Inter Partes Review — Final Hearing
`
`Weatherford Int'l, LLC, et al., v. Packers Plus Energy Servs., Inc.
`
`Case IPR2016-01509 (U.S. Patent No. 7,861,774B2),
`
`Case IPR2016-01514 (U.S. Patent No. 7,543,634B2),
`
`Case IPR2016-01517 (U.S. Patent No. 7,134,505B2)
`
`Carl DeFranco, Administrative Patent Judges
`
`Before the Honorable Scott Daniels, Neil Powell, and
`
`Counsel for Petitioners:
`
`Edell, Shapiro & Finnan, LLC
`Jason Shapiro
`
`Heim, Payne & Chorush LLP
`Douglas R. Wilson
`
`

`

`Challenged Claims - ’774 Claims 1, 3-7, 9-10, 12, and 16
`
`a2 United States Patent
`Fehret al.
`
`(0) Patent No.:
`(4s) Date of Patent:
`
`US 7,861,774 B2
`Jan. 4, 2011
`
`US007861774B2
`
`4) METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR
`WELLBOREFLUID TREATMENT
`[nwcnsoes:
`Jim Bebe. dmonton (4: Daniel Joa
`Themig, Cochrane (CA)
`we: Packers Plus Energy Services fne.,
`Assign
`(73)
`0.08%
`Calgary (CA)
`£6147
`
`Sub;s
`4°) Notice:
`he turinof this
`any disclaimer,
`405K
`
`putent is extended or udjasted under 35
`a2
`days
`USC, 15406) by
`32d
`22»
`40.
`124471074
`(20) Appl Now
`lee
`(22) Filed:=May22, 2008
`5)
`Prior Publication Data
`US 201090065276,A1
`Mar. LR 2010
`Related U.S. Application Date
`Ne.
`th
`
`(36)
`
`References Cited
`US. PATENT BOCUMENTS
`
`inued)
`OVER PULEICATIONS
`Tools,
`
`15 pees
`
`1. A methodforfracturing a hydrocarbon-
`containing formation accessible through a
`wellbore, the method comprising:
`running a tubing string into an open hole
`and uncased, non-vertical section of the
`wellbore.. .;
`
`475)
`
`
`
` 1M
`
`
`Oh tnt ch.
`(2006.01)
`EQARIF
`(2006.01)
`E2UB ARI24
`
`(2006.01
`E218 3414
`(32) USCL on NOGI9L, IVSOR 1: BGT TTS:
`
` TOGW3IN; 166/334.4: 166/147
`(58) Field of Classiti
`
`166/38
`
`L6G! TM,
`1308
`Sev applicationfile for complete seareh bik
`
`expandingradially outwardthefirst,
`secondand third solid body packers. . .;
`conveying a fluid conveyed sealing
`device through the tubingstring.. .;
`pumping fracturing fluid .
`.
`. to fracture
`the hydrocarbon-containing formation.
`
` 16 Clatins, 9 Drawing Sheets
`
`

