`
`~""~""""'~ ~"'" ' '~""~~"~'~~'~~"' """"'~"~"~""""""'
`
`[,
`
`NO. CV44964
`
`IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF
`
`HALLIBURTON ENERGY
`SERVICES, INC. and
`HALLIBURTON GROUP
`CANADA
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`MIDLAND COUNTY, TEXAS
`
`V.
`
`PACKERS PLUS ENERGY SERVICES,
`INC.; PACKERS PLUS ENERGY
`SERVICES, INC. USA; PACKERS
`PLUS ENERGY SERVICES (U.S.A.)
`LIMITED PARTNERSHIP;
`DANIEL THEMIG;
`PETER KRABBEN; and
`KENNETH PALTZAT
`
`Defendants.
`
`238th JUDICIAL DISTRICT
`
`FIRST SUPPLEMENTAL EXPERT REPORT OF WILLIAM O. BERRYMAN
`
`1 of 46
`
`Ex. 2094
`IPR2016-01517
`
`

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I. SUMMARY OF OPINIONS .............................
`
`........................................................... 6
`
`II.
`
`DECEMBER 1999 ROCKSEAL FEATURES CONCEIVED BY THEMIG AT
`HALLIBURTON.................................................................................
`.............................. 7
`
`A. PACKING ELEMENTS .......................................................................................................... 7
`
`B. ACTUATION DEVICE ..............................................................
`
`............
`
`..............
`
`C. LOCING DEVICE ....................................
`
`...............................................
`
`........ ,............
`
`D. ANT-PRESET .....
`
`...................................................................................
`
`E. PACKER BODY ................................................................................................................
`
`III. TOOLS CITED IN THE TRAHAN AFFIDAVIT...........
`
`....................
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`12
`
`13
`
`A. WASH TOOLS ....................................................................................................................
`
`13
`
`1. Top Tool - U.S. Patent No. 4,279,306 .......................................................................
`
`15
`
`a) Comparison of Top Tool Wash Tool and RockSeal Features ....................................... 16
`
`(i) Packing elem ents ....................................................................................................... 16
`
`(ii) A ctuation device..................................................................................................... 16
`
`(iii)
`
`Locking device ....................................................................................................... 17
`
`(iv) Anti-preset ........................................................................................... 17
`
`(v)
`
`18
`Body ......................................................................................................................................
`
`b) The Top Tool Wash Tool in the StackFrac System ...................
`
`................ 18
`
`2. Baker Model C Packing Element Circulation Washer - U.S. Patent Nos. 4,498,536
`and 4,552,218 ............................................................................................................ 19
`
`a) Comparison of Baker Model C Packing Element Circulation Washer and RockSeal
`.............
`..........................
`Features ...................................
`
`19
`
`2 of 46
`
`Ex. 2094
`IPR2016-01517
`
`

`

`(i) Packing elements .........................................................
`
`........................................ 20
`
`(ii)
`
`Actuation device .................................................................................................. 20
`
`(iii) Locking device .............................
`
`.................................................................. 21
`
`(iv) Anti-preset................................................................................................
`
`(v)
`
`Body ............................................................................................................
`
`22
`
`22
`
`b)
`
`.The Baker Model C Packing Element Circulation Washer in the StackFRAC System 22
`
`3. The Halliburton Selective Injection Packer - U.S. Patent No. 4,569,396............. 23
`
`a) Comparison of Halliburton Selective Injection Packer and RockSeal Features ........... 23
`
`(i) Packing elements ....................................................................................................... 23
`
`(ii)
`
`Actuation device................................................
`
`.............................................. 24
`
`(iii) Locking device .......................................................................
`
`............................ 24
`
`(iv) Anti-preset............................................................................................................. 25
`
`(v)
`
`Body ...................................................
`
`b) The Halliburton Selective Injection Packer in the StackFRAC System...................
`
`B. M ISCELLANEOUS TOOLS.................................................
`
`25
`
`26
`
`26
`
`1. Gulberson G-77 Packer ........................................
`
`............................................
`
`..... 26
`
`a) Comparison of Guiberson G-77 Packer and RockSeal Features..............
`
`.................. 27
`
`(i) Packing elements ....................................................................................................... 27
`
`(ii)
`
`Actuation device ....................
`
`.......................................................................... 27
`
`(iii) Locking device .................................................................................................. 28
`
`(iv) Anti-preset ........................................................................................................... 28
`
`b) The Guiberson G-77 in the StackFRAC System................
`
`..............
`
`28
`
`3 of 46
`
`Ex. 2094
`IPR2016-01517
`
`

