DCT
2:24-cv-00884
Liberty Energy Services LLC v. ProFrac Services LLC
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Liberty Energy Services LLC (Texas)
- Defendant: ProFrac Services, LLC (Texas); ProFrac Manufacturing, LLC (Texas); U.S. Well Services, LLC (Delaware); U.S. Well Services Holdings, LLC (Delaware)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Shook, Hardy & Bacon L.L.P.
- Case Identification: 2:24-cv-00884, E.D. Tex., 11/01/2024
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Eastern District of Texas because Defendant ProFrac maintains a regular and established place of business in the district and has committed acts of alleged patent infringement there.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s hydraulic fracturing services, which utilize "split stream" methods, infringe five patents related to separating abrasive and non-abrasive fluid streams to reduce pump wear.
- Technical Context: The lawsuit concerns hydraulic fracturing ("fracking") technology, a critical process in the oil and gas industry for enhancing resource extraction from subterranean rock formations.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges an extensive history of Defendant ProFrac’s awareness of the asserted patent family, citing multiple instances where the lead patent was used as prior art during the prosecution of ProFrac's own patents and in multiple inter partes review (IPR) proceedings challenging ProFrac patents. This history is presented to support allegations of willful infringement.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2006-06-02 | Earliest Priority Date for all Patents-in-Suit |
| 2010-12-07 | U.S. Patent No. 7,845,413 ('413 Patent) Issued |
| 2011-11-15 | U.S. Patent No. 8,056,635 ('635 Patent) Issued |
| 2012-12-25 | U.S. Patent No. 8,336,631 ('631 Patent) Issued |
| 2014-10-07 | U.S. Patent No. 8,851,186 ('186 Patent) Issued |
| 2015-08-03 | Alleged date of ProFrac’s awareness of the '413 Patent |
| 2021-01-01 | Approximate start of IPR proceedings referencing '413 Patent |
| 2024-03-12 | U.S. Patent No. 11,927,086 ('086 Patent) Issued |
| 2024-01-01 | Approximate date Liberty acquired the patents |
| 2024-11-01 | Complaint Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 7,845,413 - Method of Pumping an Oilfield Fluid and Split Stream Oilfield Pumping Systems
Issued December 7, 2010
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: Conventional hydraulic fracturing operations pump a single fluid stream containing an abrasive proppant (e.g., sand) through all high-pressure pumps, leading to rapid wear and high maintenance costs for the internal components of these pumps ('413 Patent, col. 2:8-17).
- The Patented Solution: The invention splits the fracturing fluid into two separate streams at the well surface: a "clean stream" (e.g., primarily water) and a "dirty stream" containing the abrasive proppant. These streams are pressurized by separate sets of pumps—"clean pumps" for the non-abrasive fluid and "dirty pumps" for the abrasive slurry. The two pressurized streams are then combined in a common manifold before being injected into the well, thereby sparing the majority of the pumps from the damaging effects of the proppant ('413 Patent, col. 2:36-45; Fig. 3).
- Technical Importance: This "split stream" approach aimed to significantly increase the operational life of the expensive high-pressure pumps used in fracturing, reducing downtime and maintenance expenditures ('413 Patent, col. 2:42-45).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts at least independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶42).
- Claim 1 requires the steps of:
- Providing a clean stream of primarily water from water tanks.
- Using clean pumps to pump the clean stream to the wellbore.
- Providing a dirty stream containing a solid material (proppant) in a fluid carrier that includes a gelling agent.
- Using dirty pumps to pump the dirty stream to the wellbore.
- Combining the clean and dirty streams at the well surface in a common manifold to form the final oilfield fluid.
- The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.
U.S. Patent No. 8,056,635 - Split Stream Oilfield Pumping Systems
Issued November 15, 2011
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: As with the parent '413 Patent, this invention addresses the high cost and frequent failure of pumping equipment when handling abrasive fracturing fluids ('635 Patent, col. 2:5-9).
- The Patented Solution: The '635 Patent claims a method and system focusing on the architecture of the split stream process. It explicitly recites combining the separate clean and dirty streams in a "common manifold positioned at the well surface" before introducing the combined fluid into the wellbore. This architecture concentrates the abrasive wear on a smaller subset of pumps designated as "dirty pumps" ('635 Patent, col. 2:48-60; Fig. 3).
- Technical Importance: The invention provided a refined framework for implementing split stream operations, emphasizing the surface-level combination of fluids as a key efficiency-driving element.
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts at least independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶50).
- Claim 1 requires the steps of:
- Operating at least one clean pump to pump a clean stream (primarily water) to a common manifold at the well surface.
- Operating at least one dirty pump to pump a dirty stream (with solid material) to the common manifold.
