Case IPR2016-01517
`Patent 7,134,505
`
`
`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 IPR2016-01517
`Patent 7,134,505
`___________________
`
`
`
`EXCLUSIVE LICENSEE RAPID COMPLETIONS LLC’S
`RESPONSE
`
`
`
`
`Mail Stop “PATENT BOARD”
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`

`

`
`
`Case IPR2016-01517
`Patent 7,134,505
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Introduction ...................................................................................................... 1
`
`Overview of the Patented Technology ............................................................ 1
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`III. Claim Interpretation ......................................................................................... 3
`
`A.
`
`Solid Body Packer ................................................................................. 3
`
`IV. Obviousness Analysis ...................................................................................... 6
`
`A.
`
`The Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art .................................................. 6
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`A POSITA Would Have Been Aware of a Variety of
`Different Completion Techniques .............................................. 8
`
`A POSITA Would Have Expected Multi-Stage Hydraulic
`Fracturing Operations to Require Cemented Casing ................11
`
`A POSITA Would Carefully Weigh the Risks, Reliability,
`and Economics of a Proposed Completion ...............................15
`
`4. Weatherford’s Reliance on the Halliburton Litigation
`Materials Conflates Mechanical Packer Operation with
`Fracture Engineering .................................................................17
`
`B.
`
`The Objective Indicia of Non-Obviousness ........................................21
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`The Claimed Technology Operates Contrary to the
`Accepted Wisdom That Prevailed at the Time of the
`Invention and it Demonstrated Unexpected Results .................21
`
`The Claimed Technology Has Received Industry Praise
`and Recognition ........................................................................27
`
`Baker Hughes Copied the Claimed Technology. .....................31
`
`The Claimed Technology Has Enjoyed Significant
`Commercial Success .................................................................37
`
`There Is a Nexus Between the Claimed Technology
`and Its Commercial Success .....................................................41
`
`
`
`- i -
`
`

`

`
`
`Case IPR2016-01517
`Patent 7,134,505
`
`
`
`6.
`
`The Length of Intervening Time Between the Asserted
`Prior Art Dates and the Claimed Invention Objectively
`Demonstrate that the Invention Was Not Obvious ...................44
`
`C.
`
`The Scope and Content of the Prior Art ..............................................45
`
`1.
`
`Yost Describes an Experimental Operation That
`Teaches Away From Open Hole Multi-Stage Fracturing. ........45
`
`a)
`
`b)
`
`c)
`
`Yost Describes an Experimental Operation, Not a
`Commercial Fracturing Operation. .................................45
`
`The Yost Experiments Would Lead a POSITA
`Away From Open Hole Multi-Stage Fracturing. ............46
`
`Even Mr. Yost and the Department of Energy
`Elected Cased Hole Fracturing After the Publication
`of Yost ............................................................................49
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`Thomson Describes a Cased Hole Fracturing Operation,
`Not Fracturing Through Open Hole Segments .........................51
`
`Ellsworth Describes Water Shut-Off Operations, Not
`Hydraulic Fracturing. ................................................................53
`
`D.
`
`The Differences Between the Prior Art and the Claimed
`Invention ..............................................................................................56
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`Petitioners Fail to Show that Yost Discloses the Solid
`Body Packers, Ball-Actuated Sleeves Limitations ...................56
`
`Petitioners Fail to Show that Thomson Discloses
`Positioning a Tubing String Adjacent an Open Hole
`Section of the Wellbore ............................................................56
`
`Petitioners Fail to Show That Ellsworth Discloses
`Forcing Wellbore Fluid out of the Tubing String Port .............57
`
`V. Overall Conclusions on Obviousness ............................................................57
`
`A.
`
`Petitioners Fail to Demonstrate a Motivation to Combine
`and Reasonable Expectation of Success .............................................59
`
`
`
`- ii -
`
`

