Nitro Fluids LLC v. Cameron Intl Corp

1. Case Identification

• Case #: IPR2019-00852
• Patent #: 9,932,800
• Filed: March 20, 2019
• Petitioner(s): Nitro Fluids, LLC.
• Patent Owner(s): Cameron Intl Corp
• Challenged Claims: 1-19

2. Patent Overview

• Title: Fracturing Manifold Systems and Methods
• Brief Description: The ’800 patent discloses systems and methods for hydraulic fracturing. The technology centers on a fracturing manifold that distributes fracturing fluid to a plurality of fracturing trees at different wellheads. A key feature, added during prosecution to secure allowance, is the use of "one and only one rigid fluid pathway" coupling the manifold to each individual fracturing tree.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Anticipation over Surjaatmadja - Claims 1, 3-5, 7-8, 11-14, 17, and 18 are anticipated under 35 U.S.C. §102.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Surjaatmadja (Application # 2009/0194273).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Surjaatmadja discloses all elements of the challenged claims. Surjaatmadja describes a "centralized well treatment operations factory" with a central manifold that distributes fracturing fluid to multiple well pads. Petitioner asserted that the connections between the manifold and the wellheads are described as "standard piping or tubing," which a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) would understand to include rigid piping. As Surjaatmadja allows for pads with a single well, its disclosure of a single pipe to each pad inherently teaches the "one and only one rigid fluid pathway" limitation. Furthermore, Surjaatmadja's figures were argued to show outlet branches with valves to individually control flow, satisfying limitations in dependent claims.

Ground 2: Obviousness over Tolman and Surjaatmadja - Claims 1, 3-5, 7-8, 11-14, 17, and 18 are obvious over the combination of Tolman and Surjaatmadja.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Tolman (Application # 2009/0114392) and Surjaatmadja (Application # 2009/0194273).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: This ground primarily addressed claims requiring two valves in series on each outlet branch (e.g., claims 5 and 13). Petitioner asserted that Tolman discloses a fracturing manifold system with a shared trunk conduit and outlet branches, but only explicitly shows one valve per branch while suggesting an additional valve could be added for reliability. Surjaatmadja was argued to explicitly teach a system with two valves in series on each outlet line to monitor pressure and leakage during isolation.
  • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine Tolman's manifold system with Surjaatmadja's dual-valve configuration to enhance the reliability of well isolation. This addresses a known problem (ensuring complete shut-off and monitoring for leaks) with a known solution from an analogous system, providing a clear motivation to combine.
  • Expectation of Success: Success would be expected, as combining valves in a fluid line is a simple, predictable mechanical integration, and both references operate in the same high-pressure hydraulic fracturing environment.

Ground 3: Obviousness over Tolman, Surjaatmadja, and Bull - Claims 2, 6, 9, 10, 15, 16, and 19 are obvious.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Tolman (Application # 2009/0114392), Surjaatmadja (Application # 2009/0194273), and Bull (Application # 2009/0261575).

• Core Argument for this Ground:

  • Prior Art Mapping: This ground addressed dependent claims requiring an "adjustment joint" or "goat head." Petitioner argued that the base combination of Tolman and Surjaatmadja teaches the fracturing manifold system, and Bull teaches the claimed adjustable joint feature. Bull discloses an adjustable-length pipe joint specifically designed for high-pressure oil and gas applications to solve the problem of connecting components that have minor misalignments in distance and orientation. This matches the patent’s definition of an "adjustment joint" or "goat head."
  • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would be motivated to incorporate Bull's adjustable joints into the Tolman/Surjaatmadja system to solve the precise problem Bull addresses: simplifying the fabrication and speeding up the assembly of high-pressure piping systems on-site. This would save significant time and labor when connecting the manifold to each fracturing tree.
  • Expectation of Success: Bull's joints are explicitly designed for high-pressure fluid applications and for connection to standard piping components (e.g., flanges, unions). A POSITA would have a high expectation of success in incorporating them into the manifold system using ordinary pipe-fitting techniques.

• Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted additional obviousness challenges, including combining Surjaatmadja and Tolman with Duhn (Application # 2003/0205385) or Bertrand (WO 2009/154881) to explicitly teach fracturing trees; with Perry (a chemical engineering handbook) to teach standard pipe joints and elbows; and with API 6A (an industry standard) to teach the use of specific "connection blocks" like studded tees.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

• "adjustment joint" / "goat head": Petitioner argued these terms are used synonymously in the ’800 patent to mean an adjustable connector, such as an extendable fracturing head, that can change a dimension (e.g., length) to facilitate alignment between two components. This construction was central to the petition, as Petitioner distinguished it from the common industry meaning of "goat head" as a static mixing chamber. This specific definition allows the adjustable-length joint taught in Bull to meet the claim limitation.
• "fracturing tree": Petitioner proposed this term be construed as a component of a wellhead assembly used for fracturing, which includes at least one valve to control fluid flow into the wellhead. This construction is consistent with the specification, prosecution history, and general POSITA understanding.

5. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

• Petitioner argued that institution is proper under 35 U.S.C. §325(d) because the asserted prior art is not cumulative of the art considered during prosecution. The primary references, Surjaatmadja and Tolman, were argued to be materially different from Kajaria (’015 application), the main reference in prosecution. Specifically, Petitioner asserted that Surjaatmadja and Tolman teach the very "one and only one rigid fluid pathway" limitation that the applicant added to the claims to overcome rejections based on Kajaria. Therefore, the core argument for patentability made during prosecution is inapplicable to the newly cited art. Further, several other references (Bertrand, Perry, API 6A) were not cited or evaluated during examination.

6. Relief Requested

• Petitioner requested institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1-19 of the ’800 patent as unpatentable.