`

`Challenged Claims - 634 Claim 25
`
`
`
`
`
`Nolice:
`
`ay
`
`6)
`
`($1)
`
`(54)
`
`
`
`(2006.01)
`ONN.OL)
`(2006.01)
`J66/T9E: G33: [OTT
`16147: LOGS 18
`
`(10) Patent No.:
`2, United States Patent
`US 7,543,634 B2
`(45) Date of Patent:
`Fehr et al.
`*Jun. 9, 2009
`METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR
`(58) Field of Classification Search
`We 587.
`166/36, 373
`WELLBOREFLUID TREATMENT
`EWS, BEB, 26"
`
`
`175/237, 317
`
` L6G, 393:
`laventors: Jim Fehr, lidmoatos (CA) Daniel Jon
`Soe application file for complete search history.
`Themilg. Cochnine (CA)
`References Cited
` oc Packers Plus Energy Services Inc..
`U.S. PATENT DOCUMENTS
`Calgary (CA)
`19566909 A *
`S1934 Provish
`2205 4% Vial Donon...
`
`Subject to any disclaimer. the term of this
`
`27MIN A
`31956 Boker ot al
`
`pateat
`is extended or adjusted vader 35
`ROSAIS A
`LNG Biker of al
`US.C.
`154(b) by Odays
`AME A
`TOTS Heachinsow of all
`ASIOXN AS 1985
`
`This patent
`ix subject
`to 9 &rminal dis-
`F
`442 5
`&19Rs
`ciaimer.
`
`21986 Birewo
`~ 16 905.
`ASCARIS A
`47TMON A 1198) Mills
`..
`168 87
`Appl. Nos 1580,863
`11900 Stokley ot al
`AROIGTE A
`201
`4949788 A
`£1990
`Viked:
`Ost. 19, 2006
`(Cuntinued)
`Prior Publication Data
`OIMLR PUBLICATIONS
`US 2007418
`4Al
`Jul. 5. 2007
`Pre duscriztion ofopes
`
`
`Related U.S, Application Dats
`(Continued)
`filed ea
`Continuutionof applicatiun No.
`1 /104.467.
`Primary Examiner Kenneth
`Thompson
`Apr. 13. 2005. now Pat. No. 7.024.508. whichis a
`Bennet Jones LEP
`
`(74) Miornes. Agent. or Hem
`divisienof application No. 10’290.004. Liked on Nov
`19, 2002, now Pat. Na. 6.907.036,
`(s7)
`
`STRACT
`Provisianal appticanion No. 60/331.491.
`filed on Now
`A bing ating assemblyis dischysod for uid ireutment of a
`19, 2001. peovisiunal application Ne.
`60V404.783,
`‘Thetubirp, ering can he wad for staged wellhor:
`filed on Aug. 21, 2002
`men! where a selected segment ofthe wellbueeis
`
`
`Int. ©),
`created. While other seaments are
`sealedot. The tubing string
`E2IB 4414
`canalsobe used whereaportedtubing string is requinsd to be
`BUIB RHI
`ovoinin a pressure tight condition ondlater is needed tohein
`E21B 34/4
`ant open-port condition.
`US. CL.
`
`{$23
`
`25 Claims, 9 Drawing Sheets
`
`20. A methodforfluid treatment of a
`borehole, the method comprising:...
`
`25. The method of claim 20 wherein
`when in a desired position the
`apparatus 1s adjacent an open hole
`section of the wellbore and the
`packers are set to seal the annulus
`between the apparatus and the
`wellbore wall.
`
`