`

`
`
`Case IPR2016-01517
`Patent 7,134,505
`
`
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`The Objective Evidence Demonstrates that Petitioners’
`Theories Are Flawed ...........................................................................63
`
`Petitioners Fail to Demonstrate a Teaching of Isolating
`Fracturing Fluid to the Claimed Open Hole Segments .......................65
`
`
`
`- iii -
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`Case IPR2016-01517
`Patent 7,134,505
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`
`Cases
`
`Akamai Techs., Inc. v. Cable & Wireless Internet Servs., Inc.
`
`344 F.3d 1186 (Fed.Cir.2003) .......................................................................32
`
`Amkor Tech., Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n
`
`692 F.3d 1250 (Fed. Cir. 2012) .....................................................................59
`
`Apple Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co.
`
`No. 2015-1171, 2016 WL 5864573 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 7, 2016) ................. 35, 38
`
`Ashland Oil, Inc. v. Delta Resins & Refractories, Inc.
`
`776 F.2d 281 (Fed. Cir. 1985) ................................................................ 37, 38
`
`Black & Decker, Inc. v. Positec USA, Inc.
`
`No. 2015-1646, 2016 WL 2898012 (Fed. Cir. May 18, 2016) .............. 58, 59
`
`Crocs, Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n
`
`598 F.3d 1294 (Fed.Cir.2010) .......................................................................21
`
`dunnhumby USA, LLC v. emnos USA Corp.
`
`No. 13-CV-0399, 2015 WL 1542365 (N.D. Ill. Apr. 1, 2015) ....................... 5
`
`Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. Nat'l Graphics, Inc.
`
`800 F.3d 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2015) .....................................................................58
`
`Envtl. Designs, Ltd. v. Union Oil Co. of California
`
`713 F.2d 693 (Fed. Cir. 1983) ......................................................................... 7
`
`Gambro Lundia AB v. Baxter Healthcare Corp.
`
`110 F.3d 1573 (Fed. Cir. 1997) .....................................................................41
`
`Graham v. John Deere Co. of Kansas City
`
`383 U.S. 1 (1966) ............................................................................................. 6
`
`
`
`
`- iv -
`
`

`

`
`
`Case IPR2016-01517
`Patent 7,134,505
`
`
`
`In re Cyclobenzaprine Hydrochloride Extended–Release Capsule Patent Litig.
`
`676 F.3d 1063 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ....................................................................... 6
`
`In re Hedges
`
`783 F.2d 1038 (Fed.Cir.1986) .......................................................................21
`
`In re Kahn
`
`441 F.3d 977 (Fed Cir. 2006) ........................................................................57
`
`In re Magnum Oil Tools Int’l, Ltd.
`
`829 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2016) .....................................................................58
`
`Intri-Plex Techs., Inc. v. Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics Rencol Ltd.
`
`IPR2014-00309, Paper 83 (PTAB March 23, 2014) .....................................21
`
`J.T. Eaton & Co. v. Atlantic Paste & Glue Co.
`
`106 F.3d 1563 (Fed.Cir.1997) .......................................................................38
`
`KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc.
`
`550 U.S. 398 (2007).......................................................................................57
`
`Leo Pharm. Prod., Ltd. v. Rea
`
`726 F.3d 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2013) .....................................................................44
`
`McGinley v. Franklin Sports, Inc.
`
`262 F.3d 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2001) .....................................................................44
`
`MPHJ Tech. Investments, LLC v. Ricoh Americas Corp.
`
`847 F.3d 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ...................................................................4, 5
`
`Orthopedic Equipment Co., Inc. v. All Orthopedic Appliances, Inc.
`
`707 F.2d 1376 (Fed.Cir.1983) ......................................................................... 7
`
`Pozen Inc. v. Par Pharm., Inc.
`
`696 F.3d 1151 (Fed. Cir. 2012) .....................................................................59
`
`Procter & Gamble Co. v. Teva Pharm. USA, Inc.
`
`566 F.3d 989 (Fed. Cir. 2009) .......................................................................58
`
`
`
`- v -
`
`

