DCT
6:24-cv-00090
Halliburton Energy Services Inc v. Weatherford U S L P
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Halliburton Energy Services, Inc. (Delaware) and Halliburton Technology Partners, LLC (Delaware)
- Defendant: Weatherford U.S. L.P. (Louisiana)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Breaud & Meyers; Jenner & Block LLP
- Case Identification: 6:24-cv-00090, W.D. La., 01/22/2024
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper as Defendant is a resident of the district, maintains a regular and established place of business in the district, and has allegedly committed acts of infringement within the district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s high pressure-low pressure (HP-LP) shunt system for use in subterranean wells infringes a patent related to a multiple-pressure shunt assembly for gravel packing.
- Technical Context: The technology involves systems used in oil and gas wells to place a sand or gravel filter (a "gravel pack") around production tubing, which prevents formation sand from entering the wellbore and damaging equipment.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Plaintiff provided Defendant with written notice of infringement of the patent-in-suit on November 15, 2022, which included a claim chart. The notice followed an earlier communication on October 14, 2022, regarding a related foreign patent. The parties subsequently engaged in unsuccessful discussions to resolve the dispute.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2018-06-22 | U.S. Patent 11,333,007 Earliest Priority Date |
| 2022-05-17 | U.S. Patent 11,333,007 Issued |
| 2022-10-14 | Halliburton provides notice regarding Guyana counterpart patent |
| 2022-11-15 | Halliburton provides notice regarding U.S. '007 patent |
| 2024-01-22 | Complaint Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 11,333,007 - "Multiple Shunt Pressure Assembly for Gravel Packing"
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 11,333,007, "Multiple Shunt Pressure Assembly for Gravel Packing," issued May 17, 2022 (the "’007 Patent").
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: In deep or extended-reach wells, pumping gravel packing slurry requires very high pressure at the surface to ensure it travels the full length of the production zone. Conventional systems required the entire shunt tube assembly, from top to bottom, to be designed to withstand this maximum upstream pressure, which was described as entailing "substantial burden and expense." (’007 Patent, col. 9:8-24; Compl. ¶17).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a lower completion assembly that uses different pressure ratings for different sections. A "first" or upstream sand screen assembly is designed with a high-pressure shunt tube system, while a "second" or downstream assembly, located further down the wellbore, is designed with a lower-pressure system. (’007 Patent, Abstract; col. 9:25-46). This design accounts for the natural drop in fluid pressure as the slurry moves downhole, avoiding the need to over-engineer the downstream components. (’007 Patent, col. 9:25-30).
- Technical Importance: This differential-pressure approach suggests a method to reduce the material requirements, weight, and overall cost of gravel pack completion strings for long horizontal wells, without compromising the effectiveness of slurry delivery. (Compl. ¶18).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claim 11 and dependent claim 12. (Compl. ¶24, 37).
- The essential elements of independent claim 11 include:
- A source of pressurized working fluid.
- A first sand screen assembly attached to a second sand screen assembly.
- The first sand screen assembly has a shunt tube assembly with a "first burst pressure."
- The second sand screen assembly has a shunt tube assembly with a "burst pressure less than the first burst pressure."
- The high-burst-pressure shunt tube assembly is fluidly coupled between the fluid source and the lower-burst-pressure shunt tube assembly.
- The complaint reserves the right to assert infringement of other claims. (Compl. ¶37).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The Weatherford high pressure-low pressure (HP-LP) shunt system. (Compl. ¶22).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint alleges the accused product is a completion assembly deployed in a wellbore to control sand ingress by delivering a gravel pack slurry. (Compl. ¶25-26).
- It is alleged to be constructed with a high-pressure section attached to a low-pressure section, where the shunt tube assembly in the high-pressure section has a first burst pressure (alleged to be approximately 7000 psi) and the low-pressure section has a second, lower burst pressure (alleged to be approximately 3500 psi). (Compl. ¶27-28).
- The complaint alleges that Defendant has manufactured, sold, and exported the HP-LP shunt system for use in offshore wells, and that these sales have resulted in lost profits to Plaintiff, which markets a competing PetroGuard® Shunt System. (Compl. ¶23, 33).
