UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`___________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`___________________
`
`
`WEATHERFORD INTERNATIONAL, LLC;
`WEATHERFORD/LAMB, INC.;
`WEATHERFORD US, LP; and WEATHERFORD
`ARTIFICIAL LIFT SYSTEMS, LLC
`Petitioners
`
`v.
`
`PACKERS PLUS ENERGY SERVICES INC.,
`Patent Owner
`
`___________________
`
`Case IPR2016-01509
`Patent 7,861,774
`___________________
`
`
`EXCLUSIVE LICENSEE RAPID COMPLETIONS LLC’S SURREPLY1
`
`
`Mail Stop “PATENT BOARD”
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`
`1 On September 15, 2017, Respondent requested authorization to file a motion to
`strike Petitioners’ reply and new supporting evidence or in the alternative submit a
`surreply and supplemental expert declaration. On September 25, 2017, the Board
`denied Respondent’s request to file a motion and authorized a 6 page surreply
`limited to addressing the new Yost theory, Overbey, and McLellan without an
`accompanying expert declaration.
`
`
`___________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`___________________
`
`
`WEATHERFORD INTERNATIONAL, LLC;
`WEATHERFORD/LAMB, INC.;
`WEATHERFORD US, LP; and WEATHERFORD
`ARTIFICIAL LIFT SYSTEMS, LLC
`Petitioners
`
`v.
`
`PACKERS PLUS ENERGY SERVICES INC.,
`Patent Owner
`
`___________________
`
`Case IPR2016-01509
`Patent 7,861,774
`___________________
`
`
`EXCLUSIVE LICENSEE RAPID COMPLETIONS LLC’S SURREPLY1
`
`
`Mail Stop “PATENT BOARD”
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`
`1 On September 15, 2017, Respondent requested authorization to file a motion to
`strike Petitioners’ reply and new supporting evidence or in the alternative submit a
`surreply and supplemental expert declaration. On September 25, 2017, the Board
`denied Respondent’s request to file a motion and authorized a 6 page surreply
`limited to addressing the new Yost theory, Overbey, and McLellan without an
`accompanying expert declaration.
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01509
`Patent 7,861,774
`
`I.
`
`Response to Petitioners’ New Yost Theory.
`
`In their reply, Petitioners now attempt to offer a new reason as to why a
`
`POSITA would perform open hole multi-stage fracturing (“OHMS”)—attempting
`
`OHMS in a low pressure, naturally fractured formation to fracture across zones.
`
`Reply at 10. According to Petitioners, this was the true goal of Yost. Id.
`
`However, before Petitioners developed their new theory, Dr. Rao had testified: “Q.
`
`And when Yost pumped fluid into a zone, the goal was to open fractures and create
`
`fractures in that particular zone, correct? A. To open fractures -- yes. You were
`
`in that zone and that's the zone in which you would either create or open up
`
`existing fractures, correct.” Ex. 2044 at 63:11-16 (emphasis added). He did not
`
`testify that the goal was to frack around the packers. Thus, Petitioners fail to show
`
`that a POSITA would view fracking around the packers as an accomplishment to
`
`be desired. The weight of the evidence confirms that such a result can be
`
`detrimental to effective fracturing. Resp. at 13-15, 21-26.
`
`Regardless, even if a POSITA sought to interconnect fractures throughout a
`
`wellbore, Dr. Rao explained why a POSITA would not attempt OHMS for that
`
`goal. During his first deposition he testified that, prior to 2001, most horizontal
`
`wells were drilled in a low pressure, naturally fractured formation—the Austin
`
`Chalk formation. Ex. 2044 at 32:4-12. Despite that, POSITA did not use OHMS:
`
`In fact, Austin Chalk has the vast majority of all horizontal wells in the
`world. Did not require the sophistication of zonal isolation. They were
`
`
`
`- 1 -
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01509
`Patent 7,861,774
`
`able to get what they needed to do with lower cost approaches of either
`what's called a “Hail Mary frac” [i.e., “bull-heading”] or just to be able
`to direct it to certain spots. But zonal isolation was not seen as needed
`in that time frame.
