PTAB

IPR2016-00598

Baker Hughes Incorporated v. Rapid Completions LLC

Log In

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 treating multiple zones within a subterranean formation. The system uses a tubing string equipped with multiple solid body packers to isolate zones and multiple ball-actuated sliding sleeves to open ports, allowing fracturing fluid to be pumped into targeted segments of an uncased, open-hole wellbore.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

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

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Thomson (D.W. Thomson, et al., a 1997 Society for Petroleum Engineering paper) and Ellsworth (B. Ellsworth, et al., a 1999 Canadian Institute of Mining, Metallurgy, and Petroleum conference paper).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Thomson disclosed all key elements of the claimed method for use in cased wells. Thomson taught a well completion system using a series of ball-actuated sliding sleeves (termed "MSAF tools") with progressively smaller ball seats, allowing for sequential zone stimulation from the bottom up. It also taught isolating these zones with hydraulic-set, retrievable, solid body packers positioned on either side of each MSAF tool. The primary difference was that Thomson was implemented in a cased wellbore. Petitioner contended that Ellsworth explicitly taught that using solid body packers for zone isolation in uncased, open-hole completions was an accepted and effective practice, particularly in stable formations. Ellsworth explained that while inflatable packers were once common, solid body packers had become successfully used for open-hole isolation. Therefore, applying Thomson’s established system in an open-hole environment, as taught by Ellsworth, would have been a simple and obvious modification.
    • Motivation to Combine: A Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art (POSITA) would combine the teachings to achieve cost minimization and efficiency. Ellsworth and general industry knowledge indicated that open-hole completions are less expensive and time-consuming than cased completions because they eliminate the need to install and cement casing. A POSITA would have been motivated to apply Thomson's efficient, single-trip, multi-zone stimulation system in an open-hole setting to gain these known cost and time benefits, especially in formations like those described by Ellsworth where open-hole completions were already accepted practice.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have had a high expectation of success. Thomson demonstrated a proven system for multi-zone stimulation, and Ellsworth confirmed that solid body packers, the type used by Thomson, worked effectively for isolation in open-hole wells. The combination was merely the application of a known tool (Thomson's system) in a known environment (Ellsworth's open-hole completion) to achieve predictable results.
    • Key Aspects: Petitioner further argued that the combination rendered claim 6 (performing the method without setting slips) obvious. Ellsworth’s disclosed solid body packer was retrievable and did not use slips, demonstrating that slipless packers were a known design choice for open-hole applications.

Ground 2: Obviousness over Thomson, Ellsworth, and Hartley - Claim 15 is obvious over Thomson and Ellsworth in view of Hartley.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Thomson (a 1997 Society for Petroleum Engineering paper), Ellsworth (a 1999 conference paper), and Hartley (Patent 5,449,039).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground was presented to address a potential narrow interpretation of the term "plug" in claim 15. While Petitioner argued that the balls used in Thomson are a type of plug, this ground asserted that even if "plug" were construed to exclude a ball, the claim would still be obvious. The base combination of Thomson and Ellsworth taught all elements of the method except for a non-ball "plug." Hartley was introduced to disclose the use of a non-spherical plug to actuate a sliding sleeve in a well completion assembly. Hartley’s system used plugs of different diameters to selectively actuate corresponding sleeves, the same functional principle as Thomson’s ball-and-seat system.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would have recognized Hartley's plug as a simple and known alternative to Thomson's ball for actuating a sliding sleeve. The substitution would be a matter of routine design choice between two known, functionally equivalent sealing devices to achieve the same result. The motivation was to use a known alternative component (Hartley's plug) within an established system (Thomson/Ellsworth) for its known purpose.
    • Expectation of Success: The substitution of Hartley's plug for Thomson's ball would have been a straightforward task with a high expectation of success, as it involved combining known prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • "solid body packer" (claim 1): Petitioner argued this term should be construed as "a mechanically or hydraulically set packer including a solid, mechanically extrudable packing element." This construction was based on the patent's provisional application and its distinction from "inflatable packers," which the patent described as having durability limitations. This construction supported the view that the packers in Thomson, which are hydraulically set and feature extrudable elements, meet the claim limitation.
  • "plug" (claim 15): Petitioner noted that the patent specification stated the "sealing device can be, for example, a plug or a ball," suggesting the terms are not mutually exclusive. However, to preempt a contrary argument, Petitioner asserted that if "plug" were construed to mean only non-ball devices, the combination with Hartley would render claim 15 obvious.

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requested the institution of an inter partes review and the cancellation of claims 1-16 of the ’774 patent as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §103.