`

`2. U.S. Patent No, 5,103,901.
`
`N.N.
`
`............
`
`N..........................................................
`29
`
`a) Comparison of'901 Patent and RockSeal Features ...................................... ....
`
`(i) Packing elements ...............................................................................................
`
`(ii)
`
`Actuation device .............................................
`
`29
`
`29
`
`30
`
`(iii) Locking device ............................................................................................
`
`........ 30
`
`(iv) Anti-preset ...............................................
`
`...........
`
`.............. 31
`
`b) The Dresser Packer in the StackFRAC System ................
`
`..
`
`.........
`
`31
`
`3. D&L Oil Tools DH type packer ................................................
`
`............................. 32
`
`4. U.S. Patent 2,618,340 (W. E. Lynd) ....................................................................... 32
`
`a) Comparison of '340 Patent Packer and the RockSeal Features............................
`
`34
`
`(i) Packing elements .................................................................................................... 34
`
`(ii)
`
`Actuation device................................................
`
`.............................................. 34
`
`(iii) Locking device ...........................................................................................
`
`34
`
`(iv) Anti-preset ............................................................................
`
`.................... 34
`
`b) The '340 Patent Packer in the StackFRAC System..................
`
`...... 34
`
`5. Baker Twin Seal Submersible Packer .......................................
`
`............................ 35
`
`a) Comparison of Twin Seal Submersible Packer and RockSeal Features ............... 35
`
`(i) Packing elements ........
`
`........................................................................................ 35
`
`(ii)
`
`Actuation device..................................................................................................... 36
`
`(iii) Locking device ................................................................................................... 37
`
`(iv) Anti-preset......................................
`
`.......................
`
`37
`
`4 of 46
`
`Ex. 2094
`IPR2016-01517
`
`

`

`(v)
`
`Body .................................................................................................................... 38
`
`b) The Baker Twin-Seal Packer in the StackFRAC system .......................................... 38
`
`IV. THE ROCKSEAL INVENTION IS AN "INVENTION" UNDER THEMIG'S
`CONTRACTS .............................................................................................................................. 39
`
`V. THE ROCKSEAL INVENTION IS A PATENTABLE INVENTION .......................... 41
`
`VI. AT LEAST ONE CLAIM IN THE '505 PATENT AND '863 APPLICATION
`..................................................
`REQUIRES THE ROCKSEAL INVENTION ...............
`
`.... 43
`
`5 of 46
`
`Ex. 2094
`IPR2016-01517
`
`

`

`I.
`
`SUMMARY OF OPINIONS
`
`In my previous report submitted on March 18, 2007, I discussed the role of packers in the
`completion and workover process, and briefly described the different types used and their
`applications. I also discussed the trend in the industry, beginning in the 1980's, to drill and
`complete more horizontal wells, and the introduction of the Wizard II Packer by Halliburton
`(Dresser/Guiberson), followed by the circumstances surrounding the conception of the RockSeal
`invention by Mr. Themig in or around December of 1999, while he was still an employee of
`Halliburton.
`
`In my report I briefly identified a few of the significant features of the RockSeal, and
`
`expressed my opinion as to the patentability of various combinations of these features. I also
`
`signed an affidavit on April 25, 2008, which is incorporated by reference in this supplemental
`
`report. Mr. Kevin Trahan, defendants' expert witness, asserts in his May 19, 2008 Affidavit
`
`("Trahan Affidavit") that in his opinion a packer with the RockSeal features "is not unique, novel,
`
`innovative, or patentable." (Trahan Affidavit at 6.) Mr. Trahan cites several new documents as
`
`supporting his opinion. Having reviewed the Trahan Affidavit and the documents cited therein,
`my opinion remains that the RockSeal invention was innovative and novel and in fact, a patentable
`
`invention. This supplemental report addresses the documents relied upon by Mr. Trahan in the
`
`Trahan Affidavit and expresses my opinion that those documents do not render the RockSeal
`
`invention generally known nor do those documents show that the RockSeal invention was not
`
`novel or that the RockSeal invention would have been obvious at the time it was invented. Instead,
`
`it is my opinion that the RockSeal invention conceived by Mr. Themig at Halliburton was not in
`
`the public domain, was novel and non-obvious, and constitutes trade secrets belonging to
`
`Halliburton. Finally, this supplemental report explains my opinion that at least claim 44 in U.S.
`
`6 of 46
`
`Ex. 2094
`IPR2016-01517
`
`