`

`
`
`Case IPR2016-01517
`Patent 7,134,505
`
`
`
`Ring Plus, Inc. v. Cingular Wireless, LLC
`
`No. CIV.A. 2:06-CV-159DF, 2007 WL 5688765 (E.D. Tex. July 9, 2007) ... 5
`
`Seadrill Americas Inc. v. Transocean Offshore Deepwater Drilling Inc.
`IPR2015-01929, Paper 105 (PTAB May 18, 2017) ......................................43
`
`
`Standard Oil Co. v. American Cyanamid Co.
`
`774 F.2d 448 (Fed.Cir.1985) ........................................................................... 8
`
`Tec Air, Inc. v. Denso Mfg. Michigan Inc.
`
`192 F.3d 1353 (Fed. Cir. 1999) .....................................................................38
`
`Vederi, LLC v. Google, Inc.
`
`744 F.3d 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ....................................................................... 5
`
`W.L. Gore & Assoc., Inc. v. Garlock, Inc.
`
`721 F.2d 1540 (Fed.Cir. 1983) ......................................................................21
`
`WBIP, LLC v. Kohler Co.
`
`829 F.3d 1317 (Fed. Cir. 2016) .....................................................................43
`
`Wyers v. Master Lock Co.
`
`616 F.3d 1231 (Fed. Cir. 2010) .....................................................................32
`
`Statutes
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103 .......................................................................................................... 6
`
`35 U.S.C. § 316(e) ..................................................................................................... 6
`
`
`
`
`- vi -
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`Case IPR2016-01517
`Patent 7,134,505
`
`
`
`Exhibit List
`Description
`R. Seale et al., Effective Stimulation of Horizontal Wells—A
`New Completion Method, SPE 106357, Society of
`Petroleum Engineers (2006)
`Exploration and Development, Alberta Oil Magazine
`Leading the Way: Multistage fracking pioneer Packers Plus
`plays major role in cracking the tight oil code, Canadian
`OilPatch Technology Guidebook (2012)
`Financial Post, “Entrepreneur of the Year: National
`Winner”
`Innovation—Groundbreaking Innovation in Calgary,
`Calgary Herald (Feb. 12, 1014)
`J. Chury, Packers Plus Technology Becoming the Industry
`Standard, The Oil Patch Report (Dec. 2010/Jan. 2011)
`P. Roche, Open-Hole or Cased and Cemented, New
`Technology Magazine (Nov. 2011)
`R. Ghiselin, Qittitut Consulting, Sleeves vs. Shots—The
`Debate Rages (Aug. 2011)
`Van Dyke, Kate, “Fundamentals of Petroleum,” Fourth Ed.
`(1997)
`“Proven Performance: Read how Packers Plus systems and
`solutions have delivered results around the world,” Packers
`Plus Energy Services Inc., accessed May 24, 2016,
`http://packersplus.com/proven-performance/?type=case-
`study&system=stackfrac-hd-system&pag=3%20#p3
`A. Casero, Open Hole Multi-Stage Completion System in
`Unconventional Plays: Efficiency, Effectiveness and
`Economics, SPE 164009 (2013)
`Encyclopedia of Hydrocarbons, Chapter 3.1: Upstream
`technologies
`D. Lohoefer, Comparative Study of Cemented versus
`Uncemented Multi-Stage Fractured Wells in the Barnett
`Shale, SPE 135386, Society of Petroleum Engineers (2010)
`Ali Daneshy Deposition Transcript (11/9/2016)
`Packers Plus advertising brochure (2010)
`
`Exhibit
`2003
`
`2004
`2005
`
`2006
`
`2007
`
`2008
`
`2009
`
`2010
`
`2011
`
`2012
`
`2013
`
`2014
`
`2015
`
`2016
`2017
`
`
`
`- vii -
`
`

`

`
`
`Case IPR2016-01517
`Patent 7,134,505
`
`
`
`Baker Hughes, “FracPoint Completion System Isolated
`Openhole Horizontal Well in Lower Huron Shale” (2011)
`Baker Hughes, Énhancing Well Performance Through
`Innovative Completion Technologies,” presentation, (Sept.
`10-12, 2012)
`Canadian Society for Unconventional Resources, Press
`Release, “Unconventional Industry Awards Innovative
`Thinking” (Oct. 3, 2012)
`Complaint, Rapid Completions LLC v. Baker Hughes, et al.,
`filed July 31, 2015
`Defendants’ Invalidity Contentions cover document, served
`January 19, 2016
`Thomson invalidity contention chart, U.S. Patent 7,861,774
`Rapid Completions LLC’s Infringement Contentions
`transmittal email, dated November 23, 2015
`Bates-stamped D. W. Thomson, “Design and Installation of
`a Cost Effective Completion System for Horizontal Chalk
`Wells Where Mulitiple Zones Require Acid Stimulation”,
`(1997)
`Bates-stamped A.B. Yost, “Production and Stimulation
`Analysis of Multiple Hydraulic Fracturing of a 2,000-ft
`Horizontal Well” (1989)
`Defendants’ initial invalidity contention metadata, dated
`January 19, 2016
`List of attorneys docket sheet from Case No. 6:15-cv-00724;
`Rapid Completions v. Baker Hughes et al.
`Deposition of Leah Burrati, dated May 18, 2016
`Defendants’ Second Amended Invalidity Contentions,
`served August 11, 2016
`Defendants’ amended invalidity contention metadata, dated
`August 11, 2016
`U.S. Patent 7,861,774 - Yost invalidity chart, served August
`11, 2016
`U.S. Patent 7,861,774 - Lane-Wells invalidity chart, served
`August 11, 2016
`Email from Green email to Nemunaitis, dated July 11, 2016
`
`2018
`
`2019
`
`2020
`
`2021
`
`2022
`
`2023
`2024
`
`2025
`
`2026
`
`2027
`
`2028
`
`2029
`2030
`
`2031
`
`2032
`
`2033
`
`2034
`
`
`
`- viii -
`
`

