PTAB

IPR2018-01595

Ulterra Drilling Technologies LP v. Baker Hughes A Ge Co LLC

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Rotary Drag Bit and Method of Use
  • Brief Description: The ’613 patent discloses rotary drag bits for drilling subterranean formations. The invention is directed to methods for designing and using such bits with depth-of-cut control (DOCC) features that manage cutter loading and depth-of-cut to prevent excessive torque-on-bit, particularly when weight-on-bit (WOB) increases.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Claims 26-27 and 32-35 are obvious over Newton.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Newton (Patent 5,244,039).
  • Core Argument:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Newton discloses all limitations of the challenged claims. Newton teaches a rotary drill bit with "primary cutting elements" for cutting a formation and "secondary abrasion elements" that act as bearing surfaces. These abrasion elements are set slightly below the primary cutting profile and engage the formation to limit the depth of cut of the primary cutters, especially under increased WOB. This engagement transfers excess WOB through the bearing surface to the formation, thereby controlling torque. Petitioner contended that Newton's disclosure of a steel-bodied bit with superhard material (e.g., synthetic diamond) on the abrasion elements meets the limitations of the dependent claims.
    • Motivation to Combine: This is a single-reference ground. Petitioner asserted that a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSA) would have found it obvious to use Newton's drill bit for its intended purpose of drilling, which would inherently practice the steps of the claimed method. The motivation was simply to apply known principles of drill bit design to achieve predictable results in controlling cutter penetration and torque.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSA would have had a high expectation of success because Newton explicitly taught that its design, using abrasion elements to limit cutter penetration, was effective for drilling subsurface formations.

Ground 2: Claims 26-27 and 32-35 are obvious over Jones.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Jones (Patent 4,554,986).

  • Core Argument:

    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Jones discloses a rotary drill bit with a "leading ridge" and a "trailing ridge," where cutting elements are embedded in the trailing ridge. The leading ridge is positioned to engage the formation bottom before the cutters can penetrate too deeply, thereby acting as a bearing surface to limit the depth of cut. Petitioner asserted that upon application of a WOB exceeding a predetermined weight, the leading ridge engages the formation to prevent damage to the cutting elements from excessive penetration. Jones further teaches using hard wear elements (e.g., diamond or tungsten carbide) on the ridges for wear resistance and discloses that the bit body can be made of steel, mapping to the dependent claims.
    • Motivation to Combine: This is a single-reference ground. The motivation was to use the Jones bit as intended to control the depth of cut, a well-known objective in the art. Petitioner argued that a POSA would recognize that Jones’s structure of a leading bearing surface was a known and effective way to protect trailing cutters and would have been motivated to implement it to achieve stable drilling performance.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSA would have expected success in using Jones's design to limit the depth of cut, as Jones expressly teaches that the leading ridge provides protection against damage to the cutting element due to excess WOB.

  • Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted additional obviousness challenges against various claims based on O'Hanlon (Patent 5,595,252) and Griffin (Patent 6,142,250). These grounds relied on similar theories, arguing that O'Hanlon's "lead positioning cutter" and Griffin's "subsidiary cutting structure" were functionally equivalent bearing surfaces that rendered the claims obvious.

4. Key Technical Contentions (Beyond Claim Construction)

  • Obviousness of Calculating Bearing Surface Area: A central technical contention across all grounds was that a POSA at the time of the invention would have found it obvious to determine the sufficient cumulative bearing surface area required to support a given WOB. Petitioner argued that this was not an inventive step but a matter of routine design and calculation using simple equations, such as Area = WOB / RS (Rock Strength). The petition asserted that a POSA, given the desired drilling parameters and formation characteristics, could easily calculate the necessary bearing surface area to ensure the unit load on the formation remained below its compressive strength, thereby preventing cutter damage and controlling torque. The ’613 patent’s alleged "engineered approach" was argued to be nothing more than the application of these fundamental and well-understood principles.

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review (IPR) and cancellation of claims 26-27 and 32-35 of the ’613 patent as unpatentable.