• All Courts
  • Federal Courts
  • Bankruptcies
  • PTAB
  • ITC
Track Search
Export
Download All
421 results

Dynamic Air Inc. v. M-I Drilling Fluids UK Ltd.

Docket IPR2016-00263, Patent Trial and Appeal Board (Nov. 25, 2015)
Phillip Kauffman, Richard Rice, William Saindon, presiding
Case TypeInter Partes Review
Patent
7186062
Petitioner Dynamic Air Inc.
Patent Owner M-I Drilling Fluids UK Ltd.
cite Cite Docket

Dynamic Air Inc. v. M-I Drilling Fluids UK Ltd

Docket IPR2016-00262, Patent Trial and Appeal Board (Nov. 25, 2015)
Phillip Kauffman, Richard Rice, William Saindon, presiding
Case TypeInter Partes Review
Patent
7186062
Petitioner Dynamic Air Inc.
Patent Owner M-I Drilling Fluids UK Ltd
cite Cite Docket

57 Order: Order Granting Motion to Seal Transcript of Oral Hearing and Authorizing...

Document IPR2016-00263, No. 57 Order - Order Granting Motion to Seal Transcript of Oral Hearing and Authorizing Motion to Seal Final Written Decision 37 CFR 4214 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 15, 2017)

cite Cite Document

57 Order: Order Granting Motion to Seal Transcript of Oral Hearing and Authorizing Motion to Seal Final Written Decision 37 CFR 4214

Document IPR2016-00262, No. 57 Order - Order Granting Motion to Seal Transcript of Oral Hearing and Authorizing Motion to Seal Final Written Decision 37 CFR 4214 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 15, 2017)
Therefore, we exercise our discretion to issue a single Order to be filed in each case.
Specifically, Patent Owner represents that the transcript contains: “(i) illustration of the functionality of the CleanCut system, which includes CleanCut Cuttings Blowers (“CCBs”) and ISO-Pumps as well as illustration of functionality of comparative products, and (ii) competitive market analysis.” Id. Petitioner has not objected to the Motion to Seal or to the redactions in the redacted version of the transcript.
To the extent that reference is made to those excerpts of information that may not be confidential, Patent Owner maintains its designations of those documents as a whole as
We are not certain, based on that footnote, that Patent Owner understands our intention to make public the entirety of our Final Written Decision, unless one of the parties files a motion to seal establishing that a portion of the decision contains confidential information.
Accordingly, we will afford the parties an additional opportunity to file such a motion to seal before making public the decision.
cite Cite Document

54 Final Decision: Final Written Decision

Document IPR2016-00263, No. 54 Final Decision - Final Written Decision (P.T.A.B. May. 23, 2017)
As stated in the ’062 patent specification, “the present invention is based on the surprising discovery that it is possible to transport a material in the form of a thick heavy paste by means of pneumatic conveying from a relatively large vessel.” Id. at 1:66–2:2.
Specifically, Petitioner’s abandoned construction did not account for the fact that the mixture comes from a particular origin (drilling of an oil well) and that the “some resistance to flow” aspect was also too broad given the particular materials involved.
To the extent this teaching applies to drill cuttings, what it shows is that what is “free flowing” on one piece of equipment may not on be so another, and supports Petitioner’s argument that adding a gravity test would render the term indefinite.
Petitioner disputes Patent Owner’s evidence that the CleanCut system practices the claimed invention, particularly the limitation requiring a pressure vessel that is made or designed to allow a compressed conveyance for inducing movement of non-free flowing drill cuttings, without non- pneumatic means.
Conclusion for Claims 39 and 41 of the Dietzen-led Obviousness Ground In summary, we find the prior art to disclose pneumatic conveyance of non-free flowing drill cuttings using negative pressure (Dietzen I and II).
cite Cite Document

54 Final Decision: Final Written Decision

Document IPR2016-00262, No. 54 Final Decision - Final Written Decision (P.T.A.B. May. 23, 2017)
As stated in the ’062 patent specification, “the present invention is based on the surprising discovery that it is possible to transport a material in the form of a thick heavy paste by means of pneumatic conveying from a relatively large vessel.” Id. at 1:66–2:2.
Specifically, Petitioner’s abandoned construction did not account for the fact that the mixture comes from a particular origin (drilling of an oil well) and that the “some resistance to flow” aspect was also too broad given the particular materials involved.
To the extent this teaching applies to drill cuttings, what it shows is that what is “free flowing” on one piece of equipment may not on be so another, and supports Petitioner’s argument that adding a gravity test would render the term indefinite.
Petitioner disputes Patent Owner’s evidence that the CleanCut system practices the claimed invention, particularly the limitation requiring a pressure vessel that is made or designed to allow a compressed conveyance for inducing movement of non-free flowing drill cuttings, without non- pneumatic means.
Conclusion for Claims 39 and 41 of the Dietzen-led Obviousness Ground In summary, we find the prior art to disclose pneumatic conveyance of non-free flowing drill cuttings using negative pressure (Dietzen I and II).
cite Cite Document

51 Order: Order Granting Motions to Seal

Document IPR2016-00263, No. 51 Order - Order Granting Motions to Seal (P.T.A.B. Mar. 13, 2017)

cite Cite Document

51 Order: Order Granting Motions to Seal

Document IPR2016-00262, No. 51 Order - Order Granting Motions to Seal (P.T.A.B. Mar. 13, 2017)

cite Cite Document
1 2 3 4 5 ... >>