`

`Patent No. 7,134,505 ("'505 patent") and at least claim 26 in U.S. Patent Application Serial No.
`
`11/550,863 ("'863 application") require the RockSeal invention that Mr. Themig conceived at
`
`Halliburton.
`
`II.
`
`DECEMBER 1999 ROCKSEAL FEATURES CONCEIVED BY THEMIG AT
`HALLIBURTON
`
`A complete response to the Trahan Affidavit necessitates a thorough discussion of the
`
`features and functions of the RockSeal invention. The fact that the features and functions
`
`discussed below were conceived by Mr. Themig during his tenure at Halliburton is supported by
`
`Deposition Exhibits 11-12, Mr. Themig's deposition
`
`testimony
`
`from
`
`this case and the
`
`Peak/Muscroft cases, and Mr. Themig's affidavit in April 2007 from this case.
`
`(Other evidence,
`
`including Sloane Muscroft's deposition and affidavit testimony is also relevant.) The RockSeal
`
`invention conceived by Mr. Themig in or around December of 1999 included the following
`
`features:
`
`A.
`
`Packing Elements
`
`The RockSeal packer falls into a category of packers referred to as "isolation" packers.
`
`These packers seal off the wellbore to isolate the zone above the packer from the zone below the
`
`packer. (See Figure la). When the term "packer" is used without adjectives in the industry, it is
`
`generally understood that the term refers to an isolation packer. As I stated in my previous report,
`
`prior to the introduction of the Wizard II, the packers of choice for open hole applications- were
`
`inflatables. The sealing element technology used on the Wizard II was the same as that previously
`
`associated with cased-hole packing elements - having a much shorter length than typical open hole
`
`packer sealing/inflatable elements. During Mr. Themig's employment at Halliburton, it was
`
`recognized that the packing element on the Wizard II might be set adjacent an anomaly in the well
`
`7 of 46
`
`Ex. 2094
`IPR2016-01517
`
`

`

`bore, which could prevent effective sealing. To address this concern, Halliburton sometimes ran
`
`two Wizard II packers together - one above the other.
`
`As I explained in my initial report, the RockSeal packer invented by Mr. Themig at
`
`Halliburton utilizes two spaced-apart packing elements on either end of the packer creating a null
`
`zone between the two packing elements. (See Figure lb). The RockSeal packing elements are of
`
`the cased-hole type (i.e., compression elements, not inflatables), and the design does not include
`
`slips (which have no sealing ability and which are typically used in cased holes). The spaced-apart
`
`packing elements create redundant sealing systems should one packing element be unable to create
`
`a seal.
`
`An additional advantage realized by the use of the two packing elements spaced apart with
`
`the null zone between is that it provides a two-stage sealing system. Once the packer has been set,
`
`the differential pressure each element can support is limited by the mechanical compression being
`
`applied to the element. Should the differential pressure exceed the mechanical compression on the
`
`element adjacent the high pressure zone, leakage would occur past that element into the null zone,
`
`building up the pressure in the null zone which would be contained by the second sealing element.
`
`This would allow up to two times the differential pressure sealing capability for a given setting
`
`load versus a single element system packer.
`
`Mr. Themig has admitted in his Peak deposition that the redundant sealing effect of the
`
`RockSeal design is critical and gives Packers Plus an advantage in the marketplace. (07/15/2004
`
`Themig depo. at 175-76).
`
`B.
`
`Actuation Device
`
`As also explained in my initial report, the hydraulic actuation device on the RockSeal
`
`invention conceived by Mr. Themig is located between the two (spaced-apart) packing elements.
`
`It includes a first inner piston/setting cylinder and a second outer piston/setting cylinder (the outer
`
`8 of 46
`
`Ex. 2094
`IPR2016-01517
`
`