`

`Challenged Claims - ‘505 Claims 23 and 27
`
` LUO
`US00713450SB2
`
`(12) United States Patent
`(10) Patent No.:
`US 7,134,505 B2
`
`Fehret al. (45) Date of Patent:
`Noy. 14, 2006
`(34)
`METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR
`JOMAIS |
`9 1962 Baker ot al.
`
`WELLBORE FLUID TREATMENT
`APSE
`TOTS Tietchisow vt al
`450870
`6'1URS Pringte
`Inventors
`Jim Pehe, Cdmonton (CA), Daniel Jon
`FIV) Stokley of al
`Themig. Cochrane (CA)
`.
` 1N1990) Marray
`NLP 1905 Kennedy of al
`Packers Plus Energy Services Ine..
`F1990 lee
`Calgary (CA)
`©1996 Sondan.
`Jr ct nl
`Subject toanydisclaimer. the term of this
`T1906 Jondnn.
`Jr st nl
`potcot
`ib extended or odjusied under 35
`10.1999 Allamon ot a
`U.S.C.
`154(b) by O days.
`6.2000 Bt
`T2001 Cremichael et al
`Appl. Now 11/104,467
`SANLORZ BE* 122002 Hchols a al.
`..........
`Vited
`Apr. 14, 2005
`Prior Publication Data
`US 2005/01 78552 Al
`Aug 18, 2005
`Related U.S, Application Duta
`Division of applicutinn No. 10/290.006. fied oa Nov.
`19, 2002, now Put. No, (907986,
`Provisional application No. 61/404.783. fied on Aug.
`21, 2002 parvisiunal application No. (331.491,
`filed on Nev. 1, 2901
`lat. OL
`RIB 43/14
`(2006.00)
`HIB 43124
`(2006.00)
`BIB MAA
`2006.01)
`166/387: 166/191. 16194,
`US. OL
`1MUMIG: 166318
`Ficld of Classification Searct
`..
`IHW ABT.
`A tubing string assembly is dischosod tine Muid treatmentof
`Rs, SPR. BIA. 142. 146, 147. 18401
`1
`» wellbore, The tubing string canbe used fir staged wellbon:
`
`
`166194, 318, 269, 126. 127, ISL, 191.
`305.1,
`tuid treatment whore a selected segment al the wellbvec is
`
`166/306, B13:
`175/237, 317
`while other segments ore sealed off The tubing
`Soeapplication file for complete search history
`uiso be used Where a ported bing string is
`
`
`cequired to be nen atiast pressure light condition and Laer
`(56)
`References Cited
`is necedtobe in an opea-port condition
`U.S, PADEN'T DOCUMENTS
`LINQH A
`F186 Baker ot
`44 Claims, 9 Drawing Sheets
`
` 4/2000 Zeltmmannxt al
`
`23/27. The method of claim 19/24
`wherein when in a desired position the
`apparatus 1s adjacent an open hole
`section of the wellbore and the
`packers are set to seal the annulus
`between the apparatus and the
`wellbore wall.
`
`OTHER PUBLICATIONS
`
`202 hare duscription ofopos
`dip www packerpluscm roc even:
`ml
`hole packer, available pring to Mw
`
`Designand Installation of a Com-Pfostive Completion Syston for
`
`HosivoatalChalk Wells When: Mulliple /oacs Rew:
`Avid Stina.
`lation. D. W. Thorapson. SPH. Drilling & Comelctio
`sp. LYOR pp.
`CSI-156,
`* cited by examiner
`Primary Kxamiewr Kenneth Thompson
`(74) Attormey, Agent, or Finw Veennett Jones 11?
`(S7)
`ABSTRACT
`
`
`
`19/24. A methodforfluid treatment of
`a borehole, the method comprising:...
`
`inst
`
`A44\
`
`XX\\‘
`
` 5AW.ON?
`
`5580)
`
`(75)
`
`(7)
`
`Assignee:
`
`Nolice:
`
`21)
`(22)
`65)
`
`162)
`160)
`
`ish
`
`(58)
`
`

`

`Ground 2
`
`Thomson
`
`
`1.75" MSAF(1°sliding
`1.5" MSAF (2™ sliding
`sleeve and port)
`sleeve and port)
`
`Long Axis
`
`
`
`Qe
`@ |
`“a
`Long Axis
`da
`1S 418 Lateral #2 (Keg River) — ~ ~—~— —_P
`a
`First Port/Sliding Sleeve
`Sliding Sleeves
`Second Port/Sliding Sleeve
`
`
`
`Second Packer
`
`<
`
`Muskeg (tight)
`
`jmseem Ellsworth
`
`Lateral 41 (Keg River)
`
`

`

`Ground 2 — Thomson + Ellsworth
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`‘Thomsondoesnotdiscloseanopenholecompletion.Thus, Thomson does
`
`not disclose any ofthe open hole limitations of the claims including: “running a
`
`tubing string into an open hole,” a “solid body packer operable to seal about the
`
`tubing string and against a wellbore wall in the open hole and uncased, non-
`
`Petitioners Fail to Showthat Thomson Discloses Various
`Open Hole Limitations of the 774 Claims.
`
`Paper 32 (IPR2016-01509) at 56 (emphasis added)
`
`