`
`Ex. 2044 at 31:14-32:3. That makes sense. Resp. at 14-15. If a POSITA were
`
`motivated to fracture a formation in a way that intermingled fractures throughout
`
`the wellbore, Petitioners have offered no evidence that the POSITA would divide
`
`the wellbore into multiple, sequentially opened, open hole stages. After all, if the
`
`zone 1 treatment fractured part of zone 2, the zone 2 treatment is likely to flow into
`
`the already opened fractures and not complete the fracturing of zone 2. Ex. 2051 at
`
`28. (“If the subsequent fractures grow into the earlier fractures, the subsequent
`
`fracture treatments are wasted.”).2 A POSITA would have also been concerned
`
`about problems such as screenouts. See infra II. Thus, Petitioners’ new theory
`
`fails to provide a motivation for a POSITA to diverge from the conventional
`
`approaches acknowledged by Dr. Rao.
`
`
`
`There is also a further problem with Petitioners’ new theory. In their
`
`Petition, they assert that a POSITA would have been motivated to replace the
`
`inflatable packers of Yost with Ellsworth packers. Ellsworth teaches that its
`
`packers are preferable to inflatable packers for maintaining long term isolation of
`
`fluids in the formation adjacent different zones, i.e. for water shut off. Ex. 1004 at
`
`
`2 This could explain why Yost reported an initial 15 to 1 improvement ratio in zone
`1, but significantly less improvement in subsequent zones.
`
`
`
`- 2 -
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01509
`Patent 7,861,774
`
`5. But Petitioners now contend that the POSITA’s goal is to intermingle those
`
`fluids in interconnected fractures. This defeats Petitioners’ original basis for
`
`combining Yost and Ellsworth. Moreover, if a POSITA anticipated a fracturing
`
`operation to open numerous natural fractures, Petitioners fail to offer evidence that
`
`this would motivate a POSITA to use Ellsworth or Thomson packers. For
`
`example, they offer no evidence that a POSITA would expect such a packer to
`
`maintain isolation rather than expecting the dynamic fracturing operation to breach
`
`the packer seal in the annulus or induce fractures in the formation that could more
`
`easily extend across the shorter packer seals connecting two zones. In short,
`
`Petitioners’ new theory fails to show that a POSITA would operate against the
`
`conventional wisdom that fractures should be placed at precise intervals using
`
`perforations in a cased hole with a cemented annulus. Moreover, even if a
`
`POSITA did seek to induce fractures irrespective of location, Petitioners only show
`
`that he would bull-head, or at most, use inflatable external casing packers.
`
`II. Response to Overbey
`
`Despite the problems outlined above, Petitioners contend that Yost would
`
`have motivated a POSITA to attempt OHMS in a commercial well. As an initial
`
`matter, Petitioners identify no support in Overbey for their theory that a POSITA
`
`would employ OHMS to frack across zones. Regardless, Overbey does not
`
`demonstrate the commercial viability of Yost. Even if Petitioners had qualified
`
`
`
`- 3 -
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01509
`Patent 7,861,774
`
`Overbey as prior art—they have not—it supports the opposite conclusion.
`
`Overbey explains that the Yost well was “an experimental well.” Ex. 1036 at 46.
`
`The purpose of the Overbey report was to test a modified Yost strategy that is
`
`“more likely to be used in a purely commercial well.” Id. The result: a well that
`
`failed to meet its minimum commercial target. Id. at 104.
`
`Moreover, Overbey detailed precisely the types of problems that would be
`
`concerning to a POSITA. For example, it recounted “the extreme difficulty
`
`encountered in fracing Zone 2,” which resulted in a screenout. Ex. 1036 at 66.
`
`Overbey theorized that: “If these fractures are in clusters of relatively closely-
`
`spaced fractures, then it may have been almost impossible to drive one or more
`
`fractures perpendicular to the wellbore and of a width sufficient to accept a high
`
`density sand-laden fluid.” Ex. 1036 at 66. In other words, Overbey concluded that
`
`the multiple natural fractures in this open interval competed for fluid and made it
`
`impossible to effectively fracture the zone. Overbey also reported a screenout in
`
`zones 3 and 4, and he explained that the cost of remediating these screenouts
`
`forced the DOE to abandon stimulation of a planned fifth stage. Id. 65-69, 99.