No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
'007 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 11) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a source of pressurized working fluid | The accused system includes a source of pressurized working fluid, such as gravel pack slurry, which is delivered from upper joints to downstream joints. | ¶26 | col. 4:8-9 |
| a first sand screen assembly attached to a second sand screen assembly | The accused system includes a first sand screen assembly (a high-pressure section) attached to a second sand screen assembly (a low-pressure section). | ¶27 | col. 5:6-9 |
| wherein the first sand screen assembly comprises a shunt tube assembly with a first burst pressure and the second sand screen assembly comprises a shunt tube assembly with a burst pressure less than the first burst pressure | The first sand screen assembly has a shunt tube assembly with a first burst pressure of approximately 7000 psi, and the second sand screen assembly has a shunt tube assembly with a burst pressure of approximately 3500 psi. | ¶28 | col. 19:37-41 |
| and wherein the shunt tube assembly with the first burst pressure is fluidly coupled between the source of pressurized working fluid and the shunt tube assembly with the burst pressure less than the first burst pressure | The high-pressure section of the accused system is fluidly coupled between the source of the working fluid and the low-pressure section. | ¶29 | col. 19:42-48 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Technical Question: The complaint's allegations regarding specific burst pressures (7000 psi and 3500 psi) are made "on information and belief." (Compl. ¶28). A central factual question for the court will be whether discovery confirms that the accused system's components have measurably different burst pressures that satisfy the "less than the first burst pressure" limitation of the claim.
- Scope Questions: The complaint pleads infringement under the doctrine of equivalents as an alternative to literal infringement. (Compl. ¶37). This raises the question of whether any technical differences between the accused system and the claim limitations are insubstantial. The analysis may focus on whether the accused system performs substantially the same function (delivering slurry via a differential pressure system), in substantially the same way (using distinct high- and low-pressure rated sections), to achieve substantially the same result (a complete gravel pack at lower cost).
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "burst pressure"
Context and Importance: The distinction between a "first burst pressure" and a subsequent "burst pressure less than the first" is the central inventive concept recited in claim 11. The outcome of the infringement analysis will depend heavily on the definition and method of measurement for this term as applied to the accused product.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent does not provide an explicit definition for "burst pressure." A party may argue for its plain and ordinary meaning as understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art, which could refer generally to the pressure at which a component physically ruptures.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification extensively discusses different "operating pressure ratings," such as systems rated for "over 5000 psi" and "no more than 5000 psi." (’007 Patent, col. 10:5-10). A party could argue that "burst pressure" should be construed in light of this disclosure, tying it to the designed operational limits or ratings of the components rather than solely to a catastrophic failure point.
The Term: "sand screen assembly"
Context and Importance: Practitioners may focus on this term because the claim requires two distinct "assemblies" that are "attached" to one another. If the accused product could be characterized as a single, continuous system with graduated properties rather than two discrete, attached units, it could form a basis for a non-infringement argument.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes how a "plurality of lower completion assemblies may be deployed end to end," which supports a reading where any two sections joined in series could constitute distinct assemblies. (’007 Patent, col. 2:2-6).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent figures depict distinct first and second sand screen assemblies (202, 204) with separate base pipes (206a, 206b) connected at a joint (236). (’007 Patent, Fig. 2). A party might argue this disclosure limits an "assembly" to a discrete, modular unit as illustrated, rather than a mere section of a unitary component.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(f) for supplying components from the U.S. for combination abroad (e.g., in Guyana). (Compl. ¶41). The factual allegations also support a claim for induced infringement, stating that Defendant provides instructions, documentation, and support for the installation and operation of the accused system in an infringing manner. (Compl. ¶32, 41).
- Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged based on pre-suit knowledge. The complaint states that Plaintiff provided Defendant with written notice of infringement of the ’007 Patent, including a claim chart, on November 15, 2022, and that Defendant has continued its allegedly infringing activities despite this notice. (Compl. ¶43).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A primary issue will be one of evidentiary proof: Will discovery confirm the complaint's "information and belief" allegations that the accused Weatherford HP-LP system is in fact built with distinct sections having measurably different "burst pressures" as required for literal infringement of claim 11?
- A central legal question will be one of definitional scope: How will the court construe the term "burst pressure"? Will it be defined by a component's ultimate physical failure point, or will it be interpreted more narrowly in light of the patent's discussion of specified "operating pressure ratings," potentially creating a higher bar for proving infringement?
- A key question for damages will be culpability: Given the allegation that Halliburton provided pre-suit notice with a detailed claim chart, the court will likely examine whether Weatherford's continued conduct after November 15, 2022, was objectively reckless, which could support a finding of willful infringement and lead to enhanced damages.