`

`
`
`Case IPR2016-01517
`Patent 7,134,505
`
`
`
`Weatherford letter brief regarding Motion for Summary
`Judgment of Indefiniteness, dated September 20, 2016
`Baker Hughes letter brief regarding Motion for Summary
`Judgment of Indefiniteness, dated September 20, 2016
`Email from Nemunaitis to Payne, dated September 19, 2016
`Weatherford’s Expedited Motion to Stay Pending Inter
`Partes Review Proceedings, filed September 13, 2016
`Weatherford presentation titled, “Openhole Completion
`Systems”
`Halliburton v. Packers Plus, Fourth Amended Petition
`Baker Hughes’ and Peak Completions’ Subpoena to
`Halliburton
`Rapid Completions v. Baker Hughes, et al. Order dismissing
`Pegasi
`Declaration of M. Delaney
`Vikram Rao Deposition Transcript
`Westin, Scott, Private Property, PwC, (Jan. 2, 2013)
`Yager, David, Court Case Now On: It’s Packers Plus
`Versus The World – Here’s What’s at Stake for Multi-stage
`Horizontal Completion Companies, EnergyNow Media
`(Feb. 23, 2017)
`BH00364675, CONFIDENTIAL Ball activated sliding
`sleeves report
`UNREDACTED J.J. Girardi Decl.
`REDACTED J.J. Girardi Decl.
`Reserved
`REDACTED H. McGowen Decl.
`Baker Hughes Design Documents
`Packers Plus Design Document
`Rigzone, Schlumberger Acquires Stake in Packers Plus
`(Nov. 22, 2005)
`Britt, L. and Smith, M., Horizontal Well Completion,
`Stimulation Optimization, and Risk Mitigation, SPE 125526
`(2009)
`Packers Plus case study, StackFRAC system provides
`superior production economics
`
`2035
`
`2036
`
`2037
`2038
`
`2039
`
`2040
`2041
`
`2042
`
`2043
`2044
`2045
`2046
`
`2047
`
`2048
`2049
`2050
`2051
`2052
`2053
`2054
`
`2055
`
`2056
`
`
`
`- ix -
`
`

