Permian Global Inc v. Fuel AuTomatiON Station LLC

1. Case Identification

• Case #: IPR2023-01237
• Patent #: 9,586,805
• Filed: August 07, 2023
• Petitioner(s): Permian Global Inc, and Manticore Fuels, LLC
• Patent Owner(s): Fuel Automation Station, LLC
• Challenged Claims: 1-22

2. Patent Overview

• Title: Mobile Fuel Distribution Station
• Brief Description: The ’805 patent describes a mobile distribution station for delivering fuel or other fluids to equipment at a hydraulic fracturing site. The system is designed to facilitate "hot-refueling" (refueling equipment while it is running) to reduce operational shutdowns.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: 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 discloses a mobile fuel delivery system for fracturing sites but does not explicitly detail the physical layout of components within its trailer. Cable, which describes a mobile lubrication truck, discloses key structural features that Petitioner alleged were missing from Vliet, including reels arranged on opposing sides of the vehicle, a central aisle walkway between the reels, and separate compartments for equipment and operators. Petitioner contended that combining Cable’s layout with Vliet’s system teaches every limitation of the challenged claims.
  • Motivation to Combine: A person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) would combine Cable's internal layout with Vliet’s system to achieve predictable benefits. Vliet itself stated that the spatial orientation of its components "is a matter of design choice," which would motivate a POSITA to look to analogous art like Cable for an efficient and safe configuration. Cable's central aisle and opposed-reel layout would make Vliet's system more easily traversable for operation, maintenance, and inspection.
  • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have had a reasonable expectation of success, as both Vliet and Cable describe similar mobile fluid delivery systems. Incorporating Cable’s established layout into Vliet’s system would involve the simple combination of known elements to yield the predictable result of a more accessible and organized system.

Ground 2: Claims 17 and 18 are anticipated by and/or obvious over Vliet

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Vliet (Application # 2011/0197988).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued Vliet alone anticipates or, at a minimum, renders obvious claims 17 and 18. For claim 17, Petitioner asserted that Vliet teaches the deployment of hoses from two opposed trailer sidewalls. Although not explicitly shown in figures, Vliet's text describes an embodiment where one manifold supplies fluid to equipment "on one side of a well, while another manifold... [supplies] fluid to equipment... lined up on the other side," which Petitioner argued inherently teaches deployment from opposite sides of the trailer.
  • Motivation to Combine (for §103 grounds): For claim 18, Petitioner argued that incorporating an aisle walkway between reels on opposed sides would be an obvious implementation of Vliet's system. Because Vliet discloses manually operated valves, an operator would require access, and arranging the reels and hoses on opposing sides with a central walkway is the most obvious way to provide safe access and avoid creating a tripping hazard.

Ground 5: 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 describing the AFD Onsite Refueling System, Sept. 2015).

• Core Argument for this Ground:

  • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner asserted that AFD, a real-world commercial refueling system, explicitly discloses features that supplement Vliet. AFD’s webpage shows a mobile refueling trailer with hoses deploying from both opposing sidewalls and a separate, elevated control room compartment. Petitioner argued that AFD’s system provides a clear teaching for arranging reels and deploying hoses from opposite sides, a key limitation of the ’805 patent.
  • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would be motivated to combine Vliet with AFD to improve safety and efficiency. Incorporating AFD's configuration of deploying hoses from both sides would help meet Vliet's stated goal of serving equipment on both sides of a wellsite while reducing hose clutter. Further, a POSITA would integrate AFD's concept of a dedicated, separate control room to allow an operator to safely monitor and manage fuel delivery without being exposed to the equipment bay.
  • Expectation of Success: Both Vliet and AFD describe highly similar mobile refueling systems. Combining their respective features would merely modify existing elements in conventional ways to achieve the predictable benefits of improved operational safety and efficiency.

• Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted additional obviousness challenges based on combinations including Lowrie (Application # 2018/0057348) and Coxreels (a 2014 product webpage). These references were used to teach further limitations such as stacked upper and lower rows of reels on support racks (Lowrie), specific reel diameters and trailer width regulations (Coxreels), and fire-retardant insulation for control compartments.

4. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

• §314(a) (Fintiv Factors): Petitioner argued that discretionary denial under Fintiv would be improper. This is the first IPR filed against the ’805 patent. The parallel district court litigation was in its earliest stages, with no trial date, scheduling order, or claim construction yet to occur. Petitioner asserted that the early stage of the co-pending litigation and the compelling merits of the petition strongly favored institution.
• §325(d) (Advanced Bionics Framework): Petitioner argued that the Board should not deny institution because the petition raises new art and arguments not considered by the USPTO during prosecution. While the primary reference, Vliet, was before the Examiner, the key secondary references—Cable, AFD, Lowrie, and Coxreels—were not. Petitioner contended these references are not cumulative because they explicitly teach the very limitations the Examiner identified as missing from the prior art of record, namely the arrangement of reels on "first and second opposed sides of the mobile trailer" and hoses deployable from "the first and second trailer sidewall."

5. Relief Requested

• Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1-22 of Patent 9,586,805 as unpatentable.