`

`piston overlaps the inner piston). The two pistons/setting cylinders form a single hydraulic
`chamber that can be pressurized to set the packer. During setting, the two pistons/setting cylinders
`are driven apart from one another creating a compressive load of equal force on each of the two
`packing elements.
`
`Placing the hydraulic actuation device between the two packing elements is significant for
`
`two reasons. First, the space between the two elements is required to obtain the redundant sealing
`
`feature. Placing the hydraulic actuation device in this space essentially adds no additional length
`
`to the tool. Second, placing the hydraulic actuation device between the two packing elements
`
`insures that each packing element is receiving the full force generated by the actuation device. If
`
`the actuation device were located below the lower seal or above the upper seal, the frictional drag
`
`of the seal nearest the actuation device would reduce the load being applied to the other seal during
`
`the setting operation.
`
`C.
`
`Locking Device
`
`As also previously explained, a ratcheting mechanism associated with the first and second
`
`pistons/setting cylinders is provided to automatically
`
`lock in the compression forces that are
`
`applied during setting of the two spaced-apart packing elements so that they continue sealing after
`
`the hydraulic pressure is released. Because the ratcheting mechanism automatically locks in the
`
`compression, no physical tubing manipulation or other manipulation is required to maintain
`
`compression of the packing elements.
`
`Placing the ratchet mechanism between the two cylinders also provides two additional
`
`benefits: a) It allows the spaced-apart packing elements to load into each other (as stated by Mr.
`
`Themig in his deposition -- 7/15/04 Themig depo. at 175-76 -- and in the '505 patent at col. 8, I1.
`
`9 of 46
`
`Ex. 2094
`IPR2016-01517
`
`

`

`51-54, of which Mr. Themig is named as co-inventor), and b) The slack associated with the
`ratchet mechanism is distributed between the two packing elements so that each element relaxes
`only half as much as it would with a lock mechanism of the same ratchet teeth design that only
`locked a single packing element. This feature is significant because
`
`it can affect the sealing
`
`capability of the elements, particularly at high differential pressures. The sealing capability of
`
`packing elements such as these typically has an exponential relationship with the travel taking
`
`place during its compression. (See Figure 2). At higher setting loads, a very small change in the
`
`compressive travel can have a significant effect on the compressive force (and the maximum
`
`differential pressure the packer is able to withstand).
`
`D.
`
`Anti-Preset
`
`The largest diameter components on compression type packers are the metallic rings
`
`installed at the ends of the sealing elements (to resist extrusion of the elements when a differential
`
`pressure is applied across the elements). They are typically referred to as "Thimbles" or "Gage
`
`Rings." If, while running the packer in the hole, the lower ring of a seal assembly (i.e., the ring on
`
`the downhole side of the sealing system) should encounter a tight spot or obstruction that protrudes
`
`into the wellbore, and the ring were free to move upward on the mandrel, it would tend to
`
`compress the element. With most packer structures utilizing compression-type sealing elements,
`
`premature compression of the elements is not typically a problem in cased-hole applications- even
`
`with packers utilizing hydraulic setting mechanisms below the sealing element.
`
`In horizontal open-hole wells, however, premature compression of the packing elements
`
`and/or structural damage to the tool is more of a problem, particularly when trying to run the tools
`
`through the build area of the well bore or in the horizontal section. On a single-element packer,
`
`10 of 46
`
`Ex. 2094
`IPR2016-01517
`
`