`
`In short, Overbey would have reinforced the conventional wisdom in favor
`
`of using bullheading or plug and perf. This is particularly true given that Overbey
`
`partially cemented the wellbore and it reported cementing costs that were less than
`
`the costs of purchasing and operating the packers and port collars. Id. at 109.
`
`
`
`- 4 -
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01509
`Patent 7,861,774
`
`III. Response to McLellan
`
`Petitioners also cite McLellan as alleged evidence of open hole multi-stage
`
`fracturing. Again, this reference undercuts their theories. McLellan identifies plug
`
`and perf and single-stage stimulation as the available options for horizontal
`
`stimulation as of 1992. Ex. 1042 at 3. It goes on to describe the use of an
`
`inflatable straddle packer tool as an alternative, not OHMS. This tool consisted of
`
`a tubing string with exit holes placed in between two packers. Ex. 1042 at 5. The
`
`distance between the packers was only 4.5m long and McLellan moved and set the
`
`tool 27 times to treat the targeted zone. Modifying Yost to stimulate in 4.5 meter
`
`increments would require a fifty-fold increase in the number of packers required.
`
`There is no evidence that a POSITA would have perceived that approach as
`
`feasible, let alone preferable to plug and perf or bullheading.
`
`Moreover, McLellan reports that his ultimate goal was to pump acid along a
`
`single 150 meter interval to acidize the rock matrix to a depth of 2 meters from the
`
`wellbore. Ex. 1042 at 5. This treatment was designed to remove drilling
`
`particulates that McLellan believed to be clogging the pore spaces of the rock.
`
`However, it takes time for acid to permeate the pore spaces of rock and spend its
`
`chemical energy. Id. at 5. Had McLellan pumped acid into the entire 150 meter
`
`interval at once, it would either spend to early (as appears to have occurred, Id.) or
`
`it could have resulted in a fracture that would drain the acid away from the
`
`
`
`- 5 -
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01509
`Patent 7,861,774
`
`wellbore into the far-field. Id. at 6; Ex. 2081 at 11-12. By confining each acid
`
`treatment to the 4.5 meter space in between the straddle packers, this technique
`
`minimized the risk that the acid would be wasted. The fact that McLellan went to
`
`the expense of employing this tool is yet another indication that POSITA did not
`
`view OHMS as a viable stimulation technique.
`
`
`
`- 6 -
`
`
`
`
`Dated: October 20, 2017
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`IPR2016-01509
`Patent 7,861,774
`
`Rapid Completions LLC
`
`By /Justin T. Nemunaitis/
`
`Hamad M. Hamad, Reg. No. 64,641
`Bradley W. Caldwell (pro hac vice)
`Justin T. Nemunaitis (pro hac vice)
`CALDWELL CASSADY CURRY,
`P.C.
`2101 Cedar Springs Road, Suite 1000
`Dallas, Texas 75201
`Telephone: 214.888.4848
`Facsimile: 214.888.4849
`hhamad@caldwellcc.com
`bcaldwell@caldwellcc.com
`jnemunaitis@caldwellcc.com
`rapid@caldwellcc.com
`
`Dr. Gregory Gonsalves, Re. No.
`43,639
`GONSALVES LAW FIRM
`2216 Beacon Lane
`Falls Church, Virginia 22043
`Telephone: 571.419.7252
`gonsalves@gonsalveslawfirm.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.6 (e)(4)
`
`IPR2016-01509
`Patent 7,861,774
`
`The undersigned hereby certifies that the foregoing document was served
`
`via electronic mail, as previously consented to by Petitioner upon the following
`
`counsel of record:
`
`Jason Shapiro (Lead Counsel)
`Patrick Finnan (Back-up Counsel)
`EDELL,SHAPIRO & FINNAN,
`LLC
`
`js@usiplaw.com
`pjf@usiplaw.com
`epatent@usiplaw.com
`
`Date: October 20, 2017
`
`
`
`
`
` /Hamad M. Hamad/
`
`Hamad M. Hamad, Reg. No. 64,641
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
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
