker zone. Meaning a portion of the formation
`that is deeper sort of top to bottom, not just necessarily
`longer, because it will accept more stimulation fluid. And
`that it will increase your ability to up or increase the
`number of fracture initiation points, increase the porosity
`of the formation and ultimately get more productivity.
` We also pointed out that by using these sleeves
`that are all of the same size and can be actuated by the
`same ball, our expert explained at the relevant time there
`were only so many steps down in ball sizes that you could do
`for a given size of tubing string. So this allowed you to
`treat a longer zone with a given ball.
` Now, Rapid has argued essentially that: Wait a
`minute, the injection points into the formation are through
`
`
`
`16
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00650 (Patent 6,907,936 B2)
`Case IPR2016-00656 (Patent 8,657,009 B2)
`Case IPR2016-00657 (Patent 9,074,451 B2)
`
`
`the perforations in the casing. If you don't increase those
`it doesn't matter how many sliding sleeves you add you are
`only going to be able to go through those perforations. And
`unless you increase the number of perforations you're not
`going to increase the facture points.
` And there are a number of responses to that. The
`first is I think there has been a mismatch on what the term
`injection means. As I mentioned earlier, those are the
`points as Echols reflects and as we showed in the petition.
`Those are the points out of the tubing string into the
`annulus. But setting that aside, you don't need to increase
`the number of perforations to increase the number of
`fracture points. If you are in the cased hole environment
`the claims don't require that. But if you are in a cased
`hole environment you don't need to increase the number of
`perforations. And we explained in petition and our exports
`cited to the principle of limited entry which is a principle
`that allows to you strategically space out and reduce the
`number of perforations that you put in a particular zone.
`And you can size them in such a way that the pressure drop
`across that zone allows you to get more bang for your buck
`out of the stimulation fluid that you push through it. And
`you can increase the number of fracture initiation points in
`a given zone through that approach. And that is an
`approach, again, that our experts cited, that we cited to in
`
`
`
`17
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00650 (Patent 6,907,936 B2)
`Case IPR2016-00656 (Patent 8,657,009 B2)
`Case IPR2016-00657 (Patent 9,074,451 B2)
`
`
`the petition and in fact that their expert has opined about
`in his declaration from the other companion cases.
` JUDGE POWELL: So how does that tie to decreasing,
`adding the Echols devices into the Thomson system? If I'm
`understanding the part you are talking about right now
`correctly, in order to improve the fracturing and
`efficiency, whatnot, you would adjust the perforations in
`the casing, in the well casing. How does that relate to the
`motivation to add multiple examples of Echols device to the
`Thomson string?
` MR. GARRETT: You are able to get the stimulation
`fluid into the annulus and if you use limited entry if
`you're in a cased hole environment more quickly. And so, you
`can get fluid from the tubing string out into the annulus
`where it can then enter the formation through the
`perforations. And using limited entry increase the number
`of fracture initiation points then without them --
` JUDGE POWELL: -- Okay. So the ostensible reason
`then to add the additional devices is to increase the rate
`of fluid flow into the annulus?
` MR. GARRETT: That is the primary reason, yes. I
`mean it's also true that if you wanted you could attempt to
`line up the injection points with the perforations. That's
`not something that we discussed in the papers, but it's
`something that would be clear to an operator.
`
`
`
`18
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00650 (Patent 6,907,936 B2)
`Case IPR2016-00656 (Patent 8,657,009 B2)
`Case IPR2016-00657 (Patent 9,074,451 B2)
`
`
` One point about these claims is that they are
`directed to the tubing string and use of the tubing string
`at a high level. They are not directed to any particular
`application of it in the hole, be it opened, closed.
` JUDGE POWELL: Sure. Sure. But the ground is
`based on particular disclosures, specifically Thomson and
`Echols? Right?
` MR. GARRETT: It absolutely is, Your Honor. But
`we don't cite to the casing from Thomson. We are citing to
`Thomson’s tubing string and that tubing string has utility
`outside of the casing.
` JUDGE POWELL: Okay.
