DCT

6:22-cv-00905

Halliburton Energy Services Inc v. US Well Services LLC

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 6:22-cv-00905, W.D. Tex., 04/17/2024
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendants have regular and established places of business in the Western District of Texas, including at well sites and physical offices in Odessa and Pleasanton, and have committed acts of infringement in the district.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ hydraulic fracturing equipment and services, marketed as “Clean Fleet” and “Electric Frac Fleets,” infringe five patents related to corrosion-resistant pump components and methods of using on-site electricity generation to power fracturing operations.
  • Technical Context: The technology concerns hydraulic fracturing equipment used in oil and gas extraction, focusing on innovations to improve equipment longevity and reduce the environmental footprint and operational costs by replacing diesel power with electricity generated from local natural gas.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint notes that U.S. Patent No. 9,435,333 was previously asserted in a related case, U.S. Well Services, LLC. et al. v. Halliburton Co. et al., Case No. 6:21-CV-00367-ADA, where the court has already construed claims of that patent. This prior construction may influence claim scope arguments in the current case.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2009-09-11 Earliest Priority Date for ’083, ’156, ’456, and ’348 Patents
2011-12-21 Priority Date for ’333 Patent
2012-01-01 Defendant U.S. Well Services (USWS) formed
2016-09-06 ’333 Patent Issued
2018-01-01 Complaint alleges USWS began exclusively using stainless steel fluid ends "since at least 2018"
2021-05-19 USWS announced its Next-Generation Nyx Clean Fleet Pump
2021-06-21 Date of alleged actual notice to USWS of the ’333 Patent via assertion in the related '367 Case
2021-01-01 Defendant ProFrac formed
2022-05-24 ’083 Patent Issued
2022-08-02 ’156 Patent Issued
2022-11-01 ProFrac announced acquisition of USWS
2022-12-27 ’348 Patent Issued
2023-03-14 ’456 Patent Issued
2024-04-17 Complaint Filed

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

U.S. Patent No. 9,435,333 - "Corrosion Resistant Fluid End for Well Service Pumps"

  • Issued: September 6, 2016.

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent’s background describes how fluid ends—critical components of high-pressure pumps used in hydraulic fracturing—are prone to premature failure from a combination of high-cycle fatigue and corrosion when pumping harsh chemical fluids like salt water (’333 Patent, col. 1:35-44). Such failures are costly, causing operational delays and requiring expensive replacement parts (’333 Patent, col. 1:45-54).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes manufacturing the fluid end from a specific type of corrosion-resistant alloy that possesses a high fatigue limit. This alloy, containing at least 5% chromium, is designed to have a fatigue limit greater than the tensile stress experienced at the pump’s maximum working pressure, even in a corrosive environment, thereby significantly extending the component’s operational life (’333 Patent, Abstract; col. 3:10-21). The patent provides test data comparing such an alloy (CUSTOM 450®) to a standard steel alloy (4330V), showing the claimed alloy has an effectively infinite fatigue life under conditions where the standard alloy fails (’333 Patent, FIG. 1).
  • Technical Importance: This innovation sought to enhance the reliability and reduce the total cost of ownership for high-pressure fracturing pumps by addressing a primary mode of failure in a key component. (Compl. ¶19; ’333 Patent, col. 1:8-10).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts infringement of at least Claim 1 (Compl. ¶49). However, the substantive allegations in paragraphs 51-54 appear to map to the limitations of Claim 5, the text of which is partially quoted in paragraph 50. This analysis focuses on the infringement theory related to Claim 5.
  • Independent Claim 5 is a method claim comprising the following essential elements:
    • providing a well service pump;
    • providing a fluid end body comprising a corrosion resistant alloy (a) having a fatigue limit of at least 75 ksi and (b) comprising chromium at 5% or greater by weight of the corrosion resistant alloy;
    • coupling the fluid end body to the well service pump; and
    • pumping an aqueous-based fluid through the fluid end body, wherein the fluid includes a corrosion inhibitor, the fatigue limit is greater than or equal to a tensile stress assumed by the fluid end body at maximum working pressure, and the fluid has a salt concentration of about 4% by weight or greater.

U.S. Reissue Patent No. RE49,083 - "Methods of generating and using electricity at a well treatment"

  • Issued: May 24, 2022.