`

`
`
`Case IPR2016-01517
`Patent 7,134,505
`
`
`
`Packers Plus Case Study, StackFRAC HD system enables
`high stimulation rates
`Packers Plus StackFRAC Video,
`http://packersplus.com/solution/stackfrac-hd-system/
`Baker Hughes FracPoint Video,
`https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s5ZQCRRZzXE
`reserved
`Business News Network Packers Plus Feature
`Ingersoll, C, “BP and the Deepwater Horizon Disaster of
`2010” (Apr. 3, 2012)
`Crosby, D.G., “Methodology to Predict the Initiation of
`Multiple Transverse Fractures from Horizontal Wellbores”
`(2001)
`Kaiser, P., “Hydraulic Fracturing Mine Back Trials – Design
`Rationale and Project Status” (2013)
`Stoltz, L.R., “Probabilistic Reserves Assessment Using A
`Filtered Monte Carlo Method In a Fractured Limestone
`Reservoir” SPE 39714 (1998)
`Emanuele, M. A., “A Case History: Completion and
`Stimulation of Horizontal Wells with Multiple Transverse
`Hydraulic Fractures in the Lost Hills Diatomite” SPE 39941
`(1998)
`Gaynor, Tom M., “Tortuosity Versus Micro-Tortuosity –
`Why Little Things Mean a Lot” SPE/IADC 67818 (2001)
`Cramer, David, “Stimulating Unconventional Reserviors:
`Lessons Learned, Successful Practices, Areas for
`Improvement” SPE 114172 (2008)
`Ahmadzamri, A.F., “Development and Testing of Advanced
`Wireline Conveyance Technology for Rugose Open Hole
`Conditions” IPTC 17442 (2014)
`Calixto, Eduardo, “Gas and Oil Reliability Engineering,
`Modeling and Analysis” 2nd Edition (2016)
`Cramer, D.D., “The Application of Limited-Entry
`Techniques in Massive Hydraulic Fracturing Treatments”
`SPE 16189 (1987)
`Lloyd, B., “Rotary steerable drilling improves deployment
`of advanced completion” World Oil, January 2011
`
`2057
`
`2058
`
`2059
`
`2060
`2061
`2062
`
`2063
`
`2064
`
`2065
`
`2066
`
`2067
`
`2068
`
`2069
`
`2070
`
`2071
`
`2072
`
`
`
`- x -
`
`

`

`
`
`Case IPR2016-01517
`Patent 7,134,505
`
`
`
`reserved
`Feng Yuan, “Single-Size-Ball Interventionless Multi-Stage
`Stimulation System Improves Stimulated Reservoir Volume
`and Eliminates Milling Requireents: Case Studies,
`SPE171183-MS, 2014
`A.B. Yost, “Hydraulic Fracturing of a Horizontal Well in a
`Naturally Fractured Reservoir: Gas Study for Multiple
`Fracture Design,” SPE 17759, 1988
`A.W. Layne, “Insights Into Hydraulic Fracturing of a
`Horizontal Well in a Naturally Fractured Formation,” SPE
`18255, 1988
`A.B. Yost, “Air Drilling and Multiple Hydraulic Fracturing
`of a 72 Slant Well in Devonian Shale,” SPE 21264, 1990
`H.H. Abass, A Case History of Completing and Fracture
`Stimulating a Horizontal Well, SPE 29443
`A.P. Damgaard, “A Unique Method for Perforating,
`Fracturing, and Completing Horizontal Wells, SPE 19282
`CONFIDENTIAL, WF00003356, Weatherford Sales Data
`UNREDACTED McGowen Supplemental Declaration
`Michael Delaney Declaration
`William Diggons Declaration
`REDACTED McGowen Supplemental Declaration
`Ali Daneshy Deposition Transcript (3/29/2017)
`Rigzone TRAINING, How Does Acidizing Work to
`Stimulate Production?,
`http://www.rigzone.com/training/insight.asp?insight_id=320
`Carl T. Montgomery, Hydraulic Fracturing—History of an
`Enduring Technology, 2010
`R.E. Hurst, “Development and Application of ‘Frac’
`Treatments in the Permian Basin,” SPE 405 (1954).
`U.S. Patent No. 556,669
`Rebecca Stacha Declaration
`Packers Plus Declaration
`V. Rao, 1984 and Beyond: The Advent of Horizontal Wells
`(JPT Oct. 2007)
`
`2073
`2074
`
`2075
`
`2076
`
`2077
`
`2078
`
`2079
`
`2080
`2081
`2082
`2083
`2084
`2085
`2086
`
`2087
`
`2088
`
`2089
`2090
`2091
`2092
`
`
`
`- xi -
`
`

`

`
`
`Case IPR2016-01517
`Patent 7,134,505
`
`
`
`2093
`
`2094
`2095
`2096
`2097
`
`2098
`
`2099
`
`2100
`
`V. Rao & R. Rodriguez, “Accelerating Technology
`Acceptance: Hypotheses and Remedies for Risk-Averse
`Behavior in Technology Acceptance, SPE 98533 (2005)
`First Supplemental Berryman Report
`U.S. Pat. No. 7,571,765
`CONFIDENTIAL Weatherford Sales Playbook
`Canadian trial transcript excerpt submitted as ex. 1027 in
`IPR2016-00598
`Austin et al. Simultaneous Multiple Entry Hydraulic
`Fracture Treatments of Horizontally Drilled Wells, SPE
`18263 (1988)
`Owens et al., Practical Considerations of Horizontal Well
`Fracturing in the “Danish Chalk,” SPE25058 (1992)
`Murray et al., A Case Study for Drilling and Completing a
`Horizontal Well in the Clinton Sandstone, SPE 37354
`(1996)
`
`
`
`- xii -
`
`

