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

1. Case Identification

• Case #: IPR2021-01043
• Patent #: 10,672,154
• Filed: June 11, 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: 1-4, 6, 20-22, 24-25, and 27-28

2. Patent Overview

• Title: Three-Dimensional Visualization for Directional Drilling
• Brief Description: The ’154 patent is directed to systems and methods for generating a three-dimensional (3D) visualization of a drill plan and toolface to assist operators in steering a bottom hole assembly (BHA) during directional drilling operations. The visualization helps an operator direct the drill back to the planned path if it deviates.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over Benson II, Terentyev, and Sequeira - Claims 1-4, 6, 20-22, 24-25, and 27-28 are obvious over [Benson II](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2021-01043/doc/1006) in view of [Terentyev](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2021-01043/doc/1007) and further in view of [Sequeira](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2021-01043/doc/1008).

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Benson II (Application # 2013/0161096), Terentyev (Patent 7,027,925), and Sequeira (Application # 2013/0140037).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner asserted that the combination of these three references teaches every limitation of the challenged claims.
    • Benson II was presented as the primary reference, disclosing a surface-steerable drilling system that provides the foundational elements of the invention. Petitioner argued Benson II teaches a controller that receives sensor data (e.g., from MWD/LWD components), processes a 3D drill plan, calculates a positional difference between the actual drill bit location and the planned path, and generates a visualization. This visualization, however, was characterized as primarily a 2D, top-down view ("looking down the drill string") that includes an "error indicator" showing deviation from the plan and a "marker" indicating a recommended correction toward the plan.
    • Terentyev was argued to supply the missing 3D visualization of the drill bit, drill string, and borehole trajectory. Terentyev discloses a method for displaying BHA and trajectory data in 3D from a similar downhole perspective. Petitioner contended that adding Terentyev’s 3D visualization capabilities to Benson II’s data processing and control system would render the claimed 3D visualization obvious.
    • Sequeira was introduced to teach the specific limitation of displaying a "range of acceptable deviation." Benson II’s error indicator shows deviation using different colors, but Petitioner argued Sequeira explicitly teaches defining and visualizing a "minimum acceptable distance" or "constraint parameters" from a planned well path to avoid collisions and maintain safety. Petitioner asserted that adding this concept to the combined Benson II/Terentyev system would render the claimed limitation obvious.
  • Motivation to Combine: Petitioner argued a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) would be motivated to combine these references for predictable benefits.
    • A POSITA implementing Benson II’s system would combine it with Terentyev’s 3D display methods to create a more intuitive, realistic, and user-friendly interface. This would improve a driller's spatial awareness and facilitate quicker, more accurate steering decisions.
    • A POSITA would further modify the combined system with Sequeira's teachings to enhance safety and operational control. Displaying a defined range of acceptable deviation, as taught by Sequeira, would provide the driller with clear, actionable boundaries, improving the base system’s ability to keep the wellbore within a safe corridor and prevent costly collisions.
  • Expectation of Success: Petitioner asserted a POSITA would have had a high expectation of success. The combination involved integrating known visualization techniques (Terentyev) and safety parameters (Sequeira) into a known type of drilling control system (Benson II). Since Benson II already processed 3D positional data, displaying that data in a 3D format was a straightforward and predictable modification.

4. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

• §314(a) (Fintiv): Petitioner argued that discretionary denial under Fintiv was not appropriate. It was contended that the parallel district court litigation was in its very early stages, with minimal discovery exchanged and no claim construction orders issued. Furthermore, Petitioner highlighted that the district court had indicated a likelihood of staying the case pending the outcome of the inter partes review (IPR), which would prevent duplicative efforts and conserve judicial resources. The trial date was also set close to the statutory deadline for a Final Written Decision (FWD), further weighing against denial.
• §325(d): Petitioner argued that denial under §325(d) was also inappropriate because the petition raised new arguments based on prior art that was not before the examiner during prosecution. Petitioner stated that none of the primary references—Benson II, Terentyev, or Sequeira—were cited or substantively considered by the PTO. While the examiner reviewed related patents (Benson I and Benson III), Petitioner contended that the asserted reference, Benson II, contained material new disclosures, including additional figures and specification text, that were central to the invalidity grounds. Therefore, the arguments presented in the petition were substantially different from those previously evaluated by the Office.

5. Relief Requested

• Petitioner requests institution of an IPR and cancellation of claims 1-4, 6, 20-22, 24-25, and 27-28 of the ’154 patent as unpatentable.