`

`__ C _ l 1 _
`
`with the sealing element being compressed from above, premature compression could be prevented
`
`by simply adding a shoulder on the mandrel to prevent the lower ring from moving upward. Mr.
`
`Themig stated in his Wizard school that the reason the original Wizard I packer design was turned
`
`upside down was so the hydraulic setting mechanism would be on the top, and a shoulder could be
`
`added at the lower end to prevent the lower ring from being able to slide up the mandrel. (Wizard
`
`School Transcript at 42.6 - 43.3).
`
`However with the actuating device on the RockSeal invention acting between the spaced-
`
`apart elements, the lower ring associated with the upper sealing element must be free to move
`
`upward to compress the element, ruling out the use of a shoulder on the mandrel to prevent its
`
`movement. Should the tool run into an obstruction or tight spot presetting the element, the tool
`
`could become stuck in the hole. Attempts to free the tool by pulling an up-strain might
`
`prematurely shear the release mechanism on the packer, rendering the packer useless. A round trip
`
`would have to be made to redress/repair the packer. To solve the problem of premature setting on
`
`the RockSeal invention, Mr. Themig added an anti-preset feature (an internal ball and groove
`
`device)
`
`to the design. The anti-preset feature prevents upward movement of the
`
`inner
`
`piston/setting cylinder until the outer piston/setting cylinder is forced downward sufficiently (when
`
`hydraulic setting pressure is applied) to release the latch. By attaching the lower ring associated
`
`with the upper sealing element to the inner piston/setting cylinder, the premature compression and
`
`setting of the upper sealing element is prevented.
`
`Mr. Themig has admitted in his Peak deposition that the anti-present feature of the
`
`RockSeal design is critical and gives Packers Plus an advantage in the marketplace. (07/15/2004
`
`Themig depo. at 175-76). He further testified that no other packer uses the type of anti-preset
`
`device he conceived for the RockSeal. (07/15/2004 Themig depo. at 176).
`
`11 of 46
`
`Ex. 2094
`IPR2016-01517
`
`

`

`E.
`
`Packer Body
`
`The RockSeal features conceived by Mr. Themig at Halliburton are all contained on a
`
`single packer body. The result is a short, compact tool which is particularly advantageous when
`
`running the equipment in horizontal open-hole applications having short-radius build rates. Mr.
`
`Themig addressed the problem of getting the tools through the build area in the Wizard II school
`
`he conducted at Guiberson (Halliburton) in 1998. Several unsuccessful attempts were made to run
`
`pup joints between two Wizard II packers. Rather than running a pup joint, which Mr. Themig
`
`characterized as being "too stiff', the policy of using a full length (thirty-foot) joint of tubing was
`
`adopted (which Mr. Themig characterized as being more flexible). If the operator wouldn't accept
`
`this, then Mr. Themig recommended turning down the job. It is well known that the minimum
`
`build rate that can be tolerated is dependent on the geometry of the tools being run. Figure 3 is a
`
`scaled replication showing a side-by-side comparison of the minimum build rate that can be
`
`tolerated by a 5 %'" RockSeal packer in a 4 %" hole (on the right) and two 5 %" Wizard II's
`
`attached together in the same size hole (on the left). The absolute minimum that can be allowed by
`
`the RockSeal is approximately 34 feet (which equates to a build rate of 168 degrees per one
`
`hundred feet) compared to 143 feet (which equates to a build rate of only 40 degrees per one
`
`hundred feet) for the two Wizard II's connected together.
`
`These numbers represent only the extreme limits that can be tolerated by the two systems
`
`compared. Other factors extend the limits of what build rates can be tolerated. With longer tools,
`
`higher drag forces are created as well as higher bending stresses in the pipe. This comparison is
`
`only intended to illustrate the significant advantage of the short length of the RockSeal. Mr.
`
`Themig stated in his Wizard II1 school that most of their jobs had been in wells with medium build
`
`rates - which he said were approximately 30 degrees per hundred feet - some 40 to 50 degrees per
`
`12 of 46
`
`Ex. 2094
`IPR2016-01517
`
`

