PTAB

IPR2016-01000

Packers Plus Energy Services Inc v. Baker Hughes Oilfield Operations Inc

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Restriction Engaging System
  • Brief Description: The ’656 patent discloses a "restriction engaging system" for use in oil and gas recovery operations, such as hydraulic fracturing, to selectively partition a well bore. The invention addresses a key limitation of prior art systems that used a series of ball-and-seat pairs of progressively smaller diameters, which increasingly restricted fluid flow down the well. The patented system overcomes this by using uniformly sized "restriction engagers" (balls) with a series of identical "restrictions" (seats). Each restriction incorporates a counter mechanism designed to allow a pre-set number of balls to pass through before it transitions to a closed state, catching the next ball to seal a zone or actuate a downhole tool. The patent describes embodiments using either pivoting arms or deformable collet-style arms to form the selectively passable restriction.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Anticipation under 35 U.S.C. § 102 - Claims 1-17 are anticipated by Howell.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Howell (Application # 2009/0308588).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Howell discloses every element of the challenged claims in a single, enabling reference. Howell describes a "well bore servicing apparatus" that explicitly addresses and solves the same problem as the ’656 patent—avoiding the flow restrictions caused by conventional systems using incrementally smaller ball-seat pairs. Petitioner asserted that Howell’s disclosed "obturating members," such as uniformly sized balls, directly correspond to the claimed “restriction engagers,” and its “ball seat” formed of deformable “collet fingers” is the claimed “restriction.”
    • Petitioner contended that Howell’s “indexing assembly” is an exact analog to the claimed “counter.” This assembly, comprising an inner and outer sleeve with an indexing slot and control lug, performs all functions required by claim 1. Specifically, it is “responsively indexed each time” a ball passes, as pressure from the ball forces the inner sleeve to move, causing the lug to travel along the path of the indexing slot. After a “selected number of the restriction engagers have passed,” the lug reaches a final “catch” or “stop” position in the slot. This configuration “prevent[s] passage of an additional one of the restriction engagers” by physically blocking the inner sleeve from moving, which in turn prevents the collet fingers from expanding to allow the next ball to pass. Petitioner provided extensive claim charts mapping Howell’s collet-based mechanism and its operational details to independent claim 1 and all dependent claims, including those reciting a plurality of arms (Howell's collet fingers) and longitudinally moving elements (Howell's inner sleeve).

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • "restriction engager": Petitioner proposed that this term should be construed broadly as a member, such as a ball, capable of either passing through or sealingly engaging (obturating) a seat arrangement. This construction was crucial for mapping Howell's disclosed "obturating members" directly onto the claims.
  • "restriction": Petitioner asserted this term should encompass an element, such as a seat, that blocks the restriction engager and is potentially formed of multiple components. This construction was necessary to ensure the claim language covered Howell’s seat, which is formed from a plurality of deformable "collet fingers," rather than a single, monolithic ring.
  • "moves longitudinally": Petitioner argued this term means movement along the lengthwise axis of the well bore. This interpretation was key to demonstrating that Howell’s inner sleeve, which moves axially within the tool body each time a ball passes and the counter indexes, directly anticipates the limitations of dependent claims 13-15 related to a longitudinally moving counter element.

5. Key Technical Contentions (Beyond Claim Construction)

  • Petitioner’s anticipation argument relied on a technical correction of a figure in the Howell reference. Petitioner contended that Figure 6B of Howell, depicting the profile of the counter’s indexing slot, contained obvious drafting errors that misplaced reference numerals for "stop" and "release" positions. Petitioner presented a corrected version of the figure and argued that a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) would have readily recognized the errors and understood the mechanism's true operation, which involves the control lug moving sequentially through release positions to a final stop position. This contention was critical to establishing that Howell's disclosure of the counter mechanism was enabling and fully anticipated the claimed invention.

6. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requested the institution of an inter partes review (IPR) and the cancellation of claims 1-17 of Patent 9,038,656 as unpatentable.