PTAB

IPR2018-01230

Arrows Up LLC v. Oren Technologies LLC

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Method of delivering, transporting, and storing proppant for delivery and use at a well site.
  • Brief Description: The ’772 patent discloses a method for transporting proppant used in hydraulic fracturing. The method involves using specialized, stackable containers to move proppant from a rail spur to a well site via road vehicles, aiming to improve logistical efficiency over traditional transport methods like silos or open dumping.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Claims 1-2 and 6-10 are obvious over Sheesley.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Sheesley (Application # 2013/0206415).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Sheesley discloses a complete logistical method for transporting proppant that renders the challenged claims obvious. Sheesley teaches modifying standard cargo containers for fracking sand, which can be stacked, filled from various sources along a supply chain (including rail), and transported by multiple modes including trucks. Petitioner asserted that Sheesley’s figures and specification show or suggest every key step of independent claim 1: vertically stacking empty containers near a rail spur to save space, filling them with proppant from rail vehicles, and transferring the filled containers with a loader onto support platforms of road vehicles. Dependent claims related to stacking a second plurality of containers, moving empty containers from storage, staging road vehicles, and using conveyors were argued to be obvious extensions or inherent aspects of Sheesley’s disclosed logistics.
    • Motivation to Combine (for §103 grounds): Not applicable (single reference ground).
    • Expectation of Success (for §103 grounds): Not applicable (single reference ground).

Ground 2: Claim 1 is obvious over Sheesley in combination with Mintz.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Sheesley (Application # 2013/0206415) and Mintz (Patent 8,915,691).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground was presented as an alternative to Ground 1, specifically addressing the limitation of "a plurality of upright structural support members" on the container end surfaces. Petitioner argued that if Sheesley was deemed insufficient to teach this feature, Mintz explicitly discloses it. Mintz teaches modifying a standard ISO container with an internal hopper and reinforcing the container’s structure with a "brace and truss support assembly," including end supports and saddle supports that function as structural uprights to handle the weight of proppant.
    • Motivation to Combine (for §103 grounds): A POSITA would combine these references because both address the same problem of creating a robust container system for efficient proppant transport. A POSITA would be motivated to incorporate Mintz’s explicit structural reinforcements into Sheesley's logistical framework to create a more durable and reliable container, which was a known design goal in the art.
    • Expectation of Success (for §103 grounds): A POSITA would have a high expectation of success, as combining Mintz’s structural supports with Sheesley’s container would predictably result in a stronger container capable of holding heavy proppant, without changing the fundamental operation of the transport method.

Ground 3: Claims 3-5 and 11 are obvious over Sheesley in combination with Uhryn.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Sheesley (Application # 2013/0206415) and Uhryn (Application # 2013/0022441).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground targeted dependent claims requiring a "tiltable support platform" for unloading. While Sheesley teaches loading containers onto a truck’s support platform, it does not detail a tilting mechanism. Uhryn was cited to cure this deficiency, as it expressly discloses a method of unloading proppant from an intermodal container using a "container tilter" (e.g., a hydraulic fifth wheel tilter mounted on a trailer). Uhryn further teaches discharging proppant from the tilted container onto a conveyor (claim 4) and channeling it through a hopper (claim 5), directly mapping to the limitations of the challenged dependent claims.
    • Motivation to Combine (for §103 grounds): A POSITA would combine these references to improve the efficiency of the unloading process in Sheesley’s system. Sheesley focuses on the transport logistics, while Uhryn provides a specific, advantageous solution for unloading at the well site. A POSITA would be motivated to integrate Uhryn’s well-known tilting method to achieve faster and more complete discharge of proppant from the containers used in Sheesley's method.
    • Expectation of Success (for §103 grounds): The combination was argued to be predictable. Applying Uhryn's tilting and conveying method to Sheesley's containers would predictably result in an improved unloading process, yielding the known benefits of tilting (e.g., speed, safety, and more complete emptying) without undue experimentation.

4. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review (IPR) and cancellation of claims 1-11 of the ’772 patent as unpatentable for obviousness under 35 U.S.C. §103.