`

`
`
`Case IPR2016-01517
`Patent 7,134,505
`
`
`
`I.
`
`Introduction
`
`This is the third attempt made by Petitioners and/or their joint defense
`
`partner Baker Hughes to render the claims of this patent unpatentable. Despite
`
`now having had multiple opportunities to marshal evidence of obviousness they
`
`have yet again failed to meet their burden. The evidence shows that, prior to 2001,
`
`a POSITA would have expected that cemented casing is an important component
`
`of effective multi-stage fracturing. As a result, the open hole ball drop method of
`
`fracturing developed by Packers Plus and recited in the claims at issue was not
`
`obvious at that time.
`
`Although the claims at issue do not contain the explicit fracturing limitations
`
`of the ’774 patent, Petitioners nonetheless assert that a POSITA would combine the
`
`asserted art to perform multi-stage fracturing in an open hole. Thus, for the same
`
`reasons Petitioners fail to establish obviousness of the ’774 claims, the fail to
`
`establish obviousness of the ’505 and ’634 claims at issue.
`
`II. Overview of the Patented Technology
`
`The claimed technology provides a method of fracturing multiple stages of
`
`an open hole horizontal wellbore (“open hole ball drop fracturing” or “OHBD”).
`
`All of the claims at issue require running a tubing string into a wellbore where at
`
`least a portion of the non-vertical section of the wellbore is exposed to the
`
`
`
`- 1 -
`
`

`

`
`
`Case IPR2016-01517
`Patent 7,134,505
`
`
`
`rockface. This tubing string must contain at least three solid body packers and two
`
`ball activated sliding sleeves as illustrated, for example, in Figure 1a:
`
`
`
`When the packers are set, they seal against the wellbore wall and divide the
`
`horizontal section into multiple “open hole segments.” At this point, the operator
`
`may commence the fracturing operation.
`
`Hydraulic fracturing is a process whereby fluid is pumped into a formation
`
`until the increase in pressure causes the rock to crack. In the claimed system, the
`
`fracturing operation begins by pumping a ball or plug onto the ball seat of a sliding
`
`sleeve. This ball is sized to pass through the ball seats closer to the surface and
`
`only seat on the seat of the sleeve it is designed to open. As the pumping increases
`
`the fluid pressure within the tubing string, the sleeve slides open to allow fluid
`
`communication between the inside of the tubing string and the segment to be
`
`fractured. Pumping is continued until this segment is fractured. Because the entire
`
`annular segment outside the sleeve is pressurized, the fracture can form at a natural
`
`weak point in the formation, as shown below:
`
`
`
`- 2 -
`
`

`

`
`
`Case IPR2016-01517
`Patent 7,134,505
`
`
`
`See also Ex. 2058, Packers Plus StackFRAC video at 3:15 (“Each fracture initiates
`
`in the open hole where breakdown pressure is lowest within the isolated stage.”)
`
`This process may be repeated for additional zones by dropping larger balls.
`
`
`
`III. Claim Interpretation
`
`A.
`
`Solid Body Packer
`
`The parties agree that a packer is a tool used to create a seal between the
`
`tubing string and borehole wall using a packing element. They dispute what
`
`distinguishes solid body packers from other types of packers.
`
`The intrinsic evidence makes clear that this term refers to a packer with an
`
`element that is solid rather than hollow, as is the case with inflatable packers. The
`
`specification explains: “In an open hole, preferably, the packers include solid body
`
`packers including a solid, extrudable packing element.” ’774 patent at 4:4-4:5. In
`
`describing the figure 1 embodiment, it further explains that the “packers are of the
`
`
`
`- 3 -
`
`