`

`Ground 2 — Thomson + Ellsworth
`
`Testimony of Packers Plus expert Kevin Trahan:
`
`
`
`
`The open hole application of tools that
`were originally designed for cased hole has
`
`been commonplacein the industry since |
`
`began working in the industry in 1992.
`There is nothing novel or nonobvious
`
`about such an application.
`
`
`
`
`Ex. 1012 at 10-11 (emphasis added)
`
`

`

`Ground 2 — Thomson + Ellsworth
`
`Patent Owner Response:
`
`Paper 32 (IPR2016-01509) at 20 (emphases added)
`
`These materials fail to address the key
`issue in this proceeding—whetherit was
`obviousto use solid body packersin
`combination with ball-activated sleeves
`to perform the patented method of
`open hole multi-stage fracturing.
`
`

`

`Ground 2 — Thomson + Ellsworth
`
`An is=zone_isolationalternative approach
`
`
`
`accomplished bytheinstallation of external casing packers
`and port collars as an integral part of a casing string in the
`horizontal section.
`Such a completion arrangement
`provided’
`stimulation’
`intervals with
`ready-made
`perforations for injecting fracturing fluids in an open
`hole fracturing condition behind pipe. This was the
`method of completion used in this 2000 foot horizontal well
`to avoid the problems of formation damage associated
`with cementing and to eliminate the need for tubing-
`conveyedperforating of numerous treatment intervals.
`
`Yost (Ex. 1002) at 1 (emphases added)
`
`

`

`Ground 2 — Thomson + Ellsworth
`
`Overbey 1992 DOE Report (Ex. 1036) at 48 (emphases added)
`
`Options considered for isolating the individual zones
`included conventional cementing of
`the casing with
`perforations to access the individual zones, use of
`inflatable casing packers in the casing string with
`port collars to access the zones as was donein the
`BDM/RET#1 (Reference 1) well, [and] a combination of
`these two techniques.
`Because of the relatively successful completion of
`the BDM/RET#1 well, the casing packer — port collar
`option was selected for completing the Hardy HW#1.
`
`

`

`Ground 2 — Thomson + Ellsworth
`
`[T]he entire job (27 sets) was completed without a
`tool failure or leakage around the packer elements.
`
`. was
`.
`.
`The horizonal section of the first well
`completed in a conventional manner with a cemented
`and perforated liner. Openhole completions were
`used in the next two horizontal wells .
`.
`. because the
`former completion method is expensive and there was a
`possibility that vertical natural fractures intersecting the
`wellbore at close to right angles may not connect
`effectively to perforations.
`
`McLellan April 1992 JCPTArticle (Ex. 1042) at 3, 5 (emphases added)
`
`

`

`Ground 2 — Thomson + Ellsworth
`
`SPE 37482
`
`Design andInstallation of a Cost Effective Completion System for Horizontal Chalk
`Wells Where Multiple Zones Require Acid Stimulation
`D. W. Thomson, SPE,Halliburton M & S, Ltd.; and M. F. Nazroo, SPE,Phillips Petroleum Company Norway
`
`Ex. 1038 at 31:6-9 (emphases added)
`
`Patent Owner’s Expert Depo.:
`
`Q: And what would motivate a service company to write an SPE
`paper?
`
`A: Increase sales, and also, to provide a service to the industry.
`
`

`

`Ground 2 — Thomson + Ellsworth
`
`Dr. Rao Reply Declaration:
`
`¢ “PBR/seal assembly”
`
`¢ Dr. Rao’s response: “The authors provided a solution to the
`problem and ran the job without incident. Ex. 1003 at 3.”
`
`¢ “failure of the pump out plug on M1 andthe cycle plug on M3”
`
`Ex. 1035 at [| 3-5
`
`¢ Dr. Rao’s response: “Not only did the authors of Thomson
`address these issues as they arose as described in the paper,
`but also the authors suggest the use of new ‘disappearing’ plugs
`as ‘a morereliable and costeffective solution to the tailpipe
`plug.’ Ex. 1003 at 5.”
`
`