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: Traditional fracturing operations rely on numerous diesel-fired engines to power pumps and other equipment, resulting in significant fuel costs, a large carbon footprint, and a large physical footprint at the well site (RE46,725 E [parent reissue], col. 2:1-14).
  • The Patented Solution: The patent describes a method for powering a fracturing operation by generating electricity on-site using locally sourced natural gas (e.g., conditioned field gas, LNG, or CNG) as fuel (’083 Patent, Abstract). This electricity is then used to power equipment, including at least one pump, thereby replacing the need for diesel engines and creating a more efficient, integrated, and environmentally friendly operation (’083 Patent, col. 8:20-31, FIG. 7).
  • Technical Importance: This approach enables "electric fracturing" or "e-frac," which reduces emissions, lowers fuel costs by using otherwise-flared field gas, and decreases the amount of equipment needed on a well pad. (Compl. ¶19; RE46,725 E, col. 9:1-10).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts infringement of at least Claim 27 (Compl. ¶60).
  • Independent Claim 27 is a method claim comprising the following essential elements:
    • using one or more generators to produce electricity at a job site;
    • powering the generators using only one or more of conditioned field gas, liquefied natural gas, or compressed natural gas;
    • having a solid material (e.g., proppant) in a storage unit;
    • transferring the solid material from the storage unit;
    • using a blender to prepare a fracturing fluid comprising a liquid and the solid material;
    • transferring the fracturing fluid from the blender to at least one pump; and
    • pumping the fracturing fluid into a down hole location using the pump, wherein only electricity produced by the on-site generators is used to power the pump.

U.S. Reissue Patent No. RE49,156 - "Methods of providing electricity used in a fracturing operation"

  • Patent Identification: RE49,156, issued August 2, 2022.
  • Technology Synopsis: This patent covers a method of generating electricity for a fracturing operation using an on-site generator powered by natural gas (conditioned field gas, CNG, or LNG). The key limitation is that only the electricity generated on-site powers the plurality of pumps used to pump fracturing fluid downhole.
  • Asserted Claims: Claim 47 (Compl. ¶85).
  • Accused Features: The complaint accuses Defendants' fracturing fleets that allegedly use on-site turbine generators powered by field gas to generate electricity, which is then distributed via switchgears to power a plurality of electric frac pumps (Compl. ¶88-89).

U.S. Reissue Patent No. RE49,456 - "Methods of performing oilfield operations using electricity"

  • Patent Identification: RE49,456, issued March 14, 2023.
  • Technology Synopsis: This patent claims a method of performing a fracturing operation that involves two main steps powered by on-site electricity generated from conditioned field gas. First is using the electricity to power pumps for pumping fracturing fluid downhole. Second is using that same electricity to power the monitoring and/or controlling of one or more aspects of the operation.
  • Asserted Claims: Claim 27 (Compl. ¶94).
  • Accused Features: The complaint accuses Defendants' fleets of using on-site electricity to power frac pumps and also to power control systems that monitor equipment health and control pump rates (Compl. ¶97-99). An annotated overhead photograph from a USWS fleet is provided as evidence of the integrated power system (Compl. p. 37).

U.S. Reissue Patent No. RE49,348 - "Methods of powering blenders and pumps in fracturing operations using electricity"

  • Patent Identification: RE49,348, issued December 27, 2022.
  • Technology Synopsis: This patent claims a method of having an amount of electricity sufficient to power pumps for a fracturing operation, where that electricity is produced on-site using conditioned field gas. The method concludes with the step of pumping the fracturing fluid downhole using that amount of electricity.
  • Asserted Claims: Claim 27 (Compl. ¶104).
  • Accused Features: The complaint accuses Defendants’ fleets of generating electricity on-site with a natural gas treatment system and generator, and then using that electricity to power the fracturing pumps that pump fluid downhole (Compl. ¶107-108).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The accused instrumentalities are Defendants’ hydraulic fracturing equipment, systems, and services, specifically including the “Clean Fleet,” “Nyx Clean Fleet,” and “Electric Frac Fleets” (Compl. ¶33, 47, 58).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint alleges these fleets are designed for hydraulic fracturing and are marketed as being powered by electricity and natural gas (Compl. ¶33). The “Nyx Clean Fleet” is described as a next-generation model using two independently controlled electric motors and frac pumps on a single trailer (Compl. ¶33). The complaint references a video from the USWS website showing the accused fleets’ components, including “Electric Frac Pumps,” “Electric Blenders,” a mobile command center, and sand silos (Compl. ¶34). A key alleged feature is the use of mobile generators, powered by locally supplied natural gas (including field gas), to create micro-grids that distribute power via switchgears to the on-site equipment (Compl. ¶35, 63-64). The screenshot from a USWS video shows a power generation setup with a "30 MW Turbine Generator" and "Gas Conditioning Skid" transmitting electricity to an active well pad nearly one mile away (Compl. p. 21). The fleets also allegedly include a “Nyx control system” that provides “automatic intelligent pump rate control based on the continuous monitoring of equipment health conditions” (Compl. ¶36).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

