UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`Paper No. 57
`
`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
`
`Inter Partes Review No. IPR2016-01509
`Patent 7,861,774
`
`PETITIONERS’ RESPONSE TO PATENT OWNER'S MOTION
`FOR OBSERVATION ON THE CROSS EXAMINATION
`
`
`
`Paper No. 57
`
`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
`
`Inter Partes Review No. IPR2016-01509
`Patent 7,861,774
`
`PETITIONERS’ RESPONSE TO PATENT OWNER'S MOTION
`FOR OBSERVATION ON THE CROSS EXAMINATION
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01509
`Patent 7,861,774
`In Patent Owner's Motion for Observation on the Cross Examination
`
`("Observation"), Patent Owner cites the Transcript of the Deposition of Vikram Rao
`
`taken on September 7, 2017("Rao Reply Depo")1 at 13:11-24 as relevant to
`
`Petitioner's position that "multi-stage open-hole fracturing ["OHMS"] was prevalent
`
`by 2001." Observation at 1 (quoting Petitioner's Reply (paper 39) at 1). In response,
`
`Petitioner cites the following excerpts from the Rao Reply Depo:
`
`Q.· What are the applications where you think
`prior to 2001 it would have been obvious to do open hole
`multistage fracturing?
`MR. SHAPIRO:· Objection, form.
`THE WITNESS:· It's too broad a question. One of
`the circumstances under which somebody would have
`
`1 For clarity, Petitioner notes that Patent Owner quotes from the Transcript of the
`
`Deposition of Vikram Rao taken on September 7, 2017 when citing to Exhibit 2101
`
`in its Motion for Observation on the Cross Examination. The transcript was filed
`
`with the Board on September 29, 2017 and was designated as "Exhibit 2101."
`
`Subsequently, Patent Owner filed a second exhibit designed "Exhibit 2101" on
`
`October 12, 2017, the "Paltzat Declaration." Patent Owner's Updated Exhibit list
`
`filed on October 12, 2017 fails to include the Transcript of the Deposition of Vikram
`
`Rao taken on September 7, 2017.
`
`1
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01509
`Patent 7,861,774
`wanted -- I would take the obvious away -- somebody
`would have wished to do zonal isolation.
`Well, Yost wanted to do it and did it, so then -- Yost,
`Y-O-S-T.· And so in individual cases it is possible that
`folks were persuaded to zonally isolate in order to fracture.
`What my -- my point was, there was not a widespread
`industry need, if you will, that was felt.· There was no --
`there was no need felt, yes, widespread.· That is my point.
`Rao Reply Depo at 12:10-13:1.
`
`Prior to 2001 a person skilled in the art had
`Q.
`no motivation to do open hole multistage fracturing?
`A. You're misstating what I said.· I said by and
`large.· I said industry-wide, the vast majority of the
`fracturing was done in Austin Chalk and Austin Chalk
`did not require multistage fracturing, open hole or
`otherwise.
`Rao Reply Depo at 14:1-8.
`
`Q. Dr. Rao, did Yost disclose open hole
`multistage fracturing before 2001?
`A.
` Yost disclosed open hole multistage
`fracturing, yes.
`
`Rao Reply Depo at 53:21-24.
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01509
`Patent 7,861,774
`
`Q. Did DOE perform any other open hole
`multistage fracturing after Yost before 2001?
`MR. NEMUNAITIS: Objection, outside the
`scope potentially.
`THE WITNESS: Yeah -- yes, they did. I -- I
`believe Overbey did that, the same Overbey that I was
`presented with on the document. In fact, I think it was
`that same paper.
`Anyway, yes, Overbey, et al. did multistage
`hydraulic fracturing following Yost. Overbey said Yost
`was successful and, therefore, they were going to employ
`it in this other well. That is correct, they did it, um-hmm
`(affirmative).
`Rao Reply Depo at 54:9-21.
`
`Q. Are you aware of any other examples of
`somebody disclosing open hole multistage fracturing
`prior to 2001?
`MR. NEMUNAITIS: Objection, outside the
`scope.
`THE WITNESS: Yes, so that is described -- well,
`let me be very clear on what I'm saying yes to. Open
`hole multistage fracturing using external casing packers,
`solid body packers and sliding sleeves with a ball drop,
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01509
`Patent 7,861,774
`
`were disclosed in the Carlisle patent. I don't have the
`number, but I remember that the -- the -- the date was
`the -- was April of 1999.
`I remember that because I wanted to see when it
`was that the application was filed. So Carlisle says
`somebody was doing it and the "it" was using Wizard
`packers in open hole and using ball drops to move
`sleeves to perform the fracturing operation. He doesn't
`say who, but he says somebody was doing it.
`
`Rao Reply Depo at 54:22-55:17.
`
`Q. Are you aware of any other examples of
`somebody disclosing open hole multistage fracturing
`prior to 2001?
`A. Yes, another one, McLellan in Canada, the
`shale guy. And he used straddle packers and he used
`inflatables. Sorry. Sorry. Sorry. He used inflatable
`packers, 27 zones, I believe. And he reported no failure.
`He -- he had very high pressures. He had, like, 3300 psi
`pressures.
`So, yeah. So McLellan in 1992-ish did open hole
`multistage fracturing, but using straddle packers.
`
`Rao Reply Depo at 55:18-56:4.
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01509
`Patent 7,861,774
`
`In your opinion, were Yost, Overbey, Carlisle
`Q.
`and McLellan evidence that there was motivation to
`perform open hole multistage fracturing in certain
`instances prior to 2001?
`MR. NEMUNAITIS: Objection, outside the scope.
`THE WITNESS: Well, these were commercial
`operations, so they have to have motivation to do them,
`particularly the McLellan, where he did a large number
`of stages. So I would say there was motivation.
`But as I said previously, there was not a large scale
`motivation for zonally-isolated fracturing because most
`of the fracturing that was happening was in the Austin
`Chalk, which did not require zonal isolation. But, yeah,
`the -- the folks who did it had a motivation to do it, that's
`correct.
`
`Rao Reply Depo at 56:5-22.
`
`Dated: October 26, 2017
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`/Jason Shapiro/
`Jason Shapiro
`Reg. No. 35,354
`Counsel for Petitioners
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01509
`Patent 7,861,774
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`I certify that the foregoing PETITIONERS’ RESPONSE TO PATENT
`
`OWNER'S MOTION FOR OBSERVATION ON THE CROSS
`
`EXAMINATION was served October 26, 2017 via electronic mail, as previously
`
`consented to by Patent Owner, upon the following counsel of record:
`
`HAMAD M. HAMAD (LEAD COUNSEL)
`BRADLEY W. CALDWELL (BACK-UP COUNSEL)
`JUSTIN NEMUNAITIS (BACK-UP COUNSEL)
`CALDWELL CASSADY CURRY P.C.
`
`hhamad@caldwellcc.com
`bcaldwell@caldwellcc.com
`jnemunaitis@caldwellcc.com
`rapid@caldwellcc.com
`
`DR. GREGORY J. GONSALVES (BACK-UP COUNSEL)
`GONSALVES LAW FIRM
`
`gonsalves@gonsalveslawfirm.com
`
`Dated: October 26, 2017
`EDELL, SHAPIRO & FINNAN, LLC
`9801 Washingtonian Blvd., Suite 750
`Gaithersburg, MD 20878
`Customer No. 27896
`
`Respectfully submitted:
`/Mark J. DeBoy/
`Mark J. DeBoy, Reg. No. 66,983
`Telephone: 301.424.3640
`
`6
`
`
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