`

`
`
`Case IPR2016-01517
`Patent 7,134,505
`
`
`
`solid body-type with at least one extrudable packing element, for example, formed
`
`of rubber.” ’774 patent at 6:29-6:30. It contrasts this type of packer with
`
`“inflatable element packers,” which it describes as being “inflated with pressure
`
`using a bladder.” Id. at 1:43-48. Thus, if the Panel believes that a construction is
`
`appropriate, it should construe this term to mean “a packer including a solid,
`
`extrudable packing element.”
`
`Petitioners’ proposal is based on a legal misunderstanding. According to
`
`Petitioners, the Board should narrow the scope of this term because of the
`
`following statement contained in a provisional application: “A solid body packer is
`
`defined as a tool to create a seal between tubing and casing or the borehole wall
`
`using a packing element which is mechanically extruded, using either mechanically
`
`or hydraulically applied force.” Provisional Application No. 60/404,783 filed on
`
`Aug. 21, 2002. The problem with their argument is that this statement was made
`
`in a provisional application and never incorporated into the intrinsic evidence.
`
`Under these circumstances, the provisional application is decisive evidence that
`
`Petitioners’ proposed construction is incorrect.
`
`In MPHJ Tech. Investments, LLC v. Ricoh Americas Corp., 847 F.3d 1363,
`
`1367 (Fed. Cir. 2017), the patent at issue traced priority back to a provisional
`
`application. That provisional application contained a disclaimer limiting the scope
`
`
`
`- 4 -
`
`

`

`
`
`Case IPR2016-01517
`Patent 7,134,505
`
`
`
`of the claimed invention. When the applicant filed its non-provisional application,
`
`it decided not to include that disclaimer in the application. The Federal Circuit
`
`held that the patentee’s decision to delete the limiting language from the indicated
`
`that the relevant claims were not limited as described in the provisional
`
`application. Id. at 1369.
`
`Just as in MPHJ, the patent at issue in this proceeding omitted the allegedly
`
`limiting definition contained in a provisional application. Accordingly, the claims
`
`must not be limited by that provisional application language. See also dunnhumby
`
`USA, LLC v. emnos USA Corp., No. 13-CV-0399, 2015 WL 1542365, at *11 (N.D.
`
`Ill. Apr. 1, 2015). (refusing to consider a provisional application part of the file
`
`history even though the patent-at-issue listed the provisional application as a
`
`priority document); Ring Plus, Inc. v. Cingular Wireless, LLC, No. CIV.A. 2:06-
`
`CV-159DF, 2007 WL 5688765, at *10 (E.D. Tex. July 9, 2007) (refusing to import
`
`limitations from a provisional application and noting that such reliance on a
`
`provisional application relates to validity, i.e., the priority date, not claim
`
`construction); Cf. Vederi, LLC v. Google, Inc., 744 F.3d 1376, 1383 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2014) (treating provisional application as intrinsic evidence only after noting that it
`
`was incorporated by reference into the asserted patents).
`
`
`
`- 5 -
`
`

`

`
`
`Case IPR2016-01517
`Patent 7,134,505
`
`
`
`IV. Obviousness Analysis
`
`Petitioners do not contend that anyone performed the claimed method prior
`
`to the inventors’ use of the method described below. They rely only on
`
`obviousness. A patent is invalid for obviousness “if the differences between the
`
`subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject
`
`matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a
`
`person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains.” 35
`
`U.S.C. § 103. Obviousness is a question of law based on underlying factual
`
`findings: (1) the scope and content of the prior art; (2) the differences between the
`
`claims and the prior art; (3) the level of ordinary skill in the art; and (4) objective
`
`indicia of nonobviousness. Graham v. John Deere Co. of Kansas City, 383 U.S. 1,
`
`17–18 (1966). The Board must consider all four Graham factors prior to reaching
`
`a conclusion regarding obviousness. In re Cyclobenzaprine Hydrochloride
`
`Extended–Release Capsule Patent Litig., 676 F.3d 1063, 1076–77 (Fed. Cir. 2012).
`
`Petitioners bears the burden of proving obviousness by a preponderance of the
`
`evidence. 35 U.S.C. § 316(e).
`
`A. The Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`
`Factors that may be considered in determining the level of ordinary skill in
`
`the art include: (1) the educational level of the inventor; (2) type of problems
`
`
`
`- 6 -
`
`

