PTAB

IPR2016-00598

Baker Hughes Inc v. Rapid Completions LLC

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Method and Apparatus for Wellbore Fluid Treatment
  • Brief Description: The ’774 patent discloses a method and apparatus for selectively stimulating multiple zones along a wellbore. The system uses a tubing string assembly with a series of solid-body packers to isolate formation zones and multiple ball-actuated sliding sleeves that are sequentially opened to permit fluid treatment, such as hydraulic fracturing, in each isolated zone, particularly within an open (uncased) hole.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Claims 1-16 are obvious over Thomson in view of Ellsworth

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Thomson (SPE 37482, 1997) and Ellsworth (a 1999 paper from the Canadian Institute of Mining, Metallurgy, and Petroleum Horizontal Well Conference).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Thomson disclosed all key elements of the claimed invention except for its use in an open, uncased hole. Thomson taught a multi-zone completion system for horizontal wells using a series of ball-actuated sliding sleeves (termed "MSAF tools") and hydraulic-set, solid-body packers to isolate zones for sequential acid fracturing. The sleeves in Thomson were actuated by dropping progressively larger balls, similar to the method in the ’774 patent. Petitioner contended that Ellsworth remedied Thomson's lone deficiency by teaching that completing wells in an open hole was accepted practice and that solid-body packers, like those in Thomson, were successfully used to establish zone isolation in such environments. Ellsworth explicitly noted a trend away from inflatable packers toward more robust solid-body packers for open-hole stimulation.
    • Motivation to Combine: A Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art (POSITA) would combine Thomson’s system with Ellsworth’s open-hole completion technique for reasons of efficiency and cost minimization. Completing a well in an open hole avoids the significant time and expense of installing and cementing casing. Petitioner argued that since open-hole and cased-hole completions were known alternatives, applying Thomson’s proven cased-hole fracturing system in an open-hole environment, as endorsed by Ellsworth for similar packers, was an obvious design choice to achieve predictable results and economic benefits.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have had a high expectation of success. Ellsworth confirmed that solid-body packers provided effective isolation in open holes, particularly in stable formations. Therefore, implementing Thomson's well-understood, mechanically straightforward system in an open-hole setting would have been a predictable adaptation of existing technologies.

Ground 2: Claim 15 is obvious over Thomson, Ellsworth, and Hartley

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Thomson (SPE 37482, 1997), Ellsworth (a 1999 paper), and Hartley (Patent 5,449,039).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground was presented as an alternative argument specifically for claim 15, which recites that the fluid-conveyed sealing device is a "plug." Petitioner asserted that the primary combination of Thomson and Ellsworth rendered claim 15 obvious, arguing that Thomson's "ball" meets the "plug" limitation under a broad construction. However, if "plug" were construed to not include a ball, Petitioner argued that Hartley taught the missing element. Hartley disclosed a well completion system using a dart-shaped "plug" to seal a seat and actuate a sliding sleeve. Hartley also taught using plugs of different diameters for selective actuation, analogous to the balls in Thomson.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine Hartley's plug with the Thomson/Ellsworth system as a simple substitution of one known element for another to perform the same function. Both balls (Thomson) and plugs (Hartley) were known alternatives for actuating downhole sliding sleeves. A POSITA seeking to implement the Thomson system would have recognized Hartley's plug as an interchangeable component, making the substitution an obvious design choice.
    • Expectation of Success: The substitution would have been straightforward and predictable. Because Hartley’s plug was designed for the same purpose and functioned in the same manner as Thomson’s ball, a POSITA would have expected the modified system to work as intended without any undue experimentation.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • "solid body packer" (claim 1): Petitioner proposed the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) as "a mechanically or hydraulically set packer including a solid, mechanically extrudable packing element." This construction, allegedly supported by the patent's provisional application, was critical for distinguishing the claimed invention from prior art inflatable packers and for mapping the term onto the solid, hydraulically-set packers disclosed in Thomson and Ellsworth.
  • "plug" (claim 15): Petitioner argued that "plug" does not necessarily exclude a "ball," citing the patent’s specification which states the "sealing device can be, for example, a plug or a ball." This construction was central to the argument that Thomson's ball actuator directly met the limitation in claim 15. The alternative obviousness ground including Hartley was presented to address a potentially narrower construction where a plug is considered distinct from a ball.

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requested the institution of an inter partes review (IPR) and the cancellation of claims 1-16 of Patent 7,861,774 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §103.