PTAB

IPR2017-00247

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 ’501 patent discloses a method and apparatus for selectively treating or stimulating segments of an oil well, particularly in open-hole completions. The system uses a tubing string with multiple solid-body packers to isolate formation zones and includes ball-actuated sliding sleeves to open ports for fluid treatment, such as hydraulic fracturing.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over Lane-Wells, Ellsworth, Halliburton, and Thomson

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Lane-Wells (a 1955 equipment catalog), Ellsworth (a 1999 conference paper), Halliburton (a 1997 product catalog), and Thomson (a 1997 SPE paper).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued the proposed combination rendered claims 1-9 obvious. The base system was provided by Lane-Wells, which disclosed a multi-zone acidizing method using a tubing string with packers and two ball-actuated sliding sleeves ("Tubing Port Valves") with different-sized seats to sequentially treat three zones in an open hole. Petitioner argued a POSITA would have found it obvious to substitute the generic packers in Lane-Wells with the specific hydraulically-settable solid body packers (SBPs) taught by Ellsworth, as Ellsworth demonstrated their successful use for the identical purpose of multi-zone acidizing in a non-vertical, open-hole well. This substitution would satisfy the claim limitations for multiple "solid body packers." To enable setting these hydraulic packers and treating the lowermost zone, a POSITA would incorporate a plug at the toe of the string. Petitioner asserted it would be obvious to use Halliburton’s "Pump Open Plug" for this purpose. The Halliburton plug functions as the claimed "hydraulically actuated sliding sleeve" (limitation 1[m]), which operates via pressure without a ball. This plug provides the claimed "third port" (limitation 1[f]) and allows packer-setting pressure to build. After the packers are set, a higher pressure shears pins in the plug, opening its ports to allow fracturing of the lowest zone, satisfying limitations for fracturing through the third port (claim 7). This combination meets all limitations of independent claim 1 and dependent claims 2-9, which add further specifics taught by the combination, such as the packers being hydraulically actuated (claim 2, from Ellsworth) and the hydraulic sleeve being secured by shear pins (claim 5, from Halliburton).
    • Motivation to Combine: Petitioner asserted clear motivations for the combination. The motivation to replace Lane-Wells's packers with Ellsworth's SBPs was to use a specific packer type that was field-proven for the exact application (open-hole acidizing), thereby improving predictability and reducing risk. The motivation to add the Halliburton plug was twofold. First, it provided the necessary function of plugging the string to set the hydraulic packers. Second, it offered a more reliable, non-expendable solution that avoided the known failure modes and wellbore debris issues associated with the expendable pump-out plugs discussed in Thomson. The Halliburton plug's ability to then open for stimulation provided an elegant, integrated solution.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have had a high expectation of success, as the combination represented the use of known components for their intended and well-understood purposes. Combining a multi-zone system (Lane-Wells) with a proven packer type (Ellsworth) and a reliable, multi-function plug (Halliburton) was a straightforward assembly of known parts to achieve a predictable result without any apparent incompatibilities.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • "solid body packer": Petitioner proposed construing this term as "a mechanically or hydraulically set packer including a solid, mechanically extrudable packing element." This construction, drawn from the ’501 patent’s provisional application, was critical to show that prior art packers like those in Ellsworth, which use compressed solid elements rather than inflation, fall within the scope of the claims.
  • "sleeve": Petitioner argued for construing "sleeve" as "a tubular part designed to fit over or within another part." This broader interpretation, supported by prior art examples, was necessary to encompass the "Pump Open Valve" of the Halliburton reference, which functions as a sleeve that slides within a plug body.
  • "fracturing fluid": Petitioner proposed that "fracturing fluid" be construed broadly as "fluid including but not limited to acid, water, oil, carbon dioxide, or nitrogen." This was asserted to be consistent with the specification and a related patent, and it was important for arguing that "acidizing" taught in the prior art met the "fracturing" limitation of the claims.

5. Key Technical Contentions (Beyond Claim Construction)

  • Adaptation of Cased-Hole Tools for Open-Hole Use: Petitioner's argument relied on the technical premise that a POSITA would have readily and obviously considered using tools designed for cased-hole completions in open-hole applications. Petitioner presented evidence, including from the patent owner's own expert in separate litigation, that in competent or "hard rock" formations, an open hole provides a stable, circular conduit analogous to a cased hole. This made the adaptation of tools like solid-body packers from cased-hole to open-hole environments a common, logical, and predictable modification for a skilled artisan.

6. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requested that the Board institute an inter partes review and cancel claims 1-9 of Patent 9,303,501 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §103.