`

`hundred feet. He said that they were expecting to do some with build rates as high as 100 degrees
`
`per hundred feet.
`
`Another advantage of being able to place the two spaced-apart sealing element assemblies
`
`on such a short tool is that the null zone between the two element assemblies is kept short. Having
`
`to run a thirty-foot joint of tubing between two Wizard II's resulted in a long null zone, eliminating
`
`a portion of the well bore open to stimulation and/or production. All of the above illustrates the
`
`superior functionality of the RockSeal design created by Mr. Themig at Halliburton.
`
`The packer body conceived by Mr. Themig for the RockSeal is very different than the wash
`
`tool bodies discussed below and cited by Mr. Trahan. Unlike the wash tool bodies (which have
`
`circulation ports in the mandrel), the RockSeal body conceived by Mr. Themig does not allow
`
`fluid communication between the mandrel/tubing and the annulus formed by the spaced-apart
`
`elements (the null zone). This is important because it facilitates the advantages of the redundant
`
`two-stage sealing system explained above. By definition, the wash tools with circulation ports
`
`simply cannot achieve this advantageous functionality.
`
`III. TOOLS CITED IN THE TRAHAN AFFIDAVIT
`
`Wash tools and isolation packers are distinct tools that perform differing functions. The
`
`differences between the RockSeal invention and the tools cited by Mr. Trahan are detailed below.
`
`A. Wash Tools
`
`Mr. Trahan submitted several exhibits as examples of tools that he feels support his
`
`position that packers with the features of the RockSeal have existed for many years. Many of
`
`these exhibits involve wash tools. Wash tools are not designed to be used as isolation packers, and
`
`they are not designed to be used in open holes. Wash tools and isolation packers, such as the
`
`RockSeal
`
`invention, are designed for fundamentally different purposes and therefore perform
`
`fundamentally different functions.
`
`13 of 46
`
`Ex. 2094
`IPR2016-01517
`
`

`

`Wash tools are designed to accomplish a very specialized function, which is to treat and/or
`create voids behind casing in an area of the casing perforations to enhance the flow of fluids
`therefrom. Thus, by definition, a wash tool is a cased hole (not an open hole) tool.
`
`Referring to Figure Ic, treating the formation is accomplished by placing the wash tool in
`the casing adjacent a small section of the perforations, plugging the lower end of the tubing, and
`pumping the treating fluid down through the tubing, through circulation ports between two
`elements on the wash tool, through the perforations to the back side of the casing, back through the
`
`perforations above the elements and up the annulus. These tools are only used inside casing (not
`
`in open hole or horizontal open hole), and to accomplish their function are placed adjacent to the
`
`perforations.
`
`In contrast, an isolation packer would never be set in casing perforations. The reason an
`
`isolation packer would not be set in casing perforations is that this would prevent it from achieving
`
`its objective which is to isolate the zone above the packer from the zone below the packer (See
`
`Figure la and Ib).
`
`Wash tools are designed to withstand pressure differentials where the annulus pressure
`
`between the two sealing elements (outside the tool) is higher than the annulus pressures above
`
`and/or below the sealing elements (See Figure Ic). On the RockSeal, just the reverse is true.
`
`All wash tools provide communication means from inside the mandrel to the annular space
`
`(or null zone) between the two elements (outside the tool). As conceived by Mr. Themig, no such
`
`communication takes place with the RockSeal, in part, because such communication defeats the
`
`advantages created by the redundant seals of the RockSeal. Because wash tools do not need to
`
`establish a seal to isolate the zone above the packer from the zone below the packer, many of them
`
`provide communication ports or channels (sometimes called bypasses) completely through the tool
`
`14 of 46
`
`Ex. 2094
`IPR2016-01517
`
`

`

`.._...._._ ........____
`
`i
`
`~ '......
`
`
`
`~~ .:
`
`from top to bottom for just that purpose. These ports/channels serve two functions: a) they provide
`additional circulation through the tool while running into the hole, and help to prevent swabbing
`while retrieving, and b) they allow wash circulation to take place through casing perforations
`around the lower packing element as well as the upper one.
`
`Wash tools are designed to be set and reset several times during one trip in the hole. As a
`result, it would be counter-productive for a wash tool to include a mechanical lock mechanism. In
`contrast, the RockSeal conceived by Mr. Themig is designed to be locked in the set position only
`
`once -- the first time it is set. The RockSeal must be retrieved from the hole to be "redressed" if it
`
`is to be set/run again.
`
`Additionally, wash tools do not include anti-presets. This is primarily because they are run
`
`in cased-hole and are not exposed to the potential obstructions and hole irregularities that may be
`
`encountered in open hole (very few cased-hold tools have anti-presets). In contrast, the RockSeal
`
`invention conceived by Mr. Themig benefits greatly from the anti-preset device because it is often
`
`run in open hole, especially horizontal open hole.
`
`The simple fact is that wash tools cannot be used as isolation packers (and vice-versa)
`
`because the two tools are designed for fundamentally different purposes and therefore perform
`
`fundamentally different functions. To further distinguish these tools cited by Mr. Trahan from the
`
`RockSeal
`
`invention conceived by Mr. Themig at Halliburton, each one will be addressed
`
`separately:
`
`1.
`
`Top Tool - U.S. Patent No. 4,279,306
`
`Mr. Trahan states in his affidavit that this tool "employed additional features that were
`
`specifically applicable to perforation washing."
`
`(Trahan Affidavit at
`
`6).
`
`It would be more
`
`appropriate to say that this tool employed considerably different features designed for a very
`
`specific application (one that is fundamentally different than the application of isolating zones,
`
`15 of 46
`
`Ex. 2094
`IPR2016-01517
`
`