- Combining the streams in the common manifold to form the oilfield fluid.
- Introducing the oilfield fluid to the wellbore.
- The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.
U.S. Patent No. 8,336,631 - Split Stream Oilfield Pumping Systems
Issued December 25, 2012
- Technology Synopsis: This patent, a continuation of the application that led to the '635 Patent, further refines the split stream method. It claims a method focused on using a common manifold at the well surface to combine a clean stream having a "minimal amount of solid" with a dirty stream containing proppant, thereby reducing wear on the clean pumps ('631 Patent, col. 12:44-50).
- Asserted Claims: At least independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶57).
- Accused Features: The complaint alleges that ProFrac's fracturing operations, which involve separating clean and dirty fluid streams and combining them at the surface, practice the claimed method (Compl. ¶¶31-39, 60).
U.S. Patent No. 8,851,186 - Split Stream Oilfield Pumping Systems
Issued October 7, 2014
- Technology Synopsis: This patent continues the same line of invention, claiming a method where a "diluted stream" and a "concentrated stream" (containing proppant at a concentration of at least 2 pounds per gallon) are combined in a common manifold ('186 Patent, col. 12:50-65). The invention specifies that the pumps for the diluted stream are different from those for the concentrated stream, addressing the core problem of selective equipment preservation.
- Asserted Claims: At least independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶64).
- Accused Features: The complaint alleges ProFrac uses a proppant concentration of at least 2 pounds per gallon in its dirty stream, and combines this with a clean stream in a common manifold, thereby infringing the '186 Patent (Compl. ¶¶35, 38, 67).
U.S. Patent No. 11,927,086 - Split Stream Oilfield Pumping Systems
Issued March 12, 2024
- Technology Synopsis: The most recent patent in the family, this invention claims a method specifying the pumping of a "non-gel fluid" with the clean pumps and a dirty stream containing proppant at 2-12 pounds per gallon with the dirty pumps. A key element is that the "dirty stream causes a useful life of the... dirty pumps to be shortened relative to a reduction in a useful lie [sic] of the... clean pumps" ('086 Patent, col. 13:11-16). This captures the functional benefit of the split-stream design.
- Asserted Claims: At least independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶71).
- Accused Features: The complaint alleges ProFrac uses a non-gel fluid for its clean stream and a dirty stream with a proppant concentration between 2 and 12 pounds per gallon, matching the claimed parameters (Compl. ¶¶35, 37, 74).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
The accused instrumentalities are Defendant ProFrac’s hydraulic fracturing operations and services, which employ what the complaint characterizes as "split stream fracking methods" (Compl. ¶¶23, 30).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint alleges that ProFrac's accused operations involve storing water in tanks ("A"), creating a "dirty stream" by mixing water with proppant and chemicals in a blender ("B"), and creating a "clean stream" by transporting water directly from the tanks via separate hoses ("E") to a set of clean pumps ("F") (Compl. ¶¶32, 33, 37). An image from the complaint, derived from Exhibit F, illustrates the separate fluid paths for the clean stream (hoses "E") and dirty stream (from blender "B") (Compl. ¶37). The two streams are allegedly pressurized by separate sets of pumps ("D" for dirty, "F" for clean) and then combined in a common manifold ("G") at the well surface before injection into the wellhead ("H") (Compl. ¶¶38-39). This process is depicted in what the complaint describes as an "exemplary ProFrac hydraulic fracturing operation" in Exhibit F (Compl. ¶31).
