PTAB

IPR2018-01231

Arrows Up LLC v. Oren Technologies LLC

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition Intelligence

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 ’066 patent discloses methods for the logistical handling of proppant (e.g., sand) used in hydraulic fracturing. The claimed methods generally involve positioning structurally strengthened empty containers on trailers near a rail spur, filling the containers with proppant from rail cars, transporting the filled containers to a drill site, and unloading them.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Claims 1-6 are obvious over Sheesley in view of Mintz

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Sheesley (Application # 2013/0105415) and Mintz (Patent 8,915,691).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Sheesley teaches the core logistical steps of the claimed method. Sheesley discloses modifying standard cargo containers for proppant transport, positioning them (empty or full) on transport vehicles like trucks, filling them from a source (which a POSITA would understand includes a rail spur), moving them to a frac site, and unloading them. For limitations requiring significant structural strengthening beyond what Sheesley explicitly shows, Petitioner asserted that Mintz teaches reinforcing standard ISO shipping containers with an internal "brace and truss support assembly" specifically to handle the heavy weight of proppant.
    • Motivation to Combine: Petitioner contended a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) would combine these references because they address the same problem: the efficient and cost-effective transport of proppant in modified containers. A POSITA seeking to implement Sheesley’s method would have been motivated to look to known strengthening techniques for similar containers, such as the internal bracing taught by Mintz, to ensure the containers could withstand the heavy proppant loads.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have had a reasonable expectation of success because combining Mintz's known internal bracing with Sheesley's container and transport method was a straightforward application of existing technologies that would predictably result in a stronger container suitable for proppant transport.

Ground 2: Claims 1-2 and 4-6 are obvious over Sheesley

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Sheesley (Application # 2013/0105415).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner asserted that Sheesley, standing alone, renders the claims obvious. Sheesley was argued to disclose all necessary elements, including using containers with structural reinforcements (corrugated walls, corner posts) sufficient to meet the claim limitations. Sheesley further teaches stacking filled containers to reduce footprint (mapping to claim 2), using a loader to handle containers, and employing multiple transport vehicles (mapping to claim 4). Petitioner’s position was that Sheesley’s system inherently includes all the logistical steps claimed, making the combination with Mintz unnecessary for these specific claims.

Ground 3: Claim 3 is obvious over Sheesley in view of Mintz and Hedrick

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Sheesley (Application # 2013/0105415), Mintz (Patent 8,915,691), and Hedrick (Patent 5,290,139).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground primarily addressed dependent claim 3, which requires "support braces positioned separate from a frame" of the container. Petitioner argued that Sheesley teaches the first limitation of claim 3 regarding conveying proppant from rail vehicles. To the extent Sheesley and Mintz were deemed insufficient to teach the specific "separate" support brace structure, Petitioner introduced Hedrick. Hedrick discloses a container for holding sand or gravel that includes an internal bracing structure that extends across the bulk material storage space to promote self-supportability, which Petitioner argued meets the "separate from a frame" limitation.
    • Motivation to Combine: Petitioner argued a POSITA, when building upon the container system of Sheesley and Mintz, would be motivated to incorporate Hedrick's teachings. Hedrick provides a known solution for strengthening hoppers that carry analogous bulk materials (sand and gravel). A POSITA would thus look to Hedrick for established internal bracing designs to further enhance the structural integrity of the proppant containers.
    • Expectation of Success: Integrating Hedrick's proven internal bracing structure into the Sheesley/Mintz container would have been a predictable modification, leading to the expected result of a stronger container capable of supporting heavy loads of proppant.

4. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1-6 of Patent 9,617,066 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §103.