Nitro Fluids LLC v. Cameron Intl Corp

1. Case Identification

• Case #: IPR2020-00691
• Patent #: 10,094,195
• Filed: March 7, 2020
• Petitioner(s): Nitro Fluids, L.L.C.
• Patent Owner(s): Cameron International Corporation
• Challenged Claims: 7, 9-11

2. Patent Overview

• Title: Fracturing Manifold Systems and Methods
• Brief Description: The ’195 patent discloses systems for hydraulic fracturing that use a fracturing manifold to distribute fracturing fluid to one or more fracturing trees at wellheads. The patent describes using one or more fluid conduits to couple the manifold to each tree.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over Kajaria in view of Tolman or Demong - Claims 7 and 9-11

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Kajaria (Application # 2012/0181015), Tolman (Application # 2009/0114392), and Demong (Application # 2011/0030963).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner asserted that Kajaria, which teaches a modular fracturing fluid delivery system, discloses most limitations of the challenged claims. This includes a fracturing manifold, fracturing trees, and fluid conduits containing "goat heads" (construed as flow crosses). The Petitioner argued that the Examiner allowed the claims by erroneously concluding that Kajaria's fluid conduits were only flexible hoses and thus lacked the claimed "plurality of pipe joints." Petitioner contended that Kajaria’s modular system, which includes flanged joints known as "spools," inherently teaches such joints. To cure this perceived deficiency, Petitioner relied on Tolman and Demong, which both explicitly teach using a single, rigid fluid conduit made of conventional piping (i.e., multiple pipe joints and standard connectors) to connect a fracturing manifold to a wellhead tree.
  • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine the single, rigid conduit of Tolman or Demong with Kajaria's modular manifold system for predictable benefits. Tolman taught that using a single line allows for the efficient isolation of individual wells during multi-well fracturing operations, saving time. Demong taught that a single line simplifies the piping system's design, reduces potential leak points, and lowers inspection and testing costs compared to using multiple lines.
  • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have had a high expectation of success. The combination involved using conventional rigid piping and connectors, as taught by Tolman and Demong, with a manifold system, as taught by Kajaria. This constitutes the application of well-understood components for their known functions, implemented via ordinary pipe-fitting techniques.

Ground 2: Obviousness over Kajaria and Tolman/Demong in view of Bertrand - Claims 7 and 9-11

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Kajaria (Application # 2012/0181015), Tolman (Application # 2009/0114392) or Demong (Application # 2011/0030963), and Bertrand (WO 2009/154881).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: This ground reinforced the arguments from Ground 1. Petitioner argued that while Kajaria’s wellhead equipment constitutes a "fracturing tree," to the extent the Patent Owner disputed this, Bertrand explicitly discloses the use of conventional fracturing trees. Bertrand’s frac tree includes a flow cross, which aligns with the "goat head" limitation. This ground asserted that replacing Kajaria’s wellhead assembly with a standard fracturing tree from Bertrand would have been obvious.
  • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would be motivated to use a standard, purpose-built fracturing tree as taught by Bertrand in the system of Kajaria. Such trees were common, standard components for fracturing operations because they are designed to handle the associated high pressures and flow rates. The motivation was to use a known, reliable, and fit-for-purpose component in the overall system.
  • Expectation of Success: Success was predictable, as this combination represented the simple substitution of one known component (Kajaria's wellhead assembly) with a well-known, functionally equivalent, and standard industry component (Bertrand's fracturing tree).

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

• fracturing manifold: Petitioner proposed this term be construed as "a pipe or chamber with multiple outlets for connecting with other pipes or flow components, used to deliver fracturing fluid to a fracturing tree." Petitioner argued this construction is consistent with the specification and general understanding in the art, and that the term does not necessarily require the inclusion of valves to control flow to individual wells.
• goat head: For the purposes of the petition, Petitioner adopted the Patent Owner's proposed construction of "flow cross." Petitioner then argued that even under this construction, the claims are obvious because flow crosses are conventional components explicitly taught or suggested by Kajaria, Bertrand, and the general knowledge of a POSITA, as evidenced by industry standards like API 6A.

5. Key Technical Contentions (Beyond Claim Construction)

• Petitioner’s central technical contention was that the Examiner erred by focusing only on Kajaria's disclosure of flexible hoses for connecting the manifold to the wellhead. Petitioner argued that a POSITA would have understood Kajaria’s system to be modular and adaptable to various real-world well site configurations. Such configurations would necessitate the use of rigid piping with multiple pipe joints and connectors (like flow crosses) to account for variations in distance, elevation, and alignment between the manifold and the fracturing trees.

6. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

• Petitioner argued that discretionary denial under 35 U.S.C. §325(d) was inappropriate because the petition raised new and material issues that were not before the Examiner during prosecution. The primary references of Tolman and Demong were not previously considered and directly teach the "plurality of pipe joints" limitation that was the critical basis for allowance. Further, Petitioner asserted that the Examiner materially erred in his application of Kajaria by misidentifying the claimed "fracturing manifold" and "fluid conduit," thereby failing to appreciate that the prior art, properly understood, rendered the claims obvious.

7. Relief Requested

• Petitioner requested institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 7 and 9-11 of the ’195 patent as unpatentable.