- The complaint alleges ProFrac markets this technology as its "clean fleet" fracking technology and that it is protected by ProFrac's own patents (Compl. ¶28).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
'413 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| providing a clean stream comprising water sourced from water tanks, wherein the clean stream contains primarily water | ProFrac allegedly creates a "clean stream" by transporting water directly from water tanks ("A") via separate hoses ("E") to clean pumps ("F"), bypassing the blender. | ¶37 | col. 3:62-65 |
| operating one or more clean pumps to pump the clean stream from the well surface to the wellbore | ProFrac allegedly uses "clean pumps ('F')" to pressurize the clean stream. | ¶37 | col. 3:64-65 |
| providing a dirty stream comprising a solid material disposed in a fluid carrier comprising the water sourced from water tanks... a gelling agent | ProFrac allegedly creates a "dirty stream" by combining water from tanks ("A") with proppant and chemicals, such as polyacrylamide (a gelling agent), in a blender ("B"). An annotated image from Exhibit F shows the blender ("B") as the source of the dirty stream (Compl. ¶33). | ¶¶33-34 | col. 3:55-61 |
| operating one or more dirty pumps to pump the dirty stream from the well surface to the wellbore | ProFrac allegedly uses "dirty pumps ('D')" to pressurize the dirty stream. | ¶36 | col. 4:1-2 |
| combining, at the well surface, the clean stream and the dirty stream in a common manifold to form the oilfield fluid... | ProFrac allegedly combines the pressurized clean and dirty streams in a "common manifold ('G')" at the well surface to create the final fracking fluid. An annotated diagram in Exhibit F shows the separate streams from pumps "D" and "F" converging at the manifold "G" (Compl. ¶38). | ¶38 | col. 4:6-10 |
'635 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| operating at least one clean pump to pump a clean stream to a common manifold positioned at the well surface... | ProFrac allegedly uses "clean pumps ('F')" to transport a clean water stream to the "common manifold ('G')" located at the well surface. | ¶¶37-38 | col. 6:1-5 |
| operating at least one dirty pump to pump a dirty stream to the common manifold... | ProFrac allegedly uses "dirty pumps ('D')" to transport the proppant-laden dirty stream to the same "common manifold ('G')". | ¶¶36, 38 | col. 6:5-8 |
| combining the clean stream and the dirty stream in the common manifold to form the oilfield fluid... | The separate streams are allegedly combined within the manifold ("G") to form the final fracking fluid before being pumped down the wellhead ("H"). | ¶¶38-39 | col. 6:9-11 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Scope Questions: A central question may be the construction of "common manifold." While the complaint alleges a manifold ("G"), the defense may argue that the specific configuration of its combining apparatus does not meet the legal definition of "manifold" as described and claimed in the patents. The physical location "at the well surface" may also become a point of factual or legal dispute.
- Technical Questions: For the '413 Patent, the claim requires the clean stream to contain "primarily water." The defense could challenge whether ProFrac's clean stream, which may contain friction reducers or other non-proppant additives, meets this limitation. For the '086 Patent, a similar question arises regarding the "non-gel fluid" limitation. The complaint alleges ProFrac adds polyacrylamide, a gelling agent, to its dirty stream (Compl. ¶34) but does not specify the full composition of the clean stream.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
- The Term: "common manifold" (appears in claims of both '413 and '635 Patents)
- Context and Importance: This term is the lynchpin of the infringement allegation, as it defines the point of convergence for the separately pumped streams. Practitioners may focus on this term because its construction will determine whether ProFrac's equipment for combining fluids (allegedly component "G" in Exhibit F) falls within the scope of the claims. The dispute will likely center on the structural and functional characteristics required for a piece of equipment to be considered a "common manifold."
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes the manifold as a device that "mechanically collects and distributes the combined output of the individual pumps" ('413 Patent, col. 2:2-4) and later refers to it as a "missile trailer or missile" ('413 Patent, col. 4:7-8). This could support a functional definition, covering any equipment that combines and directs fluid flow from multiple sources.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The figures, such as Figure 3 in the patents, depict the manifold (310) as a distinct, trailer-mounted piece of equipment with specific inlets and a single outlet. A defendant might argue that the term is limited to this specific embodiment or requires a more complex structure than what is used in the accused process.
VI. Other Allegations
Indirect Infringement
The complaint makes general allegations of induced and contributory infringement, stating ProFrac acts "by intending that others make, use, sell, offer for sale, or import" the claimed inventions (Compl. ¶41). The complaint does not, however, plead specific facts supporting inducement, such as the distribution of instructional materials to customers or partners.
Willful Infringement
The complaint contains extensive allegations to support willfulness. It asserts that ProFrac had pre-suit knowledge of at least the '413 Patent as early as August 2015, due to it being cited as prior art during the prosecution of nearly forty of ProFrac's own patents (Compl. ¶¶24, 26). The complaint further alleges that the '413 Patent was used as a reference in multiple IPR proceedings challenging ProFrac's patents (Compl. ¶27). These allegations form a strong basis for a claim of deliberate infringement.
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A central issue will be one of claim construction and factual application: Can Liberty prove that ProFrac's fluid combination equipment (element "G" in its exemplary diagram) performs the function and has the structure of the "common manifold" as that term is defined by the patents' intrinsic evidence? The outcome of this question will be pivotal for the infringement analysis across all asserted patents.
- A key evidentiary question will be one of compositional proof: What evidence will be developed in discovery regarding the precise chemical composition of ProFrac's "clean stream"? The case may turn on whether this stream is factually "primarily water" (as required by the '413 Patent) or a "non-gel fluid" (as required by the '086 Patent), which could be a significant point of technical dispute.
- The dispute over willfulness will likely be a primary focus of the litigation. Given the detailed allegations of ProFrac's repeated encounters with the '413 Patent during its own patent prosecution and in IPRs, the court will be asked to determine whether any infringement was knowing and deliberate, a finding that would expose ProFrac to the risk of enhanced damages.