`

`Ground 1 — Yost + Thomson + Ellsworth
`
`8-5/8" Casing
`
`External Casing Packer
`
`Port Collar\,LrrstPacker] at 6014’
`
` ‘.
`
`
`
`7mON
`LY os
`Oroe
`ait.
`-@-@** 6° @:* @--0-@ ®@ eg oe eee e]e = ->
`
`TubingString}
`
`InnerBore}
`
`/
`ae
`
`peeoeeT a718)" Hote
`to 6020’
`
`Fig. 2—Schematic diagram of completion contiguration.
`
`Yost + Thomson + Ellsworth
`
`

`

`Ground 1 — Yost + Thomson + Ellsworth
`
`The key element of the system is a multi-stage acid frac
`tool (MSAF)that is similar to a sliding sleeve circulating
`device andis run in the closed position. .
`.
`. With this system,
`stimulation of 10 separate zones is accomplished in 12-
`18 hours by a unique procedurethat lubricates varying sized
`low-specific gravity balls into the tubing and then pumps them
`to a mating seat in the appropriate MSAF, thus sealing off the
`stimulated zone and allowing stimulation of the next zone
`which is made accessible by opening the sleeve.
`This technique provided a substantial reduction in the
`operational time normally required to stimulate multiple
`zones and allowed the stimulations to be precisely targeted
`within the reservorr.
`
`Thomson(Ex. 1003) at 1 (emphases added)
`
`

`

`Ground 1 — Yost + Thomson + Ellsworth
`
`Ellsworth (Ex. 1004) at 5 of 11 (emphases added)
`
`Historically, inflatable packers were used for water
`shut-off,
`stimulation, and segment
`testing.
`More
`recently, solid body packers (SBP’s) (see Figure 4)
`have been usedto establish open hole isolation. ... The
`objective of using this type of tool is to provide a long-
`term solution to open hole isolation without the aid of
`cementedliners.
`
`

`

`3.688" ‘R’ NIPPLE
`
`Extruded Packing Elements
`
`Ground 1 — Yost + Thomson + Ellsworth
`
`Thomson (Ex. 1003) at 10 (Fig. 3)
`
`4-1/2” MSAF TOOL
`(1 REQ.PER ZONE)
`
`4-1/2” CYCLE
`PLUG/SHEAR OUT SUB
`
`Fig. 3 of Thomson (annotated and zoomed-in)
`
`

`

`Ground 1 — Yost + Thomson + Ellsworth
`
`Patent Owner’s Expert Depo.:
`
`Ex. 1038 at 54:19-55:2 (emphases added)
`
`If | took the method of Yost and | modified it by
`replacing the inflatable packers with the solid-body
`packers of Thomson and | replaced the port collars
`with ball-actuated sliding sleeves and actuated those
`port collars with balls, like was done in Thomson,
`then the method of Yost as so modified would
`infringe the ‘774 claims, correct?
`
`Q:
`
`A: | believe that’s correct.
`
`

`

`Yost Was Successful
`
`Undercurrent reservoir pressure conditions, the
`horizontal well produced at a rate 7 times greater than
`the field current average of 13 mcfd for stimulated
`vertical wells. This increase in gas production suggests
`that horizontal wells, in strategically placed locations
`within partially depleted fields, could significantly
`increase reserves.
`
`Yost (Ex. 1002) at 1 (emphases added)
`
`

`

`Yost Is Relevant to Commercial Operations
`
`Patent Owner’s Expert Depo.:
`
`Dr. Rao Reply Dec. (Ex. 1035) at J 19
`
`In fact, there has been since before Yost, and
`continues to be today, significant commercial drilling
`operations in the Devonian shale andin otherfields in
`which operators experience conditions similar to those
`reported by Yost.
`
`Ex. 1038 at 109:1-4 (emphasis added)
`
`Q: Now, noneof the papers describing the RET No. 1 well said that
`Yost’s system described there was not commercially viable,
`correct?
`
`A: Correct.
`
`

