PTAB

IPR2023-01236

Permian Global Inc v. Fuel Automation Station LLC

Title: Distribution Station
Brief Description: The ’118 patent discloses a mobile distribution station for dispensing fuel or other fluids to equipment, particularly at a hydraulic fracturing site. The system comprises a mobile trailer equipped with a pump, manifolds, a plurality of hose reels, and an automated control system to manage fluid flow based on sensor readings.

Prior Art Relied Upon: Van Vliet (Application # 2011/0197988) and Coxreels (a 2014 online product page for 1125 Series hose reels).
Core Argument for this Ground:
- Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Van Vliet taught all elements of claims 1-3 except for the specific limitation that the reels include a flow passage running through them, separate from the hose. This was a key limitation relied upon by the Examiner during prosecution. Petitioner asserted that Coxreels, a commercially available hose reel, explicitly disclosed this feature, teaching an "external fluid path" and a "swivel inlet" that allows fluid to pass through the reel's body.
- Motivation to Combine: A person of ordinary skill in the art (POSA) designing the fuel delivery system in Van Vliet would look to commercially available components like the Coxreels reel as a cost-effective and readily available option. Since Coxreels was marketed for the same fuel delivery industry, it would have been an obvious choice for implementing the reels disclosed generally in Van Vliet.
- Expectation of Success: A POSA would have a reasonable expectation of success, as incorporating the Coxreels reel into the Van Vliet system would be a simple substitution of one known component for another to achieve the predictable result of a reel with an integrated flow passage.

Prior Art Relied Upon: Van Vliet and Shoap (Patent 7,819,345).
Core Argument for this Ground:
- Prior Art Mapping: This ground addressed claims requiring sensor communication lines routed with or through the hoses. Petitioner asserted that while Van Vliet disclosed using sensors and communication channels that could be "wired or wireless," Shoap taught the specific implementation of a "wired fluid conduit." Shoap disclosed a hose with communication wires routed between an inner tube and an outer sleeve, as well as the hose being storable on a reel. This combination supplied the specific "routed with the hoses" and "tube and sleeve" limitations in claims 4-5 and 10-18.
- Motivation to Combine: A POSA implementing a wired version of Van Vliet's system would be motivated to use Shoap's wired hose design to achieve a compact, safe, and convenient wire placement, avoiding the clutter of separate wiring. Shoap solved the same problem of simultaneously transporting fluid and data through a single hose assembly.
- Expectation of Success: Success would be expected because the combination involved applying a known hose design (Shoap) to a known system (Van Vliet) to achieve the predictable benefit of integrated wiring, a common design goal.

Prior Art Relied Upon: Van Vliet, Shoap, and Hosecraft (a 2013 online catalog for CLAMPS Accessories).
Core Argument for this Ground:
- Prior Art Mapping: This ground built upon the combination of Van Vliet and Shoap to address claims 12-13, which required bands (specifically steel bands) to secure the sleeve to the hose tube. Petitioner argued that Hosecraft disclosed commercially available band clamps, including those made of "high carbon coated steel or stainless steel," for use in securing hose assemblies.
- Motivation to Combine: After selecting Shoap's tube-and-sleeve hose design for use in the Van Vliet system, a POSA would recognize the need to secure the protective sleeve. A POSA would be motivated to use a common, commercially available clamping mechanism like the steel bands from Hosecraft to secure the sleeve and connect the hose to fittings, which is a standard industry practice.
- Expectation of Success: The combination would yield predictable results, as using a standard band clamp (Hosecraft) to secure a sleeve on a hose (from Shoap) is a basic mechanical step with a high expectation of success.
Additional Grounds: Petitioner also asserted Ground 1 (Claims 1-3 anticipated/obvious over Van Vliet alone) and Ground 2A (Claims 4-9 and 15-18 obvious over Van Vliet, Coxreels, and Shoap), which relied on similar arguments and mappings.

§325(d) and Advanced Bionics: Petitioner argued against denial under §325(d), stating that the petition raised new issues not considered by the USPTO. It was argued that the primary reference, Van Vliet, was never substantively analyzed by the Examiner, and the secondary references (Coxreels, Shoap, and Hosecraft) were not of record at all. Petitioner contended these new references are not cumulative and teach the very limitations the Examiner relied upon for allowance, demonstrating a material error in the original prosecution.
§314(a) and Fintiv: Petitioner argued that the Fintiv factors strongly favored institution. The parallel district court litigation was in its earliest stages, with no trial date set, no scheduling order entered, and no claim construction activities having occurred. Therefore, Petitioner argued that an IPR would be a more efficient resolution and would not be a waste of resources or lead to significant overlap with the district court case at this early juncture.

Petitioner requested the institution of an inter partes review and the cancellation of claims 1-18 of Patent 10,815,118 as unpatentable.