’333 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 5) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
providing a well service pump; Defendants’ fleets provide a well service pump, such as the advertised “Electric Frac Pumps” (Compl. ¶51). ¶51 col. 8:27
providing a fluid end body comprising a corrosion resistant alloy (a) having a fatigue limit of at least 75 ksi and (b) comprising chromium at 5% or greater by weight of the corrosion resistant alloy... Based on information and belief, Defendants provide a fluid end body made of a corrosion-resistant alloy, such as stainless steel, which is expected to have a fatigue limit of at least 75 ksi and comprise at least 5% chromium (Compl. ¶52). ¶52 col. 8:28-32
pumping an aqueous-based fluid through the fluid end body, wherein the...fatigue limit is greater than or equal to a tensile stress assumed by the fluid end body when the well service pump operates at maximum working pressure while pumping the aqueous-based fluid... Based on information and belief, Defendants’ fleets pump fluid where the fatigue limit of the fluid end body is expected to be greater than the tensile stress assumed at maximum working pressure (Compl. ¶54). ¶54 col. 8:36-41
wherein the aqueous-based fluid has a salt concentration of about 4% by weight or greater. Based on information and belief, the fluids pumped, such as produced water, have a salt concentration of about 4% or greater (Compl. ¶54). ¶54 col. 8:43-45

Identified Points of Contention

  • Evidentiary Questions: The complaint’s allegations for the ’333 Patent are almost entirely based on "information and belief" and what would be "expected" of a stainless steel component (Compl. ¶52, 54). A primary point of contention will be factual: what is the precise metallurgical composition and what are the tested material properties (specifically, the fatigue limit) of the actual fluid ends used in Defendants’ fleets? Can Plaintiff provide evidence beyond mere expectation that these components meet the specific numerical limitations of the claim?
  • Scope Questions: Claim 5 requires the pumped fluid to include a "corrosion inhibitor." The complaint does not allege any facts related to this element, which raises the question of whether this limitation is met by the accused method.

’083 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 27) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
using one or more generators to produce electricity at a job site for a fracturing operation; Defendants’ fleets use mobile generators, such as 30MW turbine generators, to produce electricity at the well site (Compl. ¶63). ¶63 col. 13:23-25
powering the one or more generators using only one or more of conditioned field gas, liquefied natural gas... The generators are powered by locally-supplied natural gas, including conditioned field gas from an on-site gas conditioning skid (Compl. ¶64). ¶64 col. 13:26-29
having a solid material in a storage unit; The fleets include sand silos which store solid material such as sand or proppant (Compl. ¶65). The complaint provides an annotated screenshot identifying the sand silos (Compl. p. 23). ¶65 col. 13:30-31
transferring the solid material from the storage unit; A sand conveying system transfers sand from the silos to the electric blenders (Compl. ¶66). ¶66 col. 13:32-33
using a blender to prepare a fracturing fluid comprising a liquid and the solid material; The fleets include electric blenders that prepare fracturing fluid using sand from the silos and liquid from water/hydration tanks (Compl. ¶67). ¶67 col. 13:34-36
transferring the fracturing fluid from the blender to at least one pump; and The prepared fluid is transferred from the blenders to the electric frac pumps (Compl. ¶68). ¶68 col. 13:37-38
pumping the fracturing fluid into a down hole location...wherein only electricity produced using the one or more generators...is used to power the at least one pump. Electric frac pumps pump the fluid downhole, and are powered by electricity from the on-site generators, which is distributed through switchgears located at the wellsite (Compl. ¶68-69). ¶68-69 col. 13:39-44

