PTAB

IPR2017-00247

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 ’501 patent discloses a method and apparatus for selectively stimulating multiple zones in an uncased, non-vertical wellbore. The system employs a tubing string with multiple ports, solid-body packers for zonal isolation, and a series of ball-actuated sliding sleeves that are opened sequentially to allow fluid treatment in each isolated zone.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over Lane-Wells, Ellsworth, Halliburton, and Thomson - Claims 1-9 are obvious over the combination of these references.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Lane-Wells (a 1955 catalog excerpt), Ellsworth (a 1999 conference paper), Halliburton (a 1997 product catalog), and Thomson (a 1997 Society of Petroleum Engineers paper).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner asserted that the claimed invention is an obvious combination of known components from the prior art, assembled to perform their established functions. The core of the argument is a step-by-step modification of a base system from Lane-Wells.
      • Base System (Lane-Wells): Lane-Wells disclosed the foundational system: a multi-zone completion for open or cased holes using a tubing string, packers, and multiple ball-actuated sliding sleeves ("Tubing Port Valves") with different-sized ball seats. This provides the claimed framework of a tubing string with multiple ports and sleeves for sequential zone treatment.
      • Packer Modification (Ellsworth): Lane-Wells did not specify the type of packer. Petitioner argued a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) would have found it obvious to use the hydraulically-settable solid body packers (SBPs) from Ellsworth. Ellsworth taught the successful use of these specific packers for the same purpose—multi-zone acidizing in an open hole—and they were known to be more robust than the inflatable packers criticized in the background of the ’501 patent. This modification provides the claimed "solid body packer" limitation.
      • Lowermost Sleeve Modification (Halliburton): To set the hydraulic packers from Ellsworth, a POSITA would need to pressurize the tubing string against a plug at the bottom. Petitioner argued a POSITA would find it obvious to use Halliburton’s "Pump Open Plug" for this purpose. The Halliburton plug is itself a hydraulically actuated sliding sleeve that, after packer setting, can be opened by increasing pressure to allow treatment of the lowermost zone. This provides the claimed third, hydraulically actuated sleeve located downhole from the ball-actuated sleeves. The Halliburton plug’s sleeve moves from a closed to an open position via hydraulic pressure without requiring a ball, meeting limitations for the third sleeve in claims 1 and 4-7.
    • Motivation to Combine (for §103 grounds): Petitioner presented several motivations for this combination.
      • A POSITA would combine Lane-Wells and Ellsworth to implement a known multi-zone stimulation system using a packer type (solid body) already proven to be effective and reliable for that exact application, thereby improving upon systems with less durable packers.
      • A POSITA would add a plug to the end of the tubing string to perform the necessary function of setting the hydraulic packers. The specific motivation to select Halliburton’s Pump Open Plug over other options (like the expendable plugs in Thomson) was driven by reliability and a desire to avoid known problems. Thomson explicitly detailed failures of expendable plugs, such as failing to expel or expelling prematurely. Halliburton’s plug was more reliable and, crucially, did not get expelled into the wellbore, avoiding the creation of debris that could interfere with future well operations—a known industry concern.
    • Expectation of Success (for §103 grounds): A POSITA would have had a high expectation of success because the combination involved assembling known components, each performing its recognized function in a predictable manner. The integration of threaded packers and valves onto a tubing string was a standard and straightforward task for an engineer in the field.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • "solid body packer" (claim 1): Petitioner proposed the construction "a mechanically or hydraulically set packer including a solid, mechanically extrudable packing element." This construction was intended to distinguish the claimed packers from prior art inflatable packers and to align with the patent’s own specification and the general understanding in the art. The key aspect is that the sealing element is solid and compressed to seal, not inflated with fluid.
  • "piston" (claims 4-6): Proposed as "a sliding piece moved by or moving against fluid pressure." Petitioner argued this construction would encompass the sliding sleeve within the Halliburton Pump Open Plug, which slides in response to fluid pressure, thereby meeting the "fluid actuated piston" limitation of dependent claims.
  • "sleeve" (claim 1): Proposed as "a tubular part designed to fit over or within another part." This construction ensures that the sliding sleeves located inside the main tubing string, as shown in the prior art and the ’501 patent, satisfy the claim language.

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review (IPR) and cancellation of claims 1-9 of Patent 9,303,501 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §103.