DCT

6:21-cv-00367

Halliburton Energy Services Inc v. US Well Services LLC

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 6:21-cv-00367, W.D. Tex., 07/06/2021
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the Western District of Texas because Defendants have committed acts of infringement in the District and maintain regular and established places of business there.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ “All-Electric Fracturing Fleet” system and associated services infringe seven patents related to electric-powered systems and methods for hydraulic fracturing.
  • Technical Context: The technology concerns all-electric hydraulic fracturing ("fracking") systems, which replace traditional diesel-powered equipment with electrically driven pumps to improve operational efficiency, reduce costs, and lessen the environmental impact in the oil and gas industry.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint is the Second Amended Complaint in this action. It alleges that Defendants had pre-suit knowledge of Plaintiff's patent rights based on a January 19, 2021 notice letter to Cimarex and a March 31, 2021 industry conference where Plaintiff presented its technology as "patented" while representatives from both Defendants were participating speakers. Subsequent to the filing of this complaint, a series of inter partes review (IPR) proceedings at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office resulted in the cancellation of all asserted claims for five of the seven patents-in-suit: U.S. Patent Nos. 9,410,410; 10,337,308; 9,611,728; 9,745,840; and 8,789,601. This development significantly narrows the scope of the dispute.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2012-11-16 Earliest Priority Date ('410, '308, '278, '728, '601 Patents)
2014-07-29 U.S. Patent No. 8,789,601 Issues
2015-10-15 Earliest Priority Date ('840, '030 Patents)
2016-08-09 U.S. Patent No. 9,410,410 Issues
2017-04-04 U.S. Patent No. 9,611,728 Issues
2017-08-29 U.S. Patent No. 9,745,840 Issues
2018-05-18 U.S. Patent No. 9,970,278 Issues
2019-07-02 U.S. Patent No. 10,337,308 Issues
2019-09-10 U.S. Patent No. 10,408,030 Issues
2020-11-01 Accused Halliburton/Cimarex Operations Begin
2021-01-19 Plaintiff Sends Notice Letter to Defendant Cimarex
2021-03-31 Energy ESG Conference Attended by Defendants
2021-04-15 Original Complaint Filed
2021-07-06 Second Amended Complaint Filed
2023-08-08 All Claims of '410, '308, and '601 Patents Cancelled via IPR
2024-12-18 All Claims of '728 and '840 Patents Cancelled via IPR

II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis

U.S. Patent No. 9,410,410 - “System for Pumping Hydraulic Fracturing Fluid using Electric Pumps”

  • Issued: August 9, 2016

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent family’s specification describes the drawbacks of traditional diesel-powered pumps used in hydraulic fracturing, noting they are heavy, expensive to transport and maintain, and run on costly diesel fuel (U.S. Patent No. 10,337,308, col. 1:35-46).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention is a system for hydraulic fracturing that replaces diesel engines with a plurality of electric pumps powered by electric motors. These motors are controlled by a variable frequency drive (VFD), which manages motor speed and can perform diagnostics to prevent motor damage. The system can be powered by generators, including natural gas turbines that can use fuel produced at the well site, further reducing operational costs (’308 Patent, col. 2:50-65).
  • Technical Importance: This technological shift from diesel to electric power aimed to provide significant operational cost savings, reduce maintenance, and lessen the environmental footprint of fracturing operations (’308 Patent, col. 1:40-46).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts at least independent Claim 1 (Compl. ¶40).
  • Claim 1 requires a system comprising:
    • a plurality of electric pumps fluidly connected to a well, powered by at least one electric motor, and configured to pump fluid at high pressure to fracture a formation; and
    • a variable frequency drive (VFD) connected to the motor to control its speed, wherein the VFD “frequently performs electric motor diagnostics to prevent damage” to the motor.