` MR. GARRETT: The points that I just made are
`reflected on slides 26 and 27 and 28. If there are not any
`more questions about the 656 and the 657 I will move on to
`the 650 proceeding.
` JUDGE POWELL: I don't have any. It doesn't sound
`like my colleagues do.
` MR. GARRETT: Thank you, Your Honor.
` Shifting now to slide 30. This concerns the 650
`case and this is the ’936 patent. We again see Figure 8.
`And what you're seeing here is again, it happens to be the
`only disclosure of an embodiment that falls within the scope
`of the claims in this case all of which require first sleeve
`to engage and move a second sliding sleeve. I'm going to
`
`
`
`19
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00650 (Patent 6,907,936 B2)
`Case IPR2016-00656 (Patent 8,657,009 B2)
`Case IPR2016-00657 (Patent 9,074,451 B2)
`
`
`skip past the next three slides because they concern a claim
`construction issue that I think is not going to be an issue.
`But we will have them in reserve if we need them.
` The first three grounds are Thomson, Echols
`grounds. And I'm not going to go into much detail on those
`because our arguments in support of those grounds are very
`similar to the arguments that I've just discussed. And
`Rapid Completions’ rebuttal for those is very similar to the
`rebuttal that they made in the ’009 and the ’451 patent cases,
`so I'm going to save some time on that.
` However, there are some things I would like to
`point out about Thomson because they did concern another
`argument that Rapid Completions made more specifically. On
`slide 35 what you are looking at is Figure 3 from Thomson.
`And what you are seeing highlighted are two of the packers
`that are shown in red. And you can see that the packer on
`the right is labeled as a retrievable packer. And you can
`also see that it has three different packing elements. Now,
`we've shown that language in red, but that language is
`simply highlighted in red and it appears in the original.
`The combination that we proposed again, is essentially the
`same combination that we proposed in the ’009, ’451 patents.
`That's what you're seeing on slide 37.
` Now, I want to continue with the packing elements
`issue because that will go to an argument that Rapid made.
`
`
`
`20
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00650 (Patent 6,907,936 B2)
`Case IPR2016-00656 (Patent 8,657,009 B2)
`Case IPR2016-00657 (Patent 9,074,451 B2)
`
`
`This is a blown up version of that schematically illustrated
`retrievable packer and we put this blown up version in the
`petition, our expert cites to it in his declaration. The
`point in showing it is you can clearly see while it is a
`schematic it has sort of a high degree of similarity to real
`life. And you can see the packing elements there, all three
`of them as being distinct from each other.
` Moving to slide 39 you can also see in the actual
`image of the packer, although small there are distinct
`indentions in the packing elements that signify that they
`are different and they are separated by spacers.
` Now, in our petition we actually cite to another
`exhibit, Exhibit 1015. And it's an older patent and it
`shows what it looks like to have a spacer separating two
`packing elements. So the profile that's blown up there on
`the right with the indentions in the black section is born
`out in the figures one and two that we cite of this
`Exhibit 1015.
` Slide 40 shows the arguments that Rapid made in
`contravention of the Thomson, Echols ground which we already
`addressed, as do slides 40 through 43.
` And now on slide 44, I would like to address the
`arguments that gave rise to my reliance on the retrievable
`packer. Specifically without expert support Rapid makes the
`argument that with respect to Claim 22 we haven't shown that
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`
`
`21
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00650 (Patent 6,907,936 B2)
`Case IPR2016-00656 (Patent 8,657,009 B2)
`Case IPR2016-00657 (Patent 9,074,451 B2)
`
`
`there is a packer in Thomson that meets the claim elements
`and has multiple packing elements. I believe their
`explanation was the disclosure is too ambiguous. I don't
`know what to say to that beyond if you look at what we
`cropped from Figure 3 and what we blew up from Figure 4
`there is no dispute that there are retrievable -- sorry,
`there are multiple packing elements. Now, one of the points
`they made is that we are sponsoring our argument based on an
`expert who freely admits he's not a packing expert and we
`don't deny that. They made the point. And leading up to
`that question that he hasn't designed a packer, their expert
`hasn't designed a packer either. But what our expert has
`done is been involved in hydraulic
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
