PTAB

IPR2023-01237

Permian Global Inc v. Fuel Automation Station LLC

Log In

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Mobile Fuel Distribution Station
  • Brief Description: The ’805 patent describes a mobile distribution station, such as a trailer, for distributing fuel or other fluids to equipment at a hydraulic fracturing site. The system is designed to facilitate "hot-refueling" of multiple pieces of equipment to reduce shutdowns.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over Vliet and Cable - Claims 1-22 are obvious over Vliet in view of Cable.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Vliet (Application # 2011/0197988) and Cable (Patent 3,810,487).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Vliet disclosed the basic elements of a mobile fuel delivery system for fracturing sites, including a trailer, pumps, manifolds, hoses, and reels. However, during prosecution, the Examiner allowed the claims based on the arrangement of reels on "first and second opposed sides" of the trailer with a central "aisle walkway," which Vliet did not explicitly describe. Petitioner contended that Cable, which describes a mobile lubrication truck, explicitly taught this exact arrangement, showing reels on opposed sides of a rear compartment with a central aisle for operator access.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine Cable’s spatial layout with Vliet’s system to solve a known problem. Vliet stated that the spatial orientation of components was a matter of design choice and that manual valves should be readily accessible. A POSITA would look to a known configuration like Cable's central aisle and opposed-reel layout to improve operator access for maintenance, repairs, and operation within Vliet’s trailer.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have a reasonable expectation of success, as the combination involved applying a known, conventional equipment layout (from Cable) to a similar system (Vliet) to achieve the predictable result of improved accessibility.

Ground 2: Obviousness over Vliet and AFD - Claims 1, 7-10, 13-18, and 22 are obvious over Vliet in view of AFD.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Vliet (Application # 2011/0197988) and AFD (an archived webpage from 2015 describing the AFD Onsite Refueling System).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground again used Vliet as the primary system. Petitioner asserted that AFD, a commercially offered mobile refueling system, taught key features such as deploying hoses from both opposed sidewalls of the trailer, an integrated control room (second compartment) with monitors for controlling fuel status for each reel, and an implied central aisle for maintenance access. These features mapped directly to limitations in independent claims 1 and 17 and their dependents.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine AFD's features with Vliet's system to improve safety and efficiency. Vliet taught supplying fluid to equipment on opposite sides of a well from separate manifolds. A POSITA would incorporate AFD's teaching of deploying hoses from both trailer sidewalls to more efficiently service equipment on both sides, reducing hose clutter and extension length. Further, AFD’s integrated control room would be combined to improve operator control and monitoring, a known objective in the art.
    • Expectation of Success: The combination involved integrating features from one commercial refueling system (AFD) into another similar conceptual system (Vliet). A POSITA would expect this integration of known components to function as intended and yield the predictable advantages of more efficient operation and control.

Ground 3: Obviousness over Vliet, AFD, and Lowrie - Claims 2-3, 6, and 19 are obvious over Vliet in view of AFD and Lowrie.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Vliet (Application # 2011/0197988), AFD (2015 webpage), and Lowrie (Application # 2018/0057348).

  • Core Argument for this Ground:

    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground built upon the combination of Vliet and AFD by adding Lowrie to teach limitations related to the vertical arrangement of reels. Specifically, Petitioner argued that Lowrie disclosed arranging reels in distinct upper and lower rows on support racks inside a mobile tanker, satisfying the limitations of claims 2, 3, 6, and 19. Lowrie also explicitly showed a 1:1 ratio of reels between the upper and lower rows (claim 6).
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA, seeking to build the mobile refueling system of Vliet/AFD, would be motivated to incorporate Lowrie's reel organization to store hoses more efficiently and compactly. Stacking reels in multiple rows, as taught by Lowrie, was a well-known and logical way to increase hose capacity within the fixed footprint of a mobile trailer.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have a high expectation of success in implementing Lowrie’s stacked reel arrangement. This modification merely involved using common support racks to arrange known components (reels) in a space-saving manner, a predictable and routine design optimization.

  • Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted additional obviousness challenges, including grounds that combined Vliet and Cable with Coxreels (a commercial hose reel catalog) to teach specific reel diameter-to-aisle-width ratios, and various other combinations of Vliet, Cable, AFD, Lowrie, and Coxreels to address the full scope of challenged claims.

4. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

  • §314(a) (Fintiv Factors): Petitioner argued that discretionary denial under Fintiv was improper. It asserted that the parallel district court litigation was in its very early stages, with no trial date set, no claim construction activities having occurred, and discovery just beginning. Therefore, Petitioner contended that an IPR would resolve patentability issues far more efficiently than the district court and that the merits of the petition were compelling.
  • §325(d) (Same or Substantially Same Art or Arguments): Petitioner argued that denial under §325(d) was also improper. Although the Examiner considered Vliet during prosecution, Petitioner contended that every invalidity ground (except for the anticipation ground on Vliet alone) combined Vliet with new prior art (Cable, AFD, Lowrie, Coxreels) that was not before the Examiner. Petitioner argued this new art was not cumulative because it specifically taught the key limitations the Examiner found missing in Vliet, thereby presenting arguments the Patent Office had not previously considered.

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1-22 of the ’805 patent as unpatentable.