PTAB

IPR2021-00671

Helmerich & Payne Intl Drilling Co v. Nabors Drilling Technologies USA Inc

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Drilling Scorecard
  • Brief Description: The ’081 patent is directed to a method for evaluating the performance of an operator steering the drilling of a wellbore. The method uses a "scorecard" to monitor, record, score, and total the differences between a desired toolface orientation and an actual, measured toolface orientation over time.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Claims 1-3 are obvious over Hamilton in view of Brett and Young.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Hamilton (Patent 7,588,100), Brett (Patent 7,031,840), and Young (Application # 2008/0255869).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that the challenged claims merely combine a conventional drilling technique with a generic scoring method. Hamilton was asserted to teach the foundational drilling method of claim 1, including monitoring an actual toolface orientation of a downhole steerable motor and repeatedly determining the difference between that orientation and a desired trajectory. This process generates the raw performance data (a series of deviation values) but does not explicitly disclose scoring it. Petitioner contended that Young, which addresses performance evaluation for vehicle drivers, teaches the precise scoring methodology claimed. Young discloses collecting performance data for discrete maneuvers, calculating an individual score for each maneuver based on its deviation from a standard, generating a weighted composite "total score," and providing the resulting "scorecard" to an evaluator (e.g., a supervisor) for training. Petitioner argued that applying Young's generic scoring method to the drilling deviation data disclosed in Hamilton renders every limitation of claims 1-3 obvious. For dependent claim 2 (scoring for a plurality of drillers) and claim 3 (recording at regular intervals), Petitioner again mapped teachings from Young (evaluating multiple drivers) and Hamilton (taking surveys at regular length/depth intervals), respectively.
    • Motivation to Combine (for §103 grounds): Petitioner identified Brett as supplying the motivation to combine Hamilton and Young. Brett teaches that it is advantageous to develop objective performance assessment systems for drilling operations to improve efficiency, reduce costs, and identify opportunities for improvement. A person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA), aware of the challenges and high costs associated with poor toolface control (a key part of the directional drilling process taught by Hamilton), would be motivated by Brett's teachings to find an objective method for evaluating a driller's steering performance. That POSITA would look to analogous arts for known scoring techniques and find Young's straightforward driver performance evaluation method readily adaptable to the drilling context.
    • Expectation of Success (for §103 grounds): A POSITA would have had a reasonable expectation of success because the combination required only the application of basic, well-understood data analysis. Petitioner asserted that applying Young's simple mathematical processes (e.g., subtraction, assigning values, calculating a weighted average) to the numerical toolface deviation data from Hamilton was a predictable and technically uncomplicated task that would not require undue experimentation.

4. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

  • Petitioner argued that discretionary denial of institution under 35 U.S.C. §314(a) and the Fintiv factors was inappropriate. The co-pending district court litigation was in its early stages, with minimal investment by the parties or the court, and the court had indicated a likelihood of staying the case if the IPR were instituted. Furthermore, the petition challenged all asserted claims, meaning the IPR could simplify or dispose of the parallel proceeding.
  • Petitioner also contended that denial under 35 U.S.C. §325(d) was not warranted because the ground presented was based on an entirely new combination of prior art (Hamilton, Brett, and Young) that was neither cited nor considered by the USPTO during the original prosecution of the ’081 patent.

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review (IPR) and cancellation of claims 1-3 of Patent 8,510,081 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §103.