`

`which by definition is performed by isolation packers). Although this tool uses packer assemblies
`
`on each end, it is referred to in the patent as a "circulating or washing tool," not as a packer.
`
`Because this tool is a wash tool and not an isolation packer, all of the functional and application
`
`differences between wash tools and isolations packers as explained above apply to this tool.
`
`a)
`
`Comparison of Top Tool Wash Tool and RockSeal Features
`
`The following comparison of the RockSeal
`
`features conceived by Mr. Themig at
`
`Halliburton to those of the Top Tool wash tool shows that this tool does not have many of the
`
`features of the RockSeal and has certain features of its own, the combination of which prevents it
`
`from performing the same functions as the RockSeal.
`
`()
`
`Packing elements
`
`Due in part to the circulation port in the Top Tool wash tool and other conditions that may
`
`exist (e.g., inability to lock in compression of the elements), the two packing elements of the Top
`
`Tool wash tool do not provide redundant/staged seals as on the RockSeal.
`
`(ii)
`
`Actuation device
`
`Although the Top Tool wash tool actuator is located between the two packing elements, its
`
`design is considerably different than that of the RockSeal. The Top Tool actuator consists of an
`
`outer sleeve with two inner pistons - upper and lower (not two overlapping pistons/setting
`
`cylinders as conceived by Mr. Themig in the RockSeal). Consequently, the Top Tool actuator
`
`results in a longer tool than if it had used the same actuator design as the RockSeal.
`
`More importantly, other design features of this actuator would prevent use of the Top Tool
`
`wash tool as an isolation packer. Communication channels exist from the annulus outside (above
`
`and below) the tool to the back sides of these pistons, such that if pressure is applied to these areas,
`
`it will exert a force on the pistons reducing the compressive load on the sealing elements. This is
`
`16 of 46
`
`Ex. 2094
`IPR2016-01517
`
`

`

`not a problem with wash tools since they are concerned only with maintaining a seal when the
`
`pressure between the two elements is higher than the pressures above and/or below the tool.
`
`However, this structure on an isolation packer would not be acceptable.
`
`The Top Tool actuator also contains a relief valve in the sleeve between the two pistons.
`
`The relief valve controls the maximum pressure that can be exerted on the pistons to compress the
`
`packing elements. By contrast, there is no limit (other than structural limitations) as to how much
`
`pressure can be applied to the pistons on the RockSeal. When the relief valve opens in the Top
`
`Tool actuator,.flow is established from inside the tubing out into the annular space between the two
`
`elements and into the perforations. On the RockSeal, no such communication is allowed as it
`
`would (at a minimum) defeat the objective of providing redundant/staged sealing systems.
`
`(iii) Locking device
`
`The Top Tool has no locking device as Mr. Trahan confesses. (Trahan Affidavit at 8). In
`
`fact, wash tools are designed to be easily resettable. Because the tool has no locking device, the
`
`Top Tool packing elements are only compressed when pressure is applied to the inside of the
`
`tubing. As previously discussed, the RockSeal design automatically locks in the compression of
`
`the sealing elements so that they remain compressed even after tubing pressure is removed and
`
`further allows the elements to load into each other.
`
`(iv) Anti-preset
`
`The Top Tool has no anti-preset feature as Mr. Trahan confesses. (Trahan Affidavit at 8).
`
`The lower ring ("Gage Ring" or "Thimble") on the upper packing element has nothing to prevent
`
`its upward movement. There is simply no reason to include an anti-preset in this tool because it
`
`was designed to be run