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

1. Case Identification

• Case #: IPR2021-01018
• Patent #: 7,802,634
• Filed: June 1, 2021
• Petitioner(s): Helmerich & Payne International Drilling Company, Helmerich & Payne Technologies, LLC, and Motive Drilling Technologies, Inc.
• Patent Owner(s): Nabors Drilling Technologies USA, Inc.
• Challenged Claims: 1-12

2. Patent Overview

• Title: Integrated Quill Position and Toolface Orientation Display
• Brief Description: The ’634 patent describes a human-machine interface and method for visibly demonstrating the relationship between toolface orientation (gravity-based and magnetic-based) and quill position during directional drilling operations. The system displays this data in a historical format to help a driller guide the wellbore.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over Haci, Cobern, and Jones - Claims 1, 4-7, 9, 10, and 12 are obvious over Haci in view of Cobern and Jones.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Haci (Patent 7,810,584), Cobern (Patent 4,761,889), and Jones (Patent 7,152,696).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Haci taught the core limitations of claim 1, including a driller’s screen that displays both toolface orientation and quill position data (disclosed as "surface tool face angle") on the same interface. Haci’s screen also included a graphical display plotting data versus time, satisfying the "historical format" limitation for toolface data. Cobern was cited to supply the teaching of receiving both gravity-based and magnetic-based toolface orientation data, as it described a sensor unit with accelerometers and magnetometers that calculates both depending on wellbore inclination. Jones was cited to teach displaying quill position data in a historical, graphical format, as it explicitly disclosed plotting the "absolute rotation angle" of the drill string over time. For dependent claims, Jones was argued to teach relating quill position to toolface via an "offset angle" (Claim 4).
  • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine Haci with Cobern to solve the well-known problem of selecting the appropriate toolface measurement (magnetic for low inclination, gravity for high inclination). Because Haci’s system already used a directional sensor, a POSITA would have looked to a reference like Cobern to implement the specific sensor types needed. A POSITA would combine the result with Jones to provide the driller with additional valuable information. Adding a graphical plot of historical quill position from Jones to Haci's existing graphical display would help the driller understand the relationship between surface inputs and downhole tool behavior.
  • Expectation of Success: Petitioner asserted a high expectation of success, as combining known sensor types (from Cobern) into a system that already receives sensor data (Haci) was predictable. Similarly, adding another data plot (from Jones) to an existing graphical user interface (Haci) was a straightforward implementation, especially since both references plot data in degrees versus time.

Ground 2: Obviousness over Haci, Cobern, and Jones in view of Leder - Claims 2 and 3 are obvious over Haci, Cobern, and Jones in further view of Leder.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Haci (Patent 7,810,584), Cobern (Patent 4,761,889), Jones (Patent 7,152,696), and Leder (a 1995 SPE paper).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: This ground built upon the combination in Ground 1 to address the limitations of claims 2 and 3, which require displaying measurement-while-drilling (MWD) azimuth and inclination data. While Haci disclosed displaying current azimuth and inclination textually, Petitioner argued that Leder taught displaying this data in a historical format. Leder’s anticollision display included a list of all accepted surveys acquired while drilling, presenting a plurality of historical inclination and azimuth values.
  • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would be motivated to incorporate Leder's technique for displaying historical azimuth and inclination data into the Haci system to provide the driller with more complete information for maintaining the wellbore trajectory. Since Haci already collects and displays current MWD data, adding a historical view as taught by Leder would be a logical and advantageous improvement.
  • Expectation of Success: Success would be expected because Haci’s system was already capable of storing and displaying other historical data (e.g., torque, pressure, toolface) in graphical plots. Incorporating Leder’s list-based historical display of survey data would be well within the skill of a POSITA.

Ground 3: Obviousness over Haci, Jones, and Cobern in view of Maidla - Claims 8 and 11 are obvious over Haci, Jones, and Cobern in view of Maidla.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Haci (Patent 7,810,584), Jones (Patent 7,152,696), Cobern (Patent 4,761,889), and Maidla (a NETL fact sheet).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: This ground addressed claims 8 and 11, which recite graphically displaying data in a "target-shaped representation" where icons are arranged by time. Petitioner argued that while Haci suggested a dial display, Maidla explicitly disclosed a "Slider" user interface with a target-shaped display of nested concentric rings. Maidla's display showed historical toolface data as dots on the rings, with the size and position (inner vs. outer ring) of the dots indicating the recency of the measurement, thus satisfying the claim limitations.
  • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would be motivated to replace Haci's dial indicator with Maidla's more intuitive target-shaped display. The references were analogous art, addressed the same technical problem, and shared a common inventor (Eric Maidla). Maidla's display provided an easier, more direct method for the driller to visualize recent historical toolface and quill position data.
  • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have a high expectation of success because the user interfaces in Haci and Maidla were very similar and served the same function. Replacing one display element with an improved version from a closely related reference would be a predictable design modification.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

• Petitioner argued that the Board need not expressly construe any terms. However, for "quill position," Petitioner relied on the patent's own broad definition, which includes the static or dynamic rotational orientation of the quill, top drive, or other surface component. Petitioner asserted that the "absolute rotation angle" taught by Jones and the "surface tool face angle" from Haci fell within this definition.

5. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

• Petitioner argued against discretionary denial under Fintiv, stating that the district court in the parallel litigation was likely to grant a stay if IPR was instituted. The petition was filed diligently after infringement contentions were served, the parallel case was in its early stages with minimal discovery, the petition challenged all asserted claims, and the merits of the patentability challenges were strong. Petitioner also argued that denial under §325(d) was inappropriate because all prior art references presented in the petition were new and had not been considered during prosecution.

6. Relief Requested

• Petitioner requested institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1-12 of the ’634 patent as unpatentable.