PTAB

IPR2025-00661

Liberty Energy Inc. v. U.S. Well Services, LLC

Title: Electric Powered Hydraulic Fracturing Pump System With Single Electric Powered Multi-plunger Fracturing Pump
Brief Description: The ’863 Patent discloses systems for compact, modular, trailer-based electric hydraulic fracturing. The system features a support structure with two adjacent areas at different heights: a first area housing an electric motor and a multi-plunger pump, and a second area containing an enclosure with a variable frequency drive (VFD) and a transformer.

Prior Art Relied Upon: Fischer (’998 patent).
Core Argument for this Ground:
- Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Fischer discloses all limitations of independent claim 1. Fischer’s trailer, which holds a pump, motor, and VFD enclosure, was mapped to the claimed "support structure" with two adjacent areas at different heights. Fischer’s disclosure of a quintuplex pump (e.g., a Weir QEM5000) met the limitation of an "electric powered, multi-plunger pump with an odd number of plungers." The VFD and integrated transformer in Fischer’s VFD enclosure were argued to meet the limitations for a VFD and transformer in the second area. For dependent claim 9, Fischer’s depiction of the trailer being hauled by a semi-truck was argued to teach a hitch on the second area opposite the first area.
- Motivation to Combine (for §103 grounds): N/A (single reference ground).
- Expectation of Success (for §103 grounds): N/A (single reference ground).
- Key Aspects: Petitioner contended that a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) would understand Fischer's pump to be a multi-plunger pump based on its appearance and its identification as a well-known five-plunger model.

Prior Art Relied Upon: Fischer (’998 patent), Oehring-I (’177 application).
Core Argument for this Ground:
- Prior Art Mapping: This ground asserted that Oehring-I remedies a deficiency in Fischer by teaching a "slide out platform" to access the pump, as recited in claim 2. Oehring-I discloses a trailer with a selectively movable platform assembly that provides a work surface for personnel to access the pump for maintenance.
- Motivation to Combine (for §103 grounds): A POSITA would combine Oehring-I's platform with Fischer’s trailer to provide safer and more reliable access for frequent pump maintenance, a known issue for trailer-mounted pumps. This combination applies a known technique (a retractable platform) to improve a similar device (Fischer's trailer) in a predictable way.
- Expectation of Success (for §103 grounds): A POSITA would have a reasonable expectation of success because implementing Oehring-I's platform on Fischer's trailer is a straightforward application of known components to solve a known problem.

Prior Art Relied Upon: Fischer (’998 patent), Orban (’118 publication).
Core Argument for this Ground:
- Prior Art Mapping: This ground argued that Orban teaches the liquid cooling system for the VFD enclosure recited in claims 4 and 5. Orban discloses a VFD with a water-based radiator system where a cooling fluid (water) is pumped through channels to dissipate heat from the VFD's IGBTs.
- Motivation to Combine (for §103 grounds): A POSITA would combine Orban's cooling system with Fischer's VFD to solve the known problem of overheating in VFDs. Using a liquid cooling system like Orban's is a well-known design choice for managing thermal loads in power electronics.
- Expectation of Success (for §103 grounds): The combination would predictably result in a VFD with improved thermal management, as both references operate in the same field and address a common engineering challenge.
Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted numerous additional obviousness challenges. These included:
- Combinations of Fischer with Oehring-II (to add an access platform to the VFD enclosure), and with Karassik (a technical handbook, to substitute Fischer's five-plunger pump with a seven- or nine-plunger pump).
- A parallel set of grounds replacing Fischer with Morris (Application # 2020/0040878) as the primary reference and combining it with the same secondary references (Oehring-I, Oehring-II, Orban, Karassik) to challenge the same claims based on similar rationales.

Petitioner argued against discretionary denial under §314(a) because the co-pending litigation no longer involves the ’863 Patent. The Patent Owner filed an Amended Complaint on June 3, 2024, that dropped the ’863 Patent, eliminating any risk of duplicative efforts between the Board and the district court.
Petitioner also argued against denial under §325(d), contending that the examiner committed a material error of law during prosecution. The examiner withdrew a rejection over Fischer after the applicant argued Fischer was not prior art under the Dynamic Drinkware standard. Petitioner asserted this was a legal error because the Board has held in precedential decisions (e.g., Penumbra) that the Dynamic Drinkware analysis does not apply to prior art under the AIA. Therefore, the examiner's failure to fully consider Fischer constituted a material error warranting institution.

Petitioner requested institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1-20 of the ’863 Patent as unpatentable.