U.S. Patent No. 10,337,308 - “System for Pumping Hydraulic Fracturing Fluid using Electric Pumps”

  • Issued: July 2, 2019

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: This patent, part of the same family as the ’410 Patent, addresses the same problems associated with diesel-powered fracturing pumps (’308 Patent, col. 1:35-46).
  • The Patented Solution: The solution is also an electrically powered pump system. This patent specifically claims a system where the pump is a "triplex or quinteplex pump rated at about 2250 hydraulic horsepower or more" (’308 Patent, col. 8:11-13). This claim adds a specific structural and power-rating requirement to the pump itself.
  • Technical Importance: By claiming a specific class of high-horsepower pump, the invention targets the direct replacement of the most powerful and common types of diesel-powered pumps used in the industry, ensuring the electric system is suitable for heavy-duty fracturing jobs (’308 Patent, col. 7:18-20).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts at least independent Claim 1 (Compl. ¶55).
  • Claim 1 requires a system comprising:
    • a pump fluidly connected to a well;
    • an electric motor to power the pump, which is configured to pump fluid at high pressure to fracture a formation;
    • wherein the pump is a “triplex or quinteplex pump rated at about 2250 hydraulic horsepower or more.”

U.S. Patent No. 9,970,278 - “System for Centralized Monitoring and Control of Electric Powered Hydraulic Fracturing Fleet”

  • Issued: May 18, 2018
  • Technology Synopsis: This patent describes a system for hydraulic fracturing that includes not only electric pumps and generators but also a “centralized control unit.” This unit is configured to monitor operational parameters such as pressure and temperature for the pumps and generators from a single location (Compl. ¶73).
  • Asserted Claims: At least independent Claim 1 is asserted (Compl. ¶72).
  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges that Halliburton’s “Electric Tech Command Center” or “Integrated Well Completions (IWC) Unit” serves as the infringing centralized control unit (Compl. ¶77-78).

U.S. Patent No. 9,611,728 - “Cold Weather Package for Oil Field Hydraulics”

  • Issued: April 4, 2017
  • Technology Synopsis: This patent claims a hydraulic fracturing system that adds a heating element to address operational challenges in cold weather. It describes a “working fluid system” that includes a heater in thermal contact with the working fluid, which could be hydraulic fluid or lube oil, to prevent it from gelling at low temperatures (Compl. ¶88).
  • Asserted Claims: At least independent Claim 1 is asserted (Compl. ¶87).
  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges that radiators and associated fluid lines on the Halliburton fleet constitute the claimed working fluid system with a heater (Compl. ¶92).

U.S. Patent No. 8,789,601 - “System for Pumping Hydraulic Fracturing Fluid using Electric Pumps”

  • Issued: July 29, 2014
  • Technology Synopsis: This patent claims a mobile hydraulic fracturing system where the plurality of electric pumps are explicitly “mounted on a trailer or truck.” The system also includes a VFD for motor control and a plurality of generators to provide power (Compl. ¶103).
  • Asserted Claims: At least independent Claim 1 is asserted (Compl. ¶102).
  • Accused Features: The complaint identifies Halliburton’s “Zeus Electric Pumps,” which are mounted on trailers, as the infringing component (Compl. ¶105).

U.S. Patent No. 9,745,840 - “Electric Powered Pump Down”

  • Issued: August 29, 2017
  • Technology Synopsis: This patent describes a system used for a "pump down" operation, which involves pushing a tool (like a perforating gun) down a wellbore using pressurized fluid. The system comprises both a "pump down pump" and a separate "hydraulic fracturing pump," with an electric motor driving the pump down pump (Compl. ¶120).
  • Asserted Claims: At least independent Claim 16 (system claim) and Claim 1 (method claim) are asserted (Compl. ¶119, 127).
  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges that Halliburton's Zeus pumps are used as both the pump down and fracturing pumps and that its services involve pushing a "fracture-monitoring tool" into the wellbore (Compl. ¶122-125, 131; Compl. p. 35).