Identified Points of Contention

  • Scope Questions: A central dispute will likely concern the scope of the negative limitation "wherein only electricity produced using the one or more generators...is used to power the at least one pump." The question for the court will be whether this term forbids any other power source from being connected to or used by the pumps, even for startup, auxiliary, or emergency functions, or whether it applies only to the primary operational power during the pumping step itself.
  • Technical Questions: What evidence does the complaint provide that no other source of electricity is used? While the complaint cites videos showing a self-contained power generation and distribution system (Compl. ¶69, p. 27), this visual evidence may not be exhaustive enough to preclude the existence or use of an alternative or backup power source for the pumps. The annotated photograph in the complaint shows electrical cabling running from the generator to a switchgear that powers the fracturing pumps, with the allegation that "No other source of electricity can be observed on site" (Compl. ¶99, p. 37).

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

For the ’333 Patent

  • The Term: "fatigue limit"
  • Context and Importance: This term is a specific, quantitative technical parameter central to the patent’s novelty. The infringement analysis for the ’333 patent will depend entirely on whether the accused fluid ends are made of an alloy that possesses the claimed "fatigue limit" of at least 75 ksi. Practitioners may focus on this term because its definition and the standard for its measurement will be dispositive.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification defines "fatigue limit" or "endurance limit" as "the range of cyclic stress than can be applied to a material without causing fatigue failure" (’333 Patent, col. 3:1-4). This general definition could be argued to encompass any standard industry method of measurement.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent explicitly presents its own test results in FIG. 1, which shows a fatigue limit for one alloy (4330V) and not for another (CUSTOM 450®) under specific test conditions (axial tensile test coupons at a stress ratio of 0.1) (’333 Patent, col. 5:55-61; FIG. 1). A party could argue that the term should be construed in light of this specific disclosed testing methodology.

For the ’083 Patent (and related patents ’156, ’456, ’348)

  • The Term: "only electricity"
  • Context and Importance: This negative limitation appears in the asserted claims of the ’083 and ’156 patents and is critical to defining the scope of the invention. Whether Defendants’ systems infringe will likely turn on whether they meet this restrictive requirement. Practitioners may focus on this term because negative limitations are often strictly construed, and proving the complete absence of any other power source can be a high evidentiary bar.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The background of the parent patent focuses on the problem of diesel-powered equipment and its associated emissions and footprint (RE46,725 E, col. 2:1-14). A party might argue "only" should be construed in this context to mean that the system is primarily and operationally powered by the generated electricity, as opposed to diesel, without precluding minor or ancillary uses of other power.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The plain language of "only" is absolute. The specification describes a self-contained system where a natural gas generator set powers the pumps, and FIG. 7 shows no alternative power source for the pumps (’083 Patent, col. 8:50-65; FIG. 7). A party will likely argue that "only" means "exclusively" and that the use of any other electricity source to power the pumps, for any reason, would fall outside the claim scope.

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

The complaint includes conclusory recitations that Defendants will continue to infringe "directly or indirectly" (Compl. ¶56, 70, 90, 100, 109). However, the complaint does not plead specific facts to support the knowledge and intent elements required for claims of induced or contributory infringement.

Willful Infringement

The complaint does not contain a specific count for willful infringement or use the term "willful." However, it alleges that Defendant USWS has had "actual notice of the '333 Patent since at least June 21, 2021, when Halliburton asserted the '333 Patent in the 367 Case" (Compl. p. 14, n.10). This allegation of pre-suit knowledge of the patent could potentially form the basis for a later claim of willfulness.

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

  • A central evidentiary question will be one of material proof: can Halliburton produce discovery evidence that demonstrates the specific alloys in Defendants’ fluid ends meet the quantitative “fatigue limit” and “chromium” percentage limitations of the ’333 patent, moving beyond the complaint's allegations based on "information and belief"?
  • The case will likely turn on a question of definitional scope: how will the court construe the restrictive term “only electricity” in the asserted claims of the e-frac patents? The outcome may depend on whether the term is interpreted to mean the absolute and sole source of power at all times, or the primary source of operational power that displaces the diesel engines of the prior art.
  • A key procedural question will be one of pleading sufficiency: particularly for the ’333 patent, do the complaint's allegations, which rely heavily on what is "expected" of a component rather than direct knowledge of its properties, satisfy the plausibility standard required to survive a motion to dismiss?