`

`Yost Intended to Fracture Across Zones
`
`Patent Owner’s Expert Depo.:
`
`Q:
`
`Solet’s — let’s assumethat I’m performing the method of Claim 1
`of the ’774 patent and I’m pumpingfracturing fluid into thefirst
`zone. And let’s assumethat that fluid communicates through
`the formation to another zone. Do | avoid infringement of Claim
`1 of the ’774 patent becausethe fluid communicated through
`the formation to another zone?
`
`Ex. 1038 at 93:22-94:6 (emphases added)
`
`A: No.
`
`Q: Okay. Do | avoid infringement of any claim of the ’774 patent
`because myfluid communicated to another zone?
`
`A:
`
`

`

`Yost Intended to Fracture Across Zones
`
`SPE 17759 (Ex. 2075) at 2 (emphases added)
`
`Primary design wasto propagate natural fractures with a slight
`difference in orientation from principal stress orientation.
`Injection at low rates allowsfluid to select pre-existing natural
`fractures to be propagated.
`Injection at pressures which will keep the fracture(s) from
`growing out of zone.
`By starting off at low rates and not exceeding 200 psi above
`closure pressure with average BHTPnatural fractures would be
`propagated.
`By increasing injection rates additional fractures would be
`induced which would likely create a network of interconnected
`fractures with orientations of N37°E, N52°E, and N67°E.
`
`

`

`Yost Intended to Fracture Across Zones
`
`SPE 18249 (Ex. 1040) at 1 (emphases added)
`
`Pressure testing and gas sampling of the
`isolated zones confirm that fracture
`communication was accomplished along
`nearly 1000 feet of borehole by stimulation of
`one 400 foot long section. A technique for
`inducing multiple hydraulic fractures with
`multiple orientations was demonstrated.
`
`

`

`Yost Intended to Fracture Across Zones
`
`SPE 18249 (Ex. 1040) at 5 (emphases added)
`
`As more experienceis gained in stimulating
`horizontal wells in low stress ratio environments,
`it may be possible to interconnectfracturesall
`along the wellbore by stimulating only
`specific intervals with tailored rates and
`pressures.
`
`

`

`Yost Fractured
`
`Figure 2 depicts the natural fracture pattern
`and orientations in Zone 7. When high-pressure
`fluid was pumped downthe tubing and annulus
`of the well, numerous natural fractures were
`enlarged. Actual breakdownof the shale
`may not have occurred, but fluid leak-off and
`subsequent expansion of the existing fracture
`system took place.
`
`SPE 18255 (Ex. 2076) at 1-2 (emphases added)
`
`

`

`Yost Fractured
`
`Patent Owner’s Expert Depo.:
`
`Q: Nowif | were to use the system that is described in
`Claim 1 of the ‘774 patent and | were to pump
`fracturing fluid as is described in that claim and all | did
`was propagateor, sorry, open a naturalfracture,
`would I, therefore, not infringe Claim 1 of the ’774
`patent?
`
`Ex. 1038 at 91:24-92:5 (emphases added)
`
`: No, [think you probably would beinfringing
`because you're — | think that wouldstill be
`considereda — a frac.
`
`

`

`Yost Fractured
`
`Patent Owner’s Expert Depo.:
`
`: Now, do you believe a person of ordinary skill in the art reading
`[SPE 18249] would conclude that they didn’t [induce fractures on
`RET#1]?
`
`Ex. 1038 at 90:2-9 (emphases added)
`
`: | mean, | think they wouldtakethis into account, that that’s
`what they believe happened.It would be a piece of
`information that you would use.
`
`Q: But there’s no doubtthat the authors are reporting that they
`induced new fractures on RET No. 1?
`
`A: That’s whatthey believe.
`
`