`

`
`
`Case IPR2016-01517
`Patent 7,134,505
`
`
`
`encountered in the art; (3) prior art solutions to those problems; (4) rapidity with
`
`which innovations are made; (5) sophistication of the technology; and (6)
`
`educational level of active workers in the field. Orthopedic Equipment Co., Inc. v.
`
`All Orthopedic Appliances, Inc., 707 F.2d 1376 at 1381–1382 (Fed.Cir.1983). Not
`
`all such factors may be present in every case, and one or more of these or other
`
`factors may predominate in a particular case. “The important consideration lies in
`
`the need to adhere to the statute, i.e., to hold that an invention would or would not
`
`have been obvious, as a whole, when it was made, to a person of ‘ordinary skill in
`
`the art’—not to the judge, or to a layman, or to those skilled in remote arts, or to
`
`geniuses in the art at hand.” Envtl. Designs, Ltd. v. Union Oil Co. of California,
`
`713 F.2d 693, 696–97 (Fed. Cir. 1983).
`
`According to Petitioners, a person of ordinary skill in the art relevant to the
`
`’774 Patent as of November 19, 2001 would have had at least a Bachelor of
`
`Science degree in mechanical, petroleum, or chemical engineering and at least 2-3
`
`years of experience with downhole completion technologies related to fracturing.
`
`Pet. at 10. Petitioners also contend that a POSITA would be aware of efforts to
`
`minimize cost and motivated to perform fracture stimulation as efficiently as
`
`possible. Pet. at 26-27. Respondent does not dispute these statements. However,
`
`the need to minimize cost does not mean that a POSITA would compromise
`
`
`
`- 7 -
`
`

`

`
`
`Case IPR2016-01517
`Patent 7,134,505
`
`
`
`engineering principles or act contrary to accepted wisdom. see also Standard Oil
`
`Co. v. American Cyanamid Co., 774 F.2d 448, 454 (Fed.Cir.1985) (“A person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art is also presumed to be one who thinks along the line of
`
`conventional wisdom in the art.”). Because Petitioners fail to appreciate this
`
`principle, their obviousness analysis is mistaken.
`
`1.
`
`A POSITA Would Have Been Aware of a Variety of
`Different Completion Techniques.
`
`Preparing a wellbore for oil or gas production can be significantly more
`
`complicated than simply drilling a hole in the ground. Rather, an operator must
`
`decide the specific drilling path for the wellbore, the underground formations to
`
`target, mechanisms to protect the wellbore, and whether anything will be done to
`
`stimulate the well to increase production, among other things.
`
`In 2001, one of the simplest ways to complete a horizontal well was to
`
`cement and case the vertical portion of the well, and leave the horizontal pay
`
`interval open to the formation. Using this type of completion, the overburden
`
`pressure of the earth forces hydrocarbons into the open portion of the wellbore and
`
`up to the surface. The casing prevents oil and gas from seeping out of the wellbore
`
`(e.g., to protect groundwater sources), as shown below:
`
`
`
`- 8 -
`
`

`

`
`
`Case IPR2016-01517
`Patent 7,134,505
`
`
`
`
`
`Another technique for completing a wellbore is to use a (non-cemented)
`
`perforated liner or casing. This completion type is similar to an open hole
`
`completion, except that a length of liner or casing with holes is installed into the
`
`horizontal wellbore section. Similar to an open hole completion, the entire rock
`
`face of the horizontal wellbore section is directly exposed to the wellbore, but the
`
`liner or casing protects against collapse of the wellbore. This type of completion is
`
`illustrated below:
`
`
`
`- 9 -
`
`

`

`
`
`Case IPR2016-01517
`Patent 7,134,505
`
`
`
`
`
`Although an open hole completion or a non-cemented cased hole completion
`
`can be effective for many types of wells, these completions cause problems if a
`
`portion of the wellbore passes through an undesirable formation. For example, if
`
`the wellbore extends into a brine-producing formation, brine water can seep into
`
`the wellbore and pollute the oil or gas flowing to the surface. The solution to this
`
`problem is a water shut-off completion. To perform water shut-off, a perforated
`
`tubing string with packers is installed to isolate the brine-producing portion of the
`
`wellbore. With this isolation, only oil and gas enters the wellbore.
`
`
`
`- 10 -
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`Case IPR2016-01517
`P