U.S. Patent No. 10,408,030 - “Electric Powered Pump Down”

  • Issued: September 10, 2019
  • Technology Synopsis: This patent claims a method for a pump down operation. The claimed steps include driving a pump with an electric motor to pressurize fluid, inserting a tool into a wellbore, using a boost pump to form a boost fluid, and directing the pressurized fluid to push the tool into the wellbore (Compl. ¶145).
  • Asserted Claims: At least independent Claim 1 is asserted (Compl. ¶144).
  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges that the fracturing operations performed by Cimarex using Halliburton's fleet practice these claimed method steps, including using an "electric blender" as a boost pump (Compl. ¶146-150).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

  • Product Identification: The accused instrumentalities are Halliburton’s “All-Electric Fracturing Fleet” system, its components, and the associated services provided by Halliburton and used by Cimarex (Compl. ¶34, 38). Key components identified include the “Zeus™ Electric Pumping Unit,” the “Electric Tech Command Center,” and the “ExpressBlend™ Fluid Management System” (Compl. ¶25-27).
  • Functionality and Market Context: The complaint describes the accused fleet as a system "fully powered by electricity," connecting to the power grid to operate its equipment (Compl. ¶26). The complaint provides a marketing graphic depicting the components of the "All-Electric Fracturing Fleet," including the "Electric Pump," "Electric Blender," and "Electric Tech Command Center" (Compl. p. 6). The system is alleged to use high-horsepower electric pumps to achieve pumping performance "30 to 40 percent higher than with conventional equipment" (Compl. ¶44, 62). The complaint alleges that Halliburton is in direct competition with Plaintiff and that Halliburton first deployed the accused system in November 2020 for Cimarex in the Permian Basin (Compl. ¶24, 30).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

U.S. Patent No. 9,410,410 Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
a plurality of electric pumps fluidly connected to the well and powered by at least one electric motor, and configured to pump fluid into the wellbore at high pressure... The accused fleet comprises a plurality of Halliburton’s 5000HHP “Zeus Electric Pumps,” which are connected to the well, powered by electric motors, and pump fluid at high pressure to fracture the formation. ¶43-44 col. 3:31-41
a variable frequency drive connected to the electric motor to control the speed of the motor... The accused fleet includes a variable frequency drive (VFD) to control the speed of the electric motors powering the pumps. A photograph of the 'Zeus Electric Pump' includes a callout box identifying the on-board Variable Frequency Drive (VFD) (Compl. p. 12). ¶45 col. 3:50-54
...wherein the variable frequency drive frequently performs electric motor diagnostics to prevent damage to the at least one electric motor. On information and belief, the VFD in the accused fleet frequently performs diagnostics to prevent damage to the electric motors. ¶46 col. 2:28-31
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions: A central point of contention may be the functional limitation requiring the VFD to "frequently perform[] electric motor diagnostics to prevent damage." The complaint alleges this "on information and belief" (Compl. ¶46). This raises the question of what specific functions the accused VFD actually performs and whether those functions meet the claim's requirement for a specific preventative diagnostic purpose, rather than general operational monitoring. The definition of "frequently" could also become a disputed point of construction.

U.S. Patent No. 10,337,308 Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
a pump fluidly connected to the well; and an electric motor to power the pump, the pump configured to pump fluid into the wellbore at high pressure... The accused fleet, operated at Cimarex's site, includes a "Zeus Electric Pumping Unit" fluidly connected to the well, powered by an electric motor, and configured to pump fluid at high pressure to fracture formations. A photograph shows the accused 'Zeus Electric Pump' mounted on a trailer (Compl. p. 7). ¶60-62 col. 3:31-41
wherein the pump is a triplex or quinteplex pump rated at about 2250 hydraulic horsepower or more. The accused system includes a pump that is a triplex or quinteplex pump rated at about 2250 hydraulic horsepower or more. The complaint alleges the Zeus pump delivers 5,000 HHP. ¶63 col. 7:18-20
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Technical Questions: The infringement analysis may turn on the structural and performance characteristics of the accused "Zeus Electric Pump." A key question will be whether the Zeus pump is, in fact, a "triplex or quinteplex pump" as understood in the art. Further, the claim recites a rating of "about 2250 hydraulic horsepower or more," which raises the question of how the scope of "about" will be construed, particularly in relation to the accused pump's alleged 5,000 HHP rating (Compl. ¶63).

