Helmerich & Payne International Drilling Company 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 is directed to a human-machine interface for directional drilling that displays information to an operator. The system visibly demonstrates a relationship between toolface orientation and quill position using a display with concentric rings to show historical data, assisting the driller in guiding the wellbore.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: 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 teaches the core method of displaying drilling data, including toolface orientation and a current value for quill position (disclosed as "surface tool face angle"), on a driller's screen that includes a historical plot of data versus time. However, Haci does not explicitly teach distinguishing between gravity-based and magnetic-based toolface data, nor does it show a historical plot of quill position. Cobern was introduced to supply the teaching of using both magnetic-based toolface (for low inclination wells) and gravity-based toolface (for high inclination wells) via magnetometers and accelerometers. Jones was introduced to supply the teaching of graphically displaying quill position data in a historical format, showing a plot of absolute rotation angle over time.
  • Motivation to Combine: A Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art (POSITA) implementing Haci's system would combine it with Cobern to improve its functionality across different drilling inclinations, a well-known problem. A POSITA would also combine the system with Jones to provide the driller with a historical view of quill position, which is valuable for understanding drill string torque and making steering corrections. Both were described as adding valuable, known information types to a display system.
  • Expectation of Success: Petitioner asserted success would be expected because the combination involved applying known sensor technology (Cobern) to a known display system (Haci) and adding a conventional data plot (Jones) to an existing graphical interface.

Ground 2: Claims 2 and 3 are obvious over Haci, Cobern, and Jones in 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 titled "New Real-Time Anticollision Alarm Improves Drilling Safety").
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: This ground builds on the combination in Ground 1 to further meet the limitations of claims 2 and 3, which require displaying historical measurement-while-drilling (MWD) azimuth and inclination data. While the base combination discloses the main display features, Leder was introduced to explicitly teach displaying a historical list of accepted survey data, including a plurality of past inclination and azimuth values measured over time.
  • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine Leder's teachings with the Haci/Cobern/Jones system to create a more comprehensive drilling display. Providing historical azimuth and inclination data allows the driller to better monitor wellbore trajectory and confirm it is being maintained, which is a key objective in directional drilling. All references are from the analogous art of drilling technology.
  • Expectation of Success: Petitioner contended success was predictable because Haci's system already obtains and displays current azimuth and inclination data. Incorporating a historical listing of this data, as taught by Leder, would be a straightforward and well-understood enhancement to the user interface.

Ground 3: 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 2006 NETL fact sheet).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: This ground addresses claims 8 and 11, which require displaying data graphically in a "target-shaped representation" with icons arranged by time. While Haci teaches a dial indicator, Maidla (which shares a co-inventor with Haci) explicitly discloses a "Slider" user-interface with a target-shaped display of nested concentric rings. This display uses time-specific icons (red dots) to plot historical toolface data, with their position and size indicating recency.
  • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would have been motivated to replace Haci's dial indicator with Maidla's more intuitive target-shaped display. Maidla's display provides an easier, more direct way to visualize recent historical data for parameters like toolface and quill position, which is a key goal of the challenged patent. The two references are highly analogous and address the same technical problem.
  • Expectation of Success: Success would be expected because the user interfaces of Haci and Maidla are very similar. Substituting Maidla's target display for Haci's dial would be a predictable replacement of one graphical element with another, improved version to achieve a more intuitive visualization of historical data.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

• Petitioner argued that the term "quill position" is defined broadly in the ’634 patent specification to potentially refer to the static or dynamic rotational orientation of various surface components, including a rotary table or top drive. Petitioner contended that the prior art invalidates the claims under any plausible construction of this term, and therefore, the Board need not adopt an express construction.

5. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

• Petitioner argued that discretionary denial under §314(a) based on Fintiv factors was inappropriate. It asserted that the co-pending district court litigation was in its early stages with minimal discovery, and the court had indicated a high likelihood of granting a stay if IPR were instituted.
• Petitioner also argued that denial under §325(d) was inappropriate because all prior art references and the corresponding invalidity arguments presented in the petition were new and had not been previously considered by the USPTO during prosecution of the ’634 patent.

6. Relief Requested

• Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1-12 of Patent 7,802,634 as unpatentable.