`

`Patent Owner’s Expert Depo.:
`
`: Wasit possible to use a sliding sleeve completion in a
`cased and cementedhole at this time?
`
`KK
`
`Patent Owner Has Failed to Show Commercial Success
`
`Ex. 1034 at 146:18-20, 148:6-9 (emphases added)
`
`: What about swellable packers? Could [the sales
`figures] have covered the useofsliding sleeve
`completions that involve swellable packers?
`A: Yes.
`
`

`

`Patent Owner’s Expert Depo.:
`
`Q: Now, whenwasthelast time you considered using a
`ball — an open-hole multistage ball-drop system on a
`horizontal fracturing operation?
`
`Patent Owner Has Failed to Show Commercial Success
`
`Ex. 1038 at 16:1-5 (emphases added)
`
`A: 2012, 2013. We lookedat it on — we lookedatit on
`our vertical completions as well as our horizontal
`completions.
`
`

`

`Patent Owner Has Failed to Show Commercial Success
`
`Mp
`
`a
`Primaryor re-frac applica C
`Open orcasedhole applications -
`Horizontal, vertical, or deviated
`
`

`

`Patent Owner Has Failed to Show Commercial Success
`
`
`vee:trae
`Inflatable Packer
`
`Swellable Packers
`
`
`
`Inflatable Packer
`
`Genssa”™
`Sweilable Packer
`
`Fraxsis'™
`Sweilable Packer
`
`ARES™ Packer
`
`Packer
`
`Annotated Fig. from Ex. 2039
`
`

`

`Patent Owner Has Failed to Show Commercial Success
`
`A: Well, this wasn’t my attempt to opine on execution
`
`| was basically
`of the operation in the field.
`looking at these animation sequences and then
`just saying in the Baker Hughes example we’re
`pumpingfracturing fluid into the second annular
`wellbore segment, for example.
`
`Patent Owner’s Expert Depo.:
`
`Q: So we know howthe system operates, but you don’t
`have evidence of the method being performed, right?
`
`Ex. 1034 at 137:17-25 (emphases added)
`
`

`

`26 (emphasis added)
`
`[E]ven assuming this data is truthful, which
`has not been established, and assumingit says
`what Mr. McGowencontendsthatit says, which
`has also not been established, it showsthat
`Baker Hughessold 3.5 times as manyprior
`art Plug and Perf tools as FracPoint sleeves
`during the relevant time period.
`
`Patent Owner Has Failed to Show Nexus
`
`Dr. Rao Reply Dec. (Ex. 1035) at
`
`

`

`Patent Owner Has Failed to Show Nexus
`
`Dr. Rao Reply Dec. (Ex. 1035) at J 28
`
`As Mr. Ghiselin reports, “The mostattractive feature
`of the [open hole multistage fracturing] techniqueisits
`speed. Several stages can be stimulated in a single
`day.” Ex. 2010 at 3. The speed improvementis due to
`the use of ball drop sliding sleeves in series as was
`taught by Thomsonin 1997:
`With this system, stimulation of 10 separate zonesis
`accomplished in 12-18 hours by a unique procedure
`that [drops varying sized balls to seal off and open
`the next zone for stimulation].
`Ex. 1003 at 1.
`
`

`

`Conventional Wisdom Included Open Hole
`Multistage Fracturing
`
`Kim and Abass 1991 (Ex. 1043) at 15 (emphasis added)
`
`It appears that the type of wellbore completion is not a
`critical factor. However, an openhole completion would
`be preferredif the formation rock is competent enough to
`maintain the wellbore in stable condition during thelife of
`[sic: the] well. Openhole completion would allow a
`maximum communication between the wellbore and
`fracture during injection and production.
`
`