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The Term: "frequently performs electric motor diagnostics to prevent damage" (’410 Patent, Claim 1)

  • Context and Importance: This term is a critical functional limitation. The viability of the infringement claim depends on whether the accused VFDs perform this specific, purpose-driven action. Practitioners may focus on this term because the complaint's allegation is based on "information and belief," suggesting it may be a point of factual dispute requiring discovery.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification suggests diagnostics can be performed "on the application of power, or with each start" (’308 Patent, col. 4:11-13), which could support a broad reading of "frequently."
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claim language "to prevent damage" could be interpreted to require a specific type of prophylactic diagnostic function, not merely routine operational monitoring. The specification's discussion of preventing damage from a "grounded or shorted electric motor" could be cited to narrow the scope of the required "diagnostics" (’308 Patent, col. 4:13-14).

The Term: "a triplex or quinteplex pump" (’308 Patent, Claim 1)

  • Context and Importance: This structural term defines the type of pump covered by the claim. Infringement requires the accused "Zeus Electric Pump" to meet this definition. Practitioners may focus on this term because it is a potentially dispositive technical limitation.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification presents "a triplex or a quinteplex pump" as an exemplary embodiment of a pump suitable for the high-power electric system (’308 Patent, col. 7:18-20). A party might argue the term should be given its plain and ordinary meaning as understood by a person skilled in the art of oilfield equipment.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent does not provide a specific definition beyond naming these pump types. A defendant could argue that the accused pump has a different, non-infringing mechanical structure, and that the claim is strictly limited to pumps that are structurally identifiable as either triplex or quinteplex.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges that Halliburton induces infringement by providing its “All-Electric Fracturing Fleet,” along with instructions, documentation, and services, to its customers (such as Cimarex) with the specific intent that they use the system in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶47, 65, 79). The complaint also alleges contributory infringement, stating that the components of the accused system are a material part of the inventions and are not staple articles of commerce suitable for substantial non-infringing use (Compl. ¶48, 66, 80).
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges willful infringement based on both pre-suit and post-suit knowledge. Post-suit knowledge is based on the filing of the original complaint on April 15, 2021 (Compl. ¶49, 67). Pre-suit knowledge is alleged based on a March 31, 2021 industry conference where Plaintiff sponsored a panel and advertised its technology as "patented remote electric frac" while executives from both Halliburton and Cimarex were participating speakers (Compl. ¶49-50, 67-68). A screenshot from an industry conference panel shows representatives from Halliburton and Cimarex alongside a sponsored banner advertising Plaintiff's "Patented Remote Electric Frac" technology (Compl. p. 14). For Cimarex, the complaint alleges actual notice as of a January 19, 2021 letter that specifically identified the ’308 Patent (Compl. ¶31, 68).

VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case

  • A principal issue is one of case viability: given that all asserted claims for five of the seven patents-in-suit have been cancelled in subsequent IPR proceedings, a central question will be the extent to which Plaintiff’s case can proceed on the two remaining patents (’278 and ’030) and what damages, if any, could be attributed to them alone.
  • A key question of functional scope will likely arise for the remaining patents: for example, does the accused "Electric Tech Command Center" perform the specific monitoring of both pumps and generators as required by Claim 1 of the ’278 patent, or is there a technical mismatch in its actual operation?
  • A central question of intent remains regarding willfulness: what was the specific knowledge possessed by each Defendant following the alleged notice events, and does their continued operation of the accused fleet constitute the kind of "egregious behavior" necessary to support a finding of willful infringement?