`

`ma k=l hie
`
`Patent Owner Has Failed to Show
`
`Exhibit 2006 — Financial Post Magazine
`
`Exhibit 2007 — Calgary Herald
`
`Exhibit 2045 — PricewaterhouseCoopers
`
`Exhibit 2061
`
`— Business News Network
`
`MAGAZINE
`
` io =BNN
` reJSS
`CALGARYHERALD PWC business News NETWORK
`
`

`

`
`
`Patent Owner Has Failed to Show
`with Praise Evidence
`
`¢ Fails to reference the claimed methods
`
`Ex. 2020
`
`
`
`¢ Fails to reference ball-drop sleeves
`
`Exs. 2005, 2008, 2048, 2054
`
`
`
`¢ Fails to reference open hole wells
`
`Exs. 2007, 2054
`
` ¢ Fails to provide praise
`
`Exs. 2013, 2047
`
`

`

`PetroCanada
`14-2149-22W5
`re
`ae
`*— 1/7.8mm Casing 47.15Kgin L-20 sel ai 3005m
`Picked up for tubing compression
`KBD
`Manger
`Pin to pin hanger cross ower
`233, 297
`1.71,
`4PH4S pups
`lenghs-1.25
`194. Janes 23.90 kipien PH Hydiil Prenivin ConmedtioNn tubing
`407 fis
`en cenerra mnae
`a)
`PL 0n-cfftoot wih LH ealease clw Otis "X' Profife wi 69.86mm ID
`(AP! Modified}
`177 Bren x 68. Geen EVE Plus-6 mechanical ferieveble double gap 10 packer cfw P-110 mancre!
`RH sat ad rolease and emergency shea salty release (AP! Modified)
`
`Rockscel cantratrer P-110 Materia!
`
`~ 88.9mm EVE High Pressure 10K sealed Tubing swivel cfw HSN Bastomer (API Modified)
`P-110 Matorial
`~ 88. GOmm EBUE 13.64 kg/m L-80 Tubing cw Beveled Collars
`
`85 90mm EVE Profite Nipple Olls Original "XN' ww 69.85enm Saal Bore (0 & 66.93me NoGo ID
`{API Modified) P-110 Landing Nippte to be Halliburton origina
`69 90rmm BUE 13.84 kg/m L-60 Tubing clw Reguter Collars
`
`177.87 x 68.0mm RockSeal Ii packer with HPMT PeCONg clement - hycrauee se! Shear rolnase
`beavy Well P-110 Mandrel Material (Approximate setting pressure 15.Smpa)
`~ Rockseal centralizer P-110 Material
`
`88 BOmm EVE 13 84 kgim P-110 Tubing cw Bovelled Collars
`Ball ocoveied frac port assemb!y P-110 Material
`2 WE" belt tor 2 44" Seat
`84 GOmm BUE 13 64 nom P-110 Tubing ciw Bevelied Collars
`Rocksea! centratizer P-170 Matertat
`
`177 Gem x 88. Green RockSenl ¥ pecker with HPHT peckingelement - hydraulic set shear reioase
`Hoavy Wall P-110 Mandre! Material (Approximate Setting pressure 15.5mpa)
`
`usveie
`
`—B
`
`arel
`
`|j i
`
`ereeSaa—_?
`
`—_
`
`Patent Owner Has Failed to Show Copying
`
`Final installation
`
`Aug.1003
`High Rate Acid Frac
`[eee]
`
`i
`
`sn
`on
`on
`Le
`277
`C4
`
`1023
`
`oe)
`
`O88
`
`nal a“
`264
`
`J
`
`Equivelent
`
`CONFIDENTIAL
`
`‘a
`
`

`

`The Challenged Claims
`would have been obvious.
`
`

`

`Dated: October 31, 2017
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`/Jason Shapiro/
`Jason Shapiro
`Reg. No. 35,354
`Counsel for Petitioners
`
`

`

`I certify
`
`that
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`foregoing PETITIONERS’ ORAL HEARING
`
`the
`
`DEMONSTRATIVES